**picks up battered mic, nods an apology to the sound technician**
Philosophy is a funny thing, is it not? I haven’t dedicated any real thought to this discussion in a while, and yet, it has never been far from my thinking. It has danced across my mind several times as I’ve had discussions with others or read books, but it was a recent epiphany whilst reading Alan Watts that brought me back here.
Your arguments are all fine, possibly even good (one is afraid to boost your ego too much, but you clearly have talent!) However, I think my point remains unchallenged and here is why:
I don’t see how John can stand in rational relations to his “memories”. The way you explain the poorly trained librarian, makes it sound as if John can lay all his memories out in front of him on a table, like little photos, and the only thing missing from the photos, that everyone else has, is the time stamp.
If that were true, then I agree that John can stand in rational relations to his memories and can replace the time stamp with reasoning.
But how can that be? John does not have “memories” because his experiences have no time stamp. John just has experiences. And, as Alan Watts points out, all experiences happen in the present.
So how can John flick from present to memories in order to apply his reason? I don’t think he can. All he can do is experience his present moment life. Those experiences might be drawn from the world around him, or might be memories or might even be future dreams, but either way, John can’t control it.
Normally, I would drop the mic, but the sound tech looks pissed and I’m not even sure I am winning this discussion. So, I am happy to call it a draw and move onto a new topic!
This is the final part in the Time Blind John series. Where do you weigh in on this discussion? Did you follow it?