I mentioned in the last blog entry how the conventional notion of time as linear, directly reflects a corresponding linear mode of rational understanding, where the objective aspect of experience is abstracted in an absolute manner.
However it is quite easy to show the limitations of this notion of time.
Once again in this context it is helpful to consider the simple example of a crossroads. If one travels in the direction N up a straight road, one can unambiguously identify the left turn (at this crossroads). If now travelling in the opposite S direction, one encounters the crossroads, again one can again unambiguously identify the left turn. However both of these turns (in terms of isolated N and S reference frames) are thereby identified as left!
However we can immediately recognise a problem in that relative to each other these turns are left and right and right and left respectively.
Now we have exactly the same situation with respect to the identification of time.
So whereas in the crossroads example we used the polar opposite of N and S as reference frames, in the experiential context now of the experience of time, we use E (external) and I (internal) frames.
Then again whereas we used the unambiguous polarised identification of a left turn, in this corresponding experiential context we use the unambiguous polarised identification of the positive (i.e. forward) movement of time.
Thus when we attempt to isolate the external (objective) aspect of experience in physical terms, the movement of time is indeed positive (i.e. forward).
Likewise now with respect to isolated internal) subjective aspect of experience viewed in a corresponding psychological manner, the movement of time is identified in a positive (i.e forward) manner.
Thus, because of the abstract assumption of both isolated external and internal aspects, we thereby identify - just as in crossroads example both turns as left - the movement of time for the external and internal aspects of experience as positive in both cases.
But just as with a crossroads, the two turns are necessarily left and right (and right and left) in relation to each other, likewise once we recognise the interdependent nature of external and internal, then the movement of time is necessarily positive and negative (and negative and positive) with respect to these two aspects of experience.
In other words, if time has a positive (forward) direction with respect to the external objective aspect of physical reality, then - in relative terms - it thereby has a negative (backward) direction with respect to the internal subject aspect of psychological experience.
Also from the opposite perspective, if time now has a positive (forward) direction with respect to the internal psychological self, then - in relative terms - it has a negative (backward) direction with respect to the external physical experience of the world.
Therefore from a dynamic interactive perspective, based on these two polarities of external and internal, time is necessarily of a two-dimensional relative nature (with positive and negative directions respectively).
This fundamentally alters the corresponding experience of space, which is now likewise understood in 2-dimensional relative manner.
So if we identify the positive (forward) movement of space with the external physical aspect of experience, then - relatively - the negative (backward) movement is associated with the internal psychological aspect.
And again in a reverse manner, if we then identify the positive movement of space with the internal aspect, then the negative movement - relatively - will be thereby identified with the external physical aspect.
Thus from this new dynamic interactive perspective - which properly corresponds with actual experience - time and space are now understood in a truly relative symmetrical manner, whereby both dimensions are understood as possessing two complementary directions that are positive and negative with respect to each other.
This has dramatic implications for science at all levels.
What is conventionally known as science represents but a limited special case where the external aspect of experience is treated in an absolute independent manner (as existing independently of the inquiring mind).
But properly speaking the external aspect has no strict meaning in the absence of corresponding interpretation which is - relatively - of an internal nature.
So the clear realisation of this interdependence changes the very paradigm of science and our corresponding understanding of the nature of space and time.
From this new perspective space and time are intimately related to the fundamental polarities that dynamically condition the nature of all phenomena.
The first of these relates to the interaction of external and internal aspects. In this sense all phenomena have both an outside and an inside aspect!
The second relates to the interaction of whole and part aspects (which we will deal with later).
Once again the conventional notions of space as 3 dimensional and time as 1-dimensional (viewed in a slowly positive manner) directly reflects the limited - and ultimately untenable - assumption that external and internal aspects of experience can be completely abstracted from each other.