“One could say that “past”, “present” and “future”, although different words, form a single concept.” – (Norbert Elias) –

Despite their undisputed sequential connection, past, present and future are commonly viewed as more or less independent, clearly demarcated episodes. From this perspective, irritating discussions take place, for example about the duration of the present or the possibility of travel or manipulation in the past or future. The sociologist Norbert Elias counters this by saying that the past, present and future have a simultaneous presence in experience. They always form an ensemble in which one aspect makes no sense on its own without the other two.

Seen in this way, the present is only the present with the perspective of origin and future. By looking at origins and the future, it gains its meaning or character as an experienced state in a continuous event. The present therefore does not mean remaining in the unchanging moment, but rather a living, experienced being on the move, in which where from and where to, what has become and what is becoming, experience and expectation always resonate or are always meant. In language and communication, the term present symbolizes and fixes an event connection between events that are present, i.e. events that are perceived by the senses, and events that are not present, only remembered, documented or predicted, but assumed to be real. With this reference to what is absent, it opens up a horizon of meaning, creates a sense of what is available in relation to what is otherwise, especially what is not available, and thus enables orientation for action. Jean Paul Sartre also speaks about the meaning-forming effect of the absent on the present. In his opinion, becoming aware of the absent as a reference to a lack motivates people to act.

The question of the duration of the present, which Niklas Luhmann argued about with Helga Nowotny, for example, seems pointless. If you think about Elias further, how long the present lasts in experience turns out to depend, among other things, on the granularity with which it is viewed. For the historian who surveys large periods of time, it can extend over years, but then shrink to a few days or hours in the course of epochal upheavals. Viewed through the lens of some brain psychologists, it does not extend beyond the seconds range. In other words: What is important is the interest-driven approach through which an episode classified as present can be charged with a desired meaning in its entirety in relation to its becoming and its development options.

The question of travel or even manipulation possibilities in the past or future misunderstands the modal times as places to which one could go. In fact, if you follow Elias, we are not talking about places at all, but rather about aspects of a comprehensive presence. Depending on the viewer’s interests, this presence can be represented or manipulated in the light of changing perspectives by equipping it more or less arbitrarily with a new past or future depending on social contexts. This does not raise the question of an “objectively correct” past, but only the question of the appropriateness, assertiveness, collective acceptance and effectiveness of a more or less justified idea of the past or prognosis.

Literature:

Elias Norbert, Über die Zeit, Vorwort (1984, zitiert nach 12. TB Auflg. 2017)
Jean Paul Sartre, Das Sein und das Nichts ? ()

Read more:

Link: Titel (Kategorie)

Kommentare