Re: time

Edwina,

very shortly, just to avoid one (among many other...)
misunderstanding: I follow Heidegger's insight as
a phenomenologist (in contrast to Husserl's indeed
internal (=consciousness) view of time, who in some
way also follows Kant...) particularly with regard to
time, as an *external* perspective i.e. as
the *structure* as which we ex-tend our lifes.
I am, with regard to human time experience, indeed
an externalist, which does not mean, time being
something (or some-thing) out there. WE are out there...

It is we who say this and that about *time in the stone*.
This is not subjectivism, as it may sound, it is just
the intention to make some differences that *appear*
in this way. The way you describe the relation between
the (structure of the) stone and time as pro-ducing
this structure (or *morphe* as Aristotle would say) is
indeed, nothing I would deny as a (possible) way of
interpreting the being-in/as-time of (the structure) of
a stone (or of its becoming). But in some way,
our own way(s) of becoming
the *structure* we *are* (well I need a lot of """ for
speaking like this), i.e. of *living time* makes for us
a possibility of structuring the dimension of time itself.

In some way, we can say, following again late Heidegger
who takes his distances from existential phenomenology
in "Being and Time", there is a process of pro-ducing
the *coming forth* of what appears (including ourselves...)
and this *phenomenon* includes our own lives too...
Time *gives itself* (like way say; *it* rains) there is no
big subject behind time, as under, for instance, a
theological perspective. Of course, our *usual* view
of time is the Aristotelian one: mensura motus secundum
prius et posterius (which we project into the
producing itself of things as a self-informing process. But
at least at this moment (Aristotle was a biologist...) we (he)
start(s) using teleology...

Sorry for becoming more and more obscure...

Rafael
Received on Fri Jan 17 20:23:51 2003