Inner Sense, Outer Sense, Time, Space…

Since Kant introduced the notion of “inner sense” and assigned time to inner sense, it has seemed self-evident that time corresponds to inner sense and space to outer sense. And the idea that time is more fundamental than space—because while time can still be grounded when cut off from all outer sense, space without time has nowhere to stand—has also seemed to follow naturally.

But what, exactly, is “inner sense”? What sort of sense is that, really? If the so-called “intuition” of the sixth sense is still some kind of outer sense, then could this be the legendary seventh sense? Thinking of Saint Seiya, just joking~

What I want to say is: does such an “inner sense” even exist? Thinking requires “time”; one can count silently in one’s mind, and all of this can measure “time.” But is that something bestowed by “inner sense”? In fact, thinking not only requires “time,” it also requires “concepts,” and concepts come from words, while words usually come from hearing. Yes, hearing is still part of the outer senses.

What is it like to count in one’s mind? One way is to count by using “sound,” for example, silently reciting “one, two, three…” in the mind; another way is to count by using images, for example, by scrolling a subtitle line in one’s head. People who are born without hearing may mainly count in the latter way. Then what about someone who is born both deaf and blind—does he have “time” or not? Perhaps he does too, namely by counting through touch; in fact, I have experienced this myself: for example, our abacus-based mental arithmetic is mentally “playing” with the abacus, and playing the abacus depends not chiefly on looking with the eyes, but on tactile feel. Of course, the simplest way to count by touch is probably to silently bend one’s fingers in one’s mind.

Then, could someone who is born with neither sight nor hearing and not even touch still count? No one knows, because there simply is no such person; even if there were, we would be unable to communicate with him. But I am inclined to believe that such a “person” has “no time.” Lacking any sensation, he cannot learn language or concepts, that is, he cannot become a thinking human being, and will forever remain in some kind of undifferentiated primordial chaos. Even animals that cannot make use of concepts are, as Schopenhauer said, without “time”; they live only in the present and have no “future.” But animals at least still have senses; a “person” born without any sense at all probably could not even possess the temporality of an animal.

That is to say, temporality itself is also dependent on the outer senses. For a person to think for himself while detached from the outside world, the prerequisite is that he possess sight, hearing, or touch, and that through memory and the construction of concepts he reawaken these sensations in his mind.

Perhaps the distinction should be drawn this way: among visual experiences, those directly evoked by external things are called “outer sense”; while those reawakened within the mind through the lingering impressions of external things are called “inner sense.” But if so, inner sense would in turn have to be subordinate to, or rely upon, outer sense.

2008年1月11日

最新评论

• 古

  2008-01-14 21:40:27 Anonymous 123.112.67.107 

  ///Among visual experiences, those directly evoked by external things are called “outer sense”; while those reawakened within the mind through the lingering impressions of external things are called “inner sense”.///
  ——This presupposes “external things.” Perhaps “external things” could be omitted and replaced with “intuition” or “direct experience,” or with what are generally called “sensations (the five senses).” What I want to say is that so-called “inner sensation” is not a seventh sense beyond the five senses, but merely the recollection, re-presentation, and synthesis of the five senses. If a person were born without the five senses, then he could not have anything like inner sense either. Time and space are both forms of the five senses, just as vision is usually associated with spatiality and hearing usually with temporality; but this is not absolute. Vision can also perceive time, and hearing can also perceive space. But if one sets aside all sensation and still insists that human beings can perceive time, I don’t believe it. Time is perceived either through hearing, or through sight, or through touch.

  The same ruler can measure both the size of space and the length of time—you can start from the first marking and look all the way to the last marking. “Seeing” does not only require space; seeing without space is impossible. But seeing without time is also impossible. Merely taking “one glance” can take in the whole ruler, but it still cannot “see” every marking on it; otherwise I would only need to glance once to read the whole article, wouldn’t that be convenient? “Seeing” also requires time: from beginning to end, “seeing” a ruler once takes time; seeing it twice takes twice as much time; seeing half of it takes half as much time. So I can also use “seeing” to measure time.

  If no time is given, and an object merely flashes past before our eyes, sometimes we can still “see” what it is, or even see its details. But that requires the use of “memory”; what we are in fact “seeing” is the image remaining in our minds. If we do not “spend time” looking at that lingering image, we still cannot see anything.

  In the process of “seeing,” spatiality and temporality, positional relations and successive relations, are actually interconnected. From marking 1 to marking 10, I see the positional relations among these markings, but this is only possible through their successive appearance one after another. I cannot “see out” all these relations among things “in one glance.” In that sense, perhaps space after all still depends on time, while time can be perceived independently of space. But can we also regard temporality as part of spatiality, or as one of its variants?

  In daily life, time and space are also interlinked: time can measure space, and space can also measure time. For example—in the course of a journey, one person asks: How far is it to XX? Answer: Just walk another half day and you’ll be there.——Using the temporal unit “half a day” to measure the spatial magnitude “how far,” this answer is satisfying; conversely, answering in a proper, official way with “there are still XX kilometers left” is actually less satisfying. Or for example—What time is it? The sun is already high in the sky!——Using the sun’s spatial position to mark time is also appropriate.

  I am just writing these things casually, without thinking deeply about them, and without having read much. But if you want to continue the discussion or give me guidance, it’s better to leave a comment right here, hehe~

• unic

  2008-01-23 22:48:58 Anonymous 220.171.180.131

  How do people’s initial sense of space and sense of time arise?
  Is it that the sense of time comes from the perception of changes in space?

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.