Spencer Heath Archive

Item 671

Random taping by Spencer MacCallum from conversation with Heath.

April 1957

/TIME/

     All the serious critical writers are recognizing there is nothing absolute about time. They are eloquent on this. They even think it can run backward as well as forward. The period of a wave has no meaning except in relation to some other period, such as the earth’s rotation. If it had a meaning in itself, that would have no significance outside of itself. The period relation between one wave and another wave is what is an expression of the rationality of the cosmos, which is the numerical relations among all the rhythmic, successive events of which the cosmos is composed. It is true of time, as it is of mass and motion, that it is not absolute but only in its relation to the other two that it enters into the constitution of any event. A numerical character of that relationship is seen the moment the event is analyzed quantitatively into its three constituent elements and the quality of the event determined by the ratios subsisting among these three. This analysis, of course, depends upon the prior establishment of measuring units for mass, motion and for time. Once these units are established, the three measurements can be made and the numerical ratios thus ascertained. Note that these ratios do not depend upon what units were employed. The ratios will still be the same in any case.  …

/interruption/

     The second is the interval we commonly employ. It would establish a definite relationship between the time element and the other elements of an event. So long as the second continues to be employed as the basic time unit, the time ratio to the other units in any event will be the same. For us to describe the quality of events, we must know the ratios. The only importance is that the three measuring units be always the same.

     The same in economics: We must use the same dollars in all transactions, or units inter-convertible therewith.

/Aside:/ That’s got it right at the very heart of time, Spencer; it’s necessary to have a unit in order to have a number, in order to have a relationship, in order that the relationships among the numbers can be always in the same terms. That’s a good start on the nature of time; without it, we couldn’t compare the quality of one event with another.

     The first predicate is that one time period is related to another time period, and that is how we measure. So long as we measure it in terms of that other, we have a standard for comparing one event to another in respect of time. This is the only important about time — to compare one time with another. I /believe/ that is what enables us to compare one event with another, by doing the same thing with all three elements, all three standards.