Mead again

Mead says clock time and calendar time is time only “in a manner of speaking.” He also argues that clock and calendar time is not “absolute” but relative to one’s frame of reference. True that, as my kids say: “Monday” spells gloom within the framework of a certain organization of the working week, and more specifically within the framework of a certain job.

But why should “relative” time be time only “in a manner of speaking”? Must something be “absolute” to be fully real? Mead lusts for an absolute time like Newton’s even though a lot of his project is anti-Newtonian. He relocates absolute time, but like Newton he reduces everything outside his absolute time to “relative” and “not-quite-time” time.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Revival of Patristics

Stephen O. Presley

On May 25, 1990, the renowned patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., delivered a lecture at the annual…

The Enduring Legacy of the Spanish Mystics

Itxu Díaz

Last autumn, I spent a few days at my family’s coastal country house in northwestern Spain. The…

The trouble with blogging …

Joseph Bottum

The trouble with blogging, RJN, is narrative structure. Or maybe voice. Or maybe diction. Or maybe syntax.…