Measurable, logical, pragmatic, physical time— does it exist? A quick and simple answer to this question might be "yes," but this answer is a result of historical and social conditioning. We are trained to think there is little reason for questioning the degree to which our concept of time is well-founded. So, we say "Time" is a clock, a calendar, minutes, seconds, years— it is past, present and future.

The intention of this essay is to expand these narrow notions that normally limit our thinking about "Time," without necessarily opposing these same notions. I'm only attempting to expand, even if only minimally, the spectrum of ideas we might entertain regarding time.

We might begin by considering how it is that we relate to other individuals, other beings. I have noticed that there are two dominant forms for doing so: dialogue and feelings. Additionally, dialogue possesses a characteristic that is particular to it, and it is that in the majority of cases dialogue has as its axis events that already have occurred. In this way, it might be said that we relate to one another through our past experiences. Thus, these past events construct our social reality, and at the same time, our social reality is fed by our individual experiences.

We tend to think that when we talk about events that are occurring at the very moment in which we discuss them, we are talking about the present; this, unfortunately, is not the case. Once we transform a moment that already has happened into words, even if we consider that this moment is happening now, it is not really that event itself any longer; it is only a story about something that already has happened.

Any person reading this essay at this moment in time, including myself, might consider their reading of my words as a form of dialogue. The response to the words as we read them might be termed thinking. But what is remarkable about these events is that all the situations involved– writing, reading, thought, dialogue – already have happened.

It would be convenient to keep in mind that on certain occasions we also talk with one another about situations that, supposedly, don't exist or will exist in the future.

Discussing the things that already have happened and those that will exist, then, are the forms of dialogue that we are continually participating in. It could be that there are others, but the point of this exercise is not to exhaust those possibilities.

Our relations with other beings establish our time; in a parallel manner, our relationship with ourselves also establishes our time.

We are, we exist, in our present, only that. Before that we ceased to exist, and what we are going to be we haven't been yet. But in what manner do we exist in our present? First, by being, but that can be corroborated only with oneself; secondly, by relating with other beings. The same occurs with other beings. They are, or exist, in their present relating to themselves now and also by relating with others.

Consider this: the simultaneity of an infinite quantity of beings that exist now; or are (1). They exist now on their own account. They are themselves being in this instant, and I include myself in their number. When we dialogue with others about what we are, that is to say, on events that already have happened, we build webs of existence. Webs of what we are. Those webs are built when we relate to one another, by relationships. Through those relationships, as we discuss the past, we are bringing the past toward our present. It would seem I am commenting on something that will be or was, but in reality I am only describing an infinity of situations that are simultaneous. I am only able to describe the past: abstract or loaded with events, dialogue, feelings, experiences, or in other words—relationships.

We also discuss what one will be, or will do … the future. In these situations we are talking about a future that we experience nearly tangibly as present, but which still is not. We aspire that it be. Or at least, that at some point it will become reality, if not— what sense does it have to discuss what is not? This aspiration is a dream without sleep. That sort of dream is the kind that lends meaning to life.

The present is ephemeral, it only lasts one instant. But this perception is deceitful, or at least it can be tricked with. The present, it is only now, while I write these words they are not the ones that I wrote, they have passed already, they can only be read. But we could keep the following bit of advice in mind: the present is ephemeral, only while we decide that it be so. That is to say, a non-arbitrary present might come into existence. I can transform this precise present into past simply by deciding it that it be so. I toss it backwards over my shoulder, it no longer exists now. An arbitrary existence might also come into being, a present that continues to exist as long as it lasts. Through decision, I later make it inexistent. Beginning at that point, I return to live my present. The exercising of this trick relates "Time" – in its forms of present and past – with decision.

Decision might also be linked with feeling, but that situation calls for an enormous complexity. For now, I can only say that there is a state unique to being in which decision and feeling follow the same path. This does not occur at all moments, on some occasions it does, sometimes it does not. The majority of times one must take charge of decision with feeling at a distance. But it does exist, that mechanism unique to being by which tranquility is granted through the use of confidence. On the other hand, I would like to avoid falling into hypocrisy or the demagoguery of discussing "how one should feel or how one should decide." For now, remarking on this situation in the way I have serves at least to introduce the issue.

I mentioned that the future is the dreams we have in life, it is where we want to go, it is what lends meaning, in the majority of cases, to the present. The future is not there to serve as a pretext for discarding the present when it is not agreeable. We say, instead: that was the past, "I'm going toward my future," "I do it living every instant, short or prolonged, of the present."

With regards to the past I can offer this item that seems almost a stock phrase: "we are in the now because of that which was constructed in the past."

With these remarks on the forms that are considered proper to "Time," I'm attempting to extract them from the framework they've been given historically, to break the tradition that envelops them. Each form of time has its unique value in the moment that corresponds to it. And, in any case, all three of them are found in the dominion of the present.

Returning to the question of the simultaneity of beings being now— that is the present, which is individual as much as it is collective. I am that being now, before I was not; now, now; not before; now, now, now; before, not before … How do I do it? Living, being, feeling. How am I that being now in the world? How am I now in a world that depends on interaction? Relating. How do I relate? The majority of times through the past, through what no longer exists, what once was. In other words, I bring something from the past (a past that might have occurred only one instant ago) toward the present and I say: I did that, I felt that, I lived that (1). The other, as a social being, interacts, and does the same. In this manner we obtain a past brought to the present. The past constitutes my social reality and it is converted into present only for the period of one present, in the now. Then, once again it converts itself into past, and later, it is brought toward the conversion of another present, a new now.

It is in this sort of web of relationships made up of pasts brought to the present in which the infinity inherent to each being and all beings extends itself. That is to say, in the infinite nows of each being and the infinity of relations between beings. Here is the origin of the infinity inherent to being. Our being is infinite because our nows are infinite. This fact is fundamental and could be utilized in the day-to-day of our lives, and radically reshape our way of conceiving life. If my being is infinite, couldn't I adopt a more relaxed attitude toward the question of what to do? And this new attitude, couldn't it be more contemplative regarding how we do things? What costs do we pay for our nearly permanent doing? What costs do we force others to pay permanently with our doing?

Time could be our being now, and if we wanted to go further, it could be our relations. It could be bringing the past toward the present, or wanting to transform the future into being now. This form of time as relations, might be assimilated to the notion of time as fiction (2).

Time, is us interacting, relating, living in an infinite simultaneity of beings being now, living now, bringing pasts, living presents, and constructing or desiring, futures. It is in this sense that "Time" brushes up against or puts itself at the service of time.

It is not just a clock. Nor is it not a clock. It is not only day, it is not only night, it is not only the earth turning around the sun. It is us, first being, second, being simultaneously. We construct the present even with those beings we do not know. When we board a bus, shop at a supermarket, interacting— we are constructing presents, infinite, simultaneous.

"Time," then, isn't singular. Because, if we are simultaneous relations of times now, we could say that time is the infinite times that are now in our being and in other beings.

If we could for a moment exit our bodies and observe the activities that we carry out in society on a daily basis, it would be easy to visualize other beings and their equality of condition with respect to ourselves. We would understand that all of them find themselves living their own time, same as us. This visualization from outside our corporeal existence is made impossible or impeded by our constant experience of ourselves … We live the majority of our moments based in the I. When I walk down the street I don't see myself, I see people that walk past me, and I seem them as other beings that are not I. "All of them are not I, they don't construct time, they don't live their own lives as I do, they are only there." Each of these other beings thinks along similar lines. When we think this way, it becomes difficult for us to understand that each being constructs, constitutes and lives their own time. This construction of a single being's time, which as a process is only simple in appearance, occurs constantly, and we are not even aware of it. It occurs infinitely, it is immeasurable, and likewise, it is impossible that it be nothing.

The missing footnotes correspond to notions taken from Martin Heidegger and Jorge Luis Borges

Lea la versión original en español aqui aqui.

Share on Facebook    Share on Twitter    Share on LinkedIn Digg it

More...

   Share on del.icio.us    Share on Reddit    Share on MySpace