Atemporality and aspatiality

Objects of the mind are characterised by atemporality and aspatiality (my term) while objects of reality (things) are characterised by temporality and spatiality.

Representations of things (mind-objects) are inconsistent with reality (thing-objects) because of this difference in characterisation. Phenomena and noumena are distinct. Problems arise when we engage with reality with non-existent (without ontology) atemporal and aspatial characteristics of objects of the mind.

8 thoughts on “Atemporality and aspatiality

  1. Read the Harmon article two-thirds through. Got a better idea of what Harmon wants to say.

    There are points (assumptions) which I do not agree with BUT yes Harmon/OOO and my thinking have a lot of common ground as well as grounds of contention.

    There are things I would like address that comments will be enough.


  2. Actually this is really good. I don’t often say it because my theoretical journeys traverse the globe of the issue and so sometimes I have to find myself in Sudan and talk about Sudan, or in Finland, and then I talk about what’s happening in Finland. All the while my main goal, the catalyst the impetus that provoked the journey was to find out about the globe. The earth.

    So way back, even before I started my blog it was the same question which started with Kierkegaard actually. Started when I had a moment with either or. The question that came up for me was “what is religion?”

    So when I started this blog I was beginning with Laruelle. But still somewhere in those early posts I did admit that the whole of my philosophical journey concerns of the question “what is religion”.

    So actually. Once I relax a little bit. I like the difference that you point out here and it actually goes with the two routes pretty well I think. I’ll write a post in a little bit. I have a week off in between semesters right now so maybe I’ll do some Blogging

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Reading Harmon more carefully I am starting to understand your position (and Harmon’s) as well. And there is a lot of overlap.

    While OOO focuses on mind-objects I focus on thing-objects. Of the dialogues worth Harmon I think I would enjoy DeLanda’s the most. DeLanda’s desire to bring in modern Realism into the conversation I feel is just so I am interested in reading their latest book on that.


  4. , When I refrain from replying so quickly. And I think about what you’re writing. I feel that our two schemes, philosophical schemes, are actually quite complementary. I feel if, at least to me, if we can get over our reactionary Postures, I feel like you and I actually represent what I’m calling the two routes. Innoway I could see it as mind and, I forget the other word you use. I think if I am less reactionary to the terms that you use, I am able to see where I am being offended. And so maybe we can get somewhere

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s