Jochen Gimmel develops his understanding of time from reflections on leisure, which he does not conceive as „freedom from the constraints of time“, but rather as an original opportunity to experience time as such. The world is not simply there, but unfolds. His concern is that time is not reified, but rather that things are temporalized. Time is not something that clings to things like a property or that they suffer. Events manifest themselves in their unfolding as the sum of their interactions and appear as things. In their interrelation, the transiently observed things exist in a tension that, according to Gimmel, can be described as time. In contrast to space-based conceptions of time as aggregate or extension, he interprets time as intensity, which qualitatively and quantitatively characterizes the reciprocal tensions between things and processes.

Accordingly, every phenomenon of reality manifests itself temporally in its own unique way in dynamic interactions with other phenomena. In their interrelationship, the respective specific intrinsic times are placed in a relationship of simultaneity. “Simultaneity is, in a sense, a coexistence of the inherently non-simultaneous, the asynchronous, as a relation of effect.” Simultaneity is not viewed as a mere coexistence in space, but rather as a reciprocal confrontation of different temporal performances. This shared time of different events is not an all-encompassing entity in which the events are contained, but rather it is spanned by “the relating to the alterity of the temporally other.” “Time is not a given, but rather something that emerges.”

From Gimmel’s perspective, the substantial proves to be a converging event of effect, which manifests itself temporally in its dynamics as duration and sequence. In this context, the asynchronous relation of existential performances resembles a “temporal tumult” rather than a “synchronous flow.” In Gimmel’s words: „The unfolding of reality can be understood as a temporal causal storm of interactions, that is, of consequences in the sense of effects within a simultaneity of the non-simultaneous, which gathers a multitude of directions of action or tendencies toward manifestation at the same moment.“

Gimmel argues that time is not subject to a one-dimensional directional constraint from the past to the future. The multitude of temporal orientations (earlier, later, still, during, etc.) can only be integrated into a universal temporal orientation on a second level. He speaks of a „temporal openness“ or „temporal multidimensionality“: „A temporal event acquires its particular meaning through reflection on its beginning and its end, through which the tumult of temporal references can be brought into a temporal direction of meaning.“ The interplay of re-presenting, remembering, and anticipating shapes the present as an asynchronous multidirectionality, which, through the schema of temporal direction, unlocks meaning within the manifold of temporal sensations.

The uniformly flowing time measured by clocks remains, in relation to concrete experiences of time, an externally imposed construct that breaks down all events into arbitrarily small, countable units. Time, understood as the intensity of reciprocal reference, on the other hand, considers processes or events in their entire, undivided duration from a beginning to an end and defines them in their relation to other events (earlier, later, since such and such a time, now, for so long, so often, not yet, still, suddenly, three times as long, etc.). This gives expression to non-spatial aspects relating to enactment, such as growth, perseverance, endurance, and decay.

Gimmel points out that in the metric understanding of time, beginning and end are not actually part of the one-dimensional, linear, uniformly flowing time, but are merely read (i.e., marked) and dated on the timescale. They are, in a sense, (arbitrarily) added to the timescale from the outside. In contrast, in concrete experience of time, beginning and end are constitutive. One always finds oneself within these boundaries, which simply precludes an unaffected temporal observer position.

Beginnings and ends are caesuras that interrupt the processes of time. Conversely, caesuras are events that bring previous processes to a close and open subsequent ones. They are not imposed but arise from a holistic understanding of a process. A segment marked on a timeline with a beginning and end – from an external position – has no sense of direction and knows neither past, present, nor future. The direction and modes of time are only relevant to those who are embedded within that time span. To quote Niklas Luhmann, such a participant cannot observe „their own beginning and ending at the moment of beginning and ending, but only in between. The beginning can only be narrated retrospectively, and the narrative will react to the consequences of having begun. […] The system thus observes its having already begun and its ability to end.“ Physically constructed time, as an external measure, reflects only the (reversible) sequence structure of events and ignores the historicity experienced through participation.

Because of the unavailability of beginning and end, an involved subject cannot survey a temporal performance as an enclosed whole, but can only grasp it narratively from a distance. That is, a temporal consummation can only be reconstructed narratively as a whole, but not directly experienced or felt. Nevertheless, the figurative impression of the wholeness of temporal performances resonates even in experience, thus revealing their identity in their course. According to Gimmel, the figurative wholeness of a temporal performance is a meaning-generating, orthogonally parallel second dimension of time.

Calendars link cyclical and linear manifestations of time. On the one hand, unique events disrupt calendar rhythms; on the other hand, they only become visible and comprehensible against the backdrop of this rhythm. „One can say,“ says Gimmel, „without boundary points, calendar cycles remain without time, and without time cycles, all events go unnoticed.“ He sees the insurmountable disparity between calendar and metric time not as a shortcoming, but as a fundamental prerequisite for the asynchronicity and polytemporality constitutive of time to be reflected in its perception.

Gimmel contrasts the visual image of a spatial timeline with the auditory image of a chord, in whose sound a multitude of potential tonal sequences resonate both anticipatorily and retrospectively, or are virtually represented – a tension-filled sphere of multidimensional references in which the present is stretched into a vast expanse of possible pasts and futures. The temporal orientation then emerges in the narrative shaping of a concrete past and future.

For Gimmel, three types of instantaneousness are the manifestations of time that „enable an excellent experiential awareness of the temporality of events“. In a general sense, he understands the moment as a tension between the poles of ’self-being‘ (being-oriented towards oneself) and ‚being-oriented towards the ultimate‘ (absolute being, eschaton). This refers to a sudden, intruding awareness of self-being that interrupts the normal flow of time, in confrontation with or harmony with something eternal, absolute in the Kierkegaardian sense. The moment is not part of a continuum, but rather temporal totality. It forms „a temporal analogue to the self-purpose structure of leisure,“ a sanctuary of bliss (eudaimonia), a „time-animated, eudaimonic self-encounter in the moment.“

Gimmel connects the moment in the narrower sense of kairos with the meaning of the meeting, the instant in which everything necessary for success comes together. The urgency of the objective intention (the desire to reach a goal) and the waiting for the opportunity establish an understanding of Kairos as a window of time in which a tension with the object builds. The radical commitment to a concrete goal imbues the Kairos moment with an absolute character that fully encompasses and fulfills it.

Historical moments, finally, are turning points that give history direction and meaning. In relation to the everyday course of history, they are simultaneously an end, a break, and a beginning, and possess a quasi-absolute character. This refers to something like a precise encounter with something absolute, a mature and insightful understanding of a universally valid context. In history, a comprehension „matures“ that ultimately falls within the present and opens the historical opportunity to put reason into practice.

Today, the historical moment appears ubiquitous, total, and permanent. Under the influence of a constant technological revolution, a sense of time is emerging that experiences the future as an already realized fact, against which an already outdated present must justify itself. Gimmel speaks of a magical futurism, before which even the newest things already seem outdated because we know or expect that they will be obsolete tomorrow.

Gimmel summarizes his theoretical reflections on leisure as follows: In leisure, limited time can be experienced as its own time because the objectified temporal order of chronology ceases to apply, and there is an opportunity to experience oneself freely and unburdened within the spread of one’s own existence. Leisure is a borderline experience that interrupts the flow of time. Dwelling and kairos are characteristic of its particular temporality.

For Gimmel, having leisure means dwelling in desire. The point is not to realize a utopia, but to experience oneself in all its radicalism and consequence within a tension-filled yearning both forwards and backwards in time. In moments of leisure, the contradictory contrast between having arrived and being on the way forms an arc of tension in which the self constantly realigns itself within an intangible reality. In leisure, desires unfold that one doesn’t simply have, but rather enacts by stretching oneself out in time. Having time and being in time are rooted in utopias in which the unknown emerges as possible in the journey to oneself. „The unknowable reality of the present, which only reveals itself and unfolds in the act of wishing, proves to be the mysterious reality of time itself.“

Literature:

Jochen Gimmel, Zeit haben – Zeit sein – Ein Plädoyer für Zeit (2023)

Jochen Gimmel (1977):

Teacher for Ethics and Intercultural Competence at the Hochschule für Polizei und öffentliche Verwaltung Nordrhein-Westfalen

Keywords:

leissure research

Kommentare