Before time had begun.

 

But Hume the historian clearly allow one to understand the exact position of what is beyond me.

 This position might be reduced to four deep pointers.

 

a)  The beyond is that which I am down stream from: I exist in it light.

b)  It being is than characterized that I cannot easily imagine what it is. Or better I can easily grasp what it have to me – or how I came about. It power of creation over me, means then I am placed in very much a junior role in relation to it.

c)   And yet t itself, if I could directly look it in the face, would not b so different from times now. The difference between us, is not the  difference in what it is, but rather in what I am, and what it gives me.

d)  Finally this difference is communicated to be by a different condition in our mutual being The past is in  me by being in an other tense. It is the THE Past, the pattern of the past, the place  come from, while I give it not as past so much as future> I create it then in the movement towards something else and the driving to the future and the creation of that futuring.

 

What exist is then is a little double tense cell, where what I am is what I is in relation to something that can only be understood other to it, and at  different time or place:

 The move is then As I was I will be.

 Across he difference in tense, all empiricism is conjured: I how what has been only in the patterns it gives the future: Elsewhere in the world something awful might always have happened, and  am playing catch up for it. Or perhaps elsewhere, in an other place there are those desk springs o reality, from which all give burs forth or leaps up, but  only now those springs as they are given in the bright light of what I perceive here and how.

Or to put it slightly differently the great power of the double the double tense lies in the fact that (as resemblance does) it attempts to capture the fact that I am exist in the being affected: I am then that which is given in the light of taking and echoing one another-  another’s hidden spring.: This difference , the difference between what I give and what made me go the giving, is the gap in which he hope or pray or belief truth lies. This there is  strand in thinking that crave this doubling of tense, whiz in as …actually leads back if not t to truth to  convenient lie: that is the point in which creative lie breaks into life, and makes us so very different one from the other.

 That is we crave this gap to matter to someone or even in the extreme to the back of anything : God might not be, but the world as it would be is God was real, is itself real enough.

 

 But Hume’s explication is rather otherwise; The past was indeed something one can research, something one can knew, it was real enough; and yet that reality had nothing to do with me as such. The fact that it made me, was then a matter of utter indifference; it merely did what I did, and if I happened in the mean time, so much more the merrier.

 The gap was real then because the weight of events in the past, and the weight of events in me –a s they build into a me, are clear very different things  and between then lies God know what hidden springs of the body.

 r to put I slightly differently, my quest for the past, my looking into history and where I came from is of course a daffy question. I cannot find this origin in the weight of events as they impress forward: They are as a weigh open they go where the hell they like. But we do not want to know this. We want our events, the owns that lead to our universe (and makes us special). The past, as we read it, as we must read it, is then never actually the past hat append. It dos not really work that way at all. The past as we read it, is the backwarding of us.

It is in this reading backwards of what we are, that the mystery of fatalism lies. For what is fatalism but the demanding that a past ought to be also ours? That is that it ought or must be what we – We are be holdened to history, then and yet it all that obsequiousness we are grasping and using. We demand that history makes our world, and not what it wanted.

The paradox of time , is less paradox, so much as a reading of tense into time; looking at the past from here and now we demand one thing of its, and yet this one thing, this world of impressed cause, the world that the intellect grasp (Spinoza) is never in the world of events as they move forward itself. The unit exists then in us alone; We are the true ‘end’ of this history We cannot then look for it in the real world itself (or expect to find it in the past or in history itself).

 So that the world we conjure in our existence or by our existence has always very different events in I that the world that moved forward. Or perhaps and here one can only follow Deluze0 it has the same events but viewed differently: Well maybe, Hume says. But It is equally possible that the hidden springs which history are not working in events but rather inhabiting a space beyond theme, a slow process or series of processes, in which world s are warped and made. Well maybe.

 But Hume point is of course we cannot know, and should not ask. Or better the task of asking warps the question to much.

The magic and power of Deleuze is that he can in his theory take this full of the chin. He therefore sets p a temporality perfectly capable of going forward in the one direction, the direction of the actual, and backward in other-  that is the virtual. What is more the virtual, the backward of the past, is then set up (from using Bergson) as a single axis. My and your past might be different and we might together be very different from Hume what Hume might ask of the past, and yet it difference does not really matter. We are in it together – in the pasting Or better the very factor of this differences a fact of the past itself.

 

And yet ere, surely the good old fashion empiricism such as Hume’s soul revolts. The trouble I that one cannot real know that these pasts are ever empirically caught in the same axis It need not work (quite) like that. Or does it merely works on the bland restatement of temporal order (one past has more in it that the other, or whatever)ma and yet this order is not enough. That is the past I conjure up here and now, the past I plunder, the sense I go back, has a lot to do with what I am here  and now; I is the past then  look to  give me: as  I change it changes, and is really differently, as it is the product of an act of creation in the here and now. The jump to a past virtual and collective (which simply includes these elements within it) is then too much – it is a too great a leap out  of reality. More than that it necessarily sacrifices that key point in the past (or places I is suspension): the point that in the fact that it is as a past, it is felt to be irrevocable. The point about the pas is then that was it plunders what was, it claims to be all there is. Not this claim shifts and changes. That is the fun of history, and yet at each movement is made.

 If one then creates an axis of history-  the history for history, one ought to allow for the fact hat each history is one and alone and simply not a part of a greater past. It conjures p is own world, and it ought to be enough. It I in splendid isolation.

In a sense this is why Spinoza offers such a very subtle theory about the poison of the intellect and cause. Causes, the weight of one thing on another, offer the mind a unity, a trail of causes, and yet this unit firmly holds the intellect down, and prevents it from prehending events. Any one unity it has then is always provisional, and conjured in it by forces beyond it; it will then break and end in the next move of than which impresses down upon it (the weight of even, or the infinite immediate modes). It unit is then only given in the fact that endless new realities exist.  The unity is only given then in the infinite mind of God – as this slip(where it combines or becomes a part in anture0 –in each finite flicker or slice there are merely his or that trail of past events, given to a mind. We do not then directly understand or van participate in that unity, as such. That is we cantor the fact that our mind, our pasts constantly slip into other realties have a right o talk about it. We can in a sense grasp it, and ca understand everything lose in fashion its own pasts from events (for it is common and open to palliative thought)and yet this move, does no configure a unity as such point the past, so much as an understanding of he difference.

Better it slits up that past; We share in one-way, wile the weight of events unify across all God is in quite a different way: they two then are only united for Spinoza light at the end of Ethics, I  sense of being in the middle of events, infinite and finite are all caught up in the power of god to ensure everything is always complex, and all things intertwined one with the other. The difference itself is merely one more muddle (beyond direct unity – one to be intuitively  grasped then).

 

 Be that as it may-  an Hume would deny any of his has meaning: the point is simple enough thigh, and one h would agree with. The unity the past as such foisters on events, in not the unity of time as such. It is rather to temporal unity I conjure up in the here and now as I look to events, and seek o plunder theme meaning. I is mine; Or better t is the placing of myself beyond where I am, and he feeling that I am created, It is then the condition for things to tumble into me: the world or stuffs, positioned as something to happen to me. It is then the price I make he world pay, or my mind pay, to be able to impress things upon me at all. The hidden springs might do what the such they like, but I can only listen as these springs are poisoned, are already, in a certain relation to me. The first take of tense is then the condition, the structure the what  m listening to, what my body is young, the frame into which events are se before I get to hem. A poison of myself as the world effects me….the corneas, and ear dumps  of the mind. Inside this poisons then the body lies, as that which is then created in the light of what is given it. This position, this flight, has its own power, its own crave elements.

To move forward then for Hume in this life, I to demand that events before impress the mind or its organs is a certain It is then if you lead to create a double unity. The unity before, a unity never expressed, and which merely defines a position, a way that events are already treating me: and a second never finished unity, that which is given in the flight to another tense within me: I perceive then in a movement as a moving, as a sense that these tethers force and always force a change upon me.

 And yet it is by not clear there can be nothing really so special about the past and the future it instil  into my mind. Other tenses could frame (and ought o frame0 and other tenses can respond: I is to these othering the next essay will turn.