Time

Typology

Jennifer Gidley:

“Russian archaeologist L. S. Klejn (2005) has recently identified “twelve concepts of time . . .

These are

1. the primordial presentism,
2. the cyclic notion of time,
3. the genealogical, labeled perception of time (marked time),
4. the linear concept (measured time),
5. the dynamic time (the notion of the flow of time),
6. the concept of general time,
7. the vector time,
8. the time acceleration,
9. the relativist concept,
10. the static time,
11. and the annihilation of time” (Abstract).

His article discusses how they manifest various archaeological epochs and how they are displayed in archaeology. The full article is only available in Russian.”

(https://www.academia.edu/197841/The_Evolution_of_Consciousness_as_a_Planetary_Imperative_An_Integration_of_Integral_Views)

Discussion

Jennifer Gidley’s Reflections on Time

Jennifer Gidley:

“To the perspectival age time meant nothing but a system of measurement or relationships between two moments. . . . Time, however, is a much more complex phenomenon than the mere instrumentality or accidence of chronological time.” (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 285)

My cognizance of the complexity of the discourses on time—cultural, scientific, philosophical, feminist, historical, theological— in tim idates me. Yet, inspired by the criticality of our present planetary moment in time, I feel beckoned into developing a tentative temporal template for my evolution of consciousness research.

The imperative to contextualize the default notion of time is twofold. First, a lack of contextualization may lead to my work being misconstrued as being “just another modernist, linear, (perhaps tacitly) Euro centric narrative”—albeit camouflaged as integral. Second, the macrohistorical nature of my narrative necessitates a careful consideration of time from multiple perspectives. By the default view of time I mean the three phase linear time model of past, present and future that underlies modernist models of development, evolution and progress .

These models are invariably value loaded such that the past is problematized as primitive, while progress, development, evolution are lauded as unilinear paths to civilization. Although these modernist grand narratives have been under siege for decades, theoretical understanding of this taken for granted notion of time is relatively undeveloped.

Over the last two millennia the linear conception of time—which began as the more formal measurement of already recognized cosmic and natural temporal cycles—became rationally conceptualized as the chronological measurement of change. The early development of clocks included astronomical/astrological features, indicating notions of time that were still connected with cosmic cycles—beautifully exemplified by the astrological clock in the tower of the town hall in Prague, built in the early 15th century. Since the Industrial Revolution linear, chronological time has further contracted by association with mechanical time and factory time.

Further scientific and technological developments in the last century have seen temporal partitioning become hyper exaggerated by increasingly sophisticated scientific and digital means, from one extreme in radioactive half life, to the other extreme in nanoseconds.

Linear time has also become dominated by politico-economic features, exemplified by such phrases as “time is money,” “buying time.” This mechanistic and economic colonization of time has increased exponentially in recent decades, contributing to the speed addiction of our present age—demonstrated in fast foods, internet, instant global text messaging, accelerated learning, and the three-quick-steps-to-spiritual-enlightenment culture. Just to cope there are drugs to keep up, such as speed and cocaine; and drugs to slow down, such as alcohol and tranquillizers. However, in parallel with the accelerating freneticism and time panic of the 20th century alternative notions have been emerging.

In the early 20 century significant theoretical developments concerning the notion of time occurred in both the natural sciences and the social sciences. In physics, Einstein’s theory of relativity displaced the Newtonian conception of objective time as an unchangeable, permanent ‘place’ upon which the movement or change of things can be measured in discrete, identical fragments (Einstein, 1920/2000; Weik, 2004). Synchronously, the new philosophical phenomenology of Husserl was positing a subjective time—the time of the soul—in contrast to external or objective time (Husserl, 1905/1964). Numerous theoretical attempts have been made to come to terms with these new perspectives on time. Philosophical developments include Heidegger’s phenomenological notion of existential time (Heidegger, 1927/1962); Whitehead’s

process view of time (Griffin, 1986a, 1986b; Weik, 2004; Whitehead, 1929/1985); and

Bergson’s paradoxical notion of durée — the conscious flow of life—which includes a radical multiplicity of Time (Bergson, 1922/1965; Deleuze, 1966/2006). Significant — albeit lesser known—contributions were also made by Steiner and Gebser and will be explicated in this appendix. More recent attempts have been made to reconcile some of these views, e.g., by Schatzki’s notion of history and Ricoeur’s poetics of narrative (Ricoeur, 1985/1988; Schatzki,2005).

In addition, there has been a recent trend towards diversity in conceptualizations of time (Geissler, 2002). Notions of cyclical time are being reclaimed from non-western (Eliade, 1954/1989; Inayatullah, 1999) and feminist perspectives (Forman & Sowton, 1989; Kristeva, 1986; Leccardi, 1996; Milojevic, 2005b). Initially these two major time perspectives—linear and cyclical—were set up in opposition to each other. However, increasingly, new discourses are emerging that provide a more complex, nuanced perspective.

These include:

• Postmodern philosophical concepts such as repetition and difference (Deleuze & Conley, 1992), complex recursion (Morin, 2005a);

• Complex concepts of time in archaeology (Klejn, 2005)

The emergence of futures studies as an academic field, introducing new concepts of past,

present and future, e.g. the 200-year present and the long-now (Boulding, 1990;

Slaughter, 1996; Slaughter & Inayatullah, 2000); macrohistory (Galtung & Inayatullah, 1998); long-term and non-Western future-time concepts (Inayatullah, 2000; Inayatullah & Boxwell, 2003);

• Spiral notions of development in worldviews and values reflecting both cyclical and

progressive notions (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Cowan & Todorovic, 2005; Inayatullah,

1999; Inayatullah, 2004; Wilber, 1996c);

• Contemporary developments in the “time arts—music and film” (Benedikter, 2005);

• Multiple dimensions of time (Starr & Torbert, 2005);

• Spiritual notions of Eternal Time and the Now (Tolle, 2004);

• The emergent slow time movement, e.g. slow food movement (Parkins, 2004); the slow school movement (McGill, 2005).

While there is unquestionably now a substantial and growing body of literature on the various notions of time, there is a lack of theoretical coherence. This appendix is primarily an explication of the time perspectives (temporics) of Steiner, Gebser and Wilber, who frame many of the above-mentioned notions in a macrohistorical, evolutionary context. It is a work-in-progress,

providing additional depth to the main paper and pointing to theoretical possibilities for further

Research.”

(https://www.academia.edu/197841/The_Evolution_of_Consciousness_as_a_Planetary_Imperative_An_Integration_of_Integral_Views)

More information

The Time Conceptions of Gebser, Steiner and Wilber