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: 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 ( 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.



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,



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/ 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: " 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,





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/ )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. ( 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.