Kind of like driving with no rear view mirrors

movement, if you miss it, is always happening behind you. "...you miss the movement in two ways. On the one hand, you can bring two instants or two positions together to infinity; but movement will always occur behind your back" (in the second paragraph).

Which reminds me of Walter Benjamin's Angel of History, who is always looking in front, but is always looking behind, because in front is behind and paradise a long time ago before your eyes. 

http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/bernstein/shadowtime/wb-thesis.html

Which reminds me of a tangent, as Felix was explaining to me, that is at the point at which two points on a slope have been brought together to infinity: a tangent is not a slope, but it expresses it at one point that is not in movement. Describes a point that was never in movement, but that expresses the slope that is in movement.

So if movement is present, as in present-passing, does it make sense to ask in which time a tangent 'occurs'? Does it make sense to say that a tangent is the attempt to divide movement - which fails because movement is indivisible - but serves a different purpose? A purpose, namely,