This is an entirely random topic but it occurred to me at this strange hour and I feel the need to externalize the thought, or rather, series of thoughts. The ideas are constructed like a web much like our infinite abilities toward alogical thinking are--one particular difference between us, as humans, and computers. For now, we are still on top...?
Back to the topic at hand, though. In thinking about time, I have a theory. Let's say for argument's sake that time is generally linear. Easily a topic that can be disputed, particularly in relation to my idea.
Science is almost always in our culture considered the field of absolute truths, the ultimate area of undisputed rhetoric. In relation to time, however, human experience differs quite a lot from the summation of laws and formulas. As human beings, time is fluid and erratic.
In many cases this can be explained with the introduction of substances into the body such alcohol, hallucinogenic drugs, marijuana, etc. The big question I pose is: does the involvement of substances, events or certain mind states truly conclude that the perception of time as erratic (including lethargic or rapid) is invalid?
It is my experience that human experience is the defining truth to all things for us, as human beings. Science fails in many places. Who is to say that our conclusions about time revolving around the sun, moon, etc. are not as equally "false" as the past conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth? We so easily view our past ideas as being primitive beliefs and thus, invalid.
Human experience defines our truths. I believe (and I may easily be incorrect due to the late hour) that it was Brummet that loosely defined truth as contextual, created through human experience. Going off of his work (if it is infact, Brummet), there is also the idea that rhetoric creates truth.
So, if rhetoric creates truth and truth is born from experience, then experience creates rhetoric--a sort of triangle. Perhaps, this idea has already made it's way into many minds or maybe I'm just viewing a new perspective on Aristotle's triangle of rhetoric. Ethos. Pathos. Logos.
To trace this rant on rhetoric back to science and time, science is the creation of recent experience. It is my belief that tomorrow or a decade from now new experiences will create new truths, which will lead us to new "absolute" truths or scientific laws.
At the moment time is rather slow. To me this means it is slow, no matter what my digital clock may say. In my mind, the world I live in and experience knowledge and truth through, time is lackadaisically moseying along. The typing of these ideas has, according to my digital alarm clock and cell phone only taken under ten minutes. To me, this has taken an hour.
To briefly take this idea further, the ways in which we choose to experience our lives may determine the length of our lives. I may live fifty years according to a doctor, but to me, I may have lived more than a century.
I will leave this thought for the moment and for the opportunity to ponder if, in fact, the thought is worth pondering...
Back to the topic at hand, though. In thinking about time, I have a theory. Let's say for argument's sake that time is generally linear. Easily a topic that can be disputed, particularly in relation to my idea.
Science is almost always in our culture considered the field of absolute truths, the ultimate area of undisputed rhetoric. In relation to time, however, human experience differs quite a lot from the summation of laws and formulas. As human beings, time is fluid and erratic.
In many cases this can be explained with the introduction of substances into the body such alcohol, hallucinogenic drugs, marijuana, etc. The big question I pose is: does the involvement of substances, events or certain mind states truly conclude that the perception of time as erratic (including lethargic or rapid) is invalid?
It is my experience that human experience is the defining truth to all things for us, as human beings. Science fails in many places. Who is to say that our conclusions about time revolving around the sun, moon, etc. are not as equally "false" as the past conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth? We so easily view our past ideas as being primitive beliefs and thus, invalid.
Human experience defines our truths. I believe (and I may easily be incorrect due to the late hour) that it was Brummet that loosely defined truth as contextual, created through human experience. Going off of his work (if it is infact, Brummet), there is also the idea that rhetoric creates truth.
So, if rhetoric creates truth and truth is born from experience, then experience creates rhetoric--a sort of triangle. Perhaps, this idea has already made it's way into many minds or maybe I'm just viewing a new perspective on Aristotle's triangle of rhetoric. Ethos. Pathos. Logos.
To trace this rant on rhetoric back to science and time, science is the creation of recent experience. It is my belief that tomorrow or a decade from now new experiences will create new truths, which will lead us to new "absolute" truths or scientific laws.
At the moment time is rather slow. To me this means it is slow, no matter what my digital clock may say. In my mind, the world I live in and experience knowledge and truth through, time is lackadaisically moseying along. The typing of these ideas has, according to my digital alarm clock and cell phone only taken under ten minutes. To me, this has taken an hour.
To briefly take this idea further, the ways in which we choose to experience our lives may determine the length of our lives. I may live fifty years according to a doctor, but to me, I may have lived more than a century.
I will leave this thought for the moment and for the opportunity to ponder if, in fact, the thought is worth pondering...
