Re: What is Time?
forgive me if i dont address every conception presented by previous posters for this thread is concerned with time. SG was on the right track when he uses "intuition of time", as no other understanding of time is possible. to try and understand time through discursive thuoght will forever lead one chasing his or her own tail, never coming any closer to an answer. it is important to realize the subtlety i am trying to point out between intuition(a.k.a. understanding) and a discursive/representational mindset. one will never come to an understanding by representing; only by direct looking. indeed, the intuitional understanding is a more lucid, more profound and direct understanding than the supposed "observations" made by the senses. a true understanding of mathematics comes from the intuition. a trained monkey can do calculus, only a human with a developed intuition can discover calculus. the only way to understand somthing such as calculus is to discover it for yourself. i dont know how to address this issue of reducing intuition to visions and omens, every person has some degree of intuitional development, not everyone has a developed intuition to allow higher order apprehensions such as knowing what time is, or seeing how space and time are a continuum, for instance. perhaps discovering calculus in the first place could be considered a "vision", or "omen".
(sorry, i wont elaborate on how self and other are the same. it was the next step in the line of thought from that post. i will say that NYX, you are correct: anything we construct is fallible. therefore, do not construct anything. i then pose the question for you: does mathematics exist independantly of the mind, or is it a construction of the mind?)
i suppose a person could be given the direct answer to a question, such as "what is time", and not understand it if it was not approached with the intuitional faculties. the same is true with not understanding "what is energy?", "energy is mass".
