The Present - Does It Exist??

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

'Go where?' You seem to avoid direct questions or other statements by me, that, Ive presented to you. r6

It's not that I avoid them specifically, it's that I'm attempting to reframe them in such a way that addresses my own experience in relation to the question. I'm personally attempting clarity on these issues for myself as well.

For example when you ask me 'Go where?'.. I'm looking at this not as a manor of going somewhere, beyond where we currently are, but as a substantive involvement with "becoming aware" of that which immediately surrounds us. You tend to approach things from the outside looking in, while I'm growing to appreciate the value of "being in" as an 'extension' of what's currently taking place. As a definition this tends to lay flat on the screen but when experienced directly the contrast is profound.

I can intellectually read what you're saying, and for the most part follow your logic and observations, but I still sense a separation from what's being discussed if it doesn't include a more direct and integrative participation.

I'm not sure that does it for you but this has been my conundrum when we've participated in discussions on most issues. I'm watching you defining as though you're removed from the issue, while I'm exploring the pathways that better integrates my own consciousness in direct relation and as an extension to such things.

Both perspectives have their value, but they're intrinsically different. They both chart reality from differing viewpoints. I think the best that we can hope for is patience in relation to our differences in these matters, since both of us are invested in such interesting ways. :)

[r6r6]

organic born---For example when you ask me 'Go where?'.. I'm looking at this not as a manor of going somewhere, beyond where we currently are, but as a substantive involvement with "becoming aware" of that which immediately surrounds us.

Huh? So in a previous ask me "what I feel when I go there". I have no idea what your talking about and ask you go where.

So your "go there" means "become aware"? Become aware of what? Your not making any sense to me.

I think your reframng of this or that is diverges from my comments-- i.e. irrelevant --- and your comments obfuscate any valid meaning. Imho

You tend to approach things from the outside looking in, while I'm growing to appreciate the value of "being in" as an 'extension' of what's currently taking place. As a definition this tends to lay flat on the screen but when experienced directly the contrast is profound.

Huh? Again, why you think your somehow your "in" and i'm somehow "out: makes no sense and you certainly offer us not clear rational, logical common sense explanation for most of your recent comments. imho

I can intellectually read what you're saying, and for the most part follow your logic and observations, but I still sense a separation from what's being discussed if it doesn't include a more direct and integrative participation.

I can barely follow yours, and when I even when I do, it has no valid, rational, logical common sense meaning. imho

I'm not sure that does it for you but this has been my conundrum when we've participated in discussions on most issues. I'm watching you defining as though you're removed from the issue, while I'm exploring the pathways that better integrates my own consciousness in direct relation and as an extension to such things.

Huh?

Both perspectives have their value, but they're intrinsically different. They both chart reality from differing viewpoints. I think the best that we can hope for is patience in relation to our differences in these matters, since both of us are invested in such interesting ways. :)

I think Ive been very clear with my comments. Not so much with yours. imho.

r6

[fayette]

The present is constantly moving into the future, time does not stand still
When I started to type this it was in the present, now the future is present !

[fayette]

Sorry double post !

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I think Ive been very clear with my comments. Not so much with yours. imho.
r6

Have you ever tried making sense of a dream? There is the surface activity and then there's the emotional underpinning. On the surface you can list the events that occurred, while the underpinning is emotionally illusive. My study has been with the underpinning of this living dream called life that we now happen to find ourselves in.

There's the study of the mechanics of how the body physically moves, and then there's the study of why one would move in the first place. What's the motivation for being born and then slogging ones way through a lifetime? Logic would suggest that we turn tail and run. There 'is' a certain logic when it comes to an organisms need for survival, but why would a 'soul' make such a journey unless there is more to it than just simply existing?

I saw in another post where you discount the idea that we live-on after death. If that is the case then why would you attempt to figure out anything? Why would you exert yourself in this way? Is it just entertainment until your lights are turned off? Or are you ultimately being moved by something that has yet to become clear to you?

On a personal level I tend to find your logic disturbing. It's very quick to shut-out things that you don't readily understand. You ~will~ survive after death, whether you like it or not, and what you deem to be logical is an anathema to those who are intimately experiencing life at a differing rhythm.

Should you have an "out of body experience" or happen to "fully awaken within a dream" then I'll happily be here to help you navigate some of the seeming madness that accompanies such illogical exposures. Until then we'll just have to agree to disagree, or to agree to be agreeable regardless of how the imagery comes across.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Huh?

Ps. "Huh?" is an interesting word. I found this site that investigated it's usage more deeply. There's plenty more to this if you want to read further:
http://huh.ideophone.org/

Huh? is not innate. ‘Huh?’ may seem almost primitive in its simplicity, but in fact nothing like it is found in our closest evolutionary cousins. It’s not an involuntary response like a sneeze or a cry of pain. Indeed, to have such a word, specialized for clarifying matters of understanding, only makes sense when a fully functioning cooperative system of communication (i.e., human language) is already in place — babies don’t use it, infants don’t use it perfectly, but children from about 5 have mastered it perfectly, along with the main structures of their grammar.

Now I'll suspect that you'll respond to this with "Huh?" :)

[Dan_SF]

Originally Posted by fayette

The present is constantly moving into the future, time does not stand still
When I started to type this it was in the present, now the future is present !

well that is not correct. you are only assuming that the future exists. but it doesn't.

what you call future is only a imagined future. for when you start thinking of the answer, you are forming the sentence.
And this creates the illusion that future exist by comparing the starting point with the end point. while in truth there is only now.

That this is only imagined future you can easily prove, when you start typing and the phone is ringing, you will not end your sentence when planed, but it will take you longer to do it, because the phone call will add to the imagined distance till you can end your planed writing.

The illusion of time is reinforced by the rotation of the earth. If you could watch the Earth from a fixed position in space, you would not experience the time change.

You would only see how the earth rotates, but the sun is always shining from the same spot. its only the earth's rotation away from the sun that we call day and nights.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

The illusion of time is reinforced by the rotation of the earth. If you could watch the Earth from a fixed position in space, you would not experience the time change.

You would only see how the earth rotates, but the sun is always shining from the same spot. its only the earth's rotation away from the sun that we call day and nights.

Agreed, "time" is purely a matter of perspective. :)

[r6r6]

Dan_SF--The illusion of time is reinforced by the rotation of the earth. If you could watch the Earth from a fixed position in space, you would not experience the time change.

Dan, altho it is true, that if we did not see sun, moon and other celestial objects moving across the sky, then we would less significant references for time, however, even if the Earth did not rotate it still the tilt of the Earth axis would create seasons.

You would only see how the earth rotates, but the sun is always shining from the same spot. its only the earth's rotation away from the sun that we call day and nights.

So your hypothetical holds would most be true, the reality of your hypotheticals are not very realistic unless, humans were living on a inorganic spaceship somewhere out in space, that, is not rotating or has no windows or moving so slow, that there would be no relatively often occurring changes that humans could reference their time of existence too, other than their body changes and any celstial objects that they may view changing position over the months or years, and the sun getting dimmer or brighter etc.

I.e to know there is motion then we have to observe reference of change. Changing position, or changing whatever.

r6

[fayette]

Originally Posted by Dan_SF

well that is not correct. you are only assuming that the future exists. but it doesn't.

what you call future is only a imagined future. for when you start thinking of the answer, you are forming the sentence.
And this creates the illusion that future exist by comparing the starting point with the end point. while in truth there is only now.

That this is only imagined future you can easily prove, when you start typing and the phone is ringing, you will not end your sentence when planed, but it will take you longer to do it, because the phone call will add to the imagined distance till you can end your planed writing.

The illusion of time is reinforced by the rotation of the earth. If you could watch the Earth from a fixed position in space, you would not experience the time change.

You would only see how the earth rotates, but the sun is always shining from the same spot. its only the earth's rotation away from the sun that we call day and nights.

Interesting I have never looked on it in that way;
I think we are all programed to live by time

[organic born]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

So your hypothetical holds would most be true, the reality of your hypotheticals are not very realistic unless, humans were living on a inorganic spaceship somewhere out in space, that, is not rotating or has no windows or moving so slow, that there would be no relatively often occurring changes that humans could reference their time of existence too, other than their body changes and any celstial objects that they may view changing position over the months or years, and the sun getting dimmer or brighter etc.

I.e to know there is motion then we have to observe reference of change. Changing position, or changing whatever.

r6

So "time" requires a human to perceive it? We do convert time into patterns that are comparable to our own unique experience but does a star experience time in the same way? Does a rock, over billions of years, even realize that a moment has passed? A fly experiences time quite differently than we do.

From the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ly-flies-study
Flies avoid being swatted in just the same way Keanu Reeves dodges flying bullets in the movie The Matrix – by watching time pass slowly.
To the insect, that rolled-up newspaper moving at lightning speed might as well be inching through thick treacle.
Like Reeves standing back and side-stepping slo-mo bullets, the fly has ample time to escape. And it is not alone in its ability to perceive time differently from us. Research suggests that across a wide range of species, time perception is directly related to size.
Generally the smaller an animal is, and the faster its metabolic rate, the slower time passes.


So who is right about the manor in which time presents itself? We, or the fly, or the cockroach? Just because we measure, and they don't, doesn't mean that one is more valid than the other.