Het Tijdsprobleem in de Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee

[The Problem of Time in the Philosophy of the Law-Idea]

By Herman Dooyeweerd

Philosophia Reformata 5 (1940) 160-192, 193-234

Translated by Dr. J. Glenn Friesen

The text below is a provisional translation. Copyright is held by the Dooyeweerd Centre, Ancaster, Ontario, and publishing right is held by Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York. A definitive translation will be published in the series The Collected Works of Herman Dooyeweerd.

Download pdf version of this article.

Part 2

[page193]

III

Law and subject-side of cosmic time.
Time as time order and as duration.

The time-transcending character of the religious concentration point of the temporal cosmos also reveals itself in that it also transcends the diversity of the modal aspects that are enclosed in the horizon of time. The deeper root-unity of the modal aspects can never be found within time. And time itself in its cosmic continuous character cannot be the root-unity of these aspects.

In order to have good insight into the aspects, we must begin by sharply distinguishing between two sides of time, which mutually presuppose each other and which therefore are never to be separated from each other, namely the law-side and the subject-side.

According to the law-side, (cosmic) time is an order of time, which modalizes itself in the modal structures, and which typifies itself in the individuality structures [vii]. According to its subject-side, time is individual duration. And so each creature, insofar as it now has a temporal mode of being, is subjected to the order of time, which in its cosmic character, that encloses all modal aspects and individuality structures, is always the same for each subject.

[page 194]

But the individual and subjective time duration is different for each individual temporal existence [28].

The criterion for the order of time.

A real order of time is necessarily related to a subjective (or respectively to a subjective-objective) time duration; it is an order of time duration. Each order of before and after or of earlier and later, which according to the subject side of created reality necessarily holds itself to be in force in a duration of time, is an order of time. Where this necessary relatedness to a duration of time is lacking, no real time character can be ascribed to the before and after. So for example it certainly does not apply to the relation of priority of the Creator with respect to His creation. [viii]

This is the proper criterion of the order of time, by which of course no definition of any kind is given.

[page 195]

In immanence philosophy, which always seeks its Archimedean Point [29] in theoretical thought, this necessary two-sidedness of time is not seen, because from this standpoint, the true meaning of law and subject cannot be understood [30]. Law and subjectivity can in their mutual relation only be understood from out of the Christian standpoint, which seeks the Origin of creation in God’s sovereign creative will. God has set each creature as subject under His law. The subject is in this sense ‘sujet,’ subjected to God’s creation order.

The law belongs to creaturely reality as its

[page 196]

determination and limitation of being. Therefore there is no subject without law. But the converse is also true. The law only has meaning as determining and limiting of the subject that is subjected to it. And therefore no law without subject. Only God is not a subject, because He is not subjected to the law, which always itself finds its origin in His holy creative will. Law-side and subject-side are thus both sides of created reality, without which no creaturely existence is possible.

Now since all of temporal reality is closed up in time, the two-sided nature of law and subjectivity must also find its expression in that time.

Rationalistic and
irrationalistic views of time.

It is therefore an error in principle to allow time to become one-sided, whether in the law-side or in the subject-side. The conceptions of time of immanence philosophy have all in turn fallen into this fundamental error. The absolutizing of the law as universal order or rule was always characteristic for the rationalistic currents of current philosophy. On the other hand, the absolutization of individual subjectivity was characteristic for the irrationalistic currents.

And so it should not cause surprise that with regard to views of time, we have also seen conceptions arise that are in turn rationalistic and irrationalistic. For example, Newton’s conception of absolute “mathematical” time is truly rationalistic. In contrast to so-called empirical time, “mathematical time” would, for the objective order of earlier and later of movement, imply a completely equal duration [31] of its flowing moments, and in its course would be completely independent of all subjective occurrence.

Here time as the mathematical order of uniform motion is completely separated from the subjective duration of reality.

We may contrast this with Bergson’s view of time as a subjectively experienced duration of feeling with its “élan vital,” over against which all law-regularity is opposed, which is regarded as

[page 197]

a conceptual abstraction that falsifies true reality. This is a standard example of an irrationalistic conception of time of a typically modal-psychological character , whereby the boundaries between the biotic and the psychical aspects are wiped out.

Time as the horizon
of temporal reality.

Whenever I now regard time according to its law-side, that is to say, time as order, then in its determining and limiting character–enclosing all of temporal existence–it is the horizon of temporal reality and of all of our temporal experience; it is the horizon that first makes these two possible.

In this horizon of time, both structural orders of reality are grounded–the earlier named modal and individuality structures. We will later deal with separately with individuality structures.

The time order of the aspects as a law of refraction.
The prismatic character of this order of time.

As the horizon of the modal aspect structures, the order of time is really a law of refraction. The totality of meaning of our temporal cosmos, which is the real unity and fullness of the meaning of creation for all modal aspects, cannot be given in time. It is of a transcendent, supratemporal character.

This holds both for the law-side as well as for the subject-side of reality.

With respect to its religious fullness and meaning-totality, God’s law is one and indivisible; it is the requirement to serve God with one’s whole heart. With respect to the religious fullness and meaning-totality of its subject-side, the temporal creation has since the fall into sin been concentrated in the religious root community of restored humanity in Jesus Christ. However, within time, this religious fullness refracts for its law-sides and subject-sides into the modal aspects, in which the wisdom of God’s creative plan differentiates itself into a rich diversity of modal ordinances and subject functions [ix]. Just as the unrefracted light is refracted into the many-coloured riches of the sun’s spectrum, so the religious fullness of meaning of creation according to God’s creative plan is refracted in time in its richness of modal aspects, which do not find their transcendent root-unity in time itself.

[page 198]

The individuality structures of time
lack this prismatic character.

In the second place, the religious fullness of meaning differentiates itself according to its law-side and subject-sides in the individuality structures of temporal creation. As we have already seen, the modal structures are implied in these individuality structures. And the individuality structures, which are in essence structures of individual totalities that in principle function equally in all modal aspects, are also essentially structures of time [tijds-structuren] [x] which are enclosed by the horizon of time. However, as we shall still see, they are not refracted points of time like the modal aspects [xi].

The idea of time as an element of the transcen-
dental Ground-idea (Law-Idea) of philosophy.

In its general theory of the law-spheres, the Philosophy of the Law-Idea has, by the path of theoretical analysis, demonstrated that the modal aspect structures are real structures of time [xii].

As we have seen, since cosmic time itself, in its continuity that encloses and overarches all aspects, withdraws from theoretical analysis because it is a transcendental presupposition of all such analysis, philosophical investigation has no other theoretical access to the order of time than along the path of an analysis of its modal structures. Thereby cosmic time itself is set as the foundation in the transcendental Ground-Idea (Law-Idea) of philosophy.

[page 199]

The method of theoretical investigation
of the time order of the modal aspects.

If the modal aspects are themselves aspects of time, then their mutual order of succession in time is a real time order. And this order of succession must then also express itself in the modal structure of each aspect.

[page 200]

In the general theory of the law-spheres, this cosmic time order of the aspect structures (law-spheres) is investigated in the following way. In the analysis of these modal structures, it appeared that in each of them there is present a modal meaning nucleus, which in its original meaning is proper only to the related law-sphere, and which guarantees the modal irreducibility and the modal sovereignty in its own sphere of this aspect of reality. The same cosmic time order, which externally holds the aspects in a continuous coherence and correspondence, also brings this coherence and order of succession to expression in their internal structure. All law-spheres that precede other law-spheres according to the cosmic time order, display in their internal modal structure meaning-moments which refer back, and which in the general theory are called modal retrocipations or analogies [xv]. These retrocipations or analogies, unlike the meaning nucleus, do not carry an original modal character, but in them the modal nucleus of meaning rather refers back to the modal nuclei of the modal aspects that are earlier in the cosmic time order. On the other hand, law-spheres that are followed by later law-spheres in the cosmic time order display in their internal modal structure meaning-moments that refer forward, and which in the general theory of law-spheres are called modal anticipations. These anticipations as such do not carry any original meaning character, either, but rather the modal nucleus in them refers forward in time to the meaning nuclei of the later aspects in the cosmic order.

It is apparent that in this state of affairs there must exist two boundary aspects of temporal reality, of which the first has no analogies [retrocipations] in its modal structure, and the second displays no anticipations.

[page 201]

These boundary aspects are those of quantity and of faith, since there is no law-sphere that precedes the aspect of quantity, and no law-spheres that follow the aspect of faith.

The point of refraction and the two
directions in the modal time order.

In all other modal meaning structures, the modal meaning nucleus is really the internal point of refraction of cosmic time, in which two time directions are delineated: the referring back and the pointing forward. The Philosophy of the Law-Idea calls the first direction the foundational and the second direction the transcendental direction of time.

The modal meaning nucleus qualifies the retrocipations and anticipations within the same aspect structure. The retrocipations and anticipations therefore do not take on the meaning of the modal meaning-nuclei to which they respectively refer either backwards or forwards.

In this way, the (physical) space of movement of the general theory of relativity is not space in the original modal meaning, but rather an analogy of the original modal meaning of space in the meaning of movement, which [analogy] is founded in the original meaning of space. It is because of this that in the general theory of relativity the properties of this space are dependent on those of “matter” as a function of gravity. This is something that would certainly have no meaning for geometrical (non-physical) space. In this way we also find in the irrational and differential functions of number modal anticipations to the meaning of space and movement. [xvi]

The time structure of the psychical
and of the logical aspects.

In this way we find in the modal structure of feeling [33], in the

[page 202]

moment of sensation [zinnelijkheid], an analogy of the meaning-nucleus of organic life. And we find in the moment of emotionality or movement of feeling (to which in awareness are ordered the objective images of movement in the “external world” [34]) an analogy of the original meaning-nucleus of the aspect of movement. And in the subjective feeling of space, which is objectively answered by the sensory space of awareness, there is an analogy of the original meaning nucleus of space.

[page 203]

And in the moment of sensory multiplicity (both in a subjective as well as objective sense) there is an analogy of the original meaning-nucleus of quantity. In contrast to this, in logical feeling, historical feeling, linguistic feeling, societal feeling, aesthetic feeling, juridical feeling, love feeling and faith feeling (the feeling of trust in a fixed ground, and, in coherence with the logical anticipation, the feeling of evidence or of certainty), we find clear anticipations in the modal psychical sense. [35]

In this way the philosophical analysis of the modal structure of logical thought has just as irrefutably demonstrated the time character of this structure, and thereby has also demonstrated the internal untenability of attempts to find in the logical aspect an Archimedean point for philosophic thought that transcend time.

We find in this modal structure [of logical thought], in accordance with the cosmic time order of modalities the following:

A. the following analogies [retrocipations]:

1. the analogy of

[page 204]

number in the moment of logical ambiguity, which is inherent in each concept as sunthesis noematoon;

2. the analogy of space in the moment of logical thought space, wherein we juxtapose the logical multiplicity of conceptual characterizations, in order to thereafter sum up these characteristics in the unity of a concept;

3. the analogy of movement in the logical movement of thought, to which we earlier directed our attention;

4. the analogy of the biotic meaning nucleus in the logical life of thought;

5. the psychical analogy in the conceptual representation (the pre-theoretical image of thought), which is still inertly bound to the sensory feeling impressions, but nevertheless fixes logical characteristics in the image.

B. the following anticipations:

1. the historical anticipation in logical formative control [36], which can only reveal itself in theoretical thought because of its systematic-theoretical character (in contrast to naïve, pre-theoretical thought, which in its concepts still inertly depends on sensory impressions);

2. the linguistic anticipation in logical symbolic thought (whereby theoretic thought frees itself from being restrictively bound to the sensory representation);

3. the social anticipation in the moment of the opening up of logical intercourse, in which the logical process of thought has to continually defend itself in its arguments over against counterarguments (which is just as much proper only to theoretical thought);

4. the economic anticipation in the moment of logical economy of thought (which is lacking in naïve thought, and which according to its structure may only be understood as a theoretical deepening of the principle of sufficient ground);

5. the aesthetic anticipation in the moment of logical (systematic) harmony;

6. the juridical anticipation in the moment of the logical ground of justification (which in argument and counterargument in the intercourse of thought must justify itself);

7. the moral anticipation in the moment of theoretical eros (Plato);

8. the pistical anticipation in the moment of logical certainty, as this reveals itself in the logical axioms, which points forwards to a presupposition of faith. [xvii]

[page 205]

In the coherence of the meaning-nucleus and the analogies [retrocipations], the modal aspect structure still only reveals itself in a closed or restrictive function; in contrast, the anticipations reveal themselves in a deepened or opened up function [37]. The opening up process is itself a process of cosmic time.

The criterion for distinguishing the directions
of time referring back and referring forward
within the modal structure of an aspect.

The opening up process carries an essential time character within the modal structures of reality. Because of this time character, we also possess a criterion to determine whether the non-original meaning moments in this structure are of either an analogical or an anticipatory character.

As we have seen, if they are to hold as real directions of time, the directions of referring backward and referring forward in the order of succession of the meaning moments must always be related to a genetic duration of time.

Well now, it can be demonstrated that in concrete temporal reality, the modal meaning structure still reveals itself in a closed function, before the opening up process begins in the anticipatory direction of time. And on the other hand, the opening up can never begin before a modal function has realized itself in its “closed form [gestalte].”

So in inorganic things, the modal function of movement is realized in a still closed structure. On the other hand it reveals itself in an opened up structure in the “directed” movements within a living organism, which can develop itself within the time order of creation only after the inorganic created things. However, even in movements that are still closed, a temporal relation of meaning with the numerical and spatial aspects is still expressed. In the movements that are directed, or led by the destination of life,

[page 206]

the unfolding process takes hold of the whole modal structure in its closed function, that is to say, the unfolding concerns both the meaning nucleus as well as the modal analogies.

In this way the feeling function is first opened up in a “closed” form in the sensory feelings, before the life of feeling opens itself out to the normative aspects. The animal-like life of feeling certainly knows a greater or lesser differentiation in being restrictively bound to the biotic differentiation of the sensory organs, but it knows no real unfolding of the normative feelings. By this, the order of succession between the analogical and the anticipatory moments in the modal structure of the aspect of feeling is also established. [xviii]

Similarly, the modal structure of the logical aspect first realizes itself in a closed function, and this is in pre-theoretical thought, in which we meet with all the analogical meaning moments, but not yet any single modal anticipation to the later aspects. [xix]

In naïve logical thought there is no mention of logical control of the content of thought by a systematic concept, nor of a symbolic thought, nor of an economy or logical harmony of thought, nor of a juridical anticipation in the weighing of logical grounds for justification and their counter-grounds, nor of a theoretical eros (moral anticipation), nor of a logical axiomatics. [xx]

In the same way we can establish in the historical aspect, in the linguistic aspect and the later aspects, which modal meaning moments are of an analogical and which are of an anticipatory character. So for example in a primitive order of law, the whole analogical structure of the modal juridical aspect is realized, including the economic analogy [38] (cf. the legal action against each excessive prosecution of subjective legal interests in the primitive talio principle.[39]

[page 207]

But this talio principle still lacks any moral anticipation. Primitive law is ruled by the principle of “Erfolgshaftung” [liability based on consequences], which looks only to the external consequences of the deed. The anticipatory juridical idea of fault, in which the juridical causality and injustice deepens itself, is still unknown.

The universality in its own
sphere of each modal aspect of time.

And so each modal aspect in its modal time structure is in fact a mirror of the whole cosmic order of time in all of its modal points of refraction.

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea calls this state of affairs

[page 208]

the universality in its own sphere of the said aspects, which is merely the other side of their sovereignty in its own sphere or modal irreducibility.

This also explains the apparent success of all –isms of immanence philosophy such as mathematicism, mechanicism, biologisim, psychologism, logicism, historicism, etc., etc.

All such –isms essentially sprout forth from the implied necessity in the immanence standpoint of seeking the root-unity of aspects in a definite aspect of temporal reality that has been abstracted by theoretical thought and absolutized.

The meaning character of temporal reality.

Above all, the meaning character of created reality reveals itself in this state of affairs [xxii]. Nowhere in time do we find an absolute resting point, a self-sufficient point to hold on to.

In the whole of temporal reality, each aspect refers outside of itself towards the temporal coherence of the modal aspects, which already expresses itself in the modal aspect structure. And in the transcendental boundary aspect of time, that of faith, faith points above time towards its religious root, which in turn demonstrates its non-self-sufficient character by its religious attitude of dependence with respect to its Divine Origin.

The meaning character of created reality guarantees the tendency to the Origin of all of creation, and through which the creature finds no rest in himself. This tendency towards the Origin is concentrated in the human heart. Augustine said, “Et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requescat in te” [Our heart is restless until it rests in Thee] [40]. To the words “cor nostrum” [our heart] we could add “et mundus in corde nostro” [and the world in our heart]. [xxiii]

The perspectival structure of cosmic
time and the sense of the transcendent.

Only by this meaning-full relatedness of temporal reality to a supratemporal creaturely centre and to the Divine

[page 209]

Origin does the perspectival structure display itself in cosmic time, which is experienced by man in relation to concrete events as past, present and future.

This perspectival structure presupposes a directedness of time, which as we have seen, already comes to expression in the modal structure of temporal reality, and which according to God’s creation order can only find its final point of direction [richtpunt] above time.

To the degree that man's understanding of the transcendent is weakened, so also is weakened his self-consciousness and his ability to experience the perspectival structure of time.

Among the so-called primitive peoples this is revealed to an even stronger degree. The lack of an opened up historical sense of time in primitive people has been sufficiently demonstrated by ethnological investigations [41].

And yet the perspectival structure of time may not be limited in the historicistic manner to the historical aspect. It is proper to cosmic time as such and expresses itself in the historical aspect of past, present and future only as a separate modality.

IV

The subject-object relation in the time duration.

We have here described meaning character of temporal reality–and therewith of time itself–which meaning character is not to be closed off. In order to throw even more light on this meaning character, it is necessary to go into more detail with respect to the subject-object relation within time, to which current philosophy cannot do justice. Witness the fact that one here meets in turn with both subjectivistic and objectivistic conceptions of time. [42]

[page 210]

The subject-object relation is a fundamental relation in the structure of temporal reality, and it may by no means be confused with the epistemological relation of subjective theoretical thought and its Gegenstand [43]. From the time of Kant, this confusion has generally worked its way into immanence philosophy.

Furthermore, in a truly rationalistic way, the object in the sense of “Gegenstand” has then frequently been identified with the law-regularity in our knowledge (cf. Kant’s description of the “Gegenstand” of our experience). [xxiv]

In order to demonstrate the impermissibility in principle of such identification of object and “Gegenstand,” it is sufficient to point to the fact that the subject-object relation is completely trusted in naïve experience, whereas an abstract “Gegenstand” remains completely foreign to the naïve attitude of thought.

The subject-object relation appears both in the modal structure as well as in the individuality structure of temporal reality. [xxv]

We will first look at this relation within the modal aspect structures.

[page 211]

In truth, full temporal reality has in all aspects that succeed the first boundary aspect, both modal subject functions as well as object functions.

In the modal structure of the subject-object relation we find a one-sided (not reversible) relation of dependency between the object functions and subject functions. That should be well understood. The modal object is in its existence in no way dependent on a concrete, individual subject function within the same law-sphere. The objective-sensory properties of a blooming rose in their real existence do not depend on an individual subjective awareness from A to B. But they are certainly dependent on possible subjective awareness [44]. In other words, the said relation of dependency is a structural one, and not an individually subjective one.

The modal object functions are then not in the least a product of the subject functions. In that case they could not have any objective existence. A dreamed colour is fundamentally different from an objectively perceived colour. The former has no real, but only what we may call an intentional or subjective supposed objectivity. In the final analysis it remains of a subjective character. [45]

[page 212]

The said subject-object relation necessarily comes to expression also within time, and indeed in the relation between subjective and objective time duration.

Objective time duration never coincides with subjective time duration.

So for example, the duration of what is called ‘presence time’ (the ‘specious present’) in subjective sensory awareness is different than that of the objective sensory phases of the perceived event which correspond with present time, e.g. in the caving in of a house, the falling of a stone, the firing of a shot, etc. [46] What is simultaneously perceived in the present time (as a momentary duration of feeling), can objectively take place in succession. Yet we can perceive the objective duration of an event in the psychical aspect of reality only by means of the sensory feeling of duration or our subjective awareness, on which occasion the so-called measurement of time serves to establish as nearly as possible its objective duration.

We can also for the sake of the so-called measurement of time objectify a subjective duration of feeling in the mathematically approached duration of time of the sensory object function of an event. An example of doing this whenever we “measure” the subjective duration of a feeling of pain by means of the objective-sensory duration of the images of movement, which the hands of a clock describe on the face of the clock. From dream psychology it is known that the objective (or rather the objectified) pace of a dream is usually exceedingly fast, while it does not make this impression at all in the subjective duration of feeling.

[page 213]

We are not really measuring the inner subjective duration of feeling itself, but only its objectification in the psychical aspect of clock time. The subjective duration of feeling does not allow its inner character to be measured. That is the kernel of truth in Bergson’s view of time. For all measurement of time (i.e. measurement of duration) rests on objectification, in contrast to subjective estimation of time. And therefore it does not concern a purely modally objective measure of time, but much rather an objective measure of time in an individuality structure, which as such can never carry an exact, i.e. abstract, mathematical character.

By this we have made the transition to the individuality structures of time, and in this what we have called ‘clock time’ will ask for our special attention.

V

The individuality structures of time
and the metaphysical idea of substance.

In contrast to modal structures, the individuality structures of temporal reality are not structures of the how or the mode of being, but rather of the concrete what of reality.

As we have earlier remarked, they are structures of time of individual totalities, such as things, concrete events or actions, social forms (like family, state, church, business) etc. etc.

However, unlike the modal aspects, they are not points of refraction of cosmic time, but rather true structures of totality, which overarch and enclose the modal aspects in their cosmic continuity.

In that regard they are found on a deeper level of the horizon of time than the modalities.

A concrete thing, like this tree in front of my house, is more than the sum of its modal functions in number, space, motion, organic life, etc., etc. It is above everything an individual temporal whole of relative durability, which lies at the foundation of all its modal functions [xxvi]. As of old, metaphysics usually spoke here of substance.

[page 214]

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea has however broken in principle with the philosophical idea of substance, and and has done this for good reasons.

The idea of substance wanted to philosophically account for an undeniable given of naïve experience, namely that of the relative durability or constancy of a thing, in spite of the exchange of its parts and of its sensorily perceptible shapes and qualities. But in its idea of substance, metaphysics was misled by the immanence standpoint, and turned itself against the true given of naive experience. It went searching for an abstract “essence” of things that could only be accessible to theoretic thought.

In this way metaphysics came to its truly theoretical construction of “substance” as a “Ding an sich” [thing in itself] closed in on itself. Over against this was then posited the subjective perception and apperception of human consciousness.

The metaphysical idea of substance, which moreover led to the most differing conceptions–all according to the closer theoretical precision of the immanence standpoint–was therefore in all of these forms nothing other than the absolutization of a theoretical abstraction. [47]

This idea always rested on the shutting off of the cosmic horizon of time, and in a theoretical breaking apart of reality into a noumenon and a bare phenomenon.

The “Ding an sich,” however more precisely it may be understood, is nothing except a theoretical abstraction from out of temporal reality, an abstraction, which was “hypostatized” to a self-sufficient substance. This appears already in the definition of substance that was current in medieval scholasticism and that was accepted by Descartes, as a “res, quae ita existit, ut nulla alia re indigeat ad existendum” [the thing which exists and does not need anything else for its existence].

Since the Philosophy of the Law-Idea has now broken with the immanence standpoint and the absolutization of the theoretical synthesis that is rooted in it, it can also not maintain the philosophic idea of substance. For it is just this idea of substance, and its closing off the “true” reality of a thing in a defined modal aspect of reality, which, in the development of

[page 215]

immanence philosophy, has appeared to be one of the great obstacles to theoretically doing justice to the real time structures of reality.

It really speaks for itself that modern functionalism, which in an anti-metaphysical spirit wants to replace the idea of substance with the idea of function, has not in the least brought any gain in this regard. In the idea of substance, metaphysics intended at least to give an account of the totality structure of things. In contrast, the anti-metaphysical functionalism remains wholly caught in the modal aspect structure of temporal reality, and furthermore thoroughly misinterprets this structure from out of the immanence standpoint (cf. e.g. the transcendental-logical functionalism of the Marburg school of Neo-Kantianism, etc.).

In order to acquire a correct insight into the givenness of naïve experience concerning the relative constancy of a thing, in spite of the exchange of its parts and of its sensorily perceptible shapes and qualities, it is above all necessary to give an account of the fact that all individual totalities given in time can only exist in a typical time structure. This structure is however the structure of an individual whole and not only a mere modal structure. A modal structure as such is indifferent with respect to the individual totalities which together function in it. [xxvii]

The idea of causality in classical physics was a truly modal idea of function, insofar as it was indifferent with respect to the individual nature of things, whose actions this physics wanted to understand in the law of causality according to the physical aspect. In respect to its extent, Newton’s law of gravity held both for a falling pencil in my room as well as for the movements of the heavenly bodies.

It is just this that distinguished this modal idea of causality from Aristotle’s physica, which sought to explain motion from out of the internal nature of things. And the internal nature was sought in the “substantial form” as the internal teleological principle of a thing, by which is naturally seeks to reach its perfection.

The individuality structure of temporal reality is

[page 216]

already hereby radically distinguished from traditional metaphysics in that it, as a time structure of an individual whole, in principle overarches and encloses all modal aspects of reality without exception, whether in their subject-functions or object functions.

Therefore the radical difference between minerals, plants, animals and humans (as to their temporal existence) cannot be sought in the supposition that these creatures function in a mutually differing number of modal aspects.

A purely material “substance” is found in temporal reality just as little as a purely “spiritual” one is found in the sense of “anima rationalis” [rational soul].

The horizon of time allows no break [caesuur] between the modal aspects, and also no dichotomy between “material body” and “spiritual soul” in the current metaphysical sense.

There is in reality only one fundamental dichotomy [principieele caesuur], that between the whole temporal existence and its supratemporal religious root, a dichotomy that comes into effect in the temporal death of man. [xxviii]

The individuality structures and their
typical grouping of the modal aspects.

So what is the basis of the fundamental difference in the individuality structures of temporal reality?

Undoubtedly, this difference is based in an internal totality nature of these structures, which in its deepest ground remains inaccessible to theoretical analysis for the same reason that cosmic time in its continuity does not allow itself to be theoretically analyzed. The internal nature of an individual totality simply forces itself on our experience. As soon as one tries to theoretically analyze such a totality, he is referred to the modal aspects, in which this totality functions, but to which it can never be reduced [opgaan]. The totality, just like cosmic time, remains presupposed; as a whole it precedes and can never be constructed retrospectively out of “elements!”

The philosophic idea of substance has then only seemingly penetrated to a deeper level of reality behind the modal horizon of theoretical analysis.

[page 217]

As soon as metaphysics tried to theoretically define the “substance” of things, it had to take refuge to modal distinctions, whereby the modal aspect in which the essence or the being of the substance was sought, was then absolutized to the unifying ground of determination for the thing. [48]

Also the dialectical idea of totality, as it was applied in German idealism, led in the final analysis–because of its immanence standpoint–to an absolutization of a certain aspect of totality.

One need only think of the concept of the “spirit of the people” [volksgeest], which was viewed in its essence as the historical potential of all of “culture,” whereas “culture” then included all normative aspects of temporal society.

Can theoretical analysis really teach us nothing about the individuality structures of temporal reality? Undoubtedly it can, just as theoretical analysis of the modal aspect structures can, in the final analysis, give us theoretical insight into the cosmic order of time, insofar as the latter reveals itself as an order of its modal points of refraction. But the conditio sine qua non for a really fruitful and accurate analysis is that one sets at the basis of such an analysis the idea of individual totality as a transcendental limiting concept. The issue is namely this, that, just as the comic time order of aspects expresses itself in the modal aspect structures, just so does the individuality structure of a thing or of a concrete event or of a concrete social form come to expression in the modal aspects of the individual whole.

The first thing that we notice here is the fact that the modal functions are grouped in a typical manner. This typical grouping does not detract from the cosmic time order of the aspects,

[page 218]

which also maintains itself within an individuality structure of reality. The individuality structure of reality has just as little effect on the modal irreducibility, the modal sovereignty in their own spheres of the aspects. Even within the individuality structure of a tree, the modal numerical function is irreducible to the spatial function and the movement function, and none of these three functions allows itself in a so-called “holistic sense” to be reduced to modalities of the organic life function or the (objective) psychical function of the thing.

However, when in our theoretical analysis we follow the cosmic time order of the modal aspects within the internal structure of the tree, then we notice that it first makes sense to speak of the tree in the biotic aspect, and at the same time that the organic life aspect is the last modal aspect in which the tree still functions as subject. In all of the later aspects it has no subject-functions, but only modal object-functions. The organic life function is the typical destination function or the qualifying function in the internal structure of the tree. This destination function also opens up within the individuality structure the earlier modal functions of the thing in an anticipatory direction towards the typical life destination. Thereby we can speak of internally directed movements within the movement aspect of the tree (e.g. the movement of metabolism and growth), in contrast to the external movements that are carried out by the tree, whenever it for example is struck by a gust of wind.

But these internal movements as such have not themselves become biotic movements. They have only opened up their biotic anticipations under the typical leading of the destination function of the tree.

It is the individuality structure of the tree and not the time order of the modal aspects that guarantees this typical grouping of modal functions within an individual whole.

The individuality structure is a typical structure of cosmic time. If the tree is affected in its subjective life function, then it can no longer exist as an individual whole. However, one cannot say that this life function as such is the essence or the substantial being of the tree, for the modal biotic function is not the totality principle of the tree, but

[page 219]

just the reverse: the totality structure has determined the life function to be the directing and guiding function for all other functions. The totality is in other words not itself of a modal-biotic character, but it spans all aspects of the tree equally in their typical grouping. None of these aspects can be lacking without the tree ceasing to be a tree. The individuality structure also gives a complete account of the relatively durable character of the tree in the changing of its parts and sensory qualities.

As long as the tree functions in its typical individuality structure, it remains the same thing. If it loses this structure, for example if it is felled and sawn into planks, then there come into existence a number of other things of a radically different structure.

Why the individuality structures are
also really time structures of reality.

But it is not the structure itself that comes into existence and that perishes in time. For it is as such constant, a foundational law-regular framework within which individual totalities exist in a definite individual time duration. It nevertheless remains a time structure of individual totality, since it has no meaning without a relationship to subjective (respectively objective) time duration. The individual time duration, to which it is related, is determined by it in a law-regular way.

So for example the duration of existence of a plant, by reason of its structure type is bound to the typical life duration of a plant, or consider the duration of existence of a plastic [xxix] work of art in its possession of its typical aesthetically qualified objective form, or the duration of existence of a state in its possession of an independent public legal organization founded on an independent organization of the power of the sword, etc., etc.

The differentiation of individuality structures
and the enkaptic structural interlacement.

In the theory of individuality structures, the Philosophy of the Law-Idea has demonstrated the undeniable diversity of structural types of a totality character in time.

[page 220]

Just like the modal structures, these structural types do not stand separately next to each other, but they are grouped in a vast order by the cosmic time order, and are interwoven with each other in what we have called ‘enkapsis.’ We can distinguish radical types, genotypes [stamtypen], and variability types.

In the radical types, which delineate whole “realms” of individuality structures, are what are called ‘radical functions’; they are the typical structural functions that characterize the individuality structure [49], but are merely modally determined.

So we can say that the radical type of the plant realm is biotically qualified [or destined], that of the animal kingdom is psychically destined with a typical biotic foundation, that of the realm of art works is objectively-aesthetically qualified and founded in a typical objective cultural form, etc. etc. [xxx]

In the “genotypes” of a realm, these radical types are differentiated in an ever further descending [afdalende] individualization.

Radically different individuality structures are interwoven in the

[page 221]

cosmic time order in what I have called “enkapsis.”[xxxi] This “enkapsis” leaves unaffected the internal character of the interwoven structures, and in this respect enkapsis is fundamentally different from the simple part-whole relation, which is ruled by a single structural principle. So for example, the marble material that the artist uses to represent his aesthetic conception retains its internal characteristics even in the enkaptic relation in the work of art. But it is not merely a natural material part of the artwork. The only “parts” of Hermes are the different bodily forms in the aesthetically destined marble [e.g., an arm of the bodily form; the physically destined marble is not itself a “part” in this sense]. In the internal structure of the natural material (i.e. the aggregate of limestone crystals), the physical-chemical functions retain their leading and qualifying role. The enkaptic relation of the work of art concerns only the external form of the marble, in which the physical-chemical actions must be bound so that they no longer play the leading role here, in order that the marble can become the material expression of the aesthetic conception in this enkaptic function. One can certainly speak of an “enkaptic” of “interwoven totality,” built up out of radically differing structures, provided that one does not in this way apply the part-whole schema in a wrong way by calling the natural material a part of the work of art. Rather, both natural material and work of art are parts of the enkaptic structural whole–a marble image, whose (cultural) form serves as the junction of the interwovenness.

In the variability types we see the typical characteristic that have their origin not in the simple internal structure itself, but in the interwovenness with other individuality structures. These include for example, the wood and marble variability types of the plastic work of art. The ecclesiastical state and the state church are variability types of the genotypes state and church respectively. The arctic fox and the polar bear are variability types of the already well differentiated genotypes fox and bear.

The enkaptic construction
of the human body.

According to the Philosophy of the Law-idea, the human body is also enkaptically built up out of an interlacement of individuality structures.

[page 222]

It [the body] is in this sense the enkaptic structural whole of man’s individual temporal existence, which is itself interwoven with many social structures. In place of the distinctions of “body,” “soul” and “spirit,” which is often defended in modern psychology, and which in the final analysis are nothing other than abstract complexes of functions of man’s temporal existence, we then see three mutually interwoven individuality structures of the body (the biotically qualified soma, the psychically qualified soma and the pistically qualified body [49a], in which the individual structural whole of all modal functions can always be seen. The soul, as the transcendent spiritual religious centre of human existence, remains simple, indivisible and imperishable. The soul animates [bezielt] and impresses the human character on the entire body in its temporal structure [xxxii]. But the soul as such cannot be grasped by theoretical investigation, but only in its temporal revelation in the perishable body, because it is the presupposition of all theoretical activity. However, it is clear that the enkaptic structure of the human body in our sense can give an account of the fact of experience that we are able to govern–and also able to lead in a definite direction–our psychical feelings and perceptions, biotic impulses and physical-chemical movements only within definite structural boundaries. For in this structural interlacement, the bodily structures we have distinguished also retain their internal sovereignty in their own spheres. We govern the pre-logical functions of the biotic, and psychically qualified soma structures only insofar as they enkaptically function in the so-called spiritual structure of the body (qualified by the faith function). [xxxiii]

[page 223]

The meaning for psychology of the distinction
between modal and individuality structures.
The distinction between “act” and modal function.

The distinction between modal and individuality structures is of fundamental value, particularly for psychology as a special science. Knowing, willing and feeling are still frequently coordinated by psychology as functions (or in the terminology of faculty psychology, “faculties”) of the “soul”. By viewing the acts of knowing and willing as faculties or functions [instead of acts that function in all aspects], any possibility of an objective delimitation of the area of research for psychology is lost, and the door is opened wide for ”psychologism” in all possible forms.

The Philosophy of the Law-Idea begins by sharply distinguishing between the particular modal aspect that is psychology’s field of research as a special science, and the individuality structures, which express themselves within this modal aspect. The modal aspect provides the objective delimitation of the field of research. However, this aspect possesses at the same time “universality in its own sphere,” so that the modal delimitation never forces us to refer what are really psychological issues of investigation to other special sciences.

The first benefit of the said distinction is the insight into the correct relation of “acts” and their “modal aspects.” [50]

Feeling is not an “act,” but a modal function of an act. In contrast, knowing and willing are really acts, which as such are not limited to a particular modal subject function, but are immediately related to the central root of temporal existence (the “selfhood”).

Real “acts” of the selfhood always reveal themselves in time in individuality structures, and function equally in all aspect of temporal reality [51]. Whenever we know or will, this concrete action concerns not only an abstract “soul” (as a supposed substantial complex of rational-moral functions), but much rather our whole temporal existence in its enkaptically interwoven

[page 224]

individuality structures, although we always proceed from out of the selfhood as centre of our existence.

However, psychology as a special science can only investigate these “acts” in their individuality structures only according to the modal psychical aspect, just as for example jurisprudence as such can regard a social structure like state or church only according to the juridical viewpoint. And yet the special sciences also need to put the idea of the totality structure at the foundation of their investigations.

VI.

The problem of so-called measurement of time.

In the present connection and on the basis of the preceding discussion, we want to give throw more light on the problem of the so-called measurement of time and its place in the whole problem of time.

Now the neo-Platonist Plotinus is the first one who pointed to the internally contradictory character of the concept “measurement of time” in the then current objectivist view of time. As we have earlier seen, Aristotle had tried to define time as the measure of motion (arithmos kineseos kata to proteroi kai husteron).

However, if time itself were really only the measure of motion, how could it then [itself] be measured by motion?

In modern time this problem came to a critical stage by the appearance of the theory of general relativity.

It is indeed impossible to bring this to a satisfactory solution so long as immanence philosophy does not properly distinguish between the modal and individuality structures of cosmic time, and does not see them in their mutual coherence.

From our previous considerations, it is evident that the cosmic time order as such does not allow itself to be measured. For all measurement occurs in this time order and is first made possible by the time order.

We can only measure time duration in the subject-object relation, and there the measure of time is itself a duration of time in the subject-object relation. For the measure of time must be objective in relation to all subjective measurement.

[page 225]

As time duration, an objective measure of time cannot exist “in itself,” but only in a structural relatedness of possible subjective measurement of time duration, whereas each real action of measurement itself has its own subjective time duration.

It is very imprecisely expressed when one describes the measure of time itself as a measurer of time. An objective measure cannot function as a subjective measurer.

Real measurement of time duration is an action, which presupposes the subjective concept of measure and of number; an objective measure of time is merely an object of this concept.

However, all concrete time duration is time duration in an individuality structure. A purely modal time duration does not really exist. Even the modal aspects of a concrete time duration remain aspects of a duration of time in an individuality structure. As a consequence, a concrete time duration can also only be measured by means of a measure of time in an individuality structure.

An experimentally useful measure of time must be objective-sensorily (objective-psychically) perceivable and must necessarily include an objective-sensory image of movement in an image of space that is provided with a numbered division of distance.

This modal sensory object function of the measure of time is concretized by the individuality structure of the measure of time.

What does this mean? In everyday life we as modern westerners measure “time” with the help of a clock, while we derive the division into days, months and years from the time duration of the revolution of the earth around its axis and around the sun. With this measure of time we construct our time calculation, whereby not the measure of time itself, but merely the free mathematical operation carries with it an exact mathematical character. We thereby simply follow the time order in the modal meaning of number, in accordance with which the division of the images of movement is ordered. In this way arises our modern clock time. The various clocks, as particular measures of time are then regulated in accordance with the universal measure of time of a chronometer, and it in turn is regulated by the most universal measure of time–by what is called the ‘sidereal day,’ which rests upon astronomical perceptions.

It is clear that this clock time, as well as calendar time, has been formed by man himself for the sake of the needs of

[page 226]

human society. We use them in practice as a universal objective ordering schema, in which we localize all events and actions in past, present and future according to their simultaneity or degree of succession. The artificial objective measure of time, although as a sensory perceivable measure of an objective sensory character, functions in an individuality structure of time, which itself includes all modal aspects of reality.

This individuality structure of our societal time (measure) is however enkaptically interwoven with a natural individuality structure of what is called ‘astronomical time,’ i.e. the daily duration of the movement of the heavens, and this latter structure remains the typical foundation of the former, and upon which the former is based.

The measure of time of our societal time is read off an instrument, a cultural object, and this subjective measurement is naturally related not only to our sensory perception, but no less to our logical function, our historical, our linguistic function–yes, the whole complicated structure of human existence, including the transcendental selfhood.

As we have seen, the objective (experimental) measure of time is one-sidedly dependent on possible subjective measurement by a person. It exists only in structural relatedness to measuring.

Can such an objective measure of time possess a purely modal mathematical exactness? Of course not. The sensory perceivable side of a clock face with its numbered divisions of distance is not a spatial figure in the original (geometric) sense, but an objective sensory image of space, in which the objective sensory images of the clock hands, brought into correspondence with the mechanism, describe the images of movement. The subjective paths of movement of these clock hands are sensorily objectified in a spatial image, which is bound to the instrument itself. As we earlier saw, in original space as simultaneous extensiveness in

[page 227]

dimensions, there can be no place for movement in its original meaning. On the contrary, in the objective sensory image of the clock face and the clock hands moving themselves thereon, there are only objectified sensory analogies of space and movement, and only in the sensory space of perception can we see images of movement. The sensory image of space is indeed a structural condition for the sensory image of movement, because in the cosmic time order the aspect of movement is founded in the spatial aspect and not the other way round. Neither the images of division of distance, nor the objective sensory duration of the moments in the images of movement of the clock hands carries as such an original mathematical character. In the objective sensory duration, the moments are originally subjective moments of movement that have been objectified, and whose mutual equality of duration is broken by a minimal increase in speed of movement. Even less is the objective-sensory duration of the revolution of the earth a precisely equal one [to other revolutions].

One can aim at a definite degree of exactness in the measure of time, but its objective-sensory perceivability already excludes that one will reach an exact, i.e. a purely modal mathematical character.

Naturally this also holds in the use of universal measures of time, such as the chronometer and the ‘sidereal day’ used in astronomy (i.e. the duration of the revolution of the earth on its axis compared to the fixed stars), or of more primitive measures of time such as hourglasses, sundials, etc., etc. The fact that the duration of time that is being measured, functions in the individuality structure of a real event, and that the experimental objective measure of time must be a sensory (objective-psychical) perceivable measure, disallows in principle that physics–as an experimental mathematical natural science–should work with a theoretically constructed, purely modal objective-mathematical duration of movement in the formulating of the mathematical-physical laws. This is of course not to say that physics should give up its mathematical foundation. What Newton referred to as ‘absolute, mathematical time’ was such a constructed, objective-mathematical duration of movement of an abstract modal sense. It was not time itself, but an objectification of a

[page 228]

punctual constructed mathematical duration of time in the modal sense of movement, a purely modal objective possibility in the sense of movement, which formed the foundation for the classical principle of inertia.

The said objective-mathematical duration of movement is in the whole no real duration of time, but a mere thought, a theoretical abstraction, which is constructed from out of the modal time order of movement in synthetic relation to that of number and space.

Newton’s absolute mathematical time stood and fell with his conception of “absolute space” and “absolute movement,” whereby the three dimensional Euclidian space functioned as the completely static system of coordinates of absolute motion.

From the outset, mathematical time was not useful as an experimental measure of time since it was theoretically abstracted from each individuality structure of time. The discrepancy that this caused between the formulation of physical laws of motion and the experimental measurement of time has contributed the crisis in the foundations of classical mechanics.

The physical time of motion is now as such a pre-psychical modal aspect, but the experimentally useful measure of time remains a sensorily perceivable on in an individuality structure.

This individuality structure naturally expresses itself in the aspect of motion and the spatial and numerical aspects, so that the mathematical formulation of the measure of time must also take account of these typical structures of time. The general theory of relativity has done this by its relativizing of the measure of time in relation to its acceptance of a constant in the speed of travel of light, and by giving up a privileged coordinate system. This also relativized the concept “simultaneity” in the modern meaning of movement. In the mathematical foundations of this physical theory it was not the time that was geometrically anticipated, but only the subjective duration of travel of light as a fourth dimension in what has been called ‘Minkowski-space.’ Similarly in the ‘curving of space,’ the dependence of objective-physical world space on the fields of gravity came to expression in a geometric way.

[page 229]

Hoenen’s critique on Einstein’s
denial of an absolute simultaneity.

The Thomistic natural philosopher Dr. P. Hoenen, professor at the Gregorian University in Rome has tried to show a logical error in Einstein’s relativizing of the physical concept of objective simultaneity. He posits to two systems of relativity theory, which move in each other’s direction. To each of these is bound a system of unmoving coordinates. According to Hoenen, absolute simultaneity is given by itself in the moment that the arbitrary points P and Q as arbitrary moments of movement, become congruent with each other. Einstein has confused a clock, a carrier of time, with the movement itself of his two systems. And, if we look at this in the light of “the evident principle of the instantaneous resulting of distances,” then it will in fact appear that there exists an (absolute) objective simultaneity.

For this proposition he gives the following example: Suppose that a material point moves itself along a path that is perpendicular to a line AB. We take that moment in which the point in motion crosses the line AB in a point P, that lies at a distance a from point A. We now see that the moving point immediately, in the same moment, finds itself at a distance a from point A, and also conversely, that A finds itself at the same distance from the moving point. Just prior to this, the distances were different, but by contact with the moving point with P, there results a new distance momentarily from that contact.

This same is now supposed to hold with respect to points P and Q in the example first referred to, of systems moving towards each other of relativity theory in the moment in which point P of the first system coincides with Q of the second system.

If we now take an arbitrary point A from the second system, then according to the “principle of the instantaneous resulting of distances,” point P has in the same moment the distance QA from A (QA is constant) and conversely A has the same distance from P, all in this one moment. The distance does not have to be measured; it is there. And what holds for an arbitrary point of the

[page 230]

second system holds for all points.

The writer [Hoenen] admits that this objective simultaneity cannot be measured by anyone perceiving from a distance, because for that signals are necessary, which come from a distance.

That is not supposed to detract from the existence of an absolute objective simultaneity, but only to concern our subjective possibility of perception. However he says that we do have intellectual insight into the existence of absolute objective simultaneity.

Critique of Hoenen’s critique.

In light of our preceding discussions, this argument is to a high degree instructive of the consequences of the objective “idea of time” of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and of the modal shiftings of meaning of which it is guilty. In the example of the moving material point, which intersects a line AB in a point P, it seems that it is proceeding from the objective sensory spatial awareness, in which the path of movement and spatial lines function only in objective analogies. For no movement is ever possible in space in the original meaning, and therefore a fortiori there is no spatial intersection of a path of movement and a perpendicular line standing on top of it.

It has however been forgotten than an objective sensory measure of time has no existence “an sich” [in itself], but only in a structural relation to possibly sensory perception.

The whole subject-object relation has here been shut out.

Now it cannot be objected that the complete objective simultaneity, which presents itself in the intersection of lines in a spatial plane, is carried over to the objective simultaneity in the aspect of movement and in the objective sensory image of movement. The question is really whether it is possible for there to be an objective absolute measure of time in the aspect of movement, independent of a moving system. Only in that case could we then speak of a complete simultaneity in the meaning of motion. And this holds in a corresponding way for the objective sensory image of movement in the psychical aspect of reality. [52]

[page 231]

Hoenen, following the tracks of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, is of the opinion that this is the case.

In this he proceeds from the view that time is “possible numbering of motion according to its topological and metrical structure,” or even a system of concrete numbers with ordinal and cardinal values, which is given by reality itself in the succession of elements of a movement, which make possible a numbering according to the series of successive number. [53]

So from this standpoint he can say that in each arbitrary movement–even according to Augustine, in the revolution of the wheel of a potter–absolute objective time realizes itself, although the one universal time realizes itself only in the daily movement of the heavens.

Hoenen says,

What do we make of all of this? From the system of concrete numbers, which is given in reality itself in the succession of the parts of a motion, which as real movement can never take place outside of an individuality structure of time, we are unexpectedly taken over to a merely thought system of numbers, serving for the numbering of the mathematical equal parts of a “truly equal” movement, the mathematical concept of a pure modal possibility of movement that, as we have seen, can never serve as an objective measure of time for concrete movements.

[page 232]

It cannot be denied that we have a concept of a mathematically defined motion, just as little as we can deny the concept of complete objective spatial simultaneity of points in spatial extensiveness. These are however modal concepts, in which there is a conscious abstraction from the individuality structures of reality. They may in that sense be structural conditions for the physical measurement of concrete motions, but as an objective measure of time of real duration of movement they are in principle unusable.

As we saw, Hoenen acknowledges the impossibility of measuring with a measure of time (the abstract “numbered movement”):

The existence of a structurally modal, i.e. merely possible simultaneity, is however something fundamentally different than the existence

[page 233]

of an absolute individual simultaneity of concrete events. We can have intellectual insight into the former from out of the modal structure of the related aspect, independently of experimental measurement. But we can never have this insight into the latter, because it is never a mere modal aspect, but rather concerns a concrete event within an individuality structure of time. In the latter case it is evidently false to draw conclusions from the modal concept to the concrete reality, because it rests on a fundamental confusion of structures of time.

The movement of the heavens as a universal measure of time is given as such only in physically qualified individuality structures (which moreover, as we know, have their typical object functions in the post-physical aspects); the instrumental clock time of our modern society, although enkaptically interwoven with this “natural” individuality structure of time, has nevertheless its own internal individuality structure of a normative-social qualification, and a typical historical foundation.

For this reason, its objective measure of time is also normatively established, so that all clocks must direct themselves to that measure of time, and the physical relativity of the measure of time is compensated practically by a normative universal measure.

The positivistic conclusion, “what in principle can not be measured does not exist” is in its universality undoubtedly incorrect. This we can concede to Hoenen without reservations.

Undoubtedly, Einstein also went too far when he later gave up any limitation to the physical aspect of movement of his relative concept of simultaneity.

But in the present case, the “in principle” in fact relates to the numbered simultaneity of motion itself, which was proclaimed to be the measure of time. And as a mathematical concept of an objective mathematical analogy in the modal aspect of movement, this can in fact not exist as a measure of time for concrete movements within an individuality structure of time.

After the foregoing discussions, it will now be clear that the “clock time,” in which as we have seen, two individuality structures are interwoven with each other, simply does not affect the internal nature of the other structures of time,

[page 234]

and a fortiori cannot be identified with cosmic time. [56]

Insofar as it appears as empirical special science with a modally delineated area of investigation (and not as a speculative metaphysics), psychology will have to give an account of both the modal time aspect, in which the psychical phenomena it investigates function, as well as of the individuality structures of time, which express themselves within this aspect.

And in its use of clock time, it will have to remain conscious of the internal boundaries of the latter.

Discussions like the one between Einstein and Bergson simply pass each other by, since the one party absolutizes the objective-physical and the other the subjective-psychological aspect of time.

The one cosmic order of time, which equally holds for all things and events does not imply, as Newton supposed in his rationalistic view of time, a real uniform objective duration of time, separate from any individuality structure of reality. All concrete time duration, even that of the measure of time, remains bound to an individuaity structure, and is determined by it.

The problem of time can first be set on the correct foundation when one has seen that it essentially encloses within itself the problem of creaturely reality, and that the manner of posing the problem is wholly determined by what is in the deepest sense the religious point of departure of the thinker.

Dooyeweerd's Footnotes to the Text (continued)

…daß verschwommene Vorstellungen, die beim Erkennen als Begriffe funktionieren, im Kinde schon vor dem Besitz der zugehörigen Worte in großer Zahl vorhanden sind.

[…that indistinct representations, which function as concepts in knowing, are present in large numbers in the child even before the possession of the related words.]

…der Begriff schon da sein, während er auf das Wort sich noch besinnt.

[The concept can already be there, while he is still thinking of the word].

[34] See the discussion at p. 17 of this text [page 211?] concerning the modal subject-object relation.

[35] Schopenhauer: Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung I, section. 11, (Sämtliche Werke, vols. 1-2, p. 87), 86 sums up such anticipatory feeling functions next to the retrocipatory (sensory), in order to show that the concept “feeling”

If Schopenhaueer had recognized the principle of modal sovereignty in its own sphere (see p. 25 below) [page 218?], then he would have held this statement in his pen.

A. Messer (op. cit.) p. 127 approaches close to the negative view of Schopenhauer:

Why the meaning nucleus of the feeling aspect does not allow itself to be more closely defined is made clear in the theory of the law-spheres. The modal meaning nucleus is always as such the irreducible moment of meaning in the modal structure. But in this respect the aspect of feeling is not at all an exception. The same holds even with respect to the meaning nucleus of the logical aspect! On the other hand, the lack of insight into the modal structure of the feeling aspect is avenged where men acknowledge to feeling an internally undefined “universality” and in the line of Felix Krueger’s developmental psychology accepts that feeling is the original undifferentiated origin of all other ‘experiences” such as thinking and willing (See Messer, op. cit., p. 119).

[36] The modal meaning nucleus of the historical aspect (as to its subject-side) is analyzed in the theory of the law-spheres as “free formative control.” (culture).

[37] This also determined the correct relation between naïve thought and theoretical thought. Theoretical thought cannot be separated from naïve thought, but is in essence a deepening or opening up of pre-theoretical thought. However, this opening up, according to the nature of logical analysis, is only possible by the path of theoretical abstraction and detachment [distantieering].

[38] The economic analogy is also essential to the structure of the aesthetic aspect. No beautiful harmony can reveal itself without taking into consideration the principle of aesthetic economy. To lay it on too thick is ugly even in a primitive work of art. On the other hand, the temporal meaning relation with the economic aspect can only reveal itself in the anticipatory direction in the logical, historical, social and linguistic aspects. Primitive language for example lacks any symbolic economy. In the subjective development of the child the linguistic function undoubtedly comes to its unfolding before the economical.

[39] This is the economic analogy according to the law-side (normative side) of the juridical aspect. On the subject-side, this analogy reveals itself in subjective law and the figure of the legal object. The legal object is nothing more than the juridical objectification of an economic valuation (from which it follows for example that the free air cannot be a legal object). [JGF: the talio principle, literally “the law of the tooth,” is represented by “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Dooyeweerd’s point is that this principle limited the extent of revenge]

[40] Confessions L. I c. 1.

[41] Cf. among many studies that of Leenhardt: “Le temps et la personnalité chez les Canaques de la nouvelle Calédonie,” Revue Philosophique 62 (1937), pp. 49ff.

[42] The irrationalistic conceptions of time are always subjectivistic and view every objective duration of time as a conceptual abstraction that falsified reality.

[43] Just as fatal for insight into the subject-object relation is the identification of the idea of the subject with the metaphysical idea of substance. See p. 21 following in the text.[JGF: p. 213].

[44] The same state of affairs presents itself in the relation of subjective spatial extensiveness and a point. From this is derived the internal antinomy of the attempt to construe actual extensiveness as “a continuum of points.” The subject-object relation is here turned around in an internally contradictory manner.

[45] In the final analysis, the reflection of a subjective mood or feeling on the objects of our environment remains just as much of a subjective character. A. Messer, op. cit. p. 129 classifies these objects as “Objection der Gefühle” [objects of feeling; the reference should be to ‘Objekten’]. This clearly appears from the fact that the qualities of feeling that are reflected in this way on these objects vary completely with our mood. However, a living room or a landscape are examples that can also possess an objective mood that works upon our subjective mood. Finally, subjective feelings can really objectify themselves in facial expressions, in words or gestures, in a cry of jubilation, in crying, etc., etc. This really does not primarily concern a subject-object relation within the modal feeling aspect, but much rather in the linguistic aspect. Such an objective expression of feelings functions as a symbolic sign and must be interpreted.

[46] As is known, the term “specious present” was introduced by E.R. Clay and popularized in the language used by psychology, especially by W. James in his Principles of Psychology (vol. I, pp. 609ff). According to recent experiments, the objectification of present time in clock time gives a variation of from one half a second to 4 seconds, from which it is apparent that the duration of this awareness time greatly differs in various individuals and is strongly influenced not only by the intensity of attention and interest, but also by fatigue, alcohol, narcotics, etc.

[47] Here again the theoretization of reality avenges itself, which finds its origin in the philosophic immanence standpoint, the seeking of the Archimedean point of philosophy in theoretical thought.

[48] Cf. e.g. the Aristotelian distinction between anima vegetiva, anima sensitiva and anima rationalis, whereby the substantial difference between the plant soul, the animal soul and the human soul was sought in respectively the biotic aspect, the feeling aspect and the logical aspect of reality, whereas the higher function then included the lower function in itself and stamped a new character of being on the lower function. Cf. also Descartes’ definition of the body substance as res extensa and of the soul as res cogitans.

[49] Differing radical types do not have one, but two of these radical functions. Apart from the typical qualifying or destination function, they have a typical founding function. A typical founding function is present in all individuality structures whose destination function does not possess any original typicality, but which refers back to an original typicality within an earlier modal aspect of reality. The natural individuality structures that are typically founded include all those that are interwoven in such a way with other structures that without these other structures they could not exist. So the psychically qualified animal body is typically founded in a biotically qualified bodily organism. The former may temporally cease to operate while the latter remains functioning; the reverse is not possible. In Volume three of my De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, where the theory of individuality structures and structural interwovenness is extensively discussed, is therefore incorrectly denied a typical founding function to the radical type of the animal realm.

All things formed by man are typically founded. [JGF: i.e., they exist in a relation of enkapsis]. So for example, a plastic work of art like Hermes by Praxiteles is typically founded in an objective material form, which is realized in free historical giving of form by the artist. The aesthetic individuality of this Hermes is always that of this incomparable form of a god, which has been represented in marble material by free controlling forming.

All human social structures are also typically founded. Marriage, household and family are typically biotically founded in sexual relations and respectively blood ties. State and church on the other hand are typically historically founded in an historical organization of power (respectively an organization of the power of the sword, and that of the power of the Word and sacraments). Cf. regarding the things mentioned my Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee Vol. III.

[49a] [Dooyeweerd's numbering] The nervous system and the whole sensorial apparatus clearly fall outside the internal boundaries of the biotically qualified (vegetative) soma-structure. They belong in part to the second, and in part to the third structure of the body. [JGF: Note: Dooyeweerd does not intend to distinguish here between ‘soma’ and ‘body.’ The three individuality structures are all of the body. Dooyeweerd later adds a fourth individuality structure: the act structure. See his “32 Propositions on Anthropology.”]

[50] “Act” and “action” can be distinguished as internal and internal-external activity. Therefore “act” does not differ from “action” in that an act takes place in the internal life of a [supposed] abstract “psyche,” or of an abstract “psyche” and “spirit.” For even in the “act,” our biotically qualified soma is also active. The distinction I [internal and external] is based only on the fact that the act according to its temporal side takes place wholly in the internal enkaptical structural whole of the animated [bezielde] body, whereas it is first projected “outwards’ [naar buiten] in actions. [JGF: the qualification that this description is with respect to the “temporal side” of an act is due to Dooyeweerd’s view that all acts come forth from out of our supratemporal heart centre].

[51] This state of affairs also explains how for example it is that the will is understood differently in jurisprudence and ethics than it is in psychology. On the other hand, feeling as such never has different modal aspects. Feeling as such is a modal function.

[52] Of course there exists mutually objective simultaneity of sensory parts of space in an objective sensory plane. But this simultaneity remains relative to the plane.

[53] Philosophie der anorganische natuur, pp. 283-84.

[54] op. cit., p. 292.

[55] op. cit., p. 306

[56]This is implicitly also conceded by Hoenen, where he (op. cit, p. 279) remarks that:

This holds however only for the measure of time. Hoenen’s error is in identifying the measure of time with “time.”

Translator's Endnotes (continued)

[vii] JGF: This is a concise distinction between modalizing in the aspects and typifying in individuality structures. Both are structures of cosmic time.

[viii] JGF: As Dooyeweerd later says, God creates time, so the act of creation cannot itself temporal, and when we say that God as Creator is “before” his creation, this cannot be meant in the “before and after” of cosmic time.

[ix] JGF: Note the use of the idea of God’s Wisdom differentiating itself into the aspects! True, the reference is to the “wisdom of God’s creative plan,” but that is nevertheless God’s Wisdom. From this it follows that when we discern the relations among aspects and when we form individuality structures and act in conformity to those aspects, we are dealing with aspects of God’s Wisdom. The parallels with Orthodox theology have been made here by Michael Morbey.

[x] JGF: See my article, “Enkapsis and Individuality Structures: Individuation from Totality in Dooyeweerd and German Idealism” [http://www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/Enkapsis.html] [‘Enkapsis’]. In that article I analyze this view of things being structures of time as opposed to substances.

[xi] JGF: I am not aware of Dooyeweerd making this point elsewhere. I think it is significant in distinguishing individuality structures from aspects. And if the individuality structure is not refracted like the modal aspects, this would be a strong argument against viewing the aspects as merely properties of things, as many reformational philosophers tend to do. For how could an aspect, which is a refracted point, derive from something which is not refracted? As Dooyeweerd says in his last article Gegenstandsrelatie, there is an ontical priority of aspects before individuality structures, and not the other way around. [http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/Kentheoretische.html].

[xii] JGF: The modal aspect structures are the law-spheres, as opposed to the aspects themselves in their nuclear meaning, the refraction points of cosmic time. In his last article Gegenstandsrelatie, [http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/Kentheoretische.html], Dooyeweerd says that the aspects differentiate first, then the law-spheres, and then individuality structures, which are based on the law-spheres. The modal structures are not the same as the individuality structures.

[xiii] JGF: This passage is important in view of the fact that so many reformational philosophers deny that the modal aspects can ever be understood in a genetic way.

[xiv] JGF: This is important for our view of individuality structures. Duration occurs only in individuality structures, and that duration is, as Dooyeweerd seems to say elsewhere, what constitutes the individuality structure (See “Enkapsis”). Here he says that duration occurs only when the individuality structures are realized.

[xv] JGF: Dooyeweerd initially referred only to retrocipations as analogies. Later, he extended the term ‘analogy’ to include both retrocipations and anticipations in time.

[xvi] JGF: As I have shown, Vollenhoven denies such analogies in the pre-physical aspects. See “Dialectic.”

[xvii] JGF: This pointing “forward” to a “pre”-supposition is characteristic of Dooyeweerd’s thought. The “pre” is to be understood in the sense of the supratemporal ground. It differs from the looking back of retrocipations, which look back to the “foundation” in the sense of what is disclosed in the unopened or closed experience.

[xviii] JGF: Note that in this process of realization and opening up, Dooyeweerd is speaking of the functioning of individuality structures in the aspects. He is not referring to the aspects themselves as functions.

[xix] JGF: Dooyeweerd slightly revised this view in response to criticism. But he still says that most naïve experience is retrocipatory. And one wonders whether the examples that he gives of exceptions are not the incorporation in naïve experience of theoretical thought (in other words, of the deepening of naïve experience by theory).

[xx] JGF: It is interesting that Dooyeweerd relates axioms of logic to the faith aspect. This is because these axioms are an anticipation of certainty.

[xxi] JGF: As Dooyeweerd explains in the WdW, the problem is his view of faith as opening up our naïve experience. Why is primitive society not opened up? It, too has faith. Dooyeweerd’s answer here is that the kind of faith that it has does not perform this function.

[xxii] JGF: this is because in Dooyeweerd’s view of created reality as “meaning,” created reality http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Refer.html beyond itself. It does not rest in itself, and so it is restless. This is one of many ideas in Dooyeweerd’s philosophy that Vollenhoven rejected.

[xxiii] JGF: Dooyeweerd did add the words (See NC I, 11; WdW I, 13). The Latin phrase is not translated in the text. It means that our heart is restless, and that the world is restless in our heart! So the phrase includes the fact that the temporal world has its meaning and existence in our heart, the supratemporal center or totality.

[xxiv] JGF: This appears to be Vollenhoven’s view. From his later Divergentierapport [http://www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/Divergentierapport.html], it is clear that there was a disagreement regarding the importance of law-regularity [wetmatigheid]. Vollenhoven seems to regard theory as abstracting the regularity of law from temporal things and their relations. Dooyeweerd seems to regard this as rationalistic.

[xxv] JGF: Vollenhoven denied that the subject-object relation takes place in the modal structure. For him, the relation applied only between things. See 'Dialectic.'

[xxvi]JGF: Note that the totality is the foundation of its functions, and not of the modal aspects. The difference has been overlooked by reformational philosophy, but is crucial to Dooyeweerd’s argument.

[xxvii] JGF: Note the distinction here between modal aspects, and individuality structures that function in those aspects. Dooyeweerd makes the same point in his last article “Gegenstandrelatie.” See [http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Mainheadings/Kentheoretische.html].

[xxviii] JGF: Note again the disagreement of Vollenhoven, who believed that all of man perishes at death, including what for him was a totally temporal pre-functional centre.

[xxix] JGF: Dooyeweerd does not mean ‘plastic’ as a kind of oil-based product, but rather a formed work of art. Individuality structures are in what he calls the “plastic dimension” since they can be formed and worked on.

[xxx] JGF: The distinction between “qualifying” (“leading” or “destination”) functions and “founding” functions makes sense only within the relation of enkapsis. A work of art is an individuality structure qualified by an aesthetic function, but founded in another individuality structure (the marble), which is qualified by the physical function. But because almost everything is built up from a number of enkaptically related individuality structures, we can speak of almost everything in our experience as having both a qualifying and a founding function.

[xxxi] JGF: By ‘enkapsis,’ Dooyeweerd means the “insertion” of individuality structures within one another in an interlaced or interwoven manner. He appears to have obtained the term from the German philosopher Max Wundt (1879-1963). See my article “Individuality Structures and Enkapsi: Individuaiton from Totality in Dooyeweerd and German Idealism (2005). Online at [http://www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/
Enkapsis.html].

[xxxii] JGF: Dooyeweerd here does not hesitate in applying these traditional ideas of the soul to the http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/heart.html. As I see it, the distinction from traditional ideas of the soul is that (1) the heart is supratemporal, not eternal (2) it is not substantial (3) it is not a hypostatized function or complex of functions like intellect (4) temporal reality has no existence except within this religious root and (5) there is a reciprocal relation between the heart and its http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/Definitions/Natural.html, in this case temporal. After death, there is a supratemporal nature in which the central heart will express itself.

[xxxiii] JGF: I am not aware of Dooyeweerd having explained elsewhere the faith qualification of the third enkaptic structure. To link “spiritual” or “normative” with faith is very interesting for the further understanding of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy.

 

Sept. 14/05, Revised June 29/06