Koichiro Matsuno (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:34:46 +0900
Dear Hitoshi and All,
On 8 Dec 1999, Hitoshi Kitada <email@example.com> wrote:
>My stance is that clocking is not restricted to "speaking animals" nor to
>things we perceive so usually.
You are right. What I meant was that as far as the present progressive
mode is concerned, everybody is on a par whether it is a quark, an atom, a
bacterium, a cat on the street or a human being. All of the other
grammatical tenses including the present perfect and the present tense are
derivatives, that is, artifacts from the present progressive. I don't think
I did disservice to those folks since they live in their present progressive
mode as we do. We also feel confident in referring to clocking on their part
with recourse to the linguistic artifacts uniquely human.
>My thought is seen in Lance's [time 734] entitled
>"Time as philosophical problem (re [time 724])":
> Here is what we wrote:
>> It follows from this that to be an existing
>> thing in the world necessarily involves clocking, without
>> which there is no interaction.
The capacity of doing measurement on the part of any material body, that
is, internal measurement precedes an implementation of interaction, rather
than the other way around.
> the conventional understanding, our view is that all beings
> are engaged in measuring and observing, and the activities
> of measuring and observing are not incidental, but
> pertain to the essence of all interactions.
I am quite happy with this. Local systems and internal measurement serve
as a manifesto insisting on the priority of the present progressive mode in
our linguistic practice.
>In the point that we do not communicate with things other
>than humans usually, your restriction with a reservation
>"Rather, I should say" may be correct. And I see some ideas
>common to ours seeing your statement referred to by Stephen
>in [time 1005]:
>> At the least, time is upon the relational activity between a
>>clock of whatever sort and another agency which reads it
>I feel however a stress on humans' linguistic activities might
>limit our sight.
You have certainly read between the lines. Although I am not a
rhetorician, I said that because I wanted we human beings should assume the
responsibility of making such statement. I didn't want to offend those
folks other than we human beings. The point is that we can refer to their
agencies even with use of our linguistic artifacts.
>I think life is not the one usually conceived in our traditional
>but vague thought. It might have a characterization that is
>available in the context of local systems.
Me, too. The upcoming next agenda must be how to implement this idea in a
more powerful manner.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Dec 28 1999 - 12:06:25 JST