Let’s add this “fourth take” to my Three Takes on Time, starting with a William Faulkner quote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past” (Requiem for a Nun, 1951).
Pushing off of the linear model, our conventional way of looking at time – with the past as a thread disappearing into some distant space that no longer exists – is actually counterintuitive. Doesn’t it make more sense to see the past as something very much still with us, but at a depth, providing the real-time substructure of the present, just as the rings of a tree do not disappear as years go by but rather continue to provide the real-time substructure of the tree? Indeed, the rings are the tree! In the same way, the cultural “past” is not gone, but is right here, at a depth, providing in real time all the folds and substructure without which the cultural present would collapse as a paper-thin surface with nothing underneath. Doesn’t this make more sense?
It does, Gary. Should I reblog? Should I not? Yes, I should!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, feel free to reblog, Manja. I was hoping this entry would not make your brain bleed 🙂
LikeLike
So I haven’t actually read a single book this year (despicable, no?) because of all the visuals taking precedence, but today, for some inexplicable reason, I finally picked up your Year of the Butterfly. The First Ring.
You’re right. Now my brain bleeds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad to be on your reading list. Sorry about your brain.
LikeLike
It does indeed. Yet, there’s no past because there’s no tomorrow either and today is nothing but an illusion. Ask the trees, they know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ellar. I feel like I just evaporated as I read your post 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
As Joni Mitchell sang: “He’s got me thinking about the future and worrying about the past.” So yes we carry that past with us at all times. Your fourth take re-enforces the notion that time is to some extent just a construct. But while my past memories (or more accurately the stories I tell myself about the past which make up that “memory”—whether objectively accurate or not) may make up ‘who I am’ in some sense, I cannot literally live in the past. So I don’t see your fourth take as a model of time. It may be a model of how we carry time with us. That may be a distinction without merit but I’ll have to think about it more, as time goes by. MTT
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t live in the past just as the tree can’t change its rings once they’re layered in. Your everyday consciousness evolved as a function of the surface (where the tree interfaces to the world – the outer bark that is in the process of forming the next ring). But all the other rings are still here — at a depth. Whether viewing the past as something still here but at a depth is a model of time in its own right – I guess we’ll have to think through the implications to determine whether it merits that status. So keep thinking (and I will too).
LikeLike
Enlightening words beautifully presented.
Kathy
LikeLike
Thanks, Kathy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ever read Rudolf Steiner, if I may ask?
Greetings from Germany,
Salva 🙂
LikeLike
Heard of him, with curiosity. Never read him though 😦 Nice to get greeting from Germany, one of my favorite places. I was in the southwestern part last year. Maybe you can find me a job there 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I asked, because your annotation regarding the cultural pasts is similar to what Steiner said.
Looks, like you enjoyed your visit very much. 🙂
LikeLike
Hi SalvaVenia. I may well have picked up some Rudolph Steiner through cultural osmosis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could very well be. 🙂
Wishing you a an enjoyable weekend.
LikeLike
Danke schön!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bitteschön!! 😀
LikeLike
The human mind is capable of boundless modeling to take it where it wants to go (and often away from its individual expiration date). It seems so infinitely capable as to compare with the universe itself. Acorn and tree???
“Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both.”
– Fritjof Capra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post! Apt analogy 🙂 If I may, I think you’ll find the following short video interesting and in agreement with your ideology. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonderful video, Swetha. So Einstein and I think alike. Hahaha. But he has better hair.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! Looks like you guys do 😀 I can’t say much for the hair though 😀 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Zeno’s paradox revisited | shakemyheadhollow