It seems like you’re making a statement about the nature of time, specifically the distinction between “experienced” time (present) and “marked” time (past). Let’s break down the concept:
1. **Experienced Time**: This is the present moment, the “now,” that we are living and experiencing. It’s unmarked and transient, always shifting as we move from one moment to the next.
2. **Marked Time**: This refers to the past, events that have been recorded or marked in some way. Once a moment is marked, it becomes part of history and is no longer in the present. It can be read and analyzed but is no longer experienced in the same way.
Your statement also suggests that marking time while experiencing it is possible but not necessary, unless the course or timing matters. This might mean that while we can record or mark events as they happen, it might take away from the pure experience of the moment, unless there is a specific need to track the time or sequence of events.
In essence, you’re touching on philosophical and psychological concepts related to how we perceive and interact with time. The act of marking or recording time can change our experience of it, possibly making us more aware of its passage or allowing us to analyze it later, at the expense of fully immersing ourselves in the present moment. It’s a concept that resonates with various philosophical, psychological, and even spiritual traditions that emphasize mindfulness and being present in the moment.
(Opinion) The balance between experiencing the present and marking time for future reference might be a personal preference, and it can be influenced by the context or purpose of the activity. Some might find value in fully immersing themselves in the experience without distraction, while others might see benefits in tracking or marking time for reflection, learning, or other practical purposes. It’s an intriguing interplay that highlights the complex nature of our relationship with time.