C Theory of Time and the Venn of Import

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

A first attempt at being concise.

First, an introduction of C Theory and the Venn of Import, then an explanation of how C Theory is distinct from and resolves conflicts arising from A and B theories, using the Venn (or Harmonic Triad) of Import.

In the C Theory of Time, there are beings (like us) who are subject to Time (language from Kant), and there is Being who is Time. Time is not “Being Alone” (Parmenides, unless he meant…) but is “Being in Relation”. As the unchanging ground or source subsuming all being and change, Time is both immanent (omnitemporal) in and transcendent (transtemporal) over all temporality. The past is hyperthetical and the future is hypothetical from the perspective of beings subject to Time. From the perspective of the Being who is Time, the past, present, and future form an essential whole, the Metanarrative of Time. Every moment contains the story leading up to that moment, and implies the story that follows that moment. In that way, every moment is a synthesis between the past and the future, and the story began whole and is subsumed eternally in Time (see Hegel). The Metanarrative of Time is an expression or demonstration of the essential character of Time as “Being in Relation”. Without that demonstration, there would be nothing: no essence to demonstrate, no action (the demonstration), no being in which to demonstrate (see Plato). The matter and energy of every moment is the “stuff” upon which Time and (with Time’s permission and concurrence) beings subject to time “act” or move in order to bring about the full expression of the Metanarrative of Time in each moment. So, the story never changes from the perspective of the whole (Being who is Time), but the whole subsumes the changes necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with “Being in Relation”.

image

The Venn (or Harmonic Triad) of Import. There are three imports: END or essential (hyper-/hypo-aesthetical) import, DO/ACT or ethico-existential (action) import, and BE(ING) or ontologico-material (ontic) import. Note that “existential” import is usually used in the case of BE, not DO, but to prevent confusion, I restrict it to DO, and use “ontological” for BE. Other names for these imports would be teleological (purposing) import, epistemological (demonstrating) import, and metaphysical (being) import. The way I have said this mnemonically for years is: end, do, and be. END… as in… the end goal you have to have in mind (or else it is like a game into which you are “thrown”) before you even start playing the game. The end is hypothetical while you are advancing towards or falling away from it. The end is hyperthetical once you have reached it. DO… as in… how you demonstrate you are reaching the end, or at least existing. BE… as in… a winner. There is only one winner (Being-in-Relation who is Time) who always exists (acts) their essence (you may recognize this language from existentialist philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre). Other names for these imports are value, ought, and fact/is, and you must clearly distinguish between them or you commit fallacies like the is-ought fallacy. The Venn of Import is relevant in every field of study.

The C Theory of Time is unlike A Theory because A Theory only acknowledges the essential status of the present moment, disregarding the essential status of the past and future as part of the whole Metanarrative of Time that began complete. C Theory is unlike B Theory because B Theory elevates every moment to the hyperthetical status of the past, disregarding that the changes subsumed by Being who is Time are necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. Prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time. Without such grounding, there would have been no demonstration of essence, and no essence (being-in-relation) to demonstrate. Another way to say “being-in-relation” is the recognition that every self is an other to another self. The demonstration acknowledges/communicates that recognition to beings subject to Time so they can likewise communicate it in their values (end, or essential import), actions (do, or existential import), and the character of their thoughts (be, or ontological import)–if they so choose.

2

In my view, T=E.
Time is energy and energy is time.
Time is not singular. It is many.
Different materials vibrate at different speeds.
Vibration is change / time.

Thanks for your big post/thread, though.

3

I agree, Dan, in that all of the times is a whole Time.

Glad we iterate on the same wavelength :slight_smile:

4

Time is energy is speeds is vibration is materials is determinism is thoughts is space is causality is logic is PG is is extra dimensions is quantum subtime is quadrant thesis is M-brains is vacuum hypothesis is superstrings is qbits is Planck’s constant is black hole curvature is c is gravity is 5th dimension is 5G is G space derivatives is G strings is Virtual Realities is imported Venn diagrams in theory of time hyper-codes on chalkboards inside Einstein’s coffin.

5

ImM pRoFoUndErdD

6

Thanks for stopping by. Wondered where you were.

7

“The end is hypothetical while you are advancing towards or falling away from it. The end is hyperthetical once you have reached it.” (from OP)

That was END. Now let’s talk about NOW, relative to the END (plan) and its realization (our perspective as beings subject to Time).

From the perspective of the plan (already whole being), when it is not yet fulfilled (the past), it is hypothetical, but when it is fulfilled (the future), it is hyperthetical. NOW is thetical. Relative to the past (from the perspective of the plan) now is hyperthetical. Relative to the future (from the perspective of the plan) now is hypothetical.

[Think of nontensed language like gender neutral language. Instead of saying past and future, you say when, just like instead of saying he or she, you say they.]

From the perspective of realization (not yet whole becoming), what IS already fulfilled (the past), is hyperthetical, but what is not yet fulfilled (the future), is hypothetical. NOW is thetical from both the perspectives of the plan and realization. Relative to the past (from the perspective of realization) now is hypothetical. Relative to the future (from the perspective of realization) now is hyperthetical.

That being said, we need to balance this part and do for it what we did for B theory:

“The C Theory of Time is unlike A Theory because A Theory only acknowledges the essential status of the present moment, disregarding the essential status of the past and future as part of the whole Metanarrative of Time that began complete.” (from OP)

Here’s what we did for B theory that needs to be done equally for A theory:

“C Theory is unlike B Theory because B Theory elevates every moment to the hyperthetical status of the past, disregarding that the changes subsumed by Being who is Time are necessary for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. Prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time.” (from OP)

So B theory sees it from the perspective of realization.

And now we will do the same for A theory, from the perspective of realization:

C Theory is unlike A Theory because A Theory demotes every moment except NOW to the hypothetical status of the future, disregarding that the unchanging essence of Being who is Time requires demonstration for beings subject to Time to freely participate with/in “Being in Relation” – a willful demonstration of essence that would not rightly be said to exist (in action or being) without such demonstration. According to C theory, prior to the demonstration to beings subject to Time, the demonstration has hypothetical (essential) import if ontologically grounded in Being-in-Relation who is Time (the whole plan). A theorists criticize B theorists because evil is never vanquished, and Jesus is still hanging on the cross. However, if that was accurate, then A theory ALSO (to be consistent) has evil never vanquished, and Jesus never hanging on the cross, because only NOW has essential (thetic) import.

C Theory subsumes realization in the plan—they are mutually productive. In other words, the realization (the fullness of the Godhead bodily) exists co-eternally with the Father (the whole/fulfilled plan in whom we live, move, and have our being). The Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son exists thetically.

In the beginning was the Signal (eternal message, end), and the Signal was the Source (eternal “spiritual material” medium), and the Signal was with the Source, and the Signal became the Sink (efficient means, demonstration, action in time).

In the beginning was the End Quality (Value), and the End Quality (Value) was the Substantial Being (Is), and the End Quality (Value) was with the Substantial Being (Is), and the End Quality (Value) became the Done Action (Ought).

8

Relevant: