Coherence of the synthetic perception of objective relations, generated in the form of a unified category is naturally projected and semantically shaped in our mind through the representation of the fourth dimension in nature, i.e. the dimension of time. If the issue of duration is approached analytically, as a substitute for the time dimension, it becomes obvious that the relation of duration is immanently divisible into an arbitrary number of constituents of equal intensity. Any time interval can be divided into a number of constituents, taking into consideration the referent entity; mathematical representation of the interval constituent or the entire interval is arbitrary complementary to the objective substratum. In other words, analytical failure of the search for an absolute objective substratum of the time dimension and analogously, the very perception category of time, follows from the inability to directly derive that substratum.

An inductive aspect of the time perception is an incomplete closed whole, the immanent self-destructive movement of which is a consequence of the lack of structural specification. A deductive approach to this unique problem resembles an abyss, which does not presuppose its own inside, but its outside projection. The supporters of metaphysics agree on one point: a deductive aspect of time perception is inviolable; a category of mind projection in the form of an interval, similar to a translatory image of an objective process, is supreme to any other form of empirical operability. The sense of time dimension is genetically pre-ordained, analogously to space perception. The metaphysical conclusion is that the dimension of time cannot be compositely derived from the entity synthetically defined as reality, or objective reality; i.e. the wholeness of the time dimension presupposes its deconstruction with regard to the aspect of objective setting, while subjective introspective discourse is the only possible and hypothetically feasible solution. This deductive view or an attempt to solve the problem partially reveals a new, genealogically opposite aspect of self-destruction of the metaphysical starting point. A basic concept of a structurally new approach to the problem is founded on deriving perceptibility and uniqueness of the time dimension through a broader form of ontological criticism, i.e. in a variable, multidimensional concept of time, both in the field of subjective and in an attempt of founding a totally new time ontology. One-dimensional concept of time represents a basis of scientific, philosophical and metaphysical theoretical consideration. The past, the present and the uncertainty of the future are the most universal and most common models of defining and semantic comprehending of the problem of duration, as an inseparable attribute of the time substance. Subquantum physicists and cosmologists introduced the notion of the time arrow, thus indirectly pointing out the inviolability of one-dimensional ‘movement’ of the time dimension.

The subjective aspect points towards a certain analogy with the above mentioned theoretical model; however, the structure of the subjective perception process indirectly points towards the problem of the relationship between memory and consciousness, the fundamental result of which is the metaphor of the elimination of I-ness. The uniformity of the sense of duration, ‘this moment now perceived by me’, is insoluble in terms of ‘algorithm’. The present moment, or, to phrase it more simply, the immediate impression of ‘now’, is a symbiotically indecipherable information code of the memory entity interactions, the unshaped whole, previously defined as unextensive entity; i.e. its exclusive position towards itself and our analytical definition is absolutely determinable with regard to intensity. In this case, the problem presupposes the following modification: eliminating the truth of perceptual ‘temporal now’, the subject overcomes the continuity of the time arrow. The process of overcoming does not rely solely on the semantic aspect, but constitutes a separate unique phenomenology. The imaginarity of temporal now, symbolically defined as N=0, shapes a fundamentally new, structural-phenomenological identity of subjective reality perception and introspective world, thus pointing a transcendent framework of our positioning towards time determination.

The substratum of the subject, a fundamental structural form of the ‘I’ wholeness, considering the genealogical implication of its phantasmagorical positioning, mentioned in the discussion of the relationship between memory and consciousness, overcoming determination and positioning for the ‘present moment’, presupposes its own ontological structure outside the concept of the immediate ‘I’ sense. In other words, the moment of self-conscious process following this principle, cannot be and is not able to implicate the fundamental ‘I’ aspect. The sense of self possessed by me at this moment and the absolute entity of my self, the notions defined as ‘I ‘by philosophers, ontologically do not comprise an identity, nor can they be identical, if the analysis of the non-existence of temporal now is taken into consideration. The sense of self at ‘the present moment’ and my universal ‘I’, a fundamental aspect of my identity, cannot be in the relation of identity, nor do they represent two identical manifestations of one complex whole, in ontological terms. In a symbolic representation of the imaginarity of the present moment, marked as N=0, the symbol N=1 should be used to define a non-one-dimensional form of time dimension. In this process, an empirical illusion of the concepts of past and future interval moments on the same time scale should be avoided at all costs, but rather employ the form of ontological transcendence, overcoming of one-dimensional form of time substance.

The present moment, the ‘punctual now’, does not represent and is not able to be a negation of past and present moments of time, although it is possible to derive this possibility theoretically from a plethora of scientific and metaphysical models. The fundamental reason for this is an interactive one-dimensional entity of time dimension, positioned exclusively in one dimension for us. The problem arises when the subject faces the inability to inductively, empirically derive time constitutive models of the past and the future when (s)he perceives and defines them.    

The imaginarity of the present moment in relation to the comprehending subject points towards the following problem: the defining model by which the concept of the subject is interpreted by an elimination relation through the interaction of the memory and consciousness models, allows us to presuppose a possible analogy with the above mentioned problem of N=0, i.e. an imaginary present moment in relation to the moment of our perception. In other words, the analogy between a one-dimensional form of time and a self-eliminating subject entity implements a more complex analysis structure. If we assume that the interactive relationship between memory and consciousness does not result in subject’s self-elimination, then it is justifiable to set the basis of consideration of a ‘non-linear’ subject, i.e. the subject complementary to its own identity starting point. The ‘I’ and the subject substratum would in this case represent a multidimensional phenomenological whole, which will be discussed in more detail later on. If this possibility was fulfilled, the immediacy of the imaginary now, N=0, would overcome its one-dimensional frame.