Some Spatio-Temporal Confusions

One of the main purposes of the foregoing analyses of Space and Time is to expose some confusions that have prevailed in some prominent traditional theories, and that are at the root of some common attitudes. The theory of Time presented here challenges the thesis that the Past does not exist. The latter is typically based on a conception of Time as a succession of instants, in which, once surpassed, an instant ceases to exist. One practical expression of such a theory is Irresponsibility, i. e. that one's actions are of no consequence to one beyond their occurrence. In contrast, if, as presented here, the Past is part of the Present, then all one's previous actions are always part of one. Furthermore, if Time exists, and, as tradition has it, the Future is part of Time, then the Future exists. Thinking along such lines is at the root of some of the most common of fatalistic attitudes, e. g. the resignation that the Future is already written, and is only waiting to befall one. In contrast, here the 'Future' is actually a Future Present, and a Present is only first produced by a Propriation-Propriated relation. But in that relation, the Propriated is an Exposition, e. g. is some locomotility that will have preceded the reflection upon it. In other words, the 'Future' must await the performance of some action, meaning that it cannot be 'already written'. So, just as the Formaterial theory of the Past demonstrates that Individuality entails Responsibility for one's actions, its theory of the Future demonstrates how Individuality entails a certain Freedom of action.