Time is experienced linearly, and the "and" and the "or" appear to be operative in equal measure in our everyday experience of time from past to present to future. That the "or" is at work seems beyond question. For if that were not the case, and the present did not separate itself from the past, the present would be the past, and , time would either be frozen in the past, or it would jump from the past to the future with no present in between. If I were frozen in the past, I would not be here now, typing this sentence. Thus, direct experience is evidence that the "or" is operative in separating the present from the past. Similarly, the "or" is at work in separating the future from the present. If it were not, the future would be the present, and there would be no future. We would be frozen in the present. And clearly, again, I would not be typing this sentence and you would not be reading it. Of course, the "and" also expresses itself through the present, which connects the past to the future. A number of similar arguments, moving backward in time, can also prove the existence of the "or". If the present did not separate itself from the future, it would be the future, and since the future does not exist, and the past no longer exists, nothing would exist, not even Cartesian consciousness. Experience tells us this is not the case. And if the past did not, though the or, separate itself from the present, then there would be no past, and we would have sprung up out of nowhere and nothing, like magic.
But I say the "and" is operative in equal measure. For if the "or" predominated, there would be no connections between different events and between different periods in time. I would be five years old one second, and 20 years old the next. And biology tells us it is impossible to make the leap from childhood to adulthood without experiencing puberty in between.
Thus, as is the case in so many other fields, the "and" and the "or" operate in equal balance when acting on everyday time.
No comments:
Post a Comment