Re: A Proposal for Wrapping Up

Koichiro,

thanks for this wonderful example. This
is first class phenomenology...
In case we cannot do this kind of experiment
(or similar) say with a dog, a cell, a house,
a stone, a star, the water of the ocean, the
air, etc... then we have to follow that making
difference in/with time is a specific human
phenomenon although other beings may
deal with time (be-in-time) in different (other)
ways. This is by no way a kind of appropration
(human-centered or the like), but just a question
of how far our own facticity (i.e. our condition
that we are aware of time) makes possible
for us (and for other *timely* beings? how far?)
to create such a complex theory of information
that we are looking for. The question with
language is in my view a central one. I do not
think that the fact that our young fellow *cannot
speak* is to be considered as a fact that
he/she cannot speak at all, if we take *speak*
(or *human language*) for exactly this capability
of making differences in/with time. This would
make (in some way) clear why/how then when
we are able to speak *loudly* this differences
are (already) there: i.e. why this wonderful
capability of language of making present what
is absent (future, past) allows us to *relate to/in
time*. The key question from the point of view
of natural science would be, in my opinion,
how this *capability* is being produced by this
being. But finally, philosophically speaking,
the clarification of the *how* does not explain
*time* itself, no less than, say, to make clear
how a car *behaves* in, say, a street, does not
*explain* the question of what *space*, *place*
etc. are. This last question is not meant as some
kind of essentialism (*what is...*), but, again, of
trying to avoid what we could call *causalism*
(or *reductionism* of different kinds), by
explaining phenomena while at the same time
making them disappear (i.e. non-phainomena).
This is why I think your phenomenological view
is at the same time a double-bind view. Thanks

Rafael

Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro, FH Stuttgart, Hochschule der Medien (HdM)
University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
E-Mail: capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de; rafael@capurro.de
Tel. : +49 - 711 - 25 706 - 182
Universit�t Stuttgart, Institut f�r Philosophie, Dillmannstr. 15, 70049
Stuttgart, Germany
Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany. Tel.: +49 - 721 -
98 22 9 -22 (fax: -21)
Homepage in German/English/Spanish/French: www.capurro.de
ICIE (International Center for Information Ethics): http://icie.zkm.de
-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Koichiro Matsuno <kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp>
An: Multiple recipients of list FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Januar 2003 09:10
Betreff: Re: A Proposal for Wrapping Up

> Folks,
>
> Ted's crisp summary reminds me once again of one recurring theme
> surrounding the sturdy issue on the difference between dynamics in time
and
> dynamics of time.
>
> Recently, I had an opportunity to spend some time with a young fellow
> just 1 year and 2 months old both in the morning and in the evening for
> about a month. Of course, she does not speak, but is very sharp in
pointing
> to what she would like to do. She likes to eat pear much more than apple.
> She never fails in pointing to a piece of peeled pear when both pear and
> apple are on the plate. When her mouth is full of juicy pear, she does not
> care even if I have eaten up all pieces of peeled pear on the plate. But,
> she got angry to find no pear to take when she was ready for another
piece.
> This incidence has again waken me up to the simple fact that dynamics of
> time is more basic empirically. Even if one does not have a clear
perception
> of what time looks like, experiencing time-phenomena or dynamics of time
can
> proceed as facing no obstacles.
>
> A difficult problem, however, arises to those who can speak. Those who
> take framing whatever statements in present tense for granted has to have
> some preconception of time as a criterion of what present tense is all
> about. One popular vehicle for this objective is space-time continuum.
> Theoretically, it may be okay. Empirically, it is not. My young fellow has
> been quite sensitive to the discontinuity between the movement in progress
> (pear in her mouth) and the movement perfected (ready for another piece)
> without being bothered by the global context referred to in the present
> tense (somebody eats up all the pieces on the plate).
>
> Cheers,
> Koichiro
>
> Koichiro Matsuno
> Department of BioEngineering
> Nagaoka University of Technology
> Nagaoka 940-2188, Japan
> http://bio.nagaokaut.ac.jp/~matsuno
> Voice & Fax: +81 258 47 9420
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jan 17 12:38:39 2003