surprise to see Thomas Reid, that pre-eminent champion of common sense in philosophy, advocating precisely this position: It is by memory that we have an immediate knowledge of things past. The senses give us information of things only as they exist in the present moment; and this information, if it were not preserved by memory, would vanish instantly, and leave us as ignorant as if it had never been. (1855: 2l l) Memory evidently does play an important role in our overall relationship with time. If I go to the post office this afternoon it will be because I still remember that I have a letter to post; if I arrive at the post office it will be because I have remembered the way there. In our day to day dealings with the world we are constantly guided (and motivated) by our memories. Memory also plays a role over the shorter term. If I hear a bell chime three times in a row, I would be unaware that the third chime is the third unless I remember having heard the first two. Reid is right about all this. However, his claim that immediate experience is confined to the present is, on ref`lection, less innocuous that it might seem. Strictly (or properly) conceived, the present has no duration: it is simply the interface between what is future and what is past. Hence if our experience were confined to the present, it would be impossible for us to experience phenomena which require duration. More specifically, we would not be able...