Jon, List, I certainly agree with the author of the article, Sabahat Fida (who writes beautifully, even poetically) that in some profound moments conventional clock time seems to 'dissolve': this has occasionally been my experience as well. I'm not sure that that fully captures Bergson's *durée*, although it does grasp that aspect of it as *time felt as quality* (rather than quantity).
Fida argues that Bergson’s philosophy and Shia Islamic metaphysics offer richer models of time than 'clock time', which is no doubt true (there are indeed several 'richer models'). I am not, however, convinced that the three dimensions she describes: zaman (clock time), dahr (archetypal, eternal time), and sarmad (God’s timeless presence) offer an adequate phenomenology of time, nor conform to Peirce's 3 categories. JAS: My initial impression is that these loosely align respectively with 2ns, 3ns, and 1ns; and a quick Google search seems to confirm this, suggesting that *sarmad* is the unchanging "eternal now" of God's being (1ns), *zamān* is our everyday notion of past/present/future and duration within the universe (2ns), and *dahr* is the relationship between the two (3ns). For one, there seems to be a tension between 'dahr' viewed as 'archetypal, eternal time' in contrast to its being seen as those times when, simply, 'conventional clock time seems to 'dissolve' or, as I've suggested, this 'occurs' in zazen, or Zen seated meditation, for example; perhaps even as moments in Peirce's practice of 'musement' (when, while phenomena may be contemplated, time seems not to be 'passing', seems to 'dissolve'). Fida argues that time can be experienced as layered and sacred, and that her own experience of deeper, sacred time involving presence, awareness, and nearness to the divine would seem to call for a* sacred phenomenology of time*: to live by presence and a sense of the timeless as a kind of antidote to the 'rushed' lives so many experience. Ultimately she emphasizes how *divine will* can suspend or transform ordinary time. I have had no experience of 'divine will' in my experience of time whatsoever. And why bring 'the divine' into a phenomenological discussion of time anyhow unless one is *already *convinced of 'divine will' entering our experience? My sense is that such ideas regarding moving away from clock time reach a rather purer form (in the sense of not being dependent on 'divine will', etc.) in several practices of 'presence', such as those in or influenced by Eastern though, in Zen -- for example: Dogen's idea of *uji* (being-time). [Gary F may have more to say on this as he has made a deep study of Dogen's teachings, while I was early taken by and spent some years studying Rinzai Zen then, as did Alan Watts, eventually studying under a Daoist Master who modified my views of Zen to some extent.] Both of the major schools of Zen would encourage the contemplative -- as well as the ordinary person -- to be as fully present in being-time as possible, but without striving for it. The contemporary movement towards 'mindfulness' seems to be an outgrowth of such meditative practices. One can see this, for example, in the work of the late Thich Nhat Hanh who also taught that time is not strictly linear -- the past is in the present, and the present shapes the future. I'm sure that he and Fida would agree that obsessing over the past, or rushing about, craving things, and living only for some imagined future is how we lose touch with the miracle of life unfolding right now. Best, Gary R On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 1:21 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Returning to the original topic of this thread, today I came across a > newly published online article ( > https://erraticus.co/2025/07/24/beyond-the-clock-to-a-sacred-phenomenology-of-time/) > by Sabahat Fida that invokes Bergson's *durée* while contrasting the > modern measurement of time with our lived experience of time from a Shia > Muslim perspective. It is labeled as the first of three parts, so > presumably there is more to come. A couple of paragraphs from the > concluding epilogue are worth quoting in full and contemplating carefully. > > SF: By bringing these two traditions [Shia metaphysics and Bergson’s > philosophy] into conversation, we glimpse a deeper phenomenology of time, > one that resists flattening existence into mechanical succession, and > instead gestures toward an inner continuity animated by presence, > consciousness, and grace. In such a vision, the human task is not merely to > measure time, but to inhabit it, to listen, not for the tick of a clock, > but for the pulse of the Real echoing within its flow. ... > In the end, we must ask: What truly drives the rhythm of our lives? Is it > the tick of the clock, the acceleration of deadlines, the nanosecond pulses > of a cesium atom? Is our purpose measured by timelines and milestones, or > by presence and becoming? If we let our calendars script our existence, we > may forget how to dwell in time, not pass through it, but abide within it. > Time was never meant to be chased, but listened to. Not counted, but lived. > > > From a Peircean standpoint, it is especially noteworthy that Fida outlines > a "triadic model" of time with "three ontological dimensions: *zamān*, > the empirical time of clocks and calendars; *dahr*, an eternal, > archetypal time; and *sarmad*, the timelessness of the divine." My > initial impression is that these loosely align respectively with 2ns, 3ns, > and 1ns; and a quick Google search seems to confirm this, suggesting that > *sarmad* is the unchanging "eternal now" of God's being (1ns), *zamān* is > our everyday notion of past/present/future and duration within the universe > (2ns), and *dahr* is the relationship between the two (3ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 8:28 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> List, >> >> As I not infrequently have, I'm again thinking about 'lived' -- as >> opposed to 'mathematical' -- time. I've recently begun reviewing some of >> the writings of Alan Watts (I was once enamored of his thinking and, so, >> read all his books in my 20's) and came upon this snippet: >> >> >> “We must abandon completely the notion of blaming the past for any kind >> of situation we're in and reverse our thinking and see that the past always >> flows back from the present. That *now *is the creative point of life. >> So you see it's like the idea of forgiving somebody, you change the meaning >> of the past by doing that. . . Also watch the flow of music. The melody as >> it is expressed is changed by notes that come later. Just as the meaning of >> a sentence [is]. . . you wait till later to find out what the sentence >> means." Alan Watts >> >> This made me think that -- coming from very different philosophical >> traditions and positions -- Watts, Peirce, and Henri Bergson all challenge >> the idea that time is a chain of instants. Watts, drawing on Zen and Taoist >> ideas, argues that the present is centrally involved in a kind of living, >> flowing 'wave', the present not being a thin 'slice' of time, but the >> center of an unfolding process. Trying to pin it down, he holds, tends >> to kill its reality. >> >> Peirce agrees that the “instant” is but a mathematical fiction. For him, >> real time always has 'thickness' -- what he calls the triadic *moment* >> is for Peirce the 'minimum' of time, i.e., the smallest unit of *lived* >> time (and perhaps not only lived time) where the past flows into the >> present and reaches toward the future. This flow is vital to how signs and >> meaning unfold, every moment involving traces of what came before and, >> shall we say, 'hints' at what’s to come. >> >> Bergson’s famous idea of *durée* (duration) also holds that real time is >> an indivisible, qualitative flow — like a melody you hear as a whole, not >> as separate notes (both Peirce and Watts at times also use musical >> metaphors for time's flow). For Bergson, measurable clock-time is just a >> useful illusion that chops up something that can’t really be so chopped. In >> the end, all three argue that lived time, *real* time (in Peirce's sense >> of reality), is continuous, alive, and in many cases, felt, that it is >> never just a series of 'points on a line'. >> >> I'd be interested in forum members' thoughts on this idea of time. >> However, I always think of St. Augustine's comment on reflecting on time: >> "What is time then? If nobody asks me, I know; but if I were desirous to >> explain it to one that should ask me, plainly I do not know.” Best, >> >> Gary R >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
