Not exact matches
Whiteheadians seem able to imagine such ecstatically spanned unities - across - time on the so - called «
microscopic» scale of the «specious present,» but give up on the idea as the scope of the temporal disclosure space is widened to the scale of human lifetime and of generations.7 But worse than this
from the point of
view of Heidegger's temporal problematic, by submitting the ecstatic unities of their «specious presents» to the before / after ordering and metric properties of linear time, at least in terms of their mutually external relations and arrangements, they give back ontologically every advantage they gained
from the use of an cc - static - temporal disclosure horizon in the first place, even though it was only the single horizon of presence.
The
view of actual entities as real existents (whether
microscopic, macroscopic, or «hypothetical»), rather than as descriptions of the real, has vitiated the understanding of Whitehead
from the outset.
Imagine being able to
view microscopic aspects of a classical nova, a massive stellar explosion on the surface of a white dwarf star (about as big as Earth), in a laboratory rather than
from afar via a telescope.
Painted nail heads and tiny toy homes are typical keys that guide viewers
from a bird's eye
view of
microscopic worlds to intricate webs of connections between people, communities, history and possible futures encased within shiny coatings.
Strongly influenced by the Surrealists and the idea of automatism — the belief that the artist's undirected hand could reach deep into the unconscious — he layered skeins of fine, interlaced lines and overlapping luminous forms that suggested
microscopic views of human tissue or plant specimens, land masses seen
from an airplane or undiscovered worlds exploding into being.