No, not the Kant, which doesn’t mean much to me.

I think it was something about the phrase “occur in a certain mode of our being,” which is terribly vague, but I found myself thinking about how mathematics could be seen as something we add to our own world, and that can mean not that mathematical objects have our mode of being, but that they can be part of it. It’s a funny thing, the way we make sense of the world in part by furnishing it with the things we use to make sense of it, all of which have a sort of human feel about them, although it can be hard to notice with mathematics. Those things we make can form a sort of fabric that holds the rest together.

Maybe it just clicked for me while you were standing there!

think one time you consider cycles and another time you say there is no cycles. — Nothing

That is only the time of my thinking. This now I think cycles, that next now I don’t. Doesn’t mean the cycles are dependent on what I think.

If it is only now, tomorow never comes, past doesnt exist — Nothing

Logically correct, insoar as when what is now tomorrow arrives, it is no longer then tomorrow, ad ininitum . Past time doesn’t exist if time itself doesn’t exist, also logically correct.

time exist because cycle exist — Nothing

Cycles merely represent determinable repetitive change. But change presupposes a necessary condition for it, and for us, as humans, that condition is time. So technically, cycles exist because of time, not the other way around.

time exist because cycle exist — Nothing

cycles exist because of time — Mww

Suppose we did not live in an environment of natural cycles, no sun rising and setting, no moon waxing and waning, no predictable seasons. That’s presumably how we first measured duration. Would we have even formed such a concept as ‘duration’ without an obvious and always available way to measure it? Without natural cycles, life might be somewhat more dreamlike, chaotic, and it could mean time would also be experienced quite differently.

Jus’ speculatin’.

Time doesnt exist because you have to know time is consequence of pyhsical nature, so you notice time because cycle occur, people know it hapened one day because sun make one cycle, and if you go as deep as you can, you know smth happened because you saw cycle, change happens out of this, and we say this happening: time. — Nothing

Then it seems what you're saying is that time is a measurement of change (e.g., the sun rising and setting). In which case we're equating time with what clocks measure (the sun being one kind of clock).

wont you agree, because time we can think, not around ? .... western people think to much of a thought - it gives all luxuries we have, but how to get deeper ? Even body, mind dont need to think all the time, i agree cycle are not dependent what we think, even doesnt need to be noticed

I am taking liberties in the sense that I don't claim what I am saying is what Heidegger would say. I don't say the past or future are illusions, but that they exist, as past and future, only now. This does relate to Husserl's notions of retention and protention. Do you think Heidegger would say that dasein, the 'being-there', is now? — Janus

I think this is a matter of presentism and eternalism, with you seemingly arguing in favor of the latter.

I think Heidegger would say we don't often think about time in this respect -- we're too busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc).

That’s why I’m on this forum, to invite tweaking. But that usually works better with substantive replies and questions than with one-liners. — Joshs

You can do a heavyweight, substantive reply with one line, or offer tons of fluff.

I just meant that time and timelessness are concepts that are bound together, so it's fruitless to try to make a master-slave relationship out of it. Let them synthesize.

If phenomenology is the thing that points this out, then Plato was a phenomenologist, and it doesn't get much more classical than that.

lets say there is nothing physicall, not even you and me, nothing around to see, how we would know how much time went ? 2 millions years goes how experienced would look ? only because pyhsical time exist, its reality makes time "real",... Only what is real we can expirience, we have to expirience change, to notice time.
If time exist on his own and that would make a cycle, change,... i have a problem if cycle doesnt happened in any way how would "universe" count time ? cylce makes time, i would argue

I think this is a matter of presentism and eternalism, with you seemingly argue in favor the the latter.

I think Heidegger would say we don't often thinking about time in this respect -- we're too busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc). — Xtrix

It surprises me that you say I am arguing for eternalism when I am saying that only the now is. But then I can also see the sense in this because there is no privileged now.

But I wasn't proposing any metaphysic, I was trying to speak phenomenologically, which is to try to articulate lived experience. When we are "busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc)" is it not always now that we are doing that?

Air exist in earth, i blu ballon, you blu ballon, we let them fly, we easly say this i mine baloon this is yours, but then mww comes and pups ballon, where did air go ? how we will decide which is mine and which is yours air. I noticed, dont think to much of yourself-i ment me also,
Universe need changes, counting to make it happend for us. Universe need cycle that anything as pyshicall happens in any way, i would say. And then we came,....

When we are "busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc)" is it not always now that we are doing that? — Janus

What is our life: it’s looking forward or it’s looking back. And that’s our life. That’s it. Where is the moment? — Glengarry, Glen Ross

What is our life: it’s looking forward or it’s looking back. And that’s our life. That’s it. Where is the moment? — Glengarry, Glen Ross

I would say it's right there in that looking forward or looking back or looking out or looking down or looking up. The moment is not fixed or dimensionless, but nor does it move or have a particular dimension; it simply is; not something to be found or determined.

wont you agree, because time we can think, not around ? — Nothing

Hmmm. I’m guessing you’re asking if I agree we think about time and can’t get around it. If that’s what you’re asking, then, yes, we think about time as a conception, which is represented in us as change. I don’t agree we think time, but only the co-existent or successive relation of something to its parts.

western people think to much of a thought - it gives all luxuries we have, but how to get deeper ? — Nothing

I’m one of the western people, and I hold that we can’t get any deeper than thought.

dont think to much of yourself-i ment me also, — Nothing

Yup. But don’t think too little, either.

Imagine until cycle doesnt happen in you,.. how would you notice anything ? From that i argue for every individuals times has to be the same. You travel with speed of light - almost, for you cycle would be the same, as for me with lets say 30km/s in earth. But you would move slowly relative to me in your space ship, because cycle would happend more slowly in your movement, but as expirience would be the same for you and me - funny things, it looks like time tik tak for all the same in expirience,

You can do a heavyweight, substantive reply with one line, or offer tons of fluff. — frank

And Frank decides to go with the third option: a one line reply of fluff.

But I wasn't proposing any metaphysic, I was trying to speak phenomenologically, which is to try to articulate lived experience. When we are "busy "being" (coping, interacting with, engaging with, "on the way to," etc)" is it not always now that we are doing that? — Janus

I know what you're saying, and I wouldn't say "no," I would say it doesn't come up very often. When it does, I can't see a way around what you're claiming. I think there's plenty of truth in it. There is this activity, there is this being, but it's hard to pin down a "now." That's why I was thinking you were arguing for eternalism: that a past and future are real, but occur in the present.

What is our life: it’s looking forward or it’s looking back. And that’s our life. That’s it. Where is the moment? — Srap Tasmaner

“ Man is history, or better, history is man. Man is enraptured in this transition and therefore essentially 'absent'. Absent in a fundamental sense-never simply at hand, but absent in his essence, in his essentially being away, removed into essential having been and future-essentially absencing and never at hand, yet existent in his essential absence.”( Heidegger)

I know what you're saying, and I wouldn't say "no," I would say it doesn't come up very often. When it does, I can't see a way around what you're claiming. I think there's plenty of truth in it. There is this activity, there is this being, but it's hard to pin down a "now." — Xtrix

That's it; we cannot pin down a now. I tend to think it's important to be aware of what we are doing in the kind of Buddhist sense of "mindfulness". That's not a presence which can be pinned down, or elaborated into a theory; not a 'thin' present-at-hand kind of presence, but it seems to be the foundation of any examined life,and I can't see phenomenology as important except in this regard.

Maybe it's off-topic and more in line with Heidegger's idea of authenticity. Do you see that idea as being related to his treatment of being?

I don't say the past or future are illusions, but that they exist, as past and future, only now. This does relate to Husserl's notions of retention and protention. Do you think Heidegger would say that dasein, the 'being-there', is now? — Janus

isn't it true that we experience the past and future only now? — Janus

Heidegger would agree with you and Husserl that the past and future are not unreal , but rather the having been and future dimensions belong to the now equally with the present dimension.

Without natural cycles, life might be somewhat more dreamlike, chaotic, and it could mean time would also be experienced quite differently. — Srap Tasmaner

I think....speculate....that without us, there are no natural cycles; there are only natural events, occasions. With us, or because of us, natural events are susceptible to being ordered according to rules, which reside a priori in such a rational agency as ours.

But then, what’s to say natural events weren’t already naturally ordered and we just perceived them as such. There are argument both ways, same as it ever was.

Heidegger would agree with you and Husserl that the past and future are not unreal , but rather the having been and future dimensions belong to the now equally with the present dimension. — Joshs

I relate to the way you've articulated that; that the now is not exclusively identified with the present dimension, and not even identified any more with the present than it is with the past and future dimensions.

You may understand Special Relativity correctly, but just can’t get it into English quite right.

Look for the contradiction in your comment, as it was written.

And Frank decides to go with the third option: — Xtrix

Yeah, but I think I probably have more assets than you do, so per capitalist rules I'm a better class of person.

That's it; we cannot pin down a now. I tend to think it's important to be aware of what we are doing in the kind of Buddhist sense of "mindfulness". That's not a presence which can be pinned down, or elaborated into a theory; not a 'thin' present-at-hand kind of presence, but it seems to be the foundation of any examined life,and I can't see phenomenology as important except in this regard. — Janus

I'm prone to want to merge a lot of what I've learned in meditation with Heidegger's ideas, yes. I, like you, see the meditative practices of the east to be phenomenology. Their concepts about "time" don't mirror Western conceptions -- the focus tends to be more on "impermanence," change, flow, and desire. Heidegger doesn't talk that much about desire, however. He does bring in the term "care," which I'd like to say is similar to "willing," but I don't find much textual support for this move.

Maybe it's off-topic and more in line with Heidegger's idea of authenticity. Do you see that idea as being related to his treatment of being? — Janus

Yes, in the sense that there is no "ground" of being, and that the acceptance of the anxiety that arises from this groundlessness is liberating. You don't "flee" it and conform to the rules and norms of society in an unthinking way, you face up to it (to death, to contingency, to the un-grounded nature of the world) and take ownership of your life. I think this is what is meant by authenticity.

Again, this isn't very clear from his writings. But I haven't read enough division II to be able to cite much supporting textual evidence.

Case in point.

It's true though. In a capitalist world, you don't have to wait for the government to give you equality. You can take it by getting rich

But then, were you always equal and the money just forced people to treat you that way?

Or does the money actually change you?

IOW: what more is there to equality than the way people behave?

What more is there to being than the way people behave?

What more is there to being than the way people behave? — frank

Is that a question? You could not ask it if it did not presume the contrary as something to be denied. Are you asking if being human is a hypothesis?

No. The concept of being was treated in ancient times as something primordial. That continued into medieval times when Existence is what God is.

What if we deflate the concept so that it's just an aspect of human action. It's a word we do things with.

What do we lose if we look at it that way?

You would lose the uncertainty of how it was approached at the beginning, The fragility of the ground to be asking about such things against the terrible silence of what obviously existed.

You would lose the uncertainty of how it was approached at the beginning, — Valentinus

Do you mean we'd lose touch with the history of the idea?