Patterns of Relational Paradigm

MEASURE/COUNT

• Measure-A comparison of two things. A calibrated known is compared to an unknown.
• Count-An enumeration of the number of two things. Objective. Digital. Discontinuous.
• Western Science
  • Measures space ... How big?
  • Counts space ... How many?
  • Counts time ... How long was it? (How many cycles?)
  • Does not measure time
• Emergent Measurement of Time
  • Measure time ... Compare standard with unknown. (How long did it seem?)

         The relational paradigm does not throw out the concept of measurement, but it does add an emergent factor in an attempt to make the process of measurement more complete.

         Measure and count are different processes. When referring to both, we use the word measure. It confuses the issue, but until a new word is developed there isn't much alternative except using measure/count when we mean the set of both processes.

         Measurement is a comparison of two things. A calibrated known is compared to an unknown to arrive at a quantity which can be used to describe some quality of the unknown. I use a yard stick to determine that the height of my son is 42 inches. The yard stick is the calibrated known, my son the unknown, and height the quality which I want to determine. Measurement always involves the relationship between two things.

         Counting is an enumeration of the number of things. It is separate from the thing being counted. I have 1 son.

         Counting is digital, measurement is analog. Counting is discontinuous and results in an exact number; measurement is continuous and results in an approximate quantity. I have exactly 1 son, and his height is approximately 42 inches.

         Western science measures and counts space or spacial things, i.e., forms. "How big is it?" and "How many are there?" is a measurement and count of form. I have 1 son and he is 42 inches tall.

          Western science counts time. We count cycles or rotations. One rotation of the earth around the sun is a year; one rotation of the earth on its axis is a day; one cycle of the pendulum is a second; one vibration of the crystal is a nanosecond.

         Western science does not measure time.

         We do have subjective measures of time, such as, the sick child had a long night. Our objective count of the length of the night did not vary, but our subjective measurement of how long it seems did.

         Western science needs an objective measurement of time.

         I believe that an objective measure of time would unite the science of the East and West. In the East, scientists or their equivalent used subjective rather than objective measurements. They trained themselves to physically measure various types of phenomena. Ch'i or kundalini is a basic part of their medical science. The measurement of this phenomenon is done with a trained human rather than a calibrated machine. The Eastern science of Geomancy is a study of the earth or the relation of the individual human body to the body of the planet. An integral part of Geomancy is the measurement of "power points" and "leylines" of the earth. Western science has not been able to objectively measure these phenomena, so we say that they do not exist. Perhaps they do exist and it is our objective measurements which don't exist.

          I believe that the measurement of these phenomena requires a measurement of time rather than a measurement of space. If we want to objectively measure them, we must develop an objective measure of time.

         To my knowledge, no one currently has an objective measurement of time. However, there are examples of objective time measurement in historical cultures. The Mayan culture clearly objectively measured time. They used two calendars, one a solar calendar and one a calendar composed of 20 cycles of 13 days. These two calendars are frequently shown in relation to each other as two circles, one moving clockwise and the other counterclockwise -- the comparison of a calibrated known with an unknown.