I think from the parts of Being and Time which I was reading today he is implying that being gives rise to time, and time gives rise to space. We see the three aspects as one

It's helpful to quote the text to support your interpretations. Honestly I don't see anything in Being and Time that implies any of this.

Words, words, words.

"What you claim is "perception," isn't."
"No one is proposing a theory, certainly not a "subjective" theory."

Heidegger: B&T:
" The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present."

I am talking to my father about going to visit my mother's grave. There is an obvious irreversible time sequence. Anyone can perceive a similar one without the need for theories. Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued. One has the right to ask "Why?" But it would be absurd to ask for reasons that my mother's death is prior to the conversation that precedes the visit to her grave. This is how we perceive time directly. Without theories. So do you.

Note: I mean with theory a system of ideas intended to explain something.

Heidegger's work is a complex and confusing theory about being, time and the human being. He claims to be based on a pre-discursive knowledge, but even that is not evident, as I have just shown. The perception of time does not agree with essential points of Heidegger's theoretical analysis.

Heidegger's analysis is very death oriented. Maybe when your time is near it will make more sense. Not to be morbid..

Heidegger's analysis is very death oriented. — Gregory

Is not very death oriented. Is oriented - to the extent that it is so oriented - to the possibility of death, and what it means to be a person, dasein, that is going to die. Thus not about death itself at all, but about life. Maybe that's what you meant.

Ye. I was just referring to those parts where he says to contemplate your death and have it before your eyes so that you can live. Maybe there is something about death that changes how time s experienced.

I am talking to my father about going to visit my mother's grave. There is an obvious irreversible time sequence. — David Mo

Yes, in talk and thought. No one is arguing otherwise.

Anyone can perceive a similar one without the need for theories. — David Mo

In describing something, there is thinking and concepts involved. To argue this is "theory" is misleading. It is simply a common way of understanding and talking about the world -- as a sequence. But there is no "future" when you're at your mother's grave. When you're there, it'll be the present just as it is when you're talking about going.

Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued. — David Mo

Temporality is primordial, not just the future.

But it would be absurd to ask for reasons that my mother's death is prior to the conversation that precedes the visit to her grave. — David Mo

When does the memory of the death of your mother occur? In the past?

"In describing something, there is thinking and concepts involved. To argue this is "theory" is misleading. It is simply a common way of understanding and talking about the world -- as a sequence".

"When does the memory of the death of your mother occur? In the past?"

If all perception includes theory, the pre-discursive knowledge that is the basis of Heidegger's theory and his critique of metaphysics and science is also theory. Everything is relative or subjective.
You do not distinguish between talking about a person's death and that the person is dead. When did my mother's death occur? In my memory? Is my mother's death "theoretical"?

Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis. I suggest you review your readings.
The main reason is that the authenticity of the human being resides in the anticipatory resolution of being for death. But the mere concept of project already anticipates that priority of the future that gives meaning to the past.
I'm surprised you don't know this.

Maybe JFK was killed in the future and true time is like a kaleidoscope. We line events up, but that could be how our intuition works at a normal speed

In my opinion, Heidegger does not pretend that time forms an undifferentiated unit. The three ecstasies cannot be con-fused. What he affirms is their continuous interaction in lived time (temporality). This is a triviality. What seems more radical is to say that his interpretation of temporality is the authentic and original temporal mode. I have not seen Heidegger present any evidence of this. Nor have I seen it in the books and articles about him that I have consulted. Nor have you presented any evidence on his behalf. So we are talking about a dogma.

Ye, I concede that. He uses the word "ecstacy" to add excitement to the book and because it makes what he says sound more profound. He even used the word rapture as a synonym in my translation

If all perception includes theory, the pre-discursive knowledge that is the basis of Heidegger's theory and his critique of metaphysics and science is also theory. — David Mo

Perception is not theory.

You do not distinguish between talking about a person's death and that the person is dead. When did my mother's death occur? In my memory? Is my mother's death "theoretical"? — David Mo

No.

When you remember your mother's death, you're remembering it right now. It's a kind of cognition. That doesn't mean it's a "theory." Not all thinking or cognizing is "theory." The question pertained to time, not theory or perception.

Heidegger's claim that the future is primordial needs to be argued.
— David Mo

Temporality is primordial, not just the future. — Xtrix

Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis. — David Mo

Temporality is primordial, it's what the ordinary concept of time emerges from. The future is one aspect of temporality, and a particularly important one in Heidegger.

The main reason is that the authenticity of the human being resides in the anticipatory resolution of being for death. But the mere concept of project already anticipates that priority of the future that gives meaning to the past. — David Mo

Yes...

I'm surprised you don't know this. — David Mo

:yawn:

What he affirms is their continuous interaction in lived time (temporality). This is a triviality. What s — David Mo

It's a truism once pointed out. Yet it's been continually overlooked in the history of philosophy, including today.

What seems more radical is to say that his interpretation of temporality is the authentic and original temporal mode. — David Mo

No one is making any claims like this about his interpretation.

I have not seen Heidegger present any evidence of this. — David Mo

What you're trying to ask, and failing to, is this: where is the evidence that temporality is the "original temporal mode," etc. If you want evidence for Heidegger's description, introspect for a while. Introspection is a kind of evidence. Beyond that, there's an entire book that presents evidence for it -- it's called Being and Time. Temporality is care, and care is "being-in-the-world," and "being-in-the-world" is tied very closely to ordinary, average everyday activity, which is analyzed closely (phenomenologically) with very basic examples (hammering, etc) which only overthrows 2,500 years of Western philosophy. If the evidence, interpretation, description, etc., doesn't convince you -- fair enough. Stick to the analytic philosophers or whatever you prefer.

No one is making any claims like this about his interpretation. — Xtrix

Heidegger rejects as inauthentic the Aristotelian concept of time and what he considers its derivation in the vision of time lived by common sense. It is a continuous leitmotif of his work. If you pretend that Heidegger's interpretation of temporality is not an interpretation, you will tell me what it is. The real truth? No. Heidegger's interpretation is opposed to other interpretations, such as those of other phenomenologists like Merleau-Ponty or Sartre. Whether it is the authentic or the true, is what he never demonstrates. (Among other things because he shows an Olympic and explicit contempt for all that is evidence. His must be divine inspiration, that is, of Being).
And how do I grasp or think about time if not through perception or theory? Divine inspiration?
Heidegger himself repeatedly calls his theory an analysis. If I remember correctly, he also calls it an interpretation. Analyzing and interpreting are ways of theorizing. Here and in China.
Of course, you can resort to intuition. I have included it in the concept of "perception" so as not to complicate the debate.

The question pertained to time, not theory or perception. — Xtrix

Perception is not theory. — Xtrix

True, but according to epistemology and psychology mere perception is influenced by theoretical conceptions. If you describe a perception you will include those theoretical elements. And this is true for Aristotle or Heidegger.

Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis. — David Mo

Temporality is primordial, not just the future. — Xtrix — Xtrix

Here it is. Underlined by Heidegger himself.

Primordial and authentic temporality temporalizes itself in terms of the authentic future and in such a way that in having been futurally, it first of all awakens the Present. The primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future. The priority of the future will vary according to the ways in which the temporalizing of inauthentic temporality itself is modified, but it will still come to the fore even in the derivative kind of 'time'. (B&T, #65, 330/378: cursive by Heidegger)

Hey, are you sure that what you have read with so much effort is Being and Time?

And how do I grasp or think about time if not through perception or theory? Divine inspiration?
Heidegger himself repeatedly calls his theory an analysis. If I remember correctly, he also calls it an interpretation. Analyzing and interpreting are ways of theorizing. Here and in China. — David Mo

Perception is not theory. The rest of what you said is true enough, but no one is denying that. You're having trouble reading me I guess, so I'll just repeat:

No one is making any claims like this about his interpretation. — Xtrix

This doesn't mean he's not giving an interpretation -- of course he is. It means the claims you say he's making about his interpretation is not the case. Pretty simple.

The question pertained to time, not theory or perception.
— Xtrix
Perception is not theory.
— Xtrix
True, but according to epistemology and psychology mere perception is influenced by theoretical conceptions. If you describe a perception you will include those theoretical elements. And this is true for Aristotle or Heidegger. — David Mo

Perception is not theory. Perceiving shapes and colors is very different indeed from theory. If we take "theory" or "theoretical" to mean something different than it means in the sciences (or philosophy), then we can claim anything we like -- in that case any sensation or perception is "theoretical." If you're convinced by that you're welcome.

Heidegger says that the future is the primordial existential ecstasis.
— David Mo
Temporality is primordial, not just the future. — Xtrix
— Xtrix — David Mo

Here it is. Underlined by Heidegger himself.

Primordial and authentic temporality temporalizes itself in terms of the authentic future and in such a way that in having been futurally, it first of all awakens the Present. The primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future. The priority of the future will vary according to the ways in which the temporalizing of inauthentic temporality itself is modified, but it will still come to the fore even in the derivative kind of 'time'. (B&T, #65, 330/378: cursive by Heidegger)

Hey, are you sure that what you have read with so much effort is Being and Time? — David Mo

Trouble reading again, I guess, so again I'll just repeat: temporality is primordial, not just the future.

That statement is true, and shown by the very passage you quote, as I clarified even more so (with underlines) in the same post:

Temporality is primordial, it's what the ordinary concept of time emerges from. The future is one aspect of temporality, and a particularly important one in Heidegger. — Xtrix

I don't see how I can be any clearer. If you want to insist on misunderstanding so that you can "win" a debate, feel free. If you want to learn something, listening carefully is your best bet. Your choice.

Perception is not theory. Perceiving shapes and colors is very different indeed from theory. — Xtrix

You turn the discussion upside down so much that one ends up not knowing what one is talking about.

First of all, in contemporary psychology and philosophy you don't perceive colours, as you say. You perceive objects, that is structured sets with a form that is not a mere clustering of sensations (colours, sounds, etc.). The description of these objects is influenced by pre-concepts and categories, that have theoretical components. Theory is not the same that perception, but it does influence it.

Therefore, the pure description of phenomena that Heidegger and other phenomenologists pretend is impossible. We describe phenomena in a culture mediated background.

Heidegger suggest repetitively -if not claims- that Aristotelian-Cartesian concept of time is "theoretical" against his "authentic" concept of "temporality". This is false. His concept is as theoretical as Aristotelian. In the fact he himself recognizes it. He affirms that his interpretation has to "violate" the common sense of time. ("When violences are done in this field of investiga­tion..." B&T: 326/374). It wouldn't be so grave if he were able to give some reason of this "violence" as he pretends. He is not.

One of the things Heidegger must justify theoretically is why the future is the primary mode within temporality, in preference to the past and present. (If you agreed with this, why did you argue? Why on earth did you add the superfluous consideration that temporality is "also" primary? It's just a desire to tangle things!). Heidegger's reason is purely theoretical. It depends on his concept of the priority of the anticipatory resolution of life before death. This is a Heidegger's very subjective theory that, as in others, is influenced by his Christian education. And it is rationally unjustifiable.

My personal opinion is that no one can really interpret Heidegger clearly without at least 6 months or so of reading. — Xtrix

I’ll be back when I’m retired.

Heidegger suggest repetitively -if not claims- that Aristotelian-Cartesian concept of time is "theoretical" against his "authentic" concept of "temporality". This is false. His concept is as theoretical as Aristotelian. In the fact he himself recognizes it. He affirms that his interpretation has to "violate" the common sense of time. ("When violences are done in this field of investiga­tion..." B&T: 326/374). It wouldn't be so grave if he were able to give some reason of this "violence" as he pretends. He is not. — David Mo

We have here in Scandinavia something called “summer program” in the most prominent radio channel, people still listens to the radio here. As podcasts on their Iphones. Have been running since the 50’s. The idea is that, everyday during the summer, some famous person will have 13:00-14:30 free to speak about pretty much what he or she wants to in small chunks, and play music of own choice in between. Hugely popular and I do listen to most. It might be their life’s story or some cause they root for. Whatever.

Anyhow, I’ve been listening to literary hundreds of those programs since the 80’s. Now, me and missus was talking about two different persons having had those programs years ago. I guessed their programs were like 10 years apart, but it turned out they talked almost the days consecutive.

When I read those parts in S und Z I kind of understood it as H was trying to formalize the feeling You get when “thinking of time”. Time as it appears to the dasein. Augenblick and all that. But I am no pro.

Therefore, the pure description of phenomena that Heidegger and other phenomenologists pretend is impossible. We describe phenomena in a culture mediated background. — David Mo

Heidegger has ever -- not once -- claimed the opposite. Neither have I. "Pure description" is your own invention.

Just give up at this point and be happy with whatever you believe. You came into this discussion thinking Heidegger was one thing, saw what you wanted to see, and now will leave the same way.

You're a good example of "theory" effecting perception.

Heidegger suggest repetitively -if not claims- that Aristotelian-Cartesian concept of time is "theoretical" against his "authentic" concept of "temporality". — David Mo

You're consistently rife with confusions this discussion. Correcting your (probably not deliberate) mistakes and mischaracterizations is boring, so I'll be brief:

Heidegger never says his CONCEPT of temporality is "authentic." Never. Apparently he talked about authentic and inauthentic temporality, which in my view doesn't mean much -- but that's not the same thing. Try to get your wording correct.

You make FAR more claims for Heidegger can he does. From now on, either quote something or reference a page, because at this point you're simply making things up.

His concept is as theoretical as Aristotelian. — David Mo

In the sense that you're taking "theory," how could it be otherwise? Of course interpretation and description is involved. Language is involved. Thinking is involved. Otherwise there would be no Being and Time. Is this really what you're arguing? If so, congratulations -- huge insight.

One of the things Heidegger must justify theoretically is why the future is the primary mode within temporality, in preference to the past and present. — David Mo

Correct, he does have to justify that. We shouldn't take it on faith.

He does have an argument for this, consisting of many pages of words in a book called "Being and Time," which you've perused, with the intention of refuting (viz., not read at all).

(If you agreed with this, why did you argue? Why on earth did you add the superfluous consideration that temporality is "also" primary? It's just a desire to tangle things!). — David Mo

No, it's exactly the opposite: it's a desire to UNTANGLE things from your phrasings, which are imprecise. Your imprecision almost always skews Heidegger to an area you want him to be. You do this so often it's beyond count. It's no more "nitpicking" of me to correct these instances than it would be if you forget a decimal point while doing a math problem -- it changes everything else, so there's no need proceeding until it's fixed.

Here's a tip to be less boring: just assume, for a second, that Heidegger isn't a complete idiot. At least assume it about him -- I'd prefer you treated me that way as well, but I don't expect it given that I'm just an internet message board poster. Heidegger at least has some clout. If you don't want to bother with him, don't. If you do, do it seriously. That means putting aside pre-conceptions and what you've already heard about him, and really trying to get the story straight before launching criticisms. If you are having trouble getting the story straight, then turn to others for help and really push them to help you understand, until you truly "get it." THEN launch criticisms. Anything else is a complete waste of time.

Heidegger's reason is purely theoretical. It depends on his concept of the priority of the anticipatory resolution of life before death. This is a Heidegger's very subjective theory that, as in others, is influenced by his Christian education. And it is rationally unjustifiable. — David Mo

Cool -- you've figured out Heidegger and cracked the case. Good for you.

When I read those parts in S und Z I kind of understood it as H was trying to formalize the feeling You get when “thinking of time”. Time as it appears to the dasein. Augenblick and all that. But I am no pro. — Ansiktsburk

I think he gets his interpretation of time (in his formulation, "temporality") from looking at what we do in our "average everdayness," which he talks about as "being-in-the-world"-- as coping with equipment that is ready-to-hand, dealing with (and being influenced by) other human beings, engaging in projects (hammering in order to build a house in order to have shelter, etc), etc., which he will later re-interpret as modes of temporality. It's not that we "think" about it, but that when we do think about it we're "temporalizing" this pre-reflective (primordial) activity. Thus "time" in both the common understanding and in the theories of Aristotle are both derivative (or "privative") from this activity and experience.

When you introspect, follow him in his observations and descriptions, look at the various etymologies and historical contexts of highly influential texts (Aristotle's Physics, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Descartes Principles of Philosophy), and so forth, I think his argument is a compelling and original one. It also overthrows over two thousand years of thinking -- which is especially why many people (particularly those "educated" in Western philosophy) struggle with Heidegger, and why he often gets accused (like many before him) of charlatanism, heresy, etc. etc.

Heidegger has ever -- not once -- claimed the opposite. Neither have I. — Xtrix

Nor have I seen any words from Heidegger about the influence of cultural background on phenomenal perception. You have spent many years reading Heidegger, so you could provide me with a wealth of references. One would be enough for me.

In the meantime, the fact that Heidegger blames the Aristotelian conception of time because it was "theoretical" suggests that he considered his own interpretation free of these theoretical elements. Is that so?

A Heidegger text on this would be interesting...

Heidegger never says his CONCEPT of temporality is "authentic." Never. Apparently he talked about authentic and inauthentic temporality, which in my view doesn't mean much -- but that's not the same thing. — Xtrix

Absurd. Heidegger constantly talks about two opposing concepts of time (and others issues). One is inauthentic. The other is authentic. This is repeated ad nauseam. These words appear almost a hundred times in Being and Time
. You can't dismiss Heidegger's words by saying that "it doesn't mean much" to you. That meant a lot to Heidegger. And everyone understands what choice he had between authentic and inauthentic.
We're talking about Heidegger, aren't we?

In the sense that you're taking "theory," how could it be otherwise? Of course interpretation and description is involved. Language is involved. Thinking is involved. — Xtrix

If you agree with me, what are you discussing with me?

He does have an argument for this, consisting of many pages of words in a book called "Being and Time," — Xtrix

No kidding! I thought we were discussing the sex of angels! Thanks for warning us. Now, be nice, and explain to us one of those reasons the book is full of. One is enough for me. Because I have a malevolent suspicion that you can't do it. But I already say it's malevolent. You can easily disprove it. Sure.

Is it possible motion does not go to time, but Time comes from the future to motion. Modern physics has many theories. Philosophy was the start

In the meantime, the fact that Heidegger blames the Aristotelian conception of time because it was "theoretical" suggests that he considered his own interpretation free of these theoretical elements. Is that so? — David Mo

Now, be nice, and explain to us one of those reasons the book is full of. One is enough for me. — David Mo

He's not blaming Aristotle. It's not that Aristotle has it "wrong" and he has it "right." He's not saying that. What he says several times is that by the time Aristotle conducts his analysis of time in the Physics, the Greek conception of being as phusis, though still lingering as a conception, becomes tied up with being as "Idea," and thus time itself gets treated as one more present-at-hand "object." Again page 220 of Introduction to Metaphysics is important. Heidegger, on the other hand, is claiming that his description is phenomenological, and discards many of these traditional pre-conceptions. If his thesis stands or falls, it does so on how well he describes the phenomena and, in my view, he does so brilliantly.

Is it possible motion does not go to time, but Time comes from the future to motion. Modern physics has many theories. Philosophy was the start — Gregory

I'm afraid I really don't follow you. Formulating a sensible question has to happen before any answer can be given -- I can't even imagine an answer in this case.

Heidegger blamed Aristotle, which is why he discards him. Heidegger is more than focusing on power tools

Aristotle said that motion causes time. Heidegger rejects this and places a more esoteric view in its place. Is it possible future Time causes present motion?

Aristotle said that motion causes time. — Gregory

No, he doesn't. They're related, but there's no causal relation.

Is it possible future Time causes present motion? — Gregory

Again, I really have no idea what this means.

I really have no idea what this means. — Xtrix

What do you think Heidegger means when he says we do things by virtue of the future?

He's not blaming Aristotle. It's not that Aristotle has it "wrong" and he has it "right." He's not saying that. — Xtrix

Some quotes from Being and Time.

Being must enable us to show that the central problematic of all ontology is rooted in the phenomenon of time, if rightly seen and rightly explained, and we must show how this is the case. (B&T:18/40; Cursive by Heidegger)

As you can see, there is a " right" explanation of time. What is the wrong one?

This task as a whole requires that the conception of time thus obtained shall be ditinguished from the way in which it is ordinarily understood. This ordinary way of understanding it has become explicit in an interpretation precipitated in the traditional concept of time, which has persisted from Aristotle to Bergson and even later. (18/39)

Here it is clear, that which starts from Aristotle. What does it consist of? Here it is:

What is characteristic of the 'time' which is accessible to the ordinary understanding, consists, among other things, precisely in the fact that it is a pure sequence of "nows", without beginning and without end, in which the ecstatical character of primordial temporality has been levelled off. (329/377)

And what is Heidegger's alternative?

Our analysis of primordial temporality up to this point may be summarized in the following theses. Time is primordial as the temporalizing of temporality, and as such it makes possible the Constitution of the structure of care. Temporality is essentially ecstatical. Temporality temporalizes itself primordially out of the future. Primordial time is finite. (331/380)

There are many confusing and contradictory things in Heidegger. But that he accuses Aristotle of being the founding father of a concept of time that is incapable of expressing authentic-primoridal temporality, is an item so repeated that only a myopic eye can fail to see it.