The enigma of time has been central to human inquiries from their inception and stays today as unsettled as 4000 years ago. Nobody expressed it better than Saint Augustin:

**What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.**

In other words, we have an intuition of time, which, when analyzed, becomes transparent, vanishes and opens into the void.

Introspection tells me that I intuit time as continuous, uninterrupted setting of foreground events, whether percepts, emotions, images or intellections, as their perpetual and universal, but unattainable and inscrutable background. Foreground events discretize the continuous background flow of time. Particular, periodically recurring events may function as clocks, the frequency of their occurrences or "ticks" indicating the speed of time flow. Time and clocks appear as Aspects of the Dichotomy Continuum/Discreteness (CD). Clocks integrate time into discrete periods, bounded by the ticks and conserving in between the continuous fabric. Values of time are necessarily affected by fuzziness determined by tick intervals of involved clocks.

Einstein calls the intuitive, continuous time "subjective" and it's discrete "clocks" complement - "objective". However, both are experienced by the same "subject" and thus "subjective". In order to avoid "subjective-subjective" and "subjective-objective", which would appear when defining "Space-Time" ("Natural Model"), we prefer to call the continuous time aspect "Intuitive Time" and the discrete - "Eventtual Time".

Intuition stays unaffected by philosophical, scientific and other models, so that considering "time" of different models we really examine their clocks, i. e. the eventtual time. Considering intuitive time by itself, neglecting its eventtual clocks complement amounts to empty speculations such as arguing about the sex of angels.

Investigating time we have brought to light its CD Dichotomy. We shall find it hereafter as the universal structure of human Universe. For instance, physics reduced its domain of inquiry, viz. the Cosmos, to the CD Dichotomy, whose continuous aspect consists of Field (P-Equivalent with SPACE) and the discrete of its quantized divergence areas.

NOTE: By "P-Equivalence" (Phenomenal Equivalence) we mean the relation among observable aspects of a not directly observable phenomenon. For instance, continuous wave and discrete photons are P-Equivalent aspects of the phenomenon "light".

Enigma and Dichotomy of Awareness

The continuous, universal, but inscrutable time, which sets discrete events appears analogous to the intuition of the thematic awareness, as propounded by Descartes, Heidegger and Sartre. In our opinion it is not an accidental analogy, but equivalence. We postulate it as the

FUNDAMENTAL EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE:

INTUITIVE(CONTINUOUS) ASPECT OF TIME IS EQUIVALENT WITH AWARENESS.

As we said above, intuition stays unaffected by scientific philosophical and other models, so that considering "awareness" as seen by different models we really examine their views of events. Considering awareness as such, independently of its eventtual complement would be an empty speculation.

All events, all attainable eventtual elements of human Universe point to the unique background, intuited as awareness and time.

In that light we may formulate the Postulate of Relativity:

POSTULATE OF RELATIVITY

ALL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN UNIVERSE ARE DISCRETE AND RELATIVE, EXCEPTING AWARENESS, ITS ABSOLUTE CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION.

And the corollary 1:

THE DICHOTOMY CONTINUUM/DISCRETENESS IS THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF ALL ELEMENTS OF HUMAN REALITY WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL PREPONDERANCE OF THE CONTINUOUS ASPECT.

Corollary 2: Meaningful assertions may express only the attainable relative elements of Universe in their interrelations. Thus, nothing can be asserted about the absolute, directly unattainable awareness. Awareness is thematic and may be only indirectly attained and expressed via its theme, the relative events.

Example: Saying "I am aware" posits some element "I" having the property "awareness", which contradicts the Postulate of Relativity, according to which awareness founds and precedes all elements, including "I". "I" is founded in Awareness and not the other way round. Instead of "I am aware", one could perhaps say "aware", but that does not assert anything. Actually, even "aware" would not pertain to the concept. When I perceive a tree I'm not aware of being aware of perceiving a tree, but I'm aware of the theme "tree", so that the only way of expressing Awareness would be "Tree". One cannot assert anything about awareness, one can only hint it intuitively.

NOTE: As justified in "STRUCTURES OF MIND" (Reflection and Meaning) words don't carry meaning, but more or less vaguely point to it. Very vaguely indeed when concerning general and intuitive concepts such as "universe" or "awareness". Particularly misleading are then possessive adjectives like "my", prepositions like "of", etc. "My awareness", or "I am aware" misdescribe for instance some "I" having "awareness". Yet, such forms are unavoidable when using a natural language. Sartre introduced a convention to put misleaders in brackets, like in "conscience (de) soi". We shall use it in especially confusing cases and write: "(my) awareness", "awareness (of) tree", or "(my) universe". Not that it's any more precise, but at least it gives a warning against misinterpretations