Eric, Bill,
I don't see why an assumption of some absolute, objective temporal framework
is necessary to have a historical perspective. Different activities produce
different temporalities in the sequencing of their changes relative to each
other. The abstract representation of all changes related to all other
changes would still not provide an absolute temporal framework since an
additional one, ultimately static, would be required: aka ETERNITY even if
its a bounded eternity where time has a beginning and an end.
Husserl's approach to the study of temporality started with the
consideration of clearly temporal unities that we hold in the present. In
this sense he distinguished between "retention" and "recollection".
Retention is the immediate apprehension of an elastic present which Husserl
explored in terms of a musical melody or, for the experienced lover of
music, an entire symphony, but which can also be seen in baseball player/s
on hitting streaks who describe the ball hurtling at them from 66 feet away
at 95 mph as seeming to hang suspended, or in Yeat's characterization of
Caesar's pre-battle meditations in terms of a water skate moving across
the surface of water. . Recollection, on the other hand, requires a
synthetic act or recall -- something manifestly absent in retention. I
think the point is to break out of a serial representation of time.
This abstract container of time that Eric seems intent upon defending is a
product of recollection. But isn't our immediate experience of temporality,
as Nate has eloquently illustrated with the lyrics he posted, is one more
akin to rhythm. Recollections, on the other hand, seem to happen "outside
of time" unless they themselves become objects of recollections. How
something comes to be an object of recollection is the problem to be
understood since clearly not everthing that we experience in the elastic
present is remembered.
From this perspective history is a produced dimension (Braudel's short,
medium, and long durations being examples) or business cycles, Kondratieff
cycles. What are the structures of mature and human activity that lead to
certain temporal patterns that get built up and understood as a historical
epoch--ie, when did the Renaissance, the modern era, or 60s begin and end?
What get's written up in history books certainly reflects a very structured
pattern of recollection and in this sense I totally agree with the
post-structuralist critique of History. What people remember seems to be,
on the other hand, a function of the present as much as what is on the back
horizon of the present.
Relativistic experiments with clocks moving at high speeds only demonstrate
something about matter that is manifestly the case with consciousness
itself: the temporal dimension of change is not absolute; fifteen minutes in
the waiting room goes by much more slowly than 15 minutes of the job
interview, etc. All of this seems perfectly reasonable from a materialist
perspective.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy@lesley.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: time=development=activity
> Hi Eric. Thanks for the thoughts. You're absolutely right.
>
> bb
>
>
>
> >If one denounces a historical perspective then there is no baseline to
> >understand change. Think of yourself as a teenager and how rules maybe
> >weren't so important or process seemed a waste of time or (insert your
> >teenage thought here) and that when you became an adult you were going to
do
> >something to correct this perceived wrong. As one matures and
transitions to
> >an adult this rebelious nature changes (distorts) itself into something
that
> >is different then when we hold it as a teenager. We may still want to
> >instill change onto our environment but the change we want to have happen
as
> >an adult is almost always different then the change we would prefer as a
> >teenager. Denouncing a historical perspective provides no evidence of
the
> >transition from teenager to adult. Hegel speaks often of transitory
movement
> >in his essay on 'Natural Law' . This transitory phenomenon is only
possible
> >if one can understnad the history of the change and the future of a
chosen
> >activity. ONe dev elops fully from processing past events and predicting
> >future events. It is not possible to act in this insightful/plannful
manner
> >unless there is a separate entity that provides for this operation.
> >
> >Only time will tell,
> >Eric
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:32 PDT