kingbtd
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2018
- Messages
- 6
Time, it is a strange beast. Tell me what you think of the following description of time. Does it make sense?
In Garlic's little thinking game, it could be thought that the closer any object comes to this moment, the greater its cause has on the net effect?the net effect being this moment? life living! Nowing! Take for example a standing row of dominoes numbered and ordered one through twelve. Now to continue, you push the domino number one and it tips, and as it falls it hits number two, causing the number two domino to topple, and then the two strikes the three, and the three strikes the four, and the four strikes the five, and the five strikes the six, and the six strikes the seven, and the seven strikes the eight, and the eight strikes the nine, and the nine strikes the ten, and the ten strikes the eleven, and the eleven strikes the twelve, and in accordance with all the other fallen dominoes the twelve falls. The first question I ask you is which domino fell first? In reality, the number twelve would be the first domino to fall: But according to our mystically filled unique, yet universal machines of discovery, normally we would say or we say the number one domino was the first to fall. Why the number twelve you ask? The number twelve domino is the closest to Existence of (ising) the ever evasive moment of Now. Because of the number twelve domino?s approximation to living, it can be said that its Being most recently affects the Now moment. As for the eleven, ten, nine, etc., etc., in a historical context there arises a when in which a created story supports and purports Existence (Being or consciousness) instead of negating it: First, in this sense, is of Being (ising), or its value is determined in direct nearness to the whole context of Infinite/Finite Difference or to that of sheer Being (sheer Existence). This standpoint of time is nothing new; it is what defines the how in Aristotle?s philosophy:
?From this it is evident that the ?specific whatness? (ousia) or from (eidos) is [what defines] the actuality. Whence it logically follows that actuality is prior in ?essential specificity? (ousia) to potentiality. And from the standpoint of time, as we have already said, one actuality is always preceded by another, all the way back to the eternal Prime Mover.? (The Metaphysics: Book IX. Theta On the Actual and the Potential, iii, pg. 94, Wheelright, The Oyssey Press, 1951)
In Garlic's little thinking game, it could be thought that the closer any object comes to this moment, the greater its cause has on the net effect?the net effect being this moment? life living! Nowing! Take for example a standing row of dominoes numbered and ordered one through twelve. Now to continue, you push the domino number one and it tips, and as it falls it hits number two, causing the number two domino to topple, and then the two strikes the three, and the three strikes the four, and the four strikes the five, and the five strikes the six, and the six strikes the seven, and the seven strikes the eight, and the eight strikes the nine, and the nine strikes the ten, and the ten strikes the eleven, and the eleven strikes the twelve, and in accordance with all the other fallen dominoes the twelve falls. The first question I ask you is which domino fell first? In reality, the number twelve would be the first domino to fall: But according to our mystically filled unique, yet universal machines of discovery, normally we would say or we say the number one domino was the first to fall. Why the number twelve you ask? The number twelve domino is the closest to Existence of (ising) the ever evasive moment of Now. Because of the number twelve domino?s approximation to living, it can be said that its Being most recently affects the Now moment. As for the eleven, ten, nine, etc., etc., in a historical context there arises a when in which a created story supports and purports Existence (Being or consciousness) instead of negating it: First, in this sense, is of Being (ising), or its value is determined in direct nearness to the whole context of Infinite/Finite Difference or to that of sheer Being (sheer Existence). This standpoint of time is nothing new; it is what defines the how in Aristotle?s philosophy:
?From this it is evident that the ?specific whatness? (ousia) or from (eidos) is [what defines] the actuality. Whence it logically follows that actuality is prior in ?essential specificity? (ousia) to potentiality. And from the standpoint of time, as we have already said, one actuality is always preceded by another, all the way back to the eternal Prime Mover.? (The Metaphysics: Book IX. Theta On the Actual and the Potential, iii, pg. 94, Wheelright, The Oyssey Press, 1951)