[MD] subject / object logic

[Joseph Maurer]

On Tuesday 4 September 2007 7:37:27 AM Ham writes to Craig and Joe

[snip]
[Ham]
Since everything is in some kind of transition (call it "motion"), then what 
you define as "that interval" during which the object is "at rest" is only 
relative to a larger interval during which it moves. We observe the noonday 
sun at a 90-degree azimuth to the horizon during an "interval" at which it 
appears to be stationary. Yet, it is in motion relative to the earth. We 
see a beam of light as a straight line, yet the photons that project this 
line are moving at a speed of 186,000 miles per second.

The truth of Zeno's logic isn't that motion doesn't appear, but that its 
appearance is relative to human sensibility which, as I suggested to Joe, is 
a very narrow "instant" -- the time it takes for the human brain to register 
the image and its apparent motion or change. If the change is not apparent 
during this instant, we experience the object as static or stationary. If 
its motion exceeds our ability to register the image of the object, we 
observe only its trajectory. (This applies to most objects, since the 
molecules which constitute them travel at much higher velocities than we can 
sense.)

The fallacy, Craig, is the notion that anything in existence is "at rest". 
I maintain that existence is dynamic, but that its source is static. 
Because Essence does not change, motion cannot logically be characteristic 
of it. Which is why we can never catch the "source" of reality in the 
physical world. Like Evolution (another kind of change), the phenomenon of 
motion is secondary to the subject/object split. Time and space are the 
mode of sensory experience, not attributes of the primary source.


Hi Ham,

IMO You deny time as a dimension.  It seems to me that the delay that light takes to reach earth from the sun is a dimension proper to light. Do you also deny length, breadth, and height as dimensions? You deny motion, no space. You present an ontology that is impossible to discuss as I can’t experience your words. I am not fast enough!  By your ontology I don’t exist only Ham knows he exists by knowing nothing.  Ham you are the primary source. Convenient! How does that make you feel? I am impressed!

Joe 



----- Original Message ----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 7:37:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] subject / object logic


Hi Craig, Joe --

This is a classic paradox in logic, but I thought it worth reviving in 
connection with Joe's preoccupation with the concept of motion.  I'll use 
"instant" in all interval references to avoid the ambiguity of terms:

[Ham, previously]:
> Zeno reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during
> any given instant of its flight.  But if it is in only one place,
> it must be at rest.  The arrow must then be at rest at every
> instant of its flight.  Logically, motion is impossible.

[Craig replies]:
> A rather obvious fallacy.  Each thing, whether moving or at rest,
> "is only in one place at any given instance."  If it is in only one place
> at consecutive instances, it is at rest during that interval.  Otherwise
> it is moving.

Since everything is in some kind of transition (call it "motion"), then what 
you define as "that interval" during which the object is "at rest" is only 
relative to a larger interval during which it moves.  We observe the noonday 
sun at a 90-degree azimuth to the horizon during an "interval" at which it 
appears to be stationary.  Yet, it is in motion relative to the earth.  We 
see a beam of light as a straight line, yet the photons that project this 
line are moving at a speed of 186,000 miles per second.

The truth of Zeno's logic isn't that motion doesn't appear, but that its 
appearance is relative to human sensibility which, as I suggested to Joe, is 
a very narrow "instant" -- the time it takes for the human brain to register 
the image and its apparent motion or change.  If the change is not apparent 
during this instant, we experience the object as static or stationary.  If 
its motion exceeds our ability to register the image of the object, we 
observe only its trajectory.  (This applies to most objects, since the 
molecules which constitute them travel at much higher velocities than we can 
sense.)

The fallacy, Craig, is the notion that anything in existence is "at rest". 
I maintain that existence is dynamic, but that its source is static. 
Because Essence does not change, motion cannot logically be characteristic 
of it.  Which is why we can never catch the "source" of reality in the 
physical world.  Like Evolution (another kind of change), the phenomenon of 
motion is secondary to the subject/object split.  Time and space are the 
mode of sensory experience, not attributes of the primary source.

--Ham


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/