“The system always thinks of its beginning from the middle.” – (Niklas Luhmann) –

Determining time must begin at some point; it needs a beginning from which it starts. An interested and at least partially involved observer marks a particular fact, a somehow distinguished event, as the beginning from which he starts to determine time. Yet every beginning remains a continuation of what came before, and is linked to prerequisites and circumstances. It varies what is already known, which can only be recognized, named and marked as a beginning as such.

Determining time is therefore based on a recursive figure: for every beginning there is a before, which itself can only be determined in terms of time by marking a beginning. This means that beginnings are repetitive, repetitions in the course of a continuously new, non-terminating series of determining time, which lasts at least as long as an involved observer tries to determine time.

The setting of a first beginning or origin is a canonical procedure for de-paradoxification within the framework of classical metaphysical world views that do not tolerate an infinite regress: Time is given with the origin (Ursprung) and the original leap (Ur-Sprung) – be it a creator god, an unfolding Brahman, a first mover, an idea, an a priori form of knowledge, a big bang in the block universe – lasts forever beyond all time. In these ideas, time is thought of as an objective given independent of the human observer as his indispensable natural or transcendental prerequisite. Time is hypostatized as a fundamental parameter of world events and thus removed from the danger of regress.

In classical metaphysical ideas, it remains difficult how a first beginning can be thought of without also having a second one in mind. Without a second beginning in mind, it seems to make little sense to talk about a first one at all. Therefore, the cause of all time is transcended, i.e. transposed into a beyond: it has no beginning.

One can be of the opinion that this classical metaphysical approach only results in a concealing shift in the problem, because the question of origin or descent is outsourced or excluded in a certain sense. However, one must not overlook its functional effectiveness, which has developed historically up to modern progressive thinking.

In contrast, there is a way of thinking that does not attach so much importance to the view of origins in favor of the possibility of continuous new beginnings (e.g. Hannah Arendt) or that emphasizes the retrospective nature of marking beginnings (e.g. William Sewell).

Determining time means (not setting, but) marking a beginning and an end and thus fixing an entity for the duration of a process that includes what is absent beyond presence. Determining time goes hand in hand with the synchronic aspect of a temporarily stable (static, i.e. understood in essence) wholeness and the diachronic aspect of superficial shape-shifting while simultaneously maintaining the deep structure (essence). Birth and death as time markers constitute the unity (entity) of an individual life – like all time markers, they are arbitrary, which becomes clear from the perspective of populations, societies, communication communities in the sense of Luhmann or generations: beginnings and ends (new beginnings) are always alignments from a meta-level, never in a literal sense, but only in a symbolic sense from a special perspective, origins.

Literature:

Niklas Luhmann, Einführung in die Systemtheorie, (2002)
Elias Norbert, Über die Zeit, Vorwort (1984, zitiert nach 12. TB Auflg. 2017)
William Sewell (2005) Logics of History – Social Theory and social Transformation

Kommentare