Question: ”Time, the devourer of all things.” – Ovid. [1] This ancient aphorism depicts the power and ruthlessness of time. However, when we talk about time in our daily lives, this awe and fear seem to disappear. Time—a concept full of relativity—is so pervasive that we unconsciously accept it and let it permeate our thinking and behavior. Faced with this normalization of acceptance, we can’t help but ask: Why do we talk about time?
Undeniably, discussing time is daunting. Not because the concept of time itself is difficult, but because the topic has delved into the core of philosophy and goes beyond the scope of time itself. This discussion spans linguistics, cognitive science, psychology, phenomenology and many other fields, involving cognition, perception, memory and other themes. Therefore, I decided to sharpen the focus to explore a more specific and microscopic issue—our perception of time.
Is our perception really just about time? Or more specifically, is the ‘time’ we perceive really as simple as the concept of ‘time’? To answer these questions, we need to more precisely define the time we are talking about, and pay attention to the views of structuralism and poststructuralism on the creation of ideas.
Firstly, we must recognize that time is not a single, static entity. According to structuralism, everything is created based on our perceptions, so the concept of time may not exist and is merely our experience. Conversely, it is through our sensations that we understand and shape time. This perspective regards time as a relative, subjective phenomenon, linking it to our perceptual experiences.
However, poststructuralists challenge this view. They question whether our sensory experiences can really create time. If our memories are separated from time, can we still perceive time? When we suddenly remember a past event, do we necessarily need to use the concept of ‘time’ to explain this experience? These questions make us rethink what time is, how we define it, and how we perceive it.
We must dig deeper to find any potential answers. But before that, we need to emphasize this premise: even if we may have different definitions and understandings of time, we are all equally affected by it. Time is an indispensable part of our lives. No matter how we define it, no matter how we feel it, time is there, never stopping. Therefore, the importance of this question is self-evident: What we perceive is really just time?
Definition: Time, this seemingly ubiquitous, never-ending concept, how should we define it? To discuss ‘time’, we need to first go back to the beginning, asking how we discovered and cognized ‘time’. Then, we can delve into the topic—the perception of time, and whether we are really just feeling ‘time’.
According to common understanding, time has the characteristics of ‘irreversibility’ and ‘non-retrospectivity’. This perspective regards time as a directional flow, like a river flowing from source to end, from past to future. However, this is only a relatively simple observation of time, not a comprehensive definition. Therefore, we may need to question: Does time really have traceability? If the answer is affirmative, then what does the traceable time look like?
Sometimes, we have such feelings: “Time… seems to have disappeared?” This refers to a kind of presentness of the past, that is, past events continue to exist in our hearts, as if they just happened. However, this irreversibility of presentness comes from our subjective feelings. Structuralists believe that everything is created based on our feelings, so they might say that time does not exist, it is just a perception method we created.
From this viewpoint, memory becomes an important link between past and present. With memory, we can experience the ‘past’, thereby generating the ‘irreversible’ sense of time. However, can we regard memory as an existence independent of time? When we suddenly remember a past event, do we necessarily need to use the concept of ‘time’ to explain this experience?
When conducting these dialectics, we must pay special attention to the views of structuralism and poststructuralism on the creation of concepts. From the viewpoint of structuralism, ‘memory’ and ‘time’ might be just concepts we created based on feelings. However, poststructuralists might challenge this view; they may question whether our feelings can really create time and memory.
In the end, we may not be able to reach a definitive conclusion. However, even if we cannot determine what ‘time’ is, or whether we are really feeling ‘time’, one thing we can be sure of is that we are all affected by time, and we are continuously experiencing it. Therefore, the importance of this question is beyond doubt, and it deserves our further exploration.
Knowledge: When we explore the concept of ‘time’ and how to define it, we inevitably integrate various philosophical theories and notions. We try to raise questions, advocate and interrogate ourselves about our understanding of time and perception. However, these are just initial explorations, and their actual subtler meanings may not have been found yet.
First, we start from the factual intuitive angle, believing that time has irreversibility and non-retrospectivity. This definition may be established in physics, but when we turn our attention to the psychological field, regarding ‘time’ as a product of perception or experience, it becomes very ambiguous. Poststructuralists would say that all things are created by our perception, so the concept of time actually does not exist, but is just one way we subjectively perceive the world.
Next, we can shift our focus to ‘memory’ (viewed from the perspective of recollection) to further explore the perception of time. Without memory, we cannot experience the ‘past’, naturally, we cannot experience ‘irreversible’ time. However, can we consider ‘memory’ as an existence separated from time? When we suddenly remember something, do we really need the concept of ‘time’ to explain this experience?
Through these reflections, we can see that most of our recognition of ‘time’ actually comes from our own perceptions, which are subjective and human-made. But these views cannot give a definitive conclusion, can’t decide what ‘time’ is. Therefore, in conclusion, rather than wise thought, these views are just looking at the category of ‘time’ from the perspective of epistemology.
Indeed, what we are exploring is just the surface, and the essence of time has not yet been excavated. What we use is only current knowledge and theory, trying to understand how we perceive and experience time, which is just a small part of our understanding of time. To understand deeply, we may need more new discoveries, more in-depth exploration, and maybe even change our basic assumptions and premises about time. However, this is a long-term and continuous effort, and it requires constant learning and exploration.
1 – “Time, the devourer of all things.” is a quote from Ovid’s “Metamorphoses,” signifying that everything in life, regardless of its form or grandeur, eventually succumbs to the relentless passage of time.
提問: 「時間，吞噬一切的東西。」- 奧維德。此句古老的格言描繪了時間的強大與無情。然而，當我們日常生活中談及時間時，這種忌憚和恐懼似乎消失於無形。時間——這個充滿相對性的概念——如此普遍，以至於我們在不自覺中接受了它，並讓它滲透到我們的思考和行為中。面對這種常態化的接納，我們不禁要問：我們為何要談論時間？
誠然，討論時間是一件令人望而卻步的事情。這並非因為時間的概念本身困難，而是因為這個議題已深入到哲學的核心，並且超越了時間本身的範圍。這項討論橫跨了語言學、認知科學、心理學、現象學等眾多領域，並涉及到認知、感知、記憶等主題。因此，我決定銳化焦點，探討更具體、更微觀的議題——我們對時間的感受。
我們的感受真的只有時間嗎？或者更具體地說，我們感受到的「時間」是否真的只有「時間」這個概念那麼簡單？為了回答這些問題，我們需要更精確地定義我們所談論的時間，並關注結構主義和後結構主義對於觀念創造的看法。
首先，我們必須認識到時間並非一種單一、靜態的實體。根據結構主義的觀點，所有事物都是基於我們的感受來創造的，因此時間的概念可能並不存在，而僅僅是我們的一種體驗。反過來說，也就是透過我們的感受，我們才能理解並塑造時間。這種觀點將時間視為一種相對的、主觀的現象，並將它與我們的感知經驗連結起來。
然而，後結構主義者挑戰了這種觀點，他們質疑我們的感知經驗是否真的可以創造出時間。如果我們的記憶與時間分開，我們是否還能感知到時間？當我們突然想起一個過去的事件，我們是否一定需要用「時間」這個概念來解釋這種經驗？這些問題讓我們重新思考，時間究竟是什麼？我們如何定義它？我們如何感知它？
我們必須進一步挖掘，才能找到任何可能的答案。但在此之前，我們需要重視這個前提：即使我們可能對時間有著不同的定義和理解，我們都同樣受到其影響。時間是我們生活中無法忽視的組成部分，無論我們如何定義它，無論我們如何感受它，時間都在那裡，永不停息。因此，這個問題的重要性不言而٣ً：我們感受的真的只有時間嗎？
定義: 時間，這個似乎無所不在、永恆無息的概念，究竟該如何定義？要討論「時間」，我們需要先回到最初，探問我們是如何發現和認知「時間」的。然後，我們才能深入主題——時間的感受，以及我們是否真的僅僅是在感受「時間」？
根據常見的理解，時間具有「不可逆」與「不可回溯」的特性。這種觀點將時間視為一種具有方向性的流動，如同河流從源頭流向終點，從過去流向未來。然而，這只是我們對時間一種相對簡單的觀察，並非一個全面的定義。因此，我們可能需要提出反問：時間真的具有可追溯性嗎？如果答案是肯定的，那麼可追溯性的時間又是什麼樣子的呢？
有時候，我們會有這樣的感受：「時間…好像消失了？」這是指一種過去的現在性，即過去的事件在我們的心中仍然存在，彷彿就在剛剛發生。然而，這種現在性的不可逆性又是來自於我們的主觀感受。結構主義者認為，所有事物都是基於我們的感受而被創造出來的，因此他們可能會說，時間並不存在，它只是我們創造出來的一種感知方式。
在這種觀點下，記憶成為了連接過去和現在的重要環節。有了記憶，我們可以體驗到「過去」，從而產生「不可逆」的時間感。然而，我們是否可以將記憶視為一種獨立於時間的存在呢？當我們突然想起一件過去的事情，我們是否一定需要用「時間」這個概念來解釋這種經驗？
進行這些辯證時，我們必須特別關注結構主義和後結構主義對於觀念創造的看法。在結構主義觀點下，「記憶」和「時間」可能只是我們根據感覺創造出來的概念。然而，後結構主義者可能會挑戰這種觀點，他們可能會質疑我們的感受是否能夠真正創造出時間和記憶。
最終，我們可能無法得出一個確定的結論。然而，即使我們不能確定「時間」是什麼，或者我們是否真的在感受「時間」，我們仍然可以確定的是，我們都被時間影響著，並且我們都在持續地感受它。因此，這個問題的重要性毋庸置疑，並值得我們更深入地探究。
知識: 在我們探討「時間」的概念以及如何定義它時，不可避免地要融合了多種哲學理論和觀念。我們試圖提出問題，透過辯證、主張並反覆質疑自我關於時間與感知的認識。然而，這些都只是初步的探索，其實際上更深入、更微妙的涵義可能還未被發現。
首先，我們從事實直觀的角度出發，認為時間具有不可逆性和不可回溯性。這種定義在物理上也許是成立的，但當我們把注意力轉向心理領域，將「時間」視為一種感知或經驗的產物時，就變得十分曖昧。後結構主義者會說，所有事物都是我們的感知所創造出來的，因此時間的概念實際上不存在，只不過是我們主觀感受世界的其中一種方式。
再來，我們可以將焦點轉移到（從回憶的觀點下去看的）「記憶」，進一步探討時間的感知。如果沒有記憶，我們無法體驗到「過去」，當然也就無法體驗「不可逆」的時間。然而，我們是否可以將「記憶」看作是一種與時間分離的存在呢？當我們突然想起一件事情，我們真的需要用「時間」這個概念去解釋這種體驗嗎？
透過這些思考，我們可以看出，我們對「時間」的認知其實大部分都來自於我們自身的感知，是主觀的、人為的。但這些觀點並不能給出一個確定性的結論，不能決定「時間」究竟是什麼。因此，總結下來，這些觀點與其說是睿智的思辨，不如說就只是以知識論的角度去看待「時間」這個範疇。
確實，我們所探討的只是表面，尚未挖掘到時間的本質。我們使用的僅是目前的知識與理論，試圖理解我們如何感知和經驗時間，這僅僅是我們對時間的理解的一小部分。如果要深入理解，可能需要更多新的發現，更深入的探討，也許還需要改變我們對時間的基本假設和前提。然而，這是一項長期且持續的努力，並需要不斷的學習和探索。
音樂歌詞：旅行、時間
Time is an illusion that helps things make sense
So we are always living in the present tense
It seems unforgiving when a good thing ends
But you and I will always be back then
You and I will always be back then
Singing will happen, happening, happened
Will happen, happening, happened
And will happen again and again
‘Cause you and I will always be back then
You and I will always be back then
If there was some amazing force outside of time
To take us back to where we were
And hang each moment up like pictures on the wall
Inside a billion tiny frames so that we could see it all, all, all
It will look like, will happen, happening, happened
Will happen, happening, happened
And, there we are again and again
‘Cause you and I will always be back then
‘Cause you and I will always be back then
You and I will always be back then
And so, you and I will always be best friends
The lyrics presented offer a profound exploration of time’s ontology and metaphysics, enigmatic concepts that have intrigued philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and proponents of idealism. Drawing from their philosophies may provide an insightful understanding of the themes underlying these lyrics.
Nietzsche’s philosophy often scrutinizes the concept of eternal recurrence—the idea that all events will repeat themselves ad infinitum. This notion is echoed in the repeated line, “Will happen, happening, happened,” suggesting the cyclical nature of reality. This recurrence implies an ever-present ‘now’, aligning with Nietzsche’s view that there exists no objective past or future, but only an eternally recurring present (‘always living in the present tense’). This affirmation of life, even in repetition, signifies a Nietzschean acceptance of life’s totality, encompassing both its joys and sufferings.
Simultaneously, these lyrics also echo elements of idealism—a philosophical tradition stating that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature. The lines, “If there was some amazing force outside of time / To take us back to where we were,” hint at the existence of a transcendental realm beyond empirical time, a central tenet in idealism. This ‘force’ could be interpreted as the mind or consciousness itself, capable of transcending physical limitations to experience past, present, and future concurrently.
Furthermore, the lyrics contend, “you and I will always be back then,” positioning personal relationships outside the linear progression of time—an ontologically idealist perspective. It suggests that the emotional bond between the ‘you’ and ‘I’ persists irrespective of temporal changes, reinforcing the idealist assertion that subjective experiences hold precedence over objective realities.
Lastly, the notion of framing each moment in ‘a billion tiny frames’ resonates with the idealistic concept of ‘timeless moments.’ Each frame symbolizes a subjective experience existing independently of other moments, akin to idealists’ interpretation of time not as a sequence, but as a collection of unique, timeless instances.
In conclusion, through the lens of Nietzsche’s philosophy and idealism, the lyrics can be seen as a reflection on the cyclical, subjective, and transcendent nature of time as well as the enduring bonds that defy temporal boundaries. Such interpretations underscore the ontological and metaphysical dimensions of our temporal existence, providing a richer understanding of our place within it.
這段歌詞提供了對時間本體和形而上學的深入探索，這些都是曾引起哲學家如弗里德里希·尼采和唯心論支持者等人的思考的神秘概念。借鑒他們的哲學觀點可能會對理解歌詞背後的主題提供有見地的理解。
尼采的哲學經常審視永恆循環的概念——所有事件都將無窮無盡地重複自己。這一觀念在反覆出現的句子 “Will happen, happening, happened,” 中得到了呼應，表面上看似指的是現實的循環性。這種循環暗示了一種始終存在的 ‘現在’，與尼采的觀點相吻合，他認為不存在客觀的過去或未來，只有永恆循環的現在(‘always living in the present tense’)。這種對生活，即使在重複中，的肯定象徵著尼采對生活的全部，包括其歡樂和苦難，的接受。
同時，這些歌詞也呼應了唯心論的元素——一種認為現實基本上是精神或心理性質的哲學傳統。”If there was some amazing force outside of time / To take us back to where we were,” 這幾行暗示著超越經驗時間的超越性領域的存在，這是唯心論的核心原則。這種 ‘力量’ 可以被解釋為心靈或意識本身，能夠超越物理限制，同時體驗過去、現在和未來。
此外，歌詞中堅持 “you and I will always be back then,” 將個人關係置於時間的線性進程之外——這是一種本質上的唯心論觀點。這表明，無論時間如何變化，’你’ 和 ‘我’ 之間的情感紐帶始終存在，進一步強化了唯心論主張主觀經驗優先於客觀現實的觀念。
最後，每一刻都攝入 ‘a billion tiny frames’ 的想法與唯心論的 ‘永恆時刻’ 概念產生共鳴。每個框架象徵著一種獨立於其他時刻的主觀經驗，這與唯心論者對時間不作為序列，而作為一系列獨特、永恆的實例的解讀相符。
總結來說，通過尼采的哲學和唯心論的角度，這些歌詞可以被看作是對時間的循環、主觀和超越性格以及抵禦時間界限的持久聯繫的反思。這些解釋突顯了我們時間存在的本體和形而上學維度，為我們在其中的位置提供了更豐富的理解。
地球監獄說
在這個章節的結尾，我被一部科幻小說中關於時間觀念的描繪深深吸引。該作品提供了一種全新且深邃的視角來解釋時間的本質，並將其與”IS-BE”——即所有有情生命的內在永恒性相聯繫。這種觀念以其富有洞見的觀點，對我欲以時間作為主題進行探討提供了重要的啟示和靈感。這不僅擴大了我對時間複雜性的認識，同時也從某種程度上挑戰和推動我重新定義和理解時間。
而我選擇引用這段文字，並非只是因為它對我研究有所貢獻，更因為它在我心中喚起一種詩意的共鳴。在我看來，這段文字就如同一則未被確定的預言，暗示著我們對待時間、生命及存在本身的全新理解方式。這種理解方式既神秘又具有開創性，使人無法忽視。
MacElroy, Matilda O’Donnell. Ed. Lawrence R. Spencer. “Alien Interview.” 2008, pp. 50-57.
來自Matilda O’Donnell MacElroy (馬蒂爾達‧歐‘丹奈爾‧馬克艾羅伊) 的《外星人訪談》，描述的「1947_年羅斯威爾事件」中的對話與訪談。
就我個人而言，我深信所有的意識生物都是不朽的精神生命，這其中包括人類。為了準確和簡潔起見，我將使用一個虛構的詞：『現在一成為者』(IS-BE）。因為，不朽生命的本質，在於他們生活在一種永恆的『現在』狀態(is)，而他們存在的唯一理由，則是他們決定去『成為』(be)。
不論他們在社會中的位階多麼卑微，每一個『現在一成為者』 (IS-BE) 都應得到我自己希望從他人那裡接受的尊重與待遇。每一個在地球上的人都持續地作為一個『現在一成為者』 (IS-BE)，無論他們是否覺察到這個事實。
時間是一個難以衡量的因素，它依賴於『現在一成為者』(IS-BEs) 的主觀記憶，自從實體宇宙開始產生以來，並未有一份統一的事件記錄。就如同我們在地球上所見：由許多不同文化所定義的各種時間測量系統，利用運動的週期與起源點，確立了年齡和持續時間。
In concluding this section, I find myself drawn to an engaging perspective on the concept of time, as depicted in a piece of science fiction literature. This work presents a novel and profound viewpoint on the nature of time, linking it with the eternal essence of all sentient beings, which is referred to as “IS-BE”. This insightful perspective has provided significant inspiration for my intent to delve into time as a central theme. It not only broadens my understanding of the complexities of time but also challenges and prompts me to redefine and comprehend time anew.
My choice to quote this passage is not solely based on its contribution to my research; it resonates poetically within me as well. In my view, this text comes across as an unconfirmed prophecy, hinting at a fresh way of understanding time, life, and the very nature of existence. This understanding, both mysterious and innovative, is impossible to overlook.
MacElroy, Matilda O’Donnell. Ed. Lawrence R. Spencer. “Alien Interview.” 2008, pp. 50-57.
“Personally, it is my conviction that all sentient beings are immortal spiritual beings. This includes human beings. For the sake of accuracy and simplicity I will use a made-up word: “IS-BE”
Because the primary nature of an immortal being is that they live in a timeless state of “is”, and the only reason for their existence is that they decide to “be”
No matter how lowly their station in a society, every IS-BE deserves the respect and treatment that I myself would like to receive from others. Each person on Earth continues to be an IS-BE whether they are aware of the fact or not.”
Time is a difficult factor to measure as it depends on the subjective memory of IS-BEs and there has been no uniform record of events throughout the physical universe since it began. As on Earth, there are many different time measurement systems, defined by various cultures, which use cycles of motion, and points of origin to establish age and duration.
