.

In the first of this series of posts, I suggested that time is a metric of process. I started the development of some understanding of what is meant when we use the term, and in doing so, showed why a necessary attribute of time in this description of it must be that of cyclicity. I commented on how that attribute is relevant to our experience, and that we are all dependent on the use of that attribute. I suggested that our acceptance and understanding of this matter is problematic, in that we tend to reject cyclicity as limiting, choosing to view time as linear (at least to the extent we can do so successfully, I think).

Again, I deliberately stipulate that these matters can appear trivial, as we are commonly and somewhat intimately, though tacitly, aware of them. I suggest that this familiarity implies a thoroughness of understanding that may well not exist, and so I assert that it is appropriate to reconsider them.

I propose that in order to more fully understand time, we must gain a better understanding of process itself. I suggest that in order to effectively evaluate time, we need to do so by approaching it as a function of process. I suggest that we do not normally do this, even though we may think that we do, and in order to understand that we do not, we can look at our historical experiences in the matter.

We understand that, for the Greeks, time was a function of the celestial sphere only, and did not have inherent existence outside of that context. Time, then, was considered an expression of celestial perfection, to which the earthly plane may aspire but never achieve. From the point of view of my argument here, it would seem that the only real process was that of the heavens, which raises an interesting question: is this the source of the notion that all that is sublunar is illusion, having no inherent reality? That the answer is probably no does not detract from the value of the question itself, I think.

We can, however, identify this separation of the heavens and the earth into that which is perfect and real and that which is imperfect and (unreal?) as a source for the notion that there exists an external standard of appropriate definition for what may or may not be a valid process. We can call this external standard a Primary Process. Clearly, other kinds of considerations have power in this issue, but it's worth recognizing that the Greek view of time supports the contention that objective time is the only real kind of time that exists. Indeed, there is a spectrum of considerations and assumptions that are supported by this idea, and it may be of value to identify some of them.

One matter comes to mind immediately, and that is that the question of the inherent value of the human being may have connections here; those are almost certainly not roots or origins, but could conceivably arise from a common source. A great deal of attention and effort has been put to achieving some resolution to this question, it would seem: a significant percentage of human concern is taken up with the task of discovering or inventing ways in which we can justify ourselves as having some sort of inherent worthiness. It is not sufficient to call ourselves earthly life forms and therefore possessed of some intrinsic and substantial reality; we conceive that humanity possesses some extraordinary aspect or attribute that makes us inherently separate from the natural earthly realm. We note that this issue is addressed in ways not directly relevant to this discussion.

It was evident to the Greeks, of course, that the natural sphere seemed to possess some sort of intrinsic link to the heavens, and so could reasonably be viewed as an extension thereof; this is, in fact, the basis for the rationale for astrology itself. It also had, however, the effect of further separating us from our environment. The natural environment did not share the inevitable imperfection of man, and so could be seen as an only incomplete, and therefore not irretrievably flawed, expression of perfection.

In the centuries during and after the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, other rationales for supporting our assumptions about the nature of humanity and the nature of the celestial sphere arose that enforced the concept of man's imperfection, although there was less agreement about the details of the nature of the celestial sphere. Some of these rationales were used as justification for agenda that was other than philosophical: the concepts of the perfection of the heavens and the imperfection of mankind were widely recognized as tailor made for the justification of a variety of tyrannies.

And so, after the millennium of western intellectual darkness that followed, Greek thought arose once again, and was the foundation for our modern views of these matters; the emergence of this intellectual heritage set the stage for modern intellectual development, modern science, etc. These concepts of perfection and imperfection, however, could be debated and argued, but not tested. The assumptions made by Newton in these regards were thus deemed to be self-evident: there existed a static frame of reference against which we could measure our observances of nature, which provided a basis for defining and evaluating dimensions, of which time was one. This became the assumed Primary Process.

We now recognize that these assumptions were/are without basis, that, thanks to Einstein, et al, there appears to be no invariant frame of reference against which all dimensions can be evaluated. We appear to have become comfortable in the notion that everything is relative, and that nothing can be taken as cast in stone, using this observation to negate and avoid issues as we wish, it seems. Indeed, it often is asserted that nothing is intrinsically robust, and so there is nothing that is not ephemeral, and therefore unworthy of anything but conditional acceptance and usefulness.

It seems evident that this idea, when used as a basic point of view, is highly problematic. Taken as an axiom, we find this notion quickly leaves us adrift in irresolvable ambiguity, especially when applied directly to human experience. The result is that we seem to have concluded that there is no inherently robust frame of reference within which a Primary Process can be observed, much less described. This has consequences, of course.

Although we recognize the concept of Process, we find it difficult in envision it as having useful primary purpose, I think. The concept of Process as a basic standard of identity for any on going purpose is rejected as being in violation of the new concepts of relativity and indeterminacy, and so is regarded as having no intrinsic value of its own. The result is that we are left with a set of options that are less than optimal, even acceptable.

We must return to the natural sphere as the basis for the Primary Process, or we must turn to the construct we have developed that represents observable reality as itself the Primary Process. The first way of going produces the naturalist movement that eschews much of that which our civilization has built in favor of Luddite life on Walden's Pond, and the second demands that we either acquire a working expertise in science and technology or accede all such concerns to those who do have. This is, to a recognizable extent, manifest in a recent culture/counterculture clash: the hippies wanted to return to the woods while giving over the current standard of living, and the establishment was happy to let things continue as they are with no more than lip-service to any larger concerns.

Neither of these ways of going were, or are, acceptable as described, and so we all find ourselves somewhere on the spectrum between the two. The significance of this is that each of us can identify our own place there, because these issues are relevant to us all. Further, it is obvious that they directly involve that of astrology itself, and so I assert that what may seem a more general human matter of indeterminate relevance here is in fact specifically of concern to astrology.

The central matter in all this is the ability, or lack thereof, to identify and establish the parameters of a Primary Process. If this ability exists, then we can establish a frame of temporal reference as well, and that is the subject at hand here. There are several parametric issues here: the frame of reference and so the nature of the process of choice must be variable, must be capable of relational manipulation, must be robust without recourse to the necessity for constant and invariant primacy; the process type itself must have universal application, must be capable of manifesting without fundamental limitations, must have at least potentially general-case usefulness.

We have, of course, addressed and answered this concern, and the answer we have derived is arguably the source of much of the world's recent problems: it does not, nor does it seem intended to, satisfy the requirements I have presented here.

We have determined that the most natural place to orient the Primary Process is in the Self. For each of us, then, there is a specific Process against which all others are measured, and it is that of the given individual; we can and do regard that process as the subjective reality. The problems inherent in this solution are obvious: if we determine that there is no intrinsic Primary Process which asserts itself as the proper frame of reference for all others, and we elect to assume that role for ourselves, we are confronted with the need to synchronize and harmonize our own Process with all the Processes manifest by other people. That this is difficult to do is probably the most significant understatement of our times.

To the extent that we have actually made this choice, we find we are not at liberty to avoid the responsibilities inherent therein. Clearly, not all people appear to have done this, but there seems to be a movement in that direction: we deem ourselves at liberty to choose that which defines the Primary Process, even if we decline to place it within ourself. It appears that this idea has come to describe these aspects of our current cultures, and to that extent it is useful to examine the results of this sort of choice.

We might conclude that we have simply chosen to repudiate the need for a Primary Process. Without further comment, we can observe that the institutions of religion and the ideas underlying theology were in large part intended to address the matter of the Primary Process, and this repudiation is a subject of importance in these regards. We can also further observe that this has become a fundamental concern in general, couched sometimes popularly as "Greed is (not?) good!".

Perhaps the ultimate extension of this way of going is solipsism; in any case, the inevitable question seems to have arisen: is there any such thing as an objective reality? For our purposes here, we may rephrase this as: Is there any such thing as a Primary Process that has existence independent of the individual perception of reality? Is there a Primary Process such that its primacy is inherent or intrinsic in the process itself? It seems to me that it is this very question which lies at the root of recent philosophical concerns, such as have been proposed on this list; these concerns, then, appear to establish this question as the current state of the matter of a) how Process in general is perceived, and b) how the question of Primary Process is being addressed.

I can imagine that the reader has found the material discussed here rather familiar, although presented from a somewhat odd and evidently dispassionate perspective. If so, then I have achieved part of what I have intended: I am presenting concerns with which we are all more or less intimately familiar in a different format, with unfamiliar concepts with which to contemplate and analyze these issues. In fact, I want the reader to understand that these ideas have been deliberately made less than readily accessible, because the issues raised here deserve and should require that some real effort be expended to seek a deeper understanding thereof.

In short, I am suggesting that existing attempts to express such understanding fall short of general applicability, and we are not well served by the assumption that any such are definitive. This, of course, includes my efforts as well. Thus, the effort to argue any extant views may be fruitless: what is needed is an examination of this, or any other, view with the intent to see how well relevant questions are answered. The idea is to determine the merit of a view in its own terms, and that is what leads to better understanding, I think.

These, then, are some of the main attributes of the concept of Process as it manifests itself in human experience. The reader may assess the extent to which the use of this concept as a functional point of view succeeds in addressing effectively a significant portion of human concerns, both historically and in our time. In the next post, I will consider how the attributes of time may serve as tools to treat with these concerns; in doing so, I will lay a part of a foundation for an approach to a theoretical basis for astrology.

Comments?

wtallman

© 2000