Re: metaphors

your are right. I was just considering the present tense (and past tense) as
_methodological_ foundation for (modern) science. The present progressive
tense includes (_progressive_) past and (!) future tenses, at least in our
case. This _belonging together_ of time tenses in their mutual conditioning
is indeed much more rich (and complex) that the (modern) representation of a
temporal _arrow_ (a metaphor) and the nivelation of time to a sequence of
past, present and future instants (equal to each other). But this
nivellation of time (as Heidegger calls it) is also, I think, the foundation
for _grammatic_ distinctions. Grammar is (can be) sometimes misleading...
Thanks for re-calling this
rafael
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: E. Taborsky <etaborsk@ubishops.ca>
An: Multiple recipients of list <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Datum: Freitag, 4. Dezember 1998 17:06
Betreff: metaphors

>Does one consider that an entity changes, in the sense of a full
>movement of that entity, from one 'tense' to another? That is, is
>Koichiro's present tense (or past tense) differentiated from the
>present progressive tense in a serial and linear manner - or in a
>hierarchical manner? Isn't an entity living in both the present and
>present progressive tenses - at the same spatiotemporal instant? The
>difference is in the level of complexity of potential interactions.
>
>This compares with such other multiple levels (and I don't mean
>multiple worlds) as Aristotle's potential and actual and the
>logical levels of subject and predicate. These levels are separate,
>do not merge, and yet, are constantly interfiliated with each other.
>They couldn't exist except within that interfiliation.
>
>
>Edwina Taborsky
>Bishop's University Phone:(819)822.9600 Ext.2424
>Lennoxville, Quebec Fax: (819)822.9661
>Canada JIM 1Z7
Received on Wed Dec 09 09:56:40 1998