The Past and the Future Are Modes of the Present

By -
The past is the present viewed in a certain way: present memories and objects are viewed not as merely present, but as signs of times that have vanished. A card in my pocket evokes the memory of the person who gave it to me; an itch on my knee casts my mind back to the bee that stung it; the shell of a building reminds me of the good times I once had there.

The future is the present viewed in another way: what is present is looked to as portents of what is to come. A smile on my boss's face means a promotion is likely; gathering clouds signify an imminent storm; an angry speech from the Secretary of State leads me to buy oil stocks in anticipation of war with Iran.

Comments

  1. traumerei12:17 PM

    So do you regard some aspects (i.e. those events which God does not directly instantiate) of Biblical prophecy as God's "best guess" of what will happen?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more