Place and sequence
What happens when we no longer discuss "space" and "time" laden with all their baggage but use place and sequence. For while similar, they are not identical. When referencing space we are dealing with an abstract exterior, whereas if there is any subject whatsoever, it is more precise to say they are dwelling "with place" . This sets up a condition wherein the subject is bounded, by the necessary superimposition of framework-space by the positing of the construct place. Likewise, while externally it is true that any subject as object must exist in time, it is more important that they exist in a causal sequence. There are no moments, except as a convinience of understanding. In reality there is nothing fixed. So why concern ourselves with "existing in time" rather than existing in sequence. The concept of sequence belies time, it is necessarily dynamic. It points forward and backward, whereas time, is inherently external, and in some ways a false notion. For there can be no "universal" Time. There can only be sequences which require the concept for their unity. Likewise place, instead of "space". Place is the ground for a discussion, "space" is a universal construct binding together various notions of places into one unity. We do not know universals directly We only intuit them, we construct them artificially from the amalgam of experience.
|© 2003 Hudson Cress. All rights reserved. No portion of this document may be used in any way without the explicit written consent of Hudson Cress. For more information, visit http://hudsoncress.org|