In analyzing the way temporality affects us, we can look at two phenomena which show an apparent gulf in the way we regard ourselves within time. In spontaneous actions time appears to be a nonessential aspect due to the action not occurring in conscious experience. External stimuli, and the manner in which we interact with it, produces a reaction that happens in an order of time that falls below conscious awareness’s threshold for interaction. Our pre-conscious perceptual system produces a nervous reaction that responds to stimuli, and we only experience the situation consciously in conceptualizations of a retrospective nature. On the other hand, consciously deliberated action appears within the domain of experience, and thus we regard it as being of a different nature than that of spontaneous actions. Action resulting from conscious awareness or deliberation may be itself modified by the deliberation, but the very deliberation itself, without a doubt, is the result of the nervous systems modification of the environment it finds itself in, as in the case of spontaneity, yet this content reaches conscious awareness. To say conscious awareness produces the action which follows deliberation, is to speak only a partial truth.

Both phenomena are the results of our Being becoming modified by our immediate environment, and producing a reciprocating response to it, the difference is in the amount of time that lapses. In the first case, the time that passes is less than conscious experience can grasp, and happens outside the domain of our awareness, in the later, the experience can be quantified as resulting from a period of time in which awareness was present of the process. The way we view these two experiences, and the way we intuit their relationship to our totality of who we are, our “Being”, is grounded upon phenomenological experience, but they share temporal modification of a subtle nature. In what manner does temporality and the actions which stem from our Being originate? What is the subtle nature that produces both actions, and why do we experience them differently? How does our reaction to time elicit a view of self-control?

In regards to spontaneity and action that is preceded by conscious deliberation, they both are inextricably connected to time, the differentiation is merely conceptual, and an illusion. Conscious deliberation is an act of spontaneity, yet is recognized as being altogether different in nature, as spontaneous acts are often described as “instinctual” or “habitual”. While spontaneous acts aren’t experienced within subjective consciousness, the very conscious deliberation which precedes an action is itself manifest from the unconscious. We do not choose our thoughts before they appear in conscious awareness, and thus the deliberation, and action that follows, stems from the same deterministic framework. In a sense, conscious direction is as instinctual and conditional as unconscious reciprocation to our environment, it is itself a reaction to our current place in time and space, given our current mental development as conditioned by our past historicity. While these characterizations do differentiate it, from an appearance perspective, conscious deliberation arises in a manner that is only different in that it is experienced consciously. It still arises in response to an environment with causal factors which are out of our conscious control.

Time is something geared into our existence, anything that happens can be explained by its temporal and causal nature. If we explore phenomenologically our experience then we can see how the conscious deliberation and spontaneous action are both moments which mysteriously appear in the present by our Being undergoing different modifications through time, producing different modes of being. These different modes of being might be that which retrospectively labels a situation as happening habitually, or, if the action or movement occurs after conscious forethought, we say it was an act of our “self” or of “freewill”. The fundamental phenomenological difference is in the perceived lapse of time in conscious deliberation, and the lack of conscious acuity in recognizing it in “spontaneous” actions.

There is a gulf between the conscious present and its pre-perceptual causal instantiation- but – so too is there in spontaneous reaction. We only recognize the illusory gulf between the two due to our conscious examination, and in reflection they appear to be different, of a different temporal order, yet, in the experience of either, they are both manifestations of the same Being geared into its temporal wave as it flows through us, merely reacting in either direction in the way which it is conditioned to do so.

Time is fundamentally entwined with our Being, and the transience and modification it plays upon how we perceive subjective experience can be revealed phenomenologically, by returning to the experience itself and how it appears to be of a certain nature depending on the amount of perceived time lapsing in the “event” under scrutiny. There is an illusion that spontaneity and conscious deliberation are not manifestations of the same “Being”. We say we didn’t mean to, or it wasn’t our choice, when we react in a habitual or instinctual manner, that is, unconsciously. But why do we not apply the same explanation to conscious thoughts as they arise? Or the actions which follow them? They too aren’t our “choice”, they merely are appearing in conscious awareness. The temporal wave we find ourselves in, in the moment of spontaneity, and in an action with conscious pre-conceptualization, both carry the modification of time, occur in time, and take place for good “scientific reasons”.

Science is fundamental, yet a different area of analysis. We do not deny science in phenomenology, nor accept it, we merely bracket it and head “to the things themselves”, that is, as they appear in perception, consciousness, experience, and are formed due to a significance, meaning, a sense, all of which is presumed in any scientific enterprise, and not made explicit.

The temporal structure as embodied is inextricably connected to the milieu in which we find ourselves thrown into. Our anticipation of the future, our projection and always living ahead of ourselves – in time – as the future comes, develops out of a constructed style of being that has been modified by the past. The connectivity within the present of our Beings orientation informed by the past and modified by perception of the future is necessary to describe any experience or reflective moment within time, any phenomenological analysis requires times elucidation to provide context to the phenomenon. In other words, we are constantly being modified by our orientation towards time, our relation to the past, and future must be taken into account for any explanation of a present moment experience. It is for these reasons that we fail to accurately perceive the equal expression of our Being in “fast” response and “slow response”, that we fail to have an automatic insight into the origin of consciously conceived phenomena, and attribute them to stemming from “us” in a controlling manner.

While the appearance of control is only present when an action or thought is brought into conscious awareness, we must recognize the Being from which it stems, and the manner it does so, to see it clearly. The next conscious thought we think is no more under “our” control than the reaction to accidentally placing my hand on a hot stove, both reactions are triggered by stimuli, internalized by our perceptive system, modified by our experience, and resulting in an action that follows. We constantly are orientating ourselves towards the environment we find ourselves in, and the manner we do so is based on our embodied perception, genetic inheritance, experiences, and current mode of being. The current mode of being is itself a manifestation of our historicity, and is likewise explainable on deterministic grounds. Conscious thought can appear to decide between options, and it can lead to us choosing an option, but that choice, that conscious decision, or indecision, is all representative of the totality of the Being from which it stems from.