Theory of Relativity

I’ve made a few errors recently but I now feel like I’m solidly on the right track. I’ve established a kind of aspired-for framework, at least I hope, where the task remains now only to fill in the details. And there are like two general principles I’ve been working on:

(1) theory v analysis – Our concepts are not descriptive / analytic but theoretic, and yet they are not ideological, ie, in the sense of, that ideas determine how we view the world. The difference between ‘theoretical’ and ‘idealogical’ or ‘perspectival’ is that, while both function similarly in giving our concepts some way of moving about or wriggling about, a kind of limberness to adapt as situations arise, the theoretical is the more ‘pessimistic’, it depends on some framework of man’s state of finitude.

(2) origin v nature – this is the more recent one: there are two separate but seemlingly closely related quesions: how something arises, its origin, and the nature of something, what something is. Of course, I believe in a materialistic universe, so that what something *is* is certainly, you know, determined by how it arose. But concentrating on the origin question I do believe to have been a major recent error of mine. I mean, for events, perhaps, by our finitude, we can only understand them in the aftermath. The it’s not a matter of understanding how something arose, which is beyond us, but what it is. Or, similarly, we can imagine a kind of fate or law operating, I mean in a kind of mythical sense, one that does not precisely determine the outcome but nonehteless gives its general form.

I think it’s noteworthy that when the term history is being used in philosophy, eg, by someone like Nietzsche, the point isn’t in fact, as might appear at first, the attempt to shift *away* from the ontological question of isness or being, towards a mutable, unstable world. But rather, history is simply the ontology to the extent that it is possible by we who are limited by human finitude! (In other words, we are not talking, here, about history v ontology, when speaking about origin v nature, since the former are the same.)

Anyways, let’s talk, once again, about the theory of relativity. As I said the earlier entries all make the error of dealing with the origin of something — eg, the origin of the concept of 0. But that will get us nowhere, I should have realized this long ago, but we should consider simply that the 0 arose in order to ask why it arose, without, of course, giving teleologic responses. And hopefully, I do not yet know, this approach will lead us to some fruitful conclusions.

So physics would have to be understood — I mean, physics in the intuitive sense, the sense of, the consideration of how objects move physically through space, in the macroscopic sense, where we don’t distinguish between wooden balls and stone balls — as basically consisting of a kind of way of measuring — or rather, of marking off, like, ticking off marks on a ruler or like the way in which a clock marks off time in the literal sense.

(1) Honestly, I do not yet know what to make of the tantalizing occurence of the word ‘mark’, here…

(2) This shift from considering ‘marking’ v ‘measuring’ is important, since measuring is the *more* intentional activity, it is, for one thing, continuous, it suggests a kind of ‘reading out’, it assumes some *correspondence* to an underlying reality.

These observations feel good to us because one of the ‘theoretical’ (in the above sense) concepts that we’ve been thinking about is derepresentation.

What’s interesting here, in moving towards the mark, is that it seems, on the one hand, a material, readily obvious move, but yet, on the other hand, it seems a negative moment, ie, one that could only arise after the established understanding of measuring.

That is, this shift towards the relativistic ‘marking’ seems a conceptual shift rather than an ‘analytic’ one — though we are always tempted to draw that conclusion — ie, one that is based merely on the close examination of what we do when we measure. It seems material or obvious — and yet it would seem to take a special leap of insight (one whose origins we won’t comment on here) to understand measuring as marking rather than as a kind of ‘drawing forth’ of some a priori characteristic.

And by ‘conceptual shift’, I mean, that the idea of ‘marking’ most definitely transforms how we view the world. For example, the one who marks seems to define a kind of shape or an outline, there is a kind of geometricizing of space-time. A domain is drawn off in space time, as opposed to, the ‘internal’ aspects of a thing (does a wooden ball ‘have’ speed?) is drawn forth. Honestly, I cannot yet make sense of some of the more tantalizing metaphysical terms here (‘have’, ‘draw’, ‘domain’, etc.) … but the simple observation here is that, however ‘material’ the act of marking is the transformed view of the world that we end up with is not at all obvious.


Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s