Thursday, March 31, 2011

Sedentary Spatiality

Four prominent concepts of Space are--it is a fixed container of all existence (Newton); it is the expanse of the universe as perceived from a particular frame of reference (Einstein); it is an abstract relation between perceived elements (Hume); and, it is a perceptual construct of the experiential world (Kant). Merleau-Ponty's concept introduces Motility as a conditioning factor of Space, e. g. hand-eye coordination. The theory of Space being presented here also implicates Motility, but not insofar as Space is a mere facilitator of physiological motion. Rather, as has been discussed, the theory reveals Spatiality to be the very structure itself of Motility. It thereby calls into question the traditional privileging, including Merleau-Ponty's, of a sedentary perspective on Spatiality, a privileging which the theory challenges as arbitrary, if not groundless.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Geometry and Outside

The notion 'Outside' is commonly represented geometrically by a two-dimensional figure that is posited as dividing the surface into 'inside' and 'outside'. One difficulty with such a procedure is to settle the status of the perimeter of the figure. It seems to be neither inside nor outside, but, on analogy, a wall of a house is not neither, but both, e. g. its papered surface is on the inside of the house, while its shingled surface is on the outside. With those two surfaces only a matter of inches apart, where the inside ends and the outside begins is not easy to establish, e. g. the midpoint between them is in neutral territory. The deeper flaw is that 'Outside' connotes not a location, but an orientation--e. g. the shingled surface of a wall is not on the 'outside' of a house because of its distance from the wallpaper, but because of the fact that it faces away from the house. Furthermore, this 'facing away' does not connote a static juxtaposition of the wall and the air around it, but a dynamic development of a beyond with respect to the surface. In other words, 'Outside' is an hypostasization of 'Outwards', a notion to which, even with the use of a vector arrow, geometrical illustration seems inadequate.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Temporality, Clocks, Calendars

Before Kant, Time is treated either as a cosmic force or as irreal, a distinction often still rendered as 'absolute' vs. 'relative'. Kant's innovation is to alternatively conceive it as a necessary innate structure of human experience, i. e. as neither a divine force nor a private illusion. The theory of Temporality being advanced here continues that tradition, but it attempts to correct that tradition's ongoing trivialization of Space. Furthermore, it challenges the tendency of that tradition to distort the nature of everyday temporality, i. e. the use of clocks and calendars to 'keep time', a distortion that culminates in Heidegger's differentiation of ordinary from existential Temporality in ontological terms. As previously analyzed here, every moment of self-awareness, 'I am doing X' Temporalizes experience, because it introduces a present-past relation into it, i. e. such awareness is necessarily subsequent to its object. Hence, just as such self-awareness guides and shapes Motility, Temporalization introduces rhythm into even one's most basic activities. A calendar or a clock is just an extension of this process of fundamental organization, but with the further introduction of a transpersonal factor. In other words, such media facilitate the coordination of individual Temporalizations, a practical problem that is rendered insoluble by the radicalization of the distinction between personal and social Temporality.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Keeping Time

The Tree Ring model of Time, as essentially entailing a terminus, seems antithetical to the traditional association of Time with Motion. However, the validity of that model is demonstrated insofar as it informs some mundane contexts. For example, to 'temporize' means to 'delay'. Furthermore, timing and pacing procedures are constituted by punctuations of the processes that are being timed or paced. Perhaps the most vivid illustration of how Time entails termination is the 'keeping time' of a drummer, via the sounding of a beat that signals the completion of some period of sound, a period that is usually, of course, followed by the initiation of another such period. Even Bergson's Duration is inconceivable without such terminal moments. Not only does it perpetually end at the latest datum, but the rhythmic character that he attributes to the flux is impossible to explain without some subdividing of the flow, and such subdividing requires a contrast to the flow. In general, once it is accepted that Time and Space are not experiential givens, but are produced by Temporalization and Spatialization, each a dynamic process, it is easier to understand that the traditional associations of Time with Motion, and of Space with Rest, are groundless and erroneous.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Tree Rings and the Future

Insofar as the Time of a tree terminates at its most current ring, its Temporality entails no 'Future' dimension. Now, it might be argued that a tree possesses just enough imagination for it to entertain the possibility of the formation of further rings, in which case it does 'have a future'. However, such a possibility is the product of a projection, and a projection is only an abstraction from ring-formation. Furthermore, whether that abstraction is given to the tree as an a priori idea, or is extrapolated a posteriori from past experience, it is in each case derived only from the forming of rings. Regardless, it can still be argued that the tree possesses a priori the idea that no matter how long it lives, its existence is finite, and, so, that the awareness of that finitude constitutes an a priori idea of the Future. But, again, such awareness of finitude is no more than a projection of a cessation of ring-forming, and, hence, qua a projection, is no more than an abstraction from such a process. Thus, as a model of human Temporality, the Tree Ring image illustrates how 'the Future' is not an original dimension of Time, but is the product of an abstraction from Spatialization, even in Heidegger's theory.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Circularity, Reason, Time

While Reason and Circularity have traditionally both been classified as denizens of an eternal realm, the latter has often been construed as antithetical to the former. That is, circular reasoning is recognized as fallacious when it, e. g., concludes A on the basis of the conjunction of A implies B and B implies A. On the other hand, in Coherence theories of Truth, co-implication suffices for the truth of constituent propositions. Still, there is a different respect in which Circularity is not merely not a vice for Reason, but illuminates it--when a Circle is considered as a two-dimensional figure. As the use of Venn Diagrams demonstrates, concentric circles illustrate the relation of logical entailment that is the essence of Reasoning, and demonstrates, in particular, the asymmetrical relation between an entailing proposition and an entailed proposition. In that respect, the essence of Reason is the same as the essence of Time, which, as the Tree Ring theory similarly expresses, consists in the asymmetrical ordering of distinct moments--an ordering of more comprehensive and less comprehensive.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Time and Closure

Like the Circular model of Time, the Tree Ring one need not be perfectly round. In either case, even a rough approximation of an ellipse suffices, since what is essential in the former is recurrence, while in the latter, enclosure. More generally in the latter, Temporalization brings closure to a motion and what preceded it, insofar as it treats it as completed, e. g. the awareness 'I am doing X' is properly 'I have been doing X', because a representation is necessarily subsequent to what it represents. Convergence models of Time are therefore correct to treat it as teleological. However, a Convergence model of Time is not to be confused with a Convergence model of Experience, because Experience is constituted by the interplay of Time and Space, with Space countering the closure of Time with overture. Likewise, because the Line combines retaining where it has been and extending itself further, it is a model of Experience more accurately than of Time.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Tree Ring and Temporalization

The rings of a tree express not only its temporality, but its spatiality, as well as how the two interact. From the perspective of the established tree, the formation of a new ring constitutes an expansion of it, and, hence, an organic self-Spatialization that is, arguably, not a conscious one. But, unlike other growths, such as a leaf or a fruit, the new ring is incorporated into the tree, expressing the latest event in its history. Likewise, a new human action becomes incorporated into its autobiography by a process of Retaining, which most familiarly occurs at moments of self-awareness. Furthermore, just as a new ring expresses the latest development of a tree upon the completion of its formation, Retaining depicts an action as complete, even if it happens to not have fulled the purpose that originally motivated it, i. e. it immobilizes the action, just as a photograph does to what it represents. In so doing, it Temporalizes the action, by establishing the captured moment as the latest in a sequence that extends back to not only the beginning of the action, but to the entire history that led up to it. Just as in the development of a tree ring, human experience is constituted by this ongoing interplay of Spatialization and Temporalization.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The Rings of Time and Introspection

As previously discussed, one advantage of the Conic model of Time over the Linear is that it accommodates both Successiveness and Simultaneity. However, insofar as it represents the Present as its apex, as is usually the case, it inverts the cumulative character of Experience. Hence, an alternative model is the Tree, which, as a concrete embodiment of its own temporality, i. e. the progressive formation of its rings, is more than a mere abstract image of Time. For, the relation between inner and outer rings expresses, not merely represents, its temporal development. On this model, Innerness is dynamic and intensive, not static and extensive, as is e. g. the 'innerness' of the stomach with respect to the upper torso. Hence, 'Introspection' more accurately characterizes the examination of one's past than does 'Retrospection'. Introspection entails the explicit consideration of the relation between past and present, as opposed to remembering, which entertains the past while losing sight of the present, and to what is commonly referred to as 'introspection', namely the superficial review of current circumstances.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Succesivess, Simultaneity, Dimensionality

Insofar as modern Physics conjoins Time with Space as a fourth dimension, it accepts the classical characterization of Time as one-dimensional. Hence, it presumably also accepts Kant's analysis of that one-dimensionality as Successiveness. However, in contrast with the definitiveness of that analysis is the vacillation of his attempts to explain Simultaneity--sometimes as a mode of Successiveness, sometimes as an intellectual construct, and even sometimes as a property of what he calls 'Space'. A familiar example demonstrates the inadequacy of each of these explanations. A chord played on a piano entails three sounds occurring at the same time, so a sequence of chords presents a Succession of Simultaneities, thereby showing how Successiveness and Simultaneity are both immediately intuited features of Time, and, yet, irreducible to one another. In other words, the example demonstrates the two-dimensionality of Time, to which the Linear model is plainly inadequate. In contrast, concepts of Time as a convergence, variously offered by Bergson, Husserl, and Whitehead, among others, accommodate its two-dimensionality. For example, in Bergson's 'cone of Time', Successiveness is represented by motion along the axis from base to apex, and Simultaneity is represented by any points on any line orthogonal to the axis. So, models such as this seem to refute both the one-dimensional concept of Time and the four-dimensional concept of Space-Time. It can be noted that the distinction between Absolute and Relative Time is irrelevant to the structural distinction between Successiveness and Simultaneity, which obtains in either notion of Time.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Spatialization and Expositing

Modern Science has shown that every entity exerts a radial influence, e. g. electro-magnetic, chemical, gravitational, etc. What distinguishes Spatialization from such general emanantion is that it is deliberate, i. e. one mindfully projects oneself efferentially, e. g. in attempting to communicate to those assembled. Hence, Spatialization originates in an eversion, i. e. in the external execution of an internal intention. This exteriorizing process has been called here 'Expositing', entailing 'putting forth', 'exposing', and 'elaborating'. At the heart of Expositing is thus a lacuna--a transition from inner to outer--which close examination of any intentional activity can detect, even if it escapes the notice of Deleuze, as well as that of most of his peers and predecessors. This lacuna is an originary Spacing that is at the heart of one's centrifugal influence, so Expositing entails the Spatialization that first creates Space. Thus, it is not that Space is given in experience, even as a 'form of Intuition', as Kant has it, but that Spatialization is the form of Motility, i. e. of one's capacity to set oneself in motion, a process which produces Space.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Spatialization and Being-Towards-Others

One occasionally finds oneself at a gathering, addressing all assembled. This activity entails a circumambient projection of what one has to say, thereby exemplifying Radial Spatialization. But, in fact, such Spatialization occurs in the event of all one's actions, though usually only implicitly, i. e. more frequently, one's focus is on a specific sector of the environment, and often one is oblivious to any of one's effects on it. Nevertheless, every move one makes has its circumambient consequences, and, so, always entails Spatialization. In Sartreian terms, explicit Spatialization can be formulated as 'Being-towards-others', an active process with respect to which his passive 'Being-for-others' is not merely a deficient, privative mode, but, because it entails an evasion of actively assuming a posture in relation to others, also seems to qualify as what he calls 'Bad Faith'.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Heidegger, The Future, Death

It has been proposed here that Temporality is the structure of Retrospection, while what issues forward from any Now is some Spatializing process, e. g. locomotility. It follows that the 'Future' is a hybrid notion--retrospection on a completed projection--as can be confirmed by an examination of any common experience that is usually classified as 'future', e. g. the thought of what one might be doing later in the day is a retrospection on some projected action. Hence, for example, Heidegger's purposive 'ready-to-hand', which he characterizes as essentially 'Temporal', entails the Spatialization of a projection, e. g. a chair is 'that which is to be sat upon'. Underlying that structure is, according to him, a more fundamental a priori idea of the Future--the understanding of one's own death--which he analyzes as the anticipation of "the possibility of the impossibility of existence". Now, if the connection between the entertainment of that possibility and the actual experience of one's death is the product of anything other than empty speculation, Heidegger does not offer any concrete phenomenological data to confirm it. Without such concrete data, the 'anticipation' of that experience is merely abstract posturing with respect to suspended action in general, i. e. it presupposes Spatialization. And, even if Heidegger is espousing a Thanatos Principle, the Death at which it aims entails the carrying out of some action that is a means to it, i. e. it presupposes Spatialization. Such an espousal would be distinguished from Freud's, insofar as it would be an exclusive fundamental principle, not one of several.

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Line of Time, and the Future

Criticisms of the Linear image of Time tend to under-appreciate the respects in which it does effectively illustrate the nature of Temporality. For example, the process of the drawing of a line demonstrates Duration. Furthermore, like the Past, once drawn, a line is preserved as a prelude to the most recent moment of drawing. But, perhaps most graphic is how the drawing of a line exhibits the nature of the Future. That the drawing of a line always goes no further than the most recent moment accurately shows that the Future does not, and never does, exist. Rather, any reference to it is always via a process of projection that itself always terminates at the most recent moment. Theories that assert the current existence of the Future illegitimately confuse it with the current existence of a thought of the Future. Hence, regardless of his ambitions for it, the immediate flaw in Nietzsche's image of 'The Moment', presented in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, is its depiction of a 'Future' extending beyond the moment and what has lead to that moment. The drawing of a line is more accurate--Time never extends beyond the most recent moment.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Time, Linearity, Locomotility

Human locomotility is essentially linear. For example, in the process of walking, the transition from one location to another is significant, while the height and girth of the walker, even if they happen to vary in the process, are not. Similarly, the essential temporal dimension of this process consists in its ongoing successiveness, while the temporality of the perception of, say, concurrent environmental events, is not. In other words, uni-directional, singular Duration is the temporality of the event of locomotility, the further temporality of which, if the process happens to develop into circumambulation, becomes Recurrence. So, one problem with theories that criticize the Linear concept of Time, e. g. the Durational theory and the Circular theory, especially on the grounds that Linearity is a falsifying abstraction, is that they themselves sometimes abstract Linear temporality from its context of actual Linear motion.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Time, Circularity, Linearity

Circular theories of Time are often opposed to Linear ones, but such a contrast of them is misconceived, in two respects. First, Circularity is, more precisely, Circulinearity, i. e. it is a species of Linearity, which may be opposed, more precisely, to Rectilinearity. Likewise, the Circular theory of Time shares with the Linear one a breadthless successiveness, that happens to also consist in the repetition of its sequence. Second, Circularity and even Rectilinearity are not mutually exclusive--some species of spirals are combinations of the two. Likewise, Eternal Recurrence consists in a linear progression of identically-constituted distinct cycles, producing a spiraling pattern. In general, regardless of how elaborate a theory of Time may be, jettisoning Linearity from it seems difficult, since Successiveness seems to be an irreducible aspect of Time, and the most efficient representation of Successiveness seems to remain the Line.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Radiality--Afferential and Efferential

It is an established scientific fact that the source of a celestial twinkling is an event that can have occurred eons prior to the perception of it, and, hence, one the occurrence of which is not concurrent with a mosquito bite on the hand and the barking of a dog, even if the perceptions of which are simultaneous with the perception of it. It is in this respect that the perceptual field can be understood as an array of elsewhens. However, even Whitehead, who does appreciate this non-simultaneity, still conceives the array as an 'extensive' continuum, thereby contributing to the tradition for which it is a 'spatial' array. Such a concept does not recognize an entirely different experiential radiality--an efferential, centrifugal radiality, emanating out of a physical motion which is the source of eventual afferential, centripetal, perceptions of it. When he posits the potential efficient causality of the Superject, Whitehead does briefly catch glimpse of this other dimension of experience, however, he suppresses it when he proceeds to entertain the Superject only from a perceptual perspective. It is insofar as a motion radiates out from itself, i. e. spreads out, that it is efferential Radiality that is properly Spatial.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Spatialization and Temporalization (Revised)

While Space and Time are typically treated as given, they are products of the processes Spatialization and Temporalization, respectively. The former can be observed in the issuing forth from a posited intention the motion which attempts to execute it. The latter can be observed in the arrival at an awareness of one's situation. In other words, Spatialization originates in a Now, while Temporalization terminates in a Here, an analysis which revises one offered here a while ago, but which does not alter the more general thesis that the interplay of Spatialization and Temporalization constitutes the fundamental pattern of Experience. The revision makes their interplay more explicit--the fundamental complicity between a Now and Space, and between Time and a Here. It also leaves intact the thesis that the 'Future' is not a basic dimension of Time, but is an abstraction from Space. Such a thesis, of course, is at odds with both conventional wisdom and Philosophical tradition. But, by showing that what issues forth from a Now is Space, it explains a plain fact of experience that no other system can seem to accommodate--that there is never any evidence of the existence of 'the Future', i. e. projections, anticipations, etc. are never more than already given data, while what is incipient in any Now is, rather, Spatialization. Some of the implications of this thesis, especially the challenge that it presents to Heidegger's Future-oriented concept of Experience, have already been discussed.

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Radiality, Elsewhere, Elsewhen

Previously here, the Spatial dimension of the Radial concept of Experience has been characterized as 'here-there'. However, since 'there' often connotes specific location, 'here-elsewhere' would be more accurate. Likewise, the Temporal dimension is, rather then 'now-then', more accurately, 'now elsewhen', though the Radial character of Temporality is less easy to appreciate than is that of Spatiality. Contributing to that under-appreciation is the tendency for even theories, e. g. Whitehead's, that do recognize a now-then relation between a mental representation and the physical event that it represents, to focus on a single localized event, thereby abstracting it from the constant infinite manifold of such events occurring pervasively at, e. g. the periphery of an organism. Even the simplest representation of one's situation is the product of an afferential concrescence of such a manifold, so, if any one event is a 'then' to the 'now' of the representation of it, then together they are an 'elsewhen' to the 'now' of the synthetic representation of them. So, to revise the previous formulation, the Radial concept of Experience is constituted by two fundamental dimensions--here-elsewhere and now-elsewhen.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Clockwise and Willing Backward

On a clock, there are two circular routes between any two numbers--clockwise or counterclockwise, i. e. 'forward' or 'backward', respectively, e. g. from 12 to 8 via 4, or via 10. In those terms, what Nietzsche refers to as 'willing backward' is actually 'willing forward', for, on his concept of Eternal Recurrence, the path to an event in the past is via the recurrence, subsequent to the present moment, of the entire sequence of events that leads to that event. Nevertheless, interpretations of him as nostalgic for the pre-Socratic era entail that he espouses the undoing of what has transpired since then, i. e. as espousing a turning 'back' of the clock. However, there is no textual support for such reactionary readings of either Eternal Recurrence or 'willing backward', thereby exposing those readings as reflective of their authors, not of Nietzsche, and, instead, exemplifying what he calls 'ressentiment'.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Timaeus and Eternal Recurrence

One of the best-known formulations of the Timaeus is that Time is "the moving image of eternity". Receiving less attention has been an assertion that appears a little later in the same paragraph: "These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves according to a law of number." Now, though Plato does not seem to develop the notion further, and he has generally not been interpreted as such, the use of 'revolve' in the passage suggests that he is there espousing a circular theory of Time. If so, then the only difference between that proposal and Nietzsche's formulation that 'Eternal Recurrence is the closest approximation of Becoming to Being' is that Plato also posits the actual existence of unchanging Being. Accordingly, what is sometimes characterized as Nietzsche's 'overturning' of Platonism is, in this respect at least, not wanton destruction, as it is sometimes interpreted as, but precise inversion--an inversion of Plato's thesis that Time is derived from Eternity, with one that Eternity is an hypostasization of Time. On this reading of the Timaeus, Time, in both theories, is Eternal Recurrence.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Circular Motion and Divinity

For Aristotle, the divinity of circular motion consists in its infinitude, in contrast with the finitude of rectilinear motion. Nevertheless, Circularity remains Circulinearity, and is as much a species of Linearity as is Rectilinearity. Now, Alexander, perhaps inspired by the novel Flatland, introduces a different criterion of Deity--higher dimensionality. So, on that basis, Growth is divine with respect to circular motion as much as to linear motion, for, it can be a motion through as many as three dimensions, e. g. an expanding balloon. But, even without accepting Alexander's doctrine, the infinitude of circular motion plainly does not preclude its finitude in other respects, e. g. that it is restricted to one dimension. Hence, just on its own terms, circular motion, even when infinite, is dubious as a characteristic of divinity.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Definition of Clockwise

While clockwise motion is a familiar and easily discernible phenomenon, defining 'clockwise' is not so easy. For example, 'a turn to the right' only applies to half the actual cases, i. e. to those originating in the upper hemisphere of a circle. Accordingly, 'a turn from the top to the right', as one dictionary formulates it, covers only half a hemisphere, and is, thus, even more inadequate. So, what seems at minimum to be required is something along the lines of 'any complete circuit, or any segment thereof', from the top to the right'. Still, from an obverse perspective, the motion that that describes will appear as counterclockwise. Perhaps, then, given that magnetic north and the location of the rising of the sun seemed fixed, independent of any observer, a definition of 'clockwise' in terms of a 'N-E-S-W direction of rotation' seems promising. However, that one is contingent on the happenstances of the magnetic field and of the regularity of the spinning of the earth. Thus, the applicability of even the compasswise definition to extra-terrestrial processes remains questionable, so an adequate definition of 'clockwise' remains lacking.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Clockwise and Counterclockwise

A seemingly obvious empirical fact is that clockwise motion and counterclockwise motion are mutually exclusive, i. e. that only one or the other can obtain simultaneously at a given locus. On the other hand, Aristotle briefly entertains the possibility that a single process can involve both, with one as "preponderant", but he dismisses it on the grounds that the other would be "inoperative", which would be contrary to his concept of Nature. However, modern Physics demonstrates that a motion can be both subordinate and, yet, still operative, by virtue of its analysis of Motion as the resultant of a multiplicity of forces, including, perhaps, antagonistic ones. Accordingly, that a given motion is either clockwise or counterclockwise does not preclude that it is the result of a combination of the two, with one preponderant, in the given case. Likewise, any object not empirically rotating could be one in which clockwise and counterclockwise motions are both operative, but have achieved an equilibrium. Thus, Aristotle would be wrong to infer from the existence of a divine infinite circular movement that it encounters no resistance from a counter-movement, or that the movement of the heavens is not merely a contingent resultant of the interplay of a multiplicity of divinities.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Circular Motion and Directionality

As part of his effort to distinguish infinite circular motion from finite rectilinear motion, Aristotle argues that unlike the latter, the former has no contrary. Among several counter-arguments that he entertains, one is that circular motion is always either clockwise or counter-clockwise, so it does admit of a contrary. His response--that since the co-existence of both directions is impossible, circular motion does not admit of a contrary--seems, in the context, designed only to defend the uni-directionality of the infinite rotation of the heavens, not to explain how both do actually exist, even if not simultaneously at the same locus. Furthermore, the premise framing his argument, i. e. that infinitude excludes contrariety, is questionable, as the examples of odd numbers and even numbers demonstrate. But his perhaps insuperable problem on the topic is that even infinite circular motion is directional, and directionality, as an ordered two-place relation, entails, at least in principle, a contrary.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

Experience and the Space-Time Continuum

Basic lived experience consists of a combination of the here-there dimension and the now-then dimension. The former can be further subdivided, yielding the three dimensions of Euclidean space, and each dimension can be assigned a magnitude. The latter can be coordinated with any of these quantified sub-dimensions, facilitating a likewise assignation of a magnitude. Together, these four quantities constitute the 'Space-Time Continuum' of contemporary Physics. But, though combined in lived experience, the here-there dimension and the now-then dimension are given as heterogeneous with respect to one another. Hence, the homogeneity of the Space-Time Continuum is a only a product of derivative abstractions and quantifications, and is not at all given in basic lived experience, contrary to what some thinkers seem to presume.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Here, There, Nowhere

For Heidegger, the here-there dimension of radial Spatiality is contained within a more fundamental There, to which there corresponds for him no equally fundamental Here. This treatment of the There suggests that he might agree with Thomas Nagle's characterization of it as a 'view from nowhere'. However, such an apparent escape to from any 'here' to Nowhere is only a vestige of the traditional philosophical effort to de-corporealize Experience. Rather, this Nowhere is, in actuality, a Here, just one that is distinct from the 'here' that appears to it within experience. That distinction is internal to Here: a Now-Then, i. e. itsTemporal dimension. In other words, Nagel's Nowhere is actually a new Here, and Heidegger's There is actually a Then, i. e. the immediate past of the new Here.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Radiality, Directionality, Geometry

In the Radial concept of Experience, i. e. what has been previously referred to as the 'heliocentric' model, a dimension more fundamental than length, width, and depth is direction. Directionality refers to the here-there contrast, a dimension common to each of those three, e. g. up, to one side, and ahead, is each a 'there' with respect to a 'here' from which it is oriented. Furthermore, directionality is not restricted to those three planes. Hence, Polar Geometry has greater fidelity to fundamental Experience than does three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry. For sure, the vector Polar Coordinate quantifies direction, and the derivation of an angular coordinate involves compound quantificational operations, plus angularity is restricted to two-dimensional application. Still, the priority of Polar Geometry with respect to Euclidean Geometry is expressed by the orthogonality of the latter being a special case of the omni-angularity of the former.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Radiation, Space, Three-Dimensionality

As previously discussed, on the heliocentric model of Experience, Space originates from Radiation, i. e. from the process of spreading out. Within that fundamental Spatialization, secondary subdividing can occur. The most familiar experiential subdivisions are right-left, front-back, and up-down, each an aspect of basic corporeality. Upon further refinement and abstraction, derivable from those subdivisions are the 'dimensions' width, length, and depth. In other words, on this model, three-dimensionality is a derivative characteristic of Space. So, when Kant asserts that three-dimensionality is an a priori form of Experience, he has strayed from his heliocentric model of it.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Radiation and Space

Kant's theory of Experience both is based on a heliocentric model and conceives Space as one of its forms. However, he offers no systematization of these two features. One way of relating them begins with the observation that as light emanates from the sun, its rays spread out with respect to one another. Likewise, from Mind located at the center of its Experience, its world spreads out from it, thereby producing a Spatialized world. Such Spatialization would explain the juxtaposition of the objects of experience, i. e. it demonstrates that Radiation originates Space, though Kant never explains it as such.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Radiation

It has been previously argued here that Circularity is conceivable in independence from Geometric notions, such as Center and Radius. That contention is reinforced by the converse considerations not only that those latter two are conceivable in independence from Circularity, but, also, that they, too, are not exclusively Geometric. For, they are both plainly derivable from the familiar natural phenomenon Radiation, which is, of course, observable on a daily basis. Radiation is a projecting-outwards, which can be analyzed as consisting of a source and rays, a further refinement of which yields the concepts Center and Radius, without implication of the concept of Circularity. Salient in the phenomenon is its ordering, i. e. even insofar as Radiation is conceived as a unitary continuous phenomenon, the region of its source has a privileged status in comparison with its outer reaches, e. g. the sun in comparison with its illuminating rays. Also, even if Radius is thereby distinguished from Center for analytical purposes, it remains an indefinite aspect of the phenomenon, i. e. it does not possess, as the Geometric version of the concept does, length.