On Nov 8, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> Speculation: We do not, ever, _experience_ abstract (Newtonian)
> Time, but in
> a world ruled by the Clock (even in minor matters: e.g.,
> appointments to
> meet someone for lunch) we attempt, more or less successfully, to
> 'stuff'
> experienced time into abstract time.
As I pointed out, "time" is measured duration. What we experience is duration, never "time." The day/night alternative is our primary measure of duration and therefore the "day" is the primary measure of time (for plants just as much as for sentient creatures). But the "day" is very inconstant (except at the equator) so the "year" becomes the measure. But the "year" is also inconsistent, so for a measure we have to go to the "great year" (the combination of the equinoctial procession and the movements of all the planets--the duration between identical sidereal configurations at an equinox or solstice). But the duration of the great year is very much too long and very much too uncertain to have any possible utility as a unit for measurement of duration. So for a mechanical, as against natural, measurement of duration, the capitalist mode of production introduced the "minute" and then the "second" and ended with the infinitesimal ticks of the "atomic clock." None of which correspond to the sensory experience of any sentient being. Wojtek is very much to blame for posing the question of time in terms of Durkheim instead of Bergson.
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos