what does mean by amorphous years
The expression was used by Arundhati Roy and refers to a period of time when there was a lot of new things emerged and developed and nothing was definite.
By the way your question should read “What does ‘amorphous years’ mean?” Last but not least, welcome to our forum
thank you so much @torsten . just started reading god of small things by arundhati roy . this is my second english book . i hope i will get lot of helps from this forum.
Sounds great, will you also tell us what the first book was you read in English ?
haha ! that was not right book to pick as first ever english book reading . it was two states chetan baghat .
i choose that just because of its easy sentence structure and flavours of my own sub continents
If you are interested in how other learners got started you might want to read What was the first English book you read?
amorphous = shapeless
[amorphous is just a literary word -of Greek origin- used to make writing more lyrical]
‘In those early amorphous years when memory had only just begun, when life was full of Beginnings and no Ends…’
Those years where amorphous because they hadn’t been ‘shaped’ by memory; it was still too early.
Can time even exist if not filled with memories…?
Does time exist at all? And if so where does it exist and why?
Time is the memories; or not?
I think memory requires agency while time does not so time can’t equal memories.
‘memory requires agency’ ?
In order to have memories you need the capability to think as well as to store information.
So you have to be a living being -human or other- as opposed to being a rock… to think.
If you have a, functioning at least, brain you will have memories and so you would be able to make sense of time; the passing of time; the changes it makes to things.
Descartes said ‘I think, so I exist’. If you’re of the same mind set (existentialism I think it’s called) then you have to think, to remember, for time to exist; cause if you don’t exist how can time exist?
I hope my last reply wasn’t misconstrued as me trying to be cheeky or something…
‘If you have a, functioning at least, brain…’ was in no way meant as an insult directed at you. I was speaking generally…
No worries, it didn’t even occur to me that any part of your post could be interpreted as an insult. I’ve been communicating on forums long enough to understand that you are here to contribute in a constructive way .
As for your statement
there is a lot to ponder here. As you say, in order for us to understand that time has passed we need memories and we need to able to abstract, reflect and project. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to tell that there are there is the past, the present and the future. At the same you could argue that there is no such thing as ‘the present’ because time never stands still…
Shouldn’t your first reply read as follows: The expression was used by Arundhati Roy and refers to a period of time when a lot of new things emerged and developed and nothing was definite.
Absolutely Marc. Thank you very much for pointing this out
You’re welcome, Torsten.
Thanks for your great pep talk! Glad that was sorted out really (I’ ve had some bad experiences like that in the past…).
As for ‘time’ … alot to ponder on there indeed; and no hope to come to anything either.
I mean, if this discussion has remained fruitless for thousands of years, especially on scientific terms, which seems to interest you ('Zeno’s paradox… -> to Einstein, Schroedinger’s cat…) I don’t see us having any luck there (the Nobel prize is out of the question I’m afraid).
Still, for the sake of argument:
Previously I, somehow, wrote that ‘time=memories’; I think that equals -> ‘there’s no present’; doesn’t it? -> there’s only the past and we are just recalling it -> ‘past’ ‘present’ ‘future’ is just an illusion -> … ‘straightjacket’
The search will go on, I guess, for that’s how we’re programmed. But at the end maybe it’s all subjective (Existentialism ).
Nice talk though!! Good excercise!