Important - Please Read (1 Viewer)

[kami]

I don't think it should be random, I just don't think that future tense is anything more special than future tense. It's like saying that past tense is first person writing. I don't think that tense is the answer.

Tense is not the answer - but it is a method of discovering and highlighting the answer. And fourth cannot be constant, by implication it is everything that is not conventional in current writing *without* limit and likely involves the more rarely explored sectors.

 

[goldendawn]

Tense is variable to any perspective of writing. You could use future tense in first person, for example. Tense is time, where person is perspective. I don't think future tense is rarely explored either - we use it all the time, but not on it's own because it doesn't express immediacy properly, even though it is unavoidably immediate (hence it's kind of a self-contradiction).Expressing immediacy well is essential to first, second or third person writing. If tense is variable to all of these perspectives, then I think that we would be going down the wrong way if we were to consider it as the key element to fourth person. Writing in future tense wouldn't change what "person" you are writing in, I think it would just make the writing more rigid. I think that fourth person needs to be a whole perspective, not a tense. Simply making a weird narrative style doesn't mean you've created fourth person, lolz.

 

[goldendawn]

If first person is "me"(expressive), and second person is "you"(didactic), and third person is "they"(objective), then fourth person should be the next step up.

 

[goldendawn]

"Temporal" doesn't fit the progression -

Expressive, didactic, objective, temporal

 

[kami]

If first person is "me"(expressive), and second person is "you"(didactic), and third person is "they"(objective), then fourth person should be the next step up.

See, this is where your previous attempt at encapsulating fourth person failed - you have not accounted for all modes properly. As per math and literature - first has no further details, it is the basic "I" and "me", second has another parameter added which allows "he said, she said" style narrative, third is the applied experiences of both to the other covering all *real* parameters and hence we achieve the omniscient viewpoint, fourth however as defined by maths must need be imaginary and foundational to the first - most theorise it as time itself rather than matter so therefore, rather than just an awareness of all actions at a given moment, it must epitomise an awareness of actions at *all* moments simultaneously rather than alternately.

 

[goldendawn]

Second person is not "he said, she said", it's "you said", and third person is not merely a combination of the past two, but an objective perspective OF those two. Also, time is NOT consciousness, but one thing perceived by consciousness. The "person" system refers to the actual framework of a consciousness. Therefore, if fourth person is consciousness transcending matter, then it would also transcend the perception of time, not be time.

 

[goldendawn]

Perhaps -

Expressive, didactic, objective, speculative

But that poses other problems, because "speculative" would refer to low modality writing, and not to a framework of consciousness.

 

[kami]

Second person is not "he said, she said", it's "you said", and third person is not merely a combination of the past two, but an objective perspective OF those two. Also, time is NOT consciousness, but one thing perceived by consciousness. The "person" system refers to the actual framework of a consciousness. Therefore, if fourth person is consciousness transcending matter, then it would also transcend the perception of time, not be time.

Evan knows time is not consciousness, however as he is trying to demonstrate the limits of what fourth person would be it is and was appropriate. And also time is a fundamental quantity which we cannot transcend through literature even though that is the requirement for fourth person. That is why I have said:

fourth however as defined by maths must need be imaginary and foundational

.

 

[goldendawn]

Which is why I suggested "speculative".
Time, however, is a perception, not a quantity.

 

[kami]

Which is why I suggested "speculative".
Time, however, is a perception, not a quantity.

Time is one of the fundamental quantities - ask Isaac Newton.

 

[goldendawn]

Perhaps fourth person can only be an approach, and not a method.

 

[goldendawn]

I don't care what Newton says, I don't think time is quantity.
Time can be "quantified", but I don't think it's a quantity in itself.
Stop misappropriating Newton. That was said by him in a very specific context.

 

[kami]

I don't care what Newton says, I don't think time is quantity.
Time can be "quantified", but I don't think it's a quantity in itself.
Stop misappropriating Newton. That was said by him in a very specific context.

Stop being silly...you just contradicted yourself. Time is a fundamental quantity *because* it can't be broken down and quantified - hence the term "fundamental" which means basic or foundational. Which is why I stated and you ignored:

fourth however as defined by maths must need be imaginary and foundational

ie. in maths we have real numbers and zones, and then we have imaginary numbers and zones.
Literature has the same limitation in describing the zones(which is what the perspectives are doing) and why I have been hinting towards this statement which I somewhat agree with:

Perhaps fourth person can only be an approach, and not a method.

 

[goldendawn]

Time can only be broken down if you put a construct upon it, and that is a matter of perception. Numbers are limitations, and when applied to time, are one way of measuring a perception of time. Time can therefore be quantified, but it is not a quantity.

 

[AsyLum]

At the time of this post, a child died in Africa.

It would all be based upon a Series B conception of time rather than of the 'person' it would be referential at best, and can hold no real 'present' or 'tense', ie indexical conception of time.

 

[goldendawn]

I would agree that time refers to our perception of the effect of a process, rather than to a quantity. But I don't see how any approach could reach fourth person and surmount the paradox of perception. If fourth person is, as you say, a Series B conception of time, then how can this be expressed without any indexical reference to time? The moment it is written, it is confined to the immediate. What you are proposing would essentially become an effect, not a framework.

 

[kami]

Marcus...I don't think thats quite what he said...
EDIT:Now you sound less like an addled scholar

 

[Porcia]

uhhhh... an intruder here, but what is to say that the dimensions and persons are equatable? to me they exist in their own dogma. like first person doesnt really co-exist as first dimension, if you get what i mean. anyway just a thought

 

[goldendawn]

Well, I think you're right that they are separate realms - but I believe there is a relationship between them, even if only in our thinking about things.

 

[AsyLum]

First Dimension - Cogito
Second Dimension - Indexical - I, we, you.
Third Dimension - Inter-indexical - Tenses.
Fourth Dimension - Referential - I occured at the same time as Z. X happened prior to L but before T.