Actually, I wasn’t aware that I was talking about the difference between psychological and chronological time per se (or at least, not what I would call straight-forward chronological time).
By chronological time I mean the rotation of the earth around the sun, the fact of physical movement, the rising and setting of the sun, etc. So even though the sun has now ‘set’ in the UK, unless a black hole opens up nearby and swallows the earth entirely, the sun will inevitably ‘rise’ again in about 6 hours time.
The time I was referring to concerns the two ways in which I understand K to have approached the “future of humanity” - i.e. in relation to the consciousness of humanity - which was the topic you brought up.
The two different ways, to repeat, refer to
1. a content in consciousness, which is projected as hope, expectation, desire, the ‘what should be’, etc - which is fictional; and
2. the factual continuity of this whole consciousness, moving from the past to the future, through the present - which, given that it is presently full of conflict and strife, is inevitably going to create yet more conflict and strife in the future.
Person X can perhaps negate 1); that is, person X negates ‘what should be’ and lives only with ‘what is’. He/she lives with facts, not fictions.
But 2) goes on, as the stream of human consciousness (persons A, B, C and D, etc - the whole alphabet).
Person X feels compassion for A, B, C, D, etc, because they are living in conflict. X sees the ramifications of what A, B, C, D, etc are doing, and wants to warn them of the danger, show them a way out, to wake them from their fictions.
So when you ask
I think this fails to do justice to the situation of person X.
While person X has denied the psychological future (for themselves), they are still surrounded by As, Bs, Cs, and Ds who have not (and who are therefore creating future suffering for themselves and the world they live in). X sees this and responds with compassion.
What is includes war, suffering, poverty, environmental degradation. It is completely natural to be concerned about this. But, in addition, K taught that part of what is, is the negation of what (presently) is, and the transcending of what (presently) is. And he was concerned with drawing attention to that too.