[ Please do not take this too seriously ]
The difference between something being an object and something being a concept is that the process of control is different. Objects can more readily be controlled because you can see them being controlled. And because you can see them, you can more readily control them. Concepts exist in the ether, so to speak, meaning that they can't be seen, although they can be perceived, which is to say felt, noticed, recognized, etc. All of which is distinct from being seen. Only when a concept is made manifest as an expression in social relations can it be controlled, where here, 'social relations' means any form of communication with social ramifications, as well as being within any social medium and convention. That amounts to being pretty much any sort of communication, whether written, verbal, gestural or symbolic. A very wide range encompassing everything from giving the finger, committing acts of violence, wearing inappropriate clothing, to saying something disagreeable in speech or in writing (including representational forms such as plays, tv, movies, music, art, etc.).
Time is a concept and space is an object - or rather, they are socially constructed as such - and therefore, space is easier to control than time is. Actually, it isn't difficult to see that space is a concept also, and that time is in many ways treated like an object, which is tantamount to it being one too. So, in the measure that time is conceived of as an object, it is easier to control, and in the measure that space is considered conceptual, it is less easy to control.
Think about time travel. In a way, all travel is travel through time, and depending upon how strict you are with your definition of travel, it can be either forward or backward in time. In the measure, that is to say, that travel can be either a concept or an object, then it is subject to different restrictions - or rather to different applications of restriction - depending on which form of travel you are doing.
Of course, it is possible to do both at once. You may travel by transporting your self as an object (your "body") from one point to another by way of various devices (walk, bike, car, bus, train, boat, plane, rocket), and you may travel by transporting your self as a concept (your history - past, present and future) from one point to another in time or space, or both, by way of various devices (thinking, dreaming, longing, hoping, dreading, anticipating). Those two sets of vehicles are different, of course, but they do both nonetheless provide mobility, which is to say, travel.
But can your body travel through time? Mine can't. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Well, actually, I should qualify that. It can travel forward in time, but it cannot travel back in time (according to physics, anyway). Sometimes it >feels< as if it's travelling back in time. But I haven't found a way to >really< go back in time with my body. And the reason that I think that it is so, is because time is not an object really. It is treated like an object, and that is almost just the same thing as being an object, but it isn't really one, so it cannot do the same things as an object can, entirely. If it could, and if it were, then I think that I could take my body back through time. Of course I could be wrong about this, but this is the way that I understand it.
Objects can go through objects. Concepts can go through objects too. Concepts can take hold of objects and do things with them. Objects can surround concepts, although they have a hard time holding onto them. But objects cannot go through concepts. So, seeing as time is a concept really, and only treated as an object (which is really something similar but fundamentally quiet different, despite it's being called the same) but not really an object, then no other object can go through it. If time were an object really, the way that space is an object, then my body could through it, and then I think it could travel back in time.
There are theories in physics and mathematics that dispute my testimony. and they do so in a compelling way. But although what I've read and heard and seen according to these disciplines is interesting, it is not as interesting to me as thinking about travelling through concepts is. And that is because travelling through concepts can have the same effect as travelling through objects. And that is much more fascinating to me.
Did you know that the CIA used to have a program for its spy operations wherein it trained people to do something that is called remote viewing? Remote viewing is founded on the premise that travelling conceptually through time and space has effects registered in the world of objects. There are a lot of names for this sort of travelling. It has been called astral travelling, for instance. I don't know if that is accurate or not. And I don't know if this program was truly successful or not. A spokesperson for the CIA did admit that they had the program and then said that the CIA had stopped the program. So maybe it did not work, or did not work well enough for them. But I still do think it's interesting that the prospect of it was compelling enough to explore it.
The people who use mathematics and physics as a discipline to explore whether objects are capable of travelling back in time have not yet as far as I know been able to do it other than conceptually, which is to say mathematically. They are, however, fairly certain that a body can go forward in time at differing speeds, i.e. one body can go faster into the future than another, and by travelling with a fast enough vehicle you can travel so much faster into the future that your friends and family will all age and/or die while you remain the same age - this has not been yet corroborated, as far as I know. It was said that a Russian astronaut after being up in space going faster than we were down here on earth (whatever that means) came back 1/57th of a second younger than we were. That is perhaps as curious a matter of measurement as it is marginally compelling as proof data.
The thing about time as an object is that it is really a matter of measurement. The sense of time being an object is a residual consequence of the measurement and the process of measuring. You figure if something is being measured then it exists, and of course it does in a way, but how does it really? Which is to imply that although it does exists, or exists as if it is an object, it does not necessarily follow that it is in fact an object. It may from being measured have the effect of being an object, and yet not be an object. How is that possible? I think it is because the measuring device has a metonymic effect that leads one to believe that it's measurement is the same thing as an object. For instance, think about a clock.
A clock measures what we call time and as a result time is taken to be an object. But I think time is not an object so much as it is a concept and it is measured because it represents a relationship we have with ourselves on our planet and with the sun and the moon (and we seem to like to measure relationships in hopes of finding that they're objects and hence easier to control). The clock is a device which serves as an organizing principle. Without clocks our measurement of the intervals meaningful to us would be different and would impact phenomenologically on our lives significantly.
Perhaps you have noted at some time when you were not attentive to a clock that your perception of the intervals called day, afternoon, night, week, etc. were significantly altered from what you were accustomed to as someone more attentive to a clock. Clocks rule time in this sense in a peculiar sort of way, and do so enough to say that, really, they create time; they make time what it is for us. In other words, they rule, guide or create the relationship we have with time, and it is the relationship we have with time that truly does create it.
I would actually say the same of space. but I will say more about that later. This is enough thinking about time for today.
No comments:
Post a Comment