On Time

In her 2015 book, The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time, science historian Jimena Canales recounts the debate during the 1920s about whether physicists or philosophers should define the meaning time.  The central event is a 1922 public debate between the young physicist Albert Einstein and the more famous philosopher Henri Bergson. 

Canales presents Einstein’s position as a radical identification of physical time with what properly synchronized clocks register.

In the 1905 paper, Einstein operationalizes time through simultaneity: saying that a train arrives at 7 o’clock means that the train’s arrival and the clock hand pointing to 7 are simultaneous. Canales emphasizes that this sounds innocuous, but it effectively makes clock procedure foundational to the scientific meaning of time.

By 1922, Einstein treats this not merely as a convenient convention but as something with “objective meaning.” He insists that there are “objective events” independent of individuals and rejects alternative representations as lacking objective sense.

That is the background to his remark to Bergson: “The time of the philosophers does not exist.”

Einstein is drawing a hard boundary. There is physical time, objectively determined through clocks, light signals, and synchronization procedures, and there is psychological time, which belongs to subjective experience. What he refuses to recognize is a third category—a philosophically meaningful time that is neither merely subjective psychology nor reducible to physical measurement. 

Canales’s broader point is that Einstein’s revolution did more than alter physics: it helped elevate clock time into the authoritative model of time itself. In relativity, time is operationally defined through synchronized clocks and light signals. Einstein then defended this physical time as possessing “objective meaning,” while psychological time was reduced to subjective mental construction. Hence his striking conclusion in Paris: “The time of the philosophers does not exist.”

Canales shows that Heidegger objected to exactly this move. As early as 1915, Heidegger argued that relativity concerns “the problem of measuring time, not with time itself.” In his view, Einstein had converted a measurement procedure into an ontology. Relativity assumes time to be homogeneous, quantitative, and geometrically comparable with space; but Heidegger argued that this leaves “the concept of time untouched.” Measurement freezes temporal flow into something spatial and divisible so that it can be counted.

By 1924 Heidegger sharpened the point: once time is defined as clock time, “there is no hope of ever arriving at its original meaning again.” The problem was therefore not that Einstein’s equations were experimentally wrong, but that physics had taken one specialized form of temporal representation and implicitly allowed it to stand for time as such.

Walter Benjamin pushed the problem into history and politics. Canales notes that Benjamin and Heidegger had actually studied together as young men, but Benjamin eventually developed a very different response. Benjamin attacked the idea that history simply unfolds through “homogenous, empty time.” He connected that conception directly to the modern ideology of inevitable progress: if time is an empty sequence of identical units, history appears as humanity steadily advancing along a single line.

Benjamin instead emphasized moments that are qualitatively charged—the here and now, moments in which memory, historical meaning, decision, and possibility converge. Canales ultimately places Benjamin among the thinkers who refused to reduce the significance of “now” to its coordinate on a homogeneous timeline.

An older distinction helps clarify what is at stake. Ancient Greek had more than one important temporal concept: Chronos refers to sequential, measurable time—the succession that can be counted and ordered—while Kairos means the opportune or decisive moment, the moment whose significance comes from what happens in it, not from where it falls on a clock. That Chronos/Kairos distinction is not Canales’s own organizing terminology in these passages, but it captures the philosophical fault line she traces.

So the argument can be compressed to this:

Einstein identifies objective time with what clocks can operationally measure. Heidegger replies that measuring time is not the same thing as explaining time. Benjamin shows what disappears when homogeneous clock time is projected onto history: the singular, charged moment. In older terms, modern physics became extraordinarily precise about Chronos while risking the disappearance of Kairos.

That makes Einstein’s “the time of the philosophers does not exist” much more consequential than a disagreement with Bergson. It represents a broader twentieth-century tendency to let the measurable representation of time displace the phenomenon it represents.

On Numerology

The history of modern psychology reveals that numbers are not merely tools for counting, but also frameworks through which human beings organize experience and model the psyche itself. Numerology – the study of the relationship between quantity and meaning – can illuminate the structural role numbers play in shaping perception, culture, and thought. 

This broader understanding of numerology becomes philosophically possible through the intuitionist mathematics of L. E. J. Brouwer, who argued that mathematics does not originate primarily in symbols or external objects, but in the constructive activity of human consciousness itself.  Number can be understood as a form of “organized perception”: the ordering of experience into rhythm, relation, distinction, symmetry, recurrence, and proportion. From this perspective, numbers begin in the psyche as lived perceptual realities, long before they become formal symbols.

This can be seen clearly in the development of twentieth-century psychology. Sigmund Freud’s psychology is organized around the number 3, as he divides the psyche into id, ego, and superego. The number three expresses the tendencies to express, suppress, and repress instinctual life. 

The triangle is the smallest stable relational structure, and Freud’s psychology mirrors this geometric fact symbolically. The psyche becomes a balancing process between impulse, control, and internalized restraint.

Carl Jung, by contrast, organized the psyche around four primary functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition. Four represents orientation, balance, and completeness: the four directions, four elements, and fourfold mandala structures that fascinated Jung throughout his work.

Where Freud emphasized psychic tension, Jung emphasized psychic orientation and integration.

The Enneagram Personality Type system emerged later as a synthesis of these traditions. Like Freud, it fundamentally models the psyche through a three-part structure, reflected in the inner triangle of the Enneagram symbol.

Yet the Enneagram’s dynamic stress arrows and personality movement patterns also reflect Jung’s deeper insight that human personality consists of recurring typological transformations rather than fixed static categories.

What makes the Enneagram especially remarkable from a numerological perspective is that it embeds this symbolic psychology within an actual mathematical recurrence. The stress hexad follows the repeating decimal expansion of unity divided by seven:

1÷7 = 0.142857 ​ 

The repeating cycle:

1 → 4 → 2 → 8 → 5 → 7 → 1

is directly generated by the decimal structure itself. The Enneagram then interprets this recurring numerical cycle symbolically as a pattern of psychological movement under stress and transformation. An unhealthy One tends toward Four, Four toward Two, Two toward Eight, and so forth through the repeating hexad.

What are we to make of such a remarkable correspondence between the decimal expansion of a simple fraction and recurring patterns of human psychological behavior? Is the relationship between 1÷7 = 0.142857 ​ and the Enneagram’s stress arrows merely coincidence? Or does it point toward a deeper relationship between mathematical structure and the ways human beings intuitively organize experience?

Post-WWII academic science became extraordinarily successful by emphasizing measurement, formalization, and operational precision. Yet in the process, mathematics became increasingly detached from perception and intuition. Symbolic manipulation gradually displaced visualization and geometry. Schools increasingly rewarded procedural efficiency over intuitive understanding.

Numerology can therefore be understood as a kind of “return of the repressed” within modern intellectual culture. As mathematics became increasingly formalized and results-oriented, older intuitive relationships to number survived mainly among artists, mystics, psychologists, musicians, and symbolic thinkers. Their attraction reflects a desire to reconnect number with meaning, perception, and lived experience. 

Freud and Jung would likely interpret this as the return of symbolic thinking from the unconscious. Brouwer’s intuitionism helps explain why this return is so persistent. Mathematics itself originates in lived intuition before becoming formalized. The attempt to completely sever number from intuition therefore creates tension within mathematics itself. 

Spinoza offers the broadest interpretation. If mind and nature are two expressions of one reality, then the sharp modern division between objective quantity and subjective meaning becomes less stable. Mathematics is not merely external measurement; it also participates in the structure of consciousness itself. Numbers possess qualitative, as well as quantitative meaning, because human beings encounter mathematical structure internally, as well as externally.  We experience rhythm, relation, symmetry, repetition, and order within our consciousness. A triangle feels different from a square.

Numerology allows the mind to explore alternative relationships between quantity, meaning, psyche, geometry, and experience. Sometimes those narratives collapse into fantasy, but it’s not numerology’s role to mechanically predict truth like science. Sometimes numerological explorations do generate genuine philosophical or scientific insight, opening the door to new paradigms.

ChatGPT essay on Intuition and Creativity

 

Creativity as Resistance to Fast Thinking

Over the past 500 years, Western society has not simply become more “rational.” It has become structurally biased toward fast thinking—toward speed, abstraction, and control. What Daniel Kahneman describes as “fast thinking,” and what Iain McGilchrist describes as left-hemisphere dominance, are not just psychological tendencies. They are now built into institutions: markets, universities, and schools.

McGilchrist’s central claim is not that the left hemisphere is bad, but that it fixates, categorizes, and simplifies, while the right hemisphere keeps perception open to context, nuance, and anomaly. The problem arises when the left hemisphere becomes “the master,” reducing reality to what can be measured, predicted, and controlled. Rod Tweedy sharpens this critique: modern culture increasingly treats abstraction as more real than experience itself. The map replaces the territory—and then forgets it ever did.

You can see the historical trajectory. The Scientific Revolution refined measurement. The Enlightenment elevated formal reasoning. Industrial capitalism demanded speed and scalability. Finance compressed time further, rewarding rapid turnover and immediate results. Education followed suit: standardized testing, rigid curricula, and algorithmic instruction all favor quick answers over deep perception.

This is where Angus Fletcher’s work becomes corrective. His training of soldiers, scientists, and salespeople reveals something inconvenient: real intelligence under pressure is not fast thinking—it is adaptive thinking. It requires what he calls “primal intelligence”: intuition (recognizing exceptions), imagination (generating possibilities), commonsense (fitting action to context), and emotion (feedback).

Notice what’s happening here. Fletcher is quietly restoring what McGilchrist says has been lost:

• Intuition → right-hemisphere openness to anomaly

• Imagination → narrative simulation rather than static models

• Emotion → embodied evaluation, not abstract calculation

In other words, creativity is not adding something new. It is recovering a suppressed mode of cognition.

Schools, however, remain structured for the opposite. They train:

• recognition of patterns, not exceptions

• execution of procedures, not adaptation

• correct answers, not exploratory perception

This creates a mismatch. Teachers are asked to operate in complex, human environments, but are trained in simplified, symbolic systems.

Implication for Teaching

Creativity for teachers is about rebalancing cognition.

Teachers must be trained to:

• slow down perception long enough to notice what doesn’t fit

• hold ambiguity instead of rushing to closure

• generate multiple interpretations before acting

• use emotion as feedback, not interference

This aligns directly with Fletcher’s methods: scenario-based training, narrative thinking, and real-time adaptation.

The Suppression of Intuition

Western society did not eliminate intuition outright. It squeezed it out structurally:

• Speed became economic value

• Measurement became truth

• Abstraction became reality

What survives—sports, entrepreneurship, sales—is precisely where outcomes cannot be fully pre-scripted. There, intuition persists because it is functionally necessary.

Education is the anomaly. It tries to teach a world that no longer exists: one where problems are clean, answers are fixed, and thinking can be reduced to procedure.

---

Creativity in teaching is not innovation for its own sake—it is the disciplined recovery of slow perception in a system addicted to fast judgment.