- Thread starter
- #461
Though Nature's god cannot be a conscious, intentional being. The spacing of time prevents that from happening (Derrida).
Critique of Intelligent Design
- Thread starter badger2
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #462
Prantzos exposes Hedin's attempt at deception regarding the Drake equation. Prantzos on the Drake Equation
'Historically, the main argument for the existence of life forms and intelligent beings beyond Earth has been formulated by Metrodorus, disciple of Epicurus, in the third century BC: "To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with millet only one grain will grow." The idea of space begin infinite, with an infinite number of atoms populating it and composing its various objects, was a key ingredient of the atomistic philosophy of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus.
Our Galaxy contains about 100 billion stars, a number considered by some -- mostly astronomers -- to be large enough as to make Metrodorus' argument applicable to the Milky Way. Others, however -- especially evolutionary biologists -- are not impressed by that number and remain skeptical concerning ETI (Extraterrestrial intelligence).
....
These considerations opened up the modern era in the plurality of worlds debate. The first to apply these ideas was Frank Drake, at the Green Bank National Astronomy Observatory in the USA. He set up the first systematic search for extraterrestrial signals, called Project Ozma....named after the queen of the imaginary land of Oz, a distant and inaccessible place in the story of Frank Baum .
In 1960, the Green Bank telescope spent 4 months looking for radio signals from two nearby stars, epsilon Eridani and tau Ceti -- both about 12 light-years away -- with no success.
....
It should be noticed that time does no appear explicitly in the terms of the Drake equation. This may be problematic
....
One may conclude then that it is improbable that we communicate with (or eavesdrop) civilizations of a level either similar to ours (L [typical lifetime] ~ 100 year radio emission) or even radio-emitting for a few thousands years. Only civilizations emitting for much longer timescales have chances to be detected by our SETI programs.....We may spend thousands of years....even millions of years -- searching for radio signals with no effect....At this point, it should be noticed that it is a rather futile exercise to try to imagine that kind of communications that technological civilizations older than a few centuries might have.
...("It is unlikely that we are alone, in view of the copernican principle and of such a large number of stars in the Galaxy" and "If there are so many of them, where are they?") are of the statistical kind. They are consequently of little importance, for statistics cannot be based on the single case provided by life on Earth. Detection of life signatures on another planet would be a powerful reason to undertake interstellar travel, at first by sending unmanned probes.
Detection of some extraterrestrial civilization would undoubtedly be one of the major landmarks in the history of mankind. On the other hand, non-detection of ETI signals, even after millenia of research, would never prove that there were no extraterrestrial civilizations. But it would be a reason to prepare ourselves for a life of cosmic solitude.'
(Prantzos, Where Are They? Implications of the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox, in Handbook of Astrobiology)
'Historically, the main argument for the existence of life forms and intelligent beings beyond Earth has been formulated by Metrodorus, disciple of Epicurus, in the third century BC: "To consider the Earth as the only populated world in infinite space is as absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with millet only one grain will grow." The idea of space begin infinite, with an infinite number of atoms populating it and composing its various objects, was a key ingredient of the atomistic philosophy of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus.
Our Galaxy contains about 100 billion stars, a number considered by some -- mostly astronomers -- to be large enough as to make Metrodorus' argument applicable to the Milky Way. Others, however -- especially evolutionary biologists -- are not impressed by that number and remain skeptical concerning ETI (Extraterrestrial intelligence).
....
These considerations opened up the modern era in the plurality of worlds debate. The first to apply these ideas was Frank Drake, at the Green Bank National Astronomy Observatory in the USA. He set up the first systematic search for extraterrestrial signals, called Project Ozma....named after the queen of the imaginary land of Oz, a distant and inaccessible place in the story of Frank Baum .
In 1960, the Green Bank telescope spent 4 months looking for radio signals from two nearby stars, epsilon Eridani and tau Ceti -- both about 12 light-years away -- with no success.
....
It should be noticed that time does no appear explicitly in the terms of the Drake equation. This may be problematic
....
One may conclude then that it is improbable that we communicate with (or eavesdrop) civilizations of a level either similar to ours (L [typical lifetime] ~ 100 year radio emission) or even radio-emitting for a few thousands years. Only civilizations emitting for much longer timescales have chances to be detected by our SETI programs.....We may spend thousands of years....even millions of years -- searching for radio signals with no effect....At this point, it should be noticed that it is a rather futile exercise to try to imagine that kind of communications that technological civilizations older than a few centuries might have.
...("It is unlikely that we are alone, in view of the copernican principle and of such a large number of stars in the Galaxy" and "If there are so many of them, where are they?") are of the statistical kind. They are consequently of little importance, for statistics cannot be based on the single case provided by life on Earth. Detection of life signatures on another planet would be a powerful reason to undertake interstellar travel, at first by sending unmanned probes.
Detection of some extraterrestrial civilization would undoubtedly be one of the major landmarks in the history of mankind. On the other hand, non-detection of ETI signals, even after millenia of research, would never prove that there were no extraterrestrial civilizations. But it would be a reason to prepare ourselves for a life of cosmic solitude.'
(Prantzos, Where Are They? Implications of the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox, in Handbook of Astrobiology)
ReinyDays
Gold Member
That's the problem with using 18th Century understandings for 19th Century experiments ... we learned in the 20th Century about the structure of the DNA molecule and this understand lead to the atom-by-atom statement of evolution ... and it's very complicated, just that every experiment has verified DNA's roll in all these cellular functions ... a full year's course work as a Junior in college for all DNA's functions other than reproduction and evolution ... that would be another year's course work and the bachelor degree if you finish ...
The definition of 'species' is different depending on the family ... SARS is a new species of coronavirus, she evolved in 2019 ... so I honestly don't know what you mean when you claim there's been no new speciation ... the general term is "taxon", defined as a reproductively isolated population ... dog breeds are an example, true Irish Setters only come from Irish Setter parents, this breed is reproductively isolated artificially ... maybe a better example is the uplift of the Rocky Mountains dividing the Sugar Maples into two separate breeding population ... after 100 million years, we have Sugar Maples to the east and Big Leaf Maples to the west ... two separate taxons, the cladeogram would show the Big Leaf cleaving off the Sugar Maple line, and thus they are considered sister taxons ...
100,000,000 years ... not 11,000 ... you need to expand your time frame a bit ...
- Thread starter
- #464
These maple taxons come under the sway of local environment, though SARS2 cannot be said to be a new species because of its possible synthesis in a lab.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Ummm ... "synthesis in a lab" is the Gold Standard for scientific evidence ... and we've done it twice, in 2003 and in 2019 ...
That's proof of evolution ... or is it just a conspiracy theory ... I think the latter but maybe you know better ...
Yes ... natural selection occurs because of local environmental pressures ... taxons are caused by isolation ... nothing else ... when Sugar Maples covered the continent, a beneficial mutations anywhere will quickly dominate the gene pool across the continent ... once the Rockies arose, then beneficial mutations only benefited the side the mutation occurred on, never to spread to the other side ...
100,000,000 generations ... why would the two trees look the same? ... big leaf maples have big leaves because they're competing against ... you know, redwoods ... any advantage needs to be exploited ...
- Thread starter
- #466
It should be mentioned that the Prantzos article (post #462) includes formulas to satisfy any mathematician or physicist.
For comparison of the Miller-Urey experiment (~1952-1959), we first excerpt what Hedin says about it:
'Origin of Life Theories. One of the iconic arguments for a naturalistic origin of life is the Miller-Urey experiment, performed in 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sought to reproduce the beginning stages of how life might have arisen on the early Earth....sought to reproduce the components of the early Earth atmosphere and to see what would happen if they subjected this mixture of gases to energy in the form of an electric spark (to simulate lightning), or hot silica (to simulate lava), or ultraviolet light.
For their experiment, they assumed an "atmosphere" made of gaseous compounds that all contained hydrogen (methane, H2, and ammonia), a mixture chemists refer to as "reducing." Subsequent research has shown that the actual mixture of gases in the early Earth atmosphere would have been a more neutral mix of CO2 and nitrogen, plus some water vapor.
The original Miller-Urey experiments produced a few types of amino acids, and apparently exciting result, since these are known to be the chemical building blocks of biochemical molecules. However, if one repeats the experiment with the correct mix of gases, it yields significantly fewer biologically relevant molecules (Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life [1999])
The Miller-Urey results were acclaimed as a grand breakthrough, until further research undermined their significance. The experiment's results do not support a naturalistic model for life's origin. Subsequent research has not achieved more success. As biochemist Fazale Rana states, "When more realistic conditions are employed in simulations, experiments fail to provide validation. It appears as if the atmosphere of the early Earth could not have supported the chemistry needed to form prebiotic compounds."
Why, then, is the Miller-Urey experiment consistently featured in even the latest astronomy textbook chapters on the origin of life? I can only guess. It once stood as a beacon of hope for those who believed that natural processes along could produce life out of non-living material. But nothing has come along to replace the Miller-Urey experiment, making it especially hard to give it up as a beacon of hope, even after it's been discredited.
Over the course of more than six decades of intensified origin-of-life research, efforts to demonstrate the plausibility of an unguided origin of life are proving increasingly futile. As Rana notes, "To date researchers have found neither conceivable nor realistic chemical routes from a prebiotic soup to life".....Biologist Eugene Koonin remarks on the inadequacy of one of the hopeful proposals, the RNA-first mechanism for the origin of life:...."The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system" (The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life, Biology Direct 2 [2007]: 8).'
(Hedin, op cit, p. 147-8)
Hedin's argument forces an alternative gaseous atmosphere when repeating the experiment, which is contrary to scientific protocol because it is not repeating the original experiment. Who else repeated the Miller-Urey experiment to validate it?
For comparison of the Miller-Urey experiment (~1952-1959), we first excerpt what Hedin says about it:
'Origin of Life Theories. One of the iconic arguments for a naturalistic origin of life is the Miller-Urey experiment, performed in 1952. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sought to reproduce the beginning stages of how life might have arisen on the early Earth....sought to reproduce the components of the early Earth atmosphere and to see what would happen if they subjected this mixture of gases to energy in the form of an electric spark (to simulate lightning), or hot silica (to simulate lava), or ultraviolet light.
For their experiment, they assumed an "atmosphere" made of gaseous compounds that all contained hydrogen (methane, H2, and ammonia), a mixture chemists refer to as "reducing." Subsequent research has shown that the actual mixture of gases in the early Earth atmosphere would have been a more neutral mix of CO2 and nitrogen, plus some water vapor.
The original Miller-Urey experiments produced a few types of amino acids, and apparently exciting result, since these are known to be the chemical building blocks of biochemical molecules. However, if one repeats the experiment with the correct mix of gases, it yields significantly fewer biologically relevant molecules (Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life [1999])
The Miller-Urey results were acclaimed as a grand breakthrough, until further research undermined their significance. The experiment's results do not support a naturalistic model for life's origin. Subsequent research has not achieved more success. As biochemist Fazale Rana states, "When more realistic conditions are employed in simulations, experiments fail to provide validation. It appears as if the atmosphere of the early Earth could not have supported the chemistry needed to form prebiotic compounds."
Why, then, is the Miller-Urey experiment consistently featured in even the latest astronomy textbook chapters on the origin of life? I can only guess. It once stood as a beacon of hope for those who believed that natural processes along could produce life out of non-living material. But nothing has come along to replace the Miller-Urey experiment, making it especially hard to give it up as a beacon of hope, even after it's been discredited.
Over the course of more than six decades of intensified origin-of-life research, efforts to demonstrate the plausibility of an unguided origin of life are proving increasingly futile. As Rana notes, "To date researchers have found neither conceivable nor realistic chemical routes from a prebiotic soup to life".....Biologist Eugene Koonin remarks on the inadequacy of one of the hopeful proposals, the RNA-first mechanism for the origin of life:...."The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system" (The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life, Biology Direct 2 [2007]: 8).'
(Hedin, op cit, p. 147-8)
Hedin's argument forces an alternative gaseous atmosphere when repeating the experiment, which is contrary to scientific protocol because it is not repeating the original experiment. Who else repeated the Miller-Urey experiment to validate it?
- Thread starter
- #467
Then your particular problematic is the furin cleavage site, which introduction into SARS2 is (contrary to viral evolution [italics]). There has never been a furin cleavage site found in a sarbecovirus. The claim is that all of a sudden, SARS2 showed up already fine-tuned for human transmission via the FCS.
- Thread starter
- #468
Where are the citations for "and we've done it twice, in 2003 and in 2019"?
- Thread starter
- #469
In his book, Hedin conveniently sidesteps the fact that Miller also varied the atmosphere:
'The source of energy in the experiments was electrical spark generated by a Tesla coil. Various amino acids were formed, including glycine and alanine. Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds that are important for life can indeed be formed under prebiotic conditions.
....
Further progress in prebiotic synthesis has been achieved in the next three decades (Brack 2000, "The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling the Pieces of the Puzzle"; Bilgen 2004, "Metabolic Evolution and the Origin of Life, in Functional Metabolism: Regulation and Adaptation, Wiley and Sons); Orgel 2004, "Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World," Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 9:99-123; Herdewijn and Kisakuerek 2008 Origin of Life: Chemical Approach, Zurich VHCA & Weinhelm, Wiley-VCH; Pereto 2012 "Out of Fuzzy Chemistry: From Prebiotic Chemistry to Metabolic Networks, Chem. Soc. Rev. 41:5394-5403)
Some of these syntheses facilitated new proposals on the origins of life. Selected examples are presented here. Miller performed syntheses of amino acids under mildly reducing or non-reducing conditions, which reflected an updated view on the atmospheric conditions on the early Earth. The results were less favorable than those in the reducing atmosphere, but, in combination with other prebiotic factors, these results were judged adequate (Miller SL, 2000 The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds, in Brack op. cit.)'
(Kolb V, Astrobiology: Definition, Scope, and a Brief Overview, in Handbook of Astrobiology, pp. 3-14)
'The source of energy in the experiments was electrical spark generated by a Tesla coil. Various amino acids were formed, including glycine and alanine. Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds that are important for life can indeed be formed under prebiotic conditions.
....
Further progress in prebiotic synthesis has been achieved in the next three decades (Brack 2000, "The Molecular Origins of Life: Assembling the Pieces of the Puzzle"; Bilgen 2004, "Metabolic Evolution and the Origin of Life, in Functional Metabolism: Regulation and Adaptation, Wiley and Sons); Orgel 2004, "Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World," Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 9:99-123; Herdewijn and Kisakuerek 2008 Origin of Life: Chemical Approach, Zurich VHCA & Weinhelm, Wiley-VCH; Pereto 2012 "Out of Fuzzy Chemistry: From Prebiotic Chemistry to Metabolic Networks, Chem. Soc. Rev. 41:5394-5403)
Some of these syntheses facilitated new proposals on the origins of life. Selected examples are presented here. Miller performed syntheses of amino acids under mildly reducing or non-reducing conditions, which reflected an updated view on the atmospheric conditions on the early Earth. The results were less favorable than those in the reducing atmosphere, but, in combination with other prebiotic factors, these results were judged adequate (Miller SL, 2000 The Endogenous Synthesis of Organic Compounds, in Brack op. cit.)'
(Kolb V, Astrobiology: Definition, Scope, and a Brief Overview, in Handbook of Astrobiology, pp. 3-14)
- Thread starter
- #470
Noting that the furin cleavage site of SARS2 flanks an alanine (A) with arginines (R). Glycine and alanine were the two most abundant aminos in the original Miller-Urey experiment. Arginine is at the extreme boundary of the isoelectric pH scale of amino acids.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Might be helpful to think before you post ... what does furin cleavage sites have to do with taxons ... are you saying when the infected cell lyses, it releases something other than SARS? ...
DuLac, Berry; "SARS, the first Pandemic of the 21st Century"; Emerging Infectious Diseases; v.10(11); November 2004 ... took me five seconds on Google ...
Your conspiracy theory requires that evolution be true ... or do you propose a different mechanism ...
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 7,163
- 7,330
- 1,940
Of course, of course. Nature's God is UNconscious and UNintentional.
Derrida knows more than anybody else who ever existed.
Is there any other moron you can cite for us? How about the Unabomber?
And the eighty-five percent of Nobel Laureates who believe in Nature's God....how stupid are they? Please explain. We want so much to learn from you.
- Thread starter
- #473
You have not proven to anyone that you can read or understand Derrida, let alone giving you a pop quiz on the spacing of time in front of the other readers. There is no such thing as Nature's god lest it be sans an infinite, totally sovereign entity. Like the rest of us, religion's god is just as susceptible to the spacing of time as everyone else.
- Thread starter
- #474
SARS1 does not have a furin cleavage site. You are the one that added SARS2 to a taxon argument. Might be helpful to read about furin cleavage sites before you post. You rely on projecting a conspiracy theory, though knowledge about the origin of SARS2 remains esoteric knowledge. This projection fails by default, then, because the host of SARS2 remains unknown, leaving the lab leak hypothesis as a valid hypothesis and not a conspiracy theory, of which the furin cleavage site is a major red flag.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
Why are you defending Seymour Flop's claim that speciation never happens? ... would you please read the context of my post and note to whom it was directed ... if you're a Creationist, shouldn't you be quoting the Bible? ... I understand 6,000 years isn't long enough for SARS to evolve on a flat Earth ... yeesh ... I don't need the gory details ...
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
Larry Bird Brought a Lot of White Money Into the NBA. Michael Jordan Inherited It, Not Larry Bird, Jr.
Why does design have to be divine? The plutocratic parasites brainwash their serfs to despise intelligent people, because humiliated High IQs create all the wealth of the rich.
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
All Is Lava
The universe has no beginning: physicists refute the Big Bang theory
In the beginning there was ... well, maybe there was no beginning. Perhaps our universe has always existed - and the new theory of quantum gravity shows howeuropeantimes.news
The Singularity before the Big Bang and at the center of Black Holes is an impossible concentration of mass/energy. There was an eruption from another universe, or the fourth spatial dimension, from which flowed a substance that divided into mass, energy, light, and even three-dimensional space itself. The Black Hole is the reverse of that process.
Postmodern physicists keep repeating the error of "epicycles," which were invented to avoid a heliocentric view of the universe and finally discarded because the pre-modern physicists kept on having to add more and more jerry-rigged explanations.
The Sage of Main Street
Gold Member
Gagging on Gaia
But they do have intelligence, which lets them design themselves. Besides, the conquest of Nature is literally "supernatural."
- Thread starter
- #479
'We know also from science that the physical stuff of our universe came into existence in the finite past. So, something brought our universe into existence, and that something could not have been part of our universe; otherwise our universe would already have existed, and what already exists cannot then be brought into existence. (Again, we're just using logic here.) We can therefore call the cause of our universe a transcendent cause, since it transcends our universe.'
(Hedin, Science Canceled, pp. 43-4)
"In our work instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite to the past and so there's always something before."
(Bruno Bento)
There Was No Big Bang Singularity
It's one of the biggest assumptions we've ever made about the Universe. Here's why it's wrong.
forbes.com
'Kant shows that reason becomes trapped in irresolvable contradictions when it proceeds from the (logical [italics]) possibility of thinking a metaphysical notion such as God to the inference of its (real [it.]) existence in the world. All metaphysical theses (e.g., that there must be a simple substance, an uncaused cause, or a necessary being that is the ground of all contingent beings) can be countered by an antithesis that demonstrates that these theses are incompatible with the constitution of time and space. The antinomies are thus structured around the conflict between a thesis that asserts that there must be an indivisible instance and an antithesis that asserts that there cannot be an indivisible instance since everything is divided by time and space.'
(Haegglund, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, p. 22)
- Thread starter
- #480
Very much like the approach of Bento-Zalel's causal sets, above, is Derrida's take on the spacing of time.
'In the "Transcendental Aesthetic" and the "Transcendental Analytic" Kant analyzes the conditions for an a priori synthesis of experience as given in time and space. The principle of noncontradiction here allows him to posit a pure apperception, which secures the unity of consciousness despite the endless divisibility of spatiotemporal experience. In the "Transcendental Dialectic" Kant analyzes the paralogisms, antinomies, and ideals of pure reason. The principle of noncontradiction here allows him to save the Idea of a sovereign instance, even though such an instance is shown to be impossible under the condition of time and space.....The only way to deconstruct Kant is thus to deconstruct the principle of noncontradiction and to develop a new conception of reason.
....
Derrida openly challenges the sovereignty of reason and the concept of indivisible identity that serves as its foundation. Sovereignty defines an instance that is absolutely (in itself [italics]). A such, it conforms to the logic of identity that follows from the principle of noncontradiction. Derrida deconstructs this logic by dissociating sovereignty from "unconditionality," which is unthinkable within the traditional paradigms of reason. Sovereignty is by definition unconditional in the sense that it is not dependent on anything other than itself.
In contrast, Derrida argues that the unconditional is the spacing of time that divides every instance in advance and makes it essentially dependent on what is other than itself. What makes X (possible [it.]) is at the same time what makes it (impossible [it.]) for X to be in itself. Such is the minimal formula for the illogical logic of identity that deconstructive reason employs....For Derrida, time and space are not transcendental forms of human intuition, which would be given in the same way regardless of their empirical conditions. Rather, the ultratranscendental status of spacing deconstructs the traditional divide between the transcendental and the empirical. If time must be spatially inscribed, then the experience of time is essentially dependent on which material supports and technologies are available to inscribe time. That is why Derrida maintains that inscriptions do not befall an already constituted space but produce the spatiality of space.
Derrida can thus think the experience of space and time as constituted by historical and technological conditions, without reducing spacing to an effect of a certain historical or technological epoch. If spacing were merely an effect of historical conditions, it would supervene on something that precedes it and thus adhere to the metaphysical notion of spacing as a Fall. Spacing is rather an ultratranscendental condition because there has never been and will never be a self-presence that grounds the passage between past and future. That is why any moment (always [it.]) must be recorded in order to be. The ultratranscendental movement of spacing thus accounts for why there is neither a beginning nor an end to historicity and technicity. The inscriptions that trace time are susceptible to all sorts of transformations, manipulations, and erasures, but the general condition of spacing cannot be eliminated.'
(Haegglund, op cit p. 24-7)
'In the "Transcendental Aesthetic" and the "Transcendental Analytic" Kant analyzes the conditions for an a priori synthesis of experience as given in time and space. The principle of noncontradiction here allows him to posit a pure apperception, which secures the unity of consciousness despite the endless divisibility of spatiotemporal experience. In the "Transcendental Dialectic" Kant analyzes the paralogisms, antinomies, and ideals of pure reason. The principle of noncontradiction here allows him to save the Idea of a sovereign instance, even though such an instance is shown to be impossible under the condition of time and space.....The only way to deconstruct Kant is thus to deconstruct the principle of noncontradiction and to develop a new conception of reason.
....
Derrida openly challenges the sovereignty of reason and the concept of indivisible identity that serves as its foundation. Sovereignty defines an instance that is absolutely (in itself [italics]). A such, it conforms to the logic of identity that follows from the principle of noncontradiction. Derrida deconstructs this logic by dissociating sovereignty from "unconditionality," which is unthinkable within the traditional paradigms of reason. Sovereignty is by definition unconditional in the sense that it is not dependent on anything other than itself.
In contrast, Derrida argues that the unconditional is the spacing of time that divides every instance in advance and makes it essentially dependent on what is other than itself. What makes X (possible [it.]) is at the same time what makes it (impossible [it.]) for X to be in itself. Such is the minimal formula for the illogical logic of identity that deconstructive reason employs....For Derrida, time and space are not transcendental forms of human intuition, which would be given in the same way regardless of their empirical conditions. Rather, the ultratranscendental status of spacing deconstructs the traditional divide between the transcendental and the empirical. If time must be spatially inscribed, then the experience of time is essentially dependent on which material supports and technologies are available to inscribe time. That is why Derrida maintains that inscriptions do not befall an already constituted space but produce the spatiality of space.
Derrida can thus think the experience of space and time as constituted by historical and technological conditions, without reducing spacing to an effect of a certain historical or technological epoch. If spacing were merely an effect of historical conditions, it would supervene on something that precedes it and thus adhere to the metaphysical notion of spacing as a Fall. Spacing is rather an ultratranscendental condition because there has never been and will never be a self-presence that grounds the passage between past and future. That is why any moment (always [it.]) must be recorded in order to be. The ultratranscendental movement of spacing thus accounts for why there is neither a beginning nor an end to historicity and technicity. The inscriptions that trace time are susceptible to all sorts of transformations, manipulations, and erasures, but the general condition of spacing cannot be eliminated.'
(Haegglund, op cit p. 24-7)
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Donald Trump says Golden Dome would cost Canada $61 billion US: Canada can join the missile defence system for free, he says, if it becomes 51st state- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 14
-
Trump Pardons Reality Stars Todd and Julie Chrisley Following Tax Evasion and Bank Fraud Convictions
- Started by Zafira Cherry
- Replies: 0
-
