Exactly, so it was Kant's incongruent counterparts problem that got me onto this—via oblique means—in the first place. Let me try another rephrase in light of that particular problem.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @thomasmurphy__ and
Qdn 🩸ktsqfr Retweeted
Succession is an extensive temporality, it covers over or constrains intensity for both Deleuze (cf. Thomas's first quote) and Kant (in the Anticipations of Sense), which is the medium on which the pure form of time works. https://twitter.com/thomasmurphy__/status/991025949855625222?s=21 …
Qdn 🩸ktsqfr added,
This Tweet is unavailable.1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @thomasmurphy__ and
So succession (extensity) is secondary (yet necessary) in the critical project as previously articulated—*but* in BC time, it's transcendental and primary (I think). If this is correct, what happens to intensity?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @qdnoktsqfr @thomasmurphy__ and
Not sure. In Bitcoin, succession is the same as envelopment (entire chain subsumed into most recent block), which seems more intensive than extensive.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @qdnoktsqfr and
... Blocks in the chain are not merely side-by-side (extensive), otherwise there would be no time gradient (tensed time). ...
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @qdnoktsqfr and
... So it looks to me as if the reading of succession as extensive presupposes a geometricization of arithmetic, culminating in Minkowski spacetime, which Bitcoin (locally) dismantles.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @thomasmurphy__ @qdnoktsqfr and
"Are you suggesting pure non spatialised ordinality?" -- Can't see any alternative to that commitment (without waving time goodbye).
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Okay, but don't mention that at the ICO.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.