Six empirical temporal maxims, in the humean tradition
a)It is of course an error to claim that time is never simply perceived It is merely weirdly. Hume says that There is a flow or an impulse, an explosive qualities to vivacity. The vivacious runs from the vivid moment to the pumped out idea: But each vivid moment warps the picture anew, and allows other pumps out also to be their. Time is therefore double headed. The exploding moment which is a provocation to hook into others, an the coagulating complex ideas that are the eventual clinker of such moments, and their vivacities.
To Perceive ones a part in time, is to perceive the flow of ones thoughts – it that strange vivid land beyond a me, and yet utterly un-thought save in some me. The perception, and the lowing order that perception has to a mind is therefore the t of all elements: Something thereby there as an unspoken element other than content, which ensues that very thing, every idea, every images I have is fundamentally borrowed from something beyond he. Temporality is hen the factor which boots my own reality (the one I bring to the world) a-wide, an makes it sing into other songs:
I an the reality I allow, the reality I owe become caught together
b)The second element of time is the felt time of passions. Passions need time, in the sense that they need to conjure up links and loops other than vivacity. They world therefore in making sure that each conjuring o an idea, each configuration, is being pulled out of, and expressing a real source of intensity, which is always present, and yet, in need of expressions. An image in conjoined in the knowledge that what conjoins will force others to loop in, and join as well. I insert my own existence in this looping up. I make the perception other than they were, as if a me were able to have them. The direction created, the fact that he process leads to – that one conjures, configures and conjugates ones perceptions, becomes therefore the sense that own might own them.
However in this looping there is a real problem: passions are never mine, unless I can use ten to conjure a me within. There is therefore no real reason, for a passion to stabilize its own intensity, even as it conjures conjoins ideas within me. In wrapping these ideas up, it is at once and already many other passions, which might be also pulling from the same feelings, and making then (eventually) dance otherwise. Passions therefore unwrap themselves, and yet in doing so, also allow other unwrappings. Moreover the triggering of these wrappings is highly complex. Initially they are simply already there, already a part in passion which is intense. They only pull apart then as their own direction, their own spin into perception becomes a reality of it own, and therefore unable to be contained within the spinning direction of the other passions. One comes up against as it were a limit of the body or something akin to it. The point that a passion a feeling cannot respond or be contained within the existing feeling the bounds of finitude where the containing feeling is unable to create a set of conjoining feelings allowing it to loop back into the feelings it contains. Each passion is therefore spun into other feeling, which naturally pull out from it, and force it elsewhere.
The difference here is moreover as likely as not a different in the exact tense generated. One passion will create for itself a time (which can be past present or future so long as it is other than simple straight forward vivacious). In doing so it will contain other possible creations, which might pull time otherwise, it unpulled. Indeed each such passion becomes a locus point for times, a point then radiate out from, as the feelings within it, express themselves and the perceptions they created in pulling out such times, such elements. Each tense therefore opens to others (pasts, and futures) as the finite bounds of passion find their own empirical answering point in the thought I create in a new of the world.
c)This pulling and repulling is however bound up in reciprocating relations. Each tense might as it relates to a passion pull unto it own tensing, its own reality. It drives itself forward or backwards or sideways, as it unpulls, and contains others in the process which would express (or scilliate it different: However in all these exchanges there are cross chords, elements which communicate. These elements will of course in the mechanics of the vivid and the intense A vivid feeling always produce echoes across its fellows (and demands they respond to it), while intense feelings always absorb or ignore difference between themselves (or define paradigms to ignore, composite containing synthetic feelings). But beyond these engrossed axis, there is the issue of the rather more actual exchanges that can be set up between different times.: feelings in the one, feeling s of direction or conjurations, become for the other problems it responds to, ideas it would like to take up or echo or reflect. These ideas link it not to any one individual (therefore in something saying a passion, beyond the feeling of a self is my own alone). I am therefore caught in a nexus which allows others also to be the ones feeling (whatever it is they feel): I respond to others, and their feelings consistently and evocatively. I enter into feeling exchanges, and are bound and creative in these exchanges. Each tense therefore poses itself as a problem for others: Ca they contain it? Or exchange within / Or even join it?
Moreover this problem then becomes even more problematic as each tense becomes caught up is subsequent vivacities (that their feelings). What was real then really might become other latter, as the flows of vivacities and their ideas provoke other pock marks in the feelings. New realities will therefore erupt into feelings an their exchanges changing enemies into friends and visa versa. The exchange pattern is not best by truth: or better its reality is to problematize anything any passion induce reality, and drive it to somewhere and something else: it is to make it wrongheaded and misdirected in the mind.
What amount to errors or problems spawn across memory or what can be thought if as memory (one needs caution here, as platitudes about everything being in the past and the enemy of vivacity). That is memory is never simply other remembered or myself frozen: as it contains ideas which were once vivid (and are spun into intense passions as if vivid again) it is productive and changing. One is not frozen therefore into unties, but rather explodes ones mind into exchanging complex inter-relating elementals of thought.
d)Time can be seen as being empirical if one take as at face value the clams off memory, and they worry about the fact that exchanges demand that memory is always rather different to itself and through itself. If one thinks in this manner(and there is nothing to stop you doing so),then the elements and rules for thinking becomes problematic. One looses sight of ones own memory, and dissolves into the cosmic differences that memory would be if its claims to truth were honoured (in spite of it failure o provide these claims). The axis of difference is therefore the axis in which the memory becomes the agencies, the ’unity; across which all other difference are.
In a single blow one enters Deleuze-land. This land is rich and complex. In it own respect, that is it one take memory as one ‘truth’ it is right. The point is merely that one does not need to talk thus (and Deleuze does not exclusively do so). There are other threads, closer to the self and further from the truth, than his land alone allows.
e)Time of droplets and reflections. Each time is always a budding point, a terminal moment and the unwinding of a project vivacity and passion see to this). If this factor is however taken on face value, the time becomes the reflecting axis. The same element is in all these three tenses o a time: it is what echoes into then – the temporal mystery which starts as it ends as it endures.
Such a perspective had the ‘advantage’ hat is allows one to relatively simply think about the nature of times grasped in the past and pitched as one example for all time. These were past echoes, articulated across this maze of differing, and othering elements.
Such a move then has two rather distinctive terminal points. On the one hand time is always thought of as within a time. To talk of the past or the future is not the things themselves but rather the articulation of an idea applied to a tense. Time is understood as one is within it (and through a tense). It is the explication of an already within from within. On he other and this element can be confused with or better conjoined to the splitting movement; That is the moment was which time ceases to be a mine, and becomes (as I inhabit memory) – the single axis of split – the single pointer in which I owe the world in having once been of it, and falling away from it. Time becomes then the split of the moment the fact this split is constant is then taken as evidence that the former elements, with its myriad voices in contained within the latter.
It is this last move that causes a humean empiricist to stammer and worry. It is a move too far. I t is true vivacity does inhabit impossible moments: I is also true that in me time comes in chords or stanza blasting out elements which are pitched into all the rest. But the link between these two, between the passion and the vivid out not to be assume or made too easy. It is likely enough that the link is actually rather difficult and highly problematic and complex. One should no then call it a single name – time and hope for the best.
The problem here is not that one cannot do so, merely that the answers produced are vapid and problematic: souls an Universe muscle in (and within terms a rather simplistic Go) where differences ought o be. The world becomes rather too easy.
f) The final take on time is the idea ht time is the locus of all our worry, and pain. It is therefore the pointer that one grasp was if at an angle : one needs the Kantian astigmatism to feel it: that is one needs to grasp the skewed world – the world sideways. It is the experience therefore that never dares mention its name- the experience one is caught in having but never feeling – the deep mystery. Its empiricism, is never to be empiric as such. It becomes then the sole point of exchange in which the erupts into the world even as it ignored deeper differences between perceptions and imagination.