DISCUSSION
 With
The Order opTime there was in fall of 1998 a
discussion between Mr. R. Dinger., physicist at
the Asulab S.A., the research & development
laboratories of The Swatch Group in Switzerland and
René P.B.A. Meijer, a privately practicing
psychologist in the Netherlands, answering for The
Order of Time (at the time called The Order). The
discussion is about an e-postage-call from The Order
to all major clock-manufacturers. The exchange went as
follows.
The call from The Order of
Time:
September
24,1998
Dear
sirs,
To
your information, I would like to present
to you
a
clock-design that might be of your
interest
<...conf...> Having studied the
different psychologies and systems of
timemanagement I have arrived at the
conclusion that for the future our
present
time-system will not
suffice.
For several reasons I have explained at my
site (The Order:
http://www.introweb.nl/~theorder) it is
quite evident that the system needs tuning
up or expanding to our present day
diversity and capacity of timerespect
integrating analog, digital and
computertechnologies in order to respect
the complete of natural and cultural time.
It
concerns a design for
a
simplified
astrarium
showing the position of the earth, the
stars and the sun only next to two digital
displays and a schedule-ring for
optimizing a personal timerespect
unprecedented in horology. The
astrarium-scale is a 24-hour scale divided
in 48 so called cakra (=celestial sky, c.q
star-)) minutes an 48 likewise seconds.
The unique
property
of the meter (also labeled startime
tempometer) is to present the
date
and the time with the same
scale
next to the
digital
display of standardtime or other local
timespecifics. The
analog
presentation is based on the
representation of true sidereal time in a
comprehensive design figuring as a common
denominator for the diversity of local
timerespect in the world (including hindu
and arabic timingstrategies). At my site
you can study the reasoning around this
clock and take a look at the design
(http://theorderoftime.com/science/designs.htm).
The basic idea is that
human
consciousness
(worldorder,
worldpeace and worldprogress)
is
best served with the differentiation
of
natural next to cultural time offering
each individual worldcitizen
a
(true) freedom of choice in personal
timemanagement.
Concerning
patents I may inform you that
no
patent
can be obtained. The information has been
published on the Internet since January
this year. This e-mail will also be sent
to other companies. Hoping to have been at
your service,
For
The Order: T.H.E.
Servant
|
The correspondence:
Dear Madam or Sir
Thank
you for your mail of September 24,1998. We
have transmitted
your suggestion to our research and
development
laboratory. -
- With
kind regards,
Beatrice
Howald
- Swatch
Group PR and Press Office
Tel.
++41 32 343 68 33, Fax ++41 43 343 69
22
|
|
Dear Madam or Sir
We
have received your mail from Ms
Béatrice Howald, Swatch Group Press
Office, and we would like to
know
your full name and address in order to
answer
you.
Thanking
you in advance
Yours
sincerely,
Marie-Estelle
Bonny
Assistant
to Dr. R. Dinger
Asulab
SA Director
Swatch
Group Research & Development
Laboratory
|
reply okt 1 '98
The
name
of the contributors of The Order is
confidential
information.
Unless you clearly state for what (legal)
purpose such information is needed, you
will have to answer to the demands of The
Order if you desire to cooperate. You may
register yourself at the friends-page of
The Order which is the most important
condition for service to The Order. There
you will find a list of names and personal
info (as far as one was willing to
disclose) from which you may contact the
people for whatever advice in regard of
your wishes. I hope you understand that
The Order has no interest in any
ego-directed formal actions. Each may do
as he likes as long as one is
registered.
Yours,
T.H.E. Servant , webmaster The
Order.
|
Dear
Madam or Sir
You
have suggested
a
cooperation
with Swatch Group and also a novel idea
for a clock or watch.
The
idea you indicate in your E-mail of
September 24 might overlap with our own
developments. In order to further discuss
your proposal, we need to be able to
address you personally.
We
are very sorry not to be able to discuss
anonymously.
We
have to leave it up to you, whether you
can reveal your identity allowing us to
enter into discussion.
Sincerely,
R.
Dinger
Asulab
SA
Research
& Development
laboratory
Date:
maa, okt 1998 08:34
|
Registered
friend
of The Order,
Mr. René P. B. A. Meijer is called in for
representation.
Dear Sirs,
For
The Order, a platform with which I
sympathize, I am willing to defend and
explain on its time-management proposal. I
have been registered at The Order and have
written myself a book on the psychology of
modern time (in Dutch).. I did some
research on the subject and am able to
speak about some of the technical and
informational aspects of the
managementproblem. Most of the practical
ideas of The order concerning
timemanagement have originated from my
work. So you may consider me the
responsible person. I am no expert in
horology though, just an enthused amateur.
Therefore I am willing to be
the
spokesman of The
Order
at your request and agreement
concerning
this
subject.
If you have any objections against my
representation, please notify The Order so
that maybe another expert can be
consulted.
My
name is René .P.B.A. Meijer,
Clinical Psychologist.
<....conf....>You can send your
e-mail to . If necessary we can have a
live chat in the chatbox of The Order
after setting a proper time for
it.
Yours.
sincerely, René
Meijer
|
Snailmail from Mr. Dinger....
Dear Mr Meijer
We
are referring to your E-mail of October 14
and we are glad to address you
personally.
We
would appreciate
receiving
a description of your technical
proposal.
According
to your E-mail to our main office (dated
September 24), there are no patents
protecting your idea. For this reason, we
are not very clearly seeing your business
proposal and we would appreciate receiving
your suggestion with respect in
the
business
question
as well.
Thank
you for your
cooperation,
Sincerely,
R.Dinger
|
Enschede, okt. 28 ' 98
Dear
Sir, Mr Dinger,
In
response to your snail-mail message okt 12
1989 asking me for
further
technical details
about
the proposition, I can say that all I know
I have offered at the pages of The Order
under tables, and designs
(../../images/theorder/designs and
../../images/theorder/tables.html). There
is also an original drawing of the clock
at ../../images/theorder/tempometer.html.
I am a
behavioral
scientist
and not
a
technician.
I know the logics of the technical set up:
a scale turning to the left with the pace
of 1 starday each sunday thus making one
whole spin to the left in one year, and a
set of hands describing a 48-division of
minutes against a 24 division of hours. It
is a 24 hourclock figuring as a simplified
astrarium describing the rotation of the
earth (the small hand) relative to the
stars (de left-spinning 24 hour scale) and
the sun (the ring indicating noon,
midnight, sunrise and sunset). De dynamics
of the precession are respected by means
of a special rotation-function called
birthday, this sets the whole scale, hands
and suntime-indications to a fixed point
describing the relative positions to the
day of the beginning of the sidereal
zodiac. To have this concept practically
ready for civil use, there are the digital
displays which can be separately
programmed to the taste of the local
culture wherever in the world thus
achieving a common - worldconcept -
denominator
of
timemanagement
that offers an opportunity for individual
people and governments to settle their own
individual idea of time without losing a
common concept of time.
I
can give a short explanation to you of
the
psychological
importance
of this twofold astrarium/local standard
concept of time. It is meant for
strengthening the consciousness by giving
a clear framework of reference to whatever
timeculture at hand. This awareness of
difference
1)
gives a clear idea
of
the dynamics of real time and
2)
gives a clear
image
of the deviation that cultural time makes
from natural time and
3)
offers the opportunity for
an
optimally differentiated concept of time
of
essential importance
to
the concept of
consciousness.
The ramifications of this basic idea and
further elucidations on the advantages of
this concept are worked out in the book
The
Other
Rules,
also available at The Order:
../../images/theorder/t.o.r.ch.1.html. At
this page you can download a zip-file with
all the explanations of the book (in
psychological terms though), the tables
and the design. I also wrote a book in
Dutch about the historical, philosophical
and personal/psychological antecedents of
the problem of timerespect. You will have
to depend on my answers if you have
questions concerning this department of
knowledge.
The
psychological (also scientific)
objection
against the design is
its
complication:
the normal time can be perceived but not
be directly interpreted from the hands
(unless one gets used to thinking in terms
of startime) but by accepting a programmed
interpretation from the digital display.
The purpose
of the clock is ultimately
not
to have such a
complication,
but to
return step by
step
democratically, because a majority of the
people would respect it, to a more natural
concept of time like true suntime and a
more rational calendar (the one built into
the astrarium-respect of the tempometer).
The idea is that until recently we were
technically not capable of fully
respecting true time indications, but
since we are capable now we (mankind) have
the moral obligation of working towards an
implementation of that capacity. At the
level of civil understanding one could
compare it with having a thermometer next
to your heating-thermostat and a barometer
next to a hand giving the old position.
Likewise it is just as wishful to have a
tempometer next to (20th century-) civil
time-indication (to begin with). This is
what i mean talking
about
consciousness:
people have to know how (as well natural
as cultural) reality works and thus better
be able to take
responsibility.
The
traditional
objection
that this proposal would represent the
Newtonian concept of time which is
overhauled by the electromagnetic concept
of time does not hold. Simply having a
stable unit of time (the electromagnetic
concept) does not say anything about what
we are measuring. Psychologically it is
objectionable to offer a timeconcept which
doesn't tell what exactly is meant with
the indication of e.g.12 o'clock; 12
relative to what? Relative to Napoleon,
Hitler, Benjamin Franklin or whatever
politics? The argument of electromagnetic
time opposing Newtonian time is not
reasonable nor scientific and thus has no
real future.
Another
psychological
argument against the blunt simplistic
proposition of
real-timemanagement
(residing in the museum at the moment),
which might turn out to be the (practical)
end-result, in stead of such a complicated
meter as proposed is the fact that
repressing one time-option with another
one, like traditionally one erroneously
did, is disastrous. This manipulation of
people this way is
not
only
religiously
intolerable,
The bible is against it (Daniel 7:25), but
also
psychologically disastrous
and
reprehensible as only an expansion of
possibilities and freedom of choice can
bring sanity to the world-community.
(scientifically value-free as a lead).
Thus a reasonable government might decide
to have the tempometer as
the
formal and final answer
whatever
the actual taste of management with it (as
known such a taste differs, think of the
Chinese who had a different calendar for
each different government and all the 20th
century manipulations of time
worldwide.).
I
give you all these arguments to be
sure
of the
motives
producing from this design and not be
tempted to alter or simplify it. It might
make a difference of war and peace in the
world and success or failure of our common
endeavor.
I
understand you might not
care
much
about my psychological analysis of the
problem and the reasoning in that style
defending the design. For this purpose i
propose to send me an e-mail (much more
effective, faster, than snail-mail) at
whenever you have qualms about the logics
of the design. Especially from the
department of programming the clock - one
could even imagine a program for
respecting true staryears having the
seasons wandering through the year thus
making a real startime-clock - it can be
very complicated respecting so many forms
of time, rotations of the scale and
settings of an individual
timescheme.
As
to the
business-side
of
my proposal I must say that I
am
no
business-man
at all. The best is to see me as
a
consultant
for solving general problems of
timemanagement. As an employee of your
company so to say. I tried at first to
obtain a
patent.
I consulted an advisory board, but they
didn't understand the logics or motivation
of the design. They even doubted the
scientific value of the proposal. Isn't it
impossible to respect as well the stars as
the sun with the same timepiece? Well I
was developing the concept under their
eyes, and as such I was at first not sure
of it myself nor knew to mention it was an
astrarium, which they must have felt. They
denounced my proposal, telling me it was
no real innovation (which is right,
astraria are not new in horology) and that
I could only apply for a designs-patent.
Well if you change it a little anyone can
do so. Thus
I
gave up on
patents,
the more because I found investing my
money and energies in communicating about
it to the world-community by means of
the
Internet of greater
relevance
than keeping it as a patented secret (if a
patent would be possible). Furthermore
they told me once published, as I did on
Internet
no
patents are possible
anymore.
Therefore my businessproposal to you is to
sign up for a contract for developing and
researching on this design and share the
profit this design gives you on the basis
of a normal fifty-fifty contract or
something like that (I'm not a
business-man as I said and not familiar
with nor willing to fight about these kind
of claims. I have to trust you being
integer in this.). I would say to you: you
can investigate whether any patents are
still possible and file for them yourself
(I am not willing to put money or effort
in that) under the condition of the
contract mentioned. The fair part of the
eventual profit from this endeavor I would
like to
invest
in the interest of The
Order
as a successful concept of
information-management of importance to
the implementation and success of the
design (I won't waste the money). Thus if
the legal department of your company could
set up a fair contract for further
cooperation, and send it to me to sign up,
I am at all times willing to even travel
to Switzerland and attend to
meetings
and guide the manufacturing process from
my point of view.
Hoping
to have answered your questions
satisfactory,
René,
P.B.A. Meijer M.D.
|
Another snailmail from Mr Dinger ....
Marin November 3 1998
Dear
Mr Meijer
Thanks
for your E-mail dated October
28
I
am responding by normal ("snail")mail;
this at least will avoid you
fighting
with the
computer
and still not be able to get your drawings
and to allow you to concentrate on the
content of the message rather than on the
transmission technique.
Concerning
your argument: "to return to a more
natural concept of time, because
a
majority of people would respect
it..."
I could not follow you there. it seems to
me, that the French Revolution succeeded
very well in introducing logical and
universal standards (the metric system)
except when it came to time. People did
simply not accept any change in their
time-keeping habits. As a physicist, I
have to leave it up to you to find the
reasons for this.
Referring
to your statement: "...you might not care
much about my
psychological
analysis
of the problem...", we would like to
insist, that it is exactly this, we care
about. Time and watches are extremely
personal and emotional and much of our
success is based on a (slightly better)
understanding of this (than our
competitors in Asia), I would be
personally interested to learn your
reasons, why your proposal will be
accepted by people while all others so far
failed (except the digital
display).
To
the business
comments
in your letter we think that your patent
attorneys are perfectly right: your
publication on internet voids all patent
possibilities. This also means that
investing in your idea is very risky (in
case case people don't accept it, all
effort is lost) and not rewarding (in case
it is a success, anybody can copy us). If
we pursue high risk projects, we normally
expect high rewards. Your project however
only offers us the
risks.
Am
I wrong in this?
looking
forward to your
comment,
Sincerely,
R.Dinger
|
Enschede, nov 6 '98
Dear
mr R Dinger,
To
answer you correctly I will begin with
your last statement. You suggest I only
offer you risks (although I also give you
-material- certainties of knowledge and
not only risks of economy). It is
undoubtedly true that
I
do offer
risks.
If you seek
certainty
you have to turn to God and not to me
(unless you recognize me, and
yourself
too,
as a , be it intellectual,
representative). So, it may be the case
that we can only continue our discussion
if we resolve our Cartesian doubts by
recognizing that mister Descartes, the
father of doubt, was himself a good
Christian (>...conf...>). Maybe us
in respect with our fundamentals of the
scientific method and matters (see The
Charter
of
Order
../../images/theorder/article.html) have
to submit to the agreement of being
believers in the justice and righteousness
of the moral majority and reason from
that. Therefore I dare speak of a
majority. As a psychologist I can tell you
it is up to you to see the glass half
empty (you are a pessimist) or the glass
half full (you are an optimist). As a
Christian I would say: whatever the cup
looks like, you have to drink it. For this
reason we should be careful doubting our
own mission and following the anxieties of
the financial speculator (is that Swiss
honor?). Of course there is
no
clearcut scientific certainty about what
the people
think.
I am a conscientious scientist and did my
duty in this. As I told you, I have
written a book about this and did
my
research.
From this research I also obtained some
modest preliminary experimental proof. I
investigated, what you mainly ask, what
the people would think about a, as our
case is, a second clock telling
natural time next to a digital display
giving the time of cultural preference.
This is your question (correct me if I'm
wrong). The outcome of my pilot-study
investigating about a minimum of 20
subjects about this was , as could be
expected - I'm still a psychologist-, that
there appears to be
a
normal
distribution
of what the people think about it. This
means there is no definite yes or no of
the people as yet (: some very positive,
some outspoken negative with 40%
indifference of 'why should we' and 40%
positive of 'that's a good idea'), while
it is
up
to us
to
answer the
ontological
question
of how to be with God (or Time, the
manifestation of God we are dealing with).
My proposition is to defend our scientific
honor, trust the moral majority and take
the risk of being copied if we do have
success (that would be a real disaster?)
or having invested a mountain of gold if
we would not have immediate success (it
might take a thousand years to
collectively wake up to a conscience of
timerespect and profit from that
materially too).
Next
I will answer your qualms
about
the personal and emotional matter of
timerespect.
You ask me why we would succeed where
others failed. For this we have to
understand history. It is not you or me
who is doing it, but it is the spirit of
time itself that tells us the time is
ripe: we are now capable of implementation
and understanding in a way we were not
before. Common people only slowly realize
this, thus
progress
is
slow.
But scientists like you and me should
recognize the duty of heartening progress
conscientiously from our actual capacity
and knowledge. Since you sympathize with
my science, about which I am very glad to
hear, I can tell you that we did reform
our analytical points of view concerning
human denial, repression and projection.
This is popularly known as new-age, but
poses a serious scientific, philosophical
and sociological concern about the nature
of consciousness and knowledgemanagement.
At the moment the
running
article
of The Order (now not runnibg anymore:
../../images/theorder/
articles/int.th.of.consc.html )will give
you a fine example of the present state of
affairs of sophistication of thinking
about this subject matter. The conclusion
of this article called
'An
Integral Theory of
Consciousness'
is that we can only manage from a concept
of consciousness which is multidimensional
with the special notion that also the
scientist himself has to transform,
practice, participate and emancipate to
keep up with the evolution of his own
knowledge. You can also look at
the
thinktank
The
Order (and me) is participating in.
(http://www.brint.com/km/#stories).
Further references you can find in the
Linking-Library
of The Order (
../../images/theorder/library.html). (and
aty the
webforum).
For our proposal this would mean that we
are on the right track with our
'complication': It represents the honor
and reality of the evolution of human
consciousness, being totally in respect
with the personal and emotional attachment
of a particular timepreference (even
offering further expansion and control in
this). This seems to be the main argument
from the perspective of an integrated
scientific approach (a
unified
theory of
knowledgemanagement
as the thinktank says).
Working
backwards through your letter next I must
agree that the French Revolution indeed
failed in
reforming
timemanagement
(they tried the Jacobite calendar of
10-day weeks but Napoleon canceled it and
took them to international war in stead of
personal reform). It is not the intent to
change the habits of timekeeping, with
denial and repression followed by the
classical shadow of passion (and war)to
it, in the first place, but to expand on
the present habits of timekeeping by
offering the choice the cakra-tempometer
is making. Better choice makes a better
society (or a chance for it), so the
philosophy of democracy goes. So if you
are concerned with time-reform, I can tell
you that this is no small matter of a
quick political decision. It is an
emancipationprocess with which it might
take us years, decennia or centuries to
come to an actual democratically agreed
upon reform of the timestandards (clock
and calendar together). From the
psychological perspective it is quite
simple to understand that, considering the
trouble a psychotherapist has in changing
the smallest habit of a human being in
order to alleviate some of his
psychological suffering, you might expect
it very difficult to make but the
slightest change (improvement?)
in
the time- conditionings of mankind
as
a whole and expect us to have grown over
the immaturities of our planetary
psychology of timeabuse. As the popular
saying goes: if you want to change the
world
begin
with
yourself.
Thus you might understand all this better
if you yourself take the table and
calender proposed by our clockdesign and
actually try to
practice
some respect for the
paradigm
we are arguing about. Today, me writing
this is the 15th day of the 21th fortnight
with standard time deviating from true
time with 12 minutes at this locality,
thus making my day of study. This is what
it is all about: the actual practice of an
improved awareness of time beginning with
you and me, who are supposed to be the
leaders(?) in this respect also from the
identification with our national duties
(remember
C.
Huygens,
he who made the pendulum work, was a
Dutchman).
At
last about the
troubles
of the
transmission-techniques.
I might have caught you there in a
psychology of your own. Undoubtedly the
computer is a small immature baby full of
bugs and troubles. Maybe the first
versions of our cakra-tempometer will also
be like that (isn't it a small portable
time-computer?). Maybe you are afraid of
progress itself taking the safe side of
conventional clockmaking. But any
politician can tell you that to shun
progress is the root cause of all warfare
(in dutch parliament it is gold letters
laid in marble telling it in Latin).
<....conf....>Why abide by worn out
concepts of information processing and
transmission? Do it for the good cause and
win! The
advantages
outweigh the
troubles,
especially when it seems to be your own
future to use computer-technologies in
timemanagement!
<....conf....>.
As
a special
tribute
to the glory of our
commitment,
I have decided to publish our
conversations so that all internetsurfers
may be equally informed. Isn't it good not
to discuss for the sake of only our own
ego's? You can find your and my comments
(hopefully soon) at a new page of The
Order
(../../images/theorder/discussion.html).
Even if you back off now resigning and
shunning my public commitment, I will keep
this page open to preserve the value of
this exchange (unless you have a serious
personal claim on your letters). May this
be one reason
more
to communicate with the
computer
yourself
<...conf...>.
Aspiring
for a further stimulating exchange of
views and hopes,
Yours,
René P.B.A. Meijer
|
At this point
this Internet page was set up.
From
here, at the request of Mr Dinger, the discussion
proceede out of view of the internet-witnessing.
Further questions and comments by third parties are
welcome, on the condition of respecting the
confidentiality in this discussion.
|
