time is not simply

.

Aristotle

Augustine of Hippo

Kant

Einstein

Heidegger

Bergson

Deleuze

Hawking

and many more

have attempted to define time in relation to human beings and to the universe.

In his 2016 essay, French professor of philosophy Elie During agrees with Kant that time is not a concept, but rather a form. He contends that “‘time’ is essentially the name of a problem” (During, 2016, 7).

I do have a problem with time:

with the way it shapes and controls my body

and my relations to other human and non-human entities.

.

.

.

Time is not simply a sequence of measurable instants

.

Time is not flow

.

Time is not the unfolding of natural phenomena, such as the earth’s orbit around the sun

.

Time is not change: human beings tend to interpret phenomena of change, which they observe in their environment or on themselves, as the flow of time (During, 2016). Examples of such phenomena are alterations between sunlight and darkness, seasonal change, the blossoming of a tree, the appearance of wrinkles on the skin.

.

.

.

.

British cognitive scientist Andy Clark regards time as a transparent technology that resists control.

He argues that humans and technologies are in a “symbiotic relationship” (Clark, 2003, 24), in the sense that technologies adapt to and, at the same time, transform human cognition, behavior and life. He thinks with Donald Norman’s (American researcher) ideas to frame this symbiosis in a continuum of transparent and opaque technologies.

Transparent technologies are “so well fitted to, and integrated with, our own lives, biological capacities, and projects as to become […] almost invisible in use” and thus transparent (Clark, 2003, 35-58). In short, the user takes them “for granted” (Clark, 2003, 44). Because hum* does not notice them, transparent technologies resist control. The user does not reflect on their use, hum rather concentrates on the task to be completed by their use (Clark, 2003, 48). Hum, therefore, is not in a reciprocal relationship with them.

Opaque technologies require “skills and capacities that do not come naturally to the biological organism” and are, therefore, visible (Clark, 2003, 35-58). Because of their opaqueness, the user notices them and reflects on how to use them. Hence, opaque technologies allow for control and agency of the user.

.

I do take time for granted.

I think it quite impossible to consider myself outside of time.

How would I live without being born in 1988?

.

In this human-time symbiosis, technologies of time are an extension and a constitutive of humans. Considering, for example, how easily we have access to measured time (through wristwatches, smartphones, applications) in Western societies and how rarely we reflect on this fact, it becomes clear that time is consolidated into our everyday life to a level of invisibility. This transparency makes it difficult to notice how technologies of time form the self, the body and the ways humans relate to the world. It, also, minimizes the agency of human beings within this symbiosis. The affirmation of the human-time symbiotic relationship reveals

the impossibility of dispensing altogether with time; because that would mean getting rid of constitutive parts of humans and of their environment.

And while I agree that time is a human technological construction,

the lack of visibility and control

which Clark proposes

troubles me immensely.

It urges me to investigate which aspects of time

allow for opaqueness and

agency of the user.

.

.

*hum: pronoun, nominative and accusative case, hums genitive case, is used in this virtual space to indicate a non-taxonomized human.

.

.

.