That requires an interpretation of Aristotle's Physics Δ on τόπος ["place"] and χρόνος ["time"], which of course must be set within the framework of the entire basic position of the Physics.
It will thus be seen how here the representation as a "schema" is still not attained and also cannot be attained, since such a representation presupposes the emergence of the "mathematical" in the modern sense. In turn this latter, i.e., the corresponding interpretation of space and time, is possible only after its basis, the Greek experience of beingness, is lost and immediately replaced by the Christian interpretation of beings along with a retention of Aristotle's "results." The debilitation of οὐσία and the emergence of substantia already long since prepared.
And thereby accomplished by nominalism.
How there is still maintained, and precisely in the modern era, a metaphysical interpretation of space and time which is attempted in a new way: space as the sensorium Dei.
The ambiguity of space and time for Leibniz, with the origination obscure; in Kant simply attributed to the human subject!
Yet all this without an intimation of time-space.
Why and under which presuppositions is the separation of space and time historically necessary?
Is there a way out of the accomplished separation, back to another origin? It seems so. For it will always appear, with the maintaining of the familiar representations of space and time, as if something "metaphysical" were imputed to these empty forms of order (Which order?). Yet the question indeed concerns the justification and the provenance of these empty forms, whose truth is still not demonstrated on the basis of their correctness and usefulness in the field of calculation; it is just the opposite that is demonstrated here.
On the other hand, the return to their provenance does in fact not lead to the origin of their essence, to "truth," even if τόπος (granting place) and χρόνος (pertaining to the ψυχή) point back to φύσις. Yet that does not at all require "mythological" "representations." For such representations are to be grasped only last, as anterior with respect to the first beginning. If they are taken as the starting point, then what results is at most the "triviality" that here something is still experienced "irrationally" which later comes to be placed in the light of ratio.
Which is the path to a first, pre-cursory, and indeed transitional meditation on time-space? From Da-sein's site of the moment. How from it, if we are so withdrawn from Da-sein?
Can the starting point be the question of the "unity" of "space and time," as that is usually represented? (Cf. the introduction to the lecture