Time

[vicente]

I often find it difficult to to explain that there is no past in the Now, or time in the Stillness of Light. People fight such prospect tooth and nail. But occasionally someone comes along, like Peter Lynds, who makes a significant dent in the status quo:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/time-03a.html

What Jim Walker wrote about beliefs is so true:
"Aristotle believed in a prime mover, a "god" that moves the sun and moon and objects through space. With a belief such as this, one cannot possibly understand the laws of gravitation or inertia. Issac Newton saw through that and established predictions of gravitational events and developed a workable gravitational theory. Amazingly, Newton began to think about relativity theory long before Albert Einstein. However, his belief in absolute time prevented him from formulating a workable theory. Einstein, however, saw through that and thought in terms of relative time and formulated his famous theory of General relativity. However even Einstein had beliefs which barred him from understanding the consequences of quantum mechanics. He could not accept pure randomness in subatomic physics, thus he bore his famous belief: "God does not play dice." Regardless, physicists now realize that for quantum mechanics to work, nature not only plays with dice, but randomness serves as a requirement if one wishes to predict with any statistical accuracy. And on it goes".
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

vicente
:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Vicente: But occasionally someone comes along, like Peter Lynds, who makes a significant dent in the status quo.

I am not sure if he makes a dent in the status quo, but it is certainly a "refreshing" idea. Interestingly, Lynd does not say that time is an illusion, but the "instant" is an illusion. "Now" and no "then" are thus abstractions; in reality there is only the continuum. Now and then are indistinguishable. In his own words: "There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."

Yup. That's right. But, this idea is not entirely new, is it? To my knowledge the same argument was already brought forward by the Presocratics against the motion paradoxes of Parmenides.

Walker: Regardless, physicists now realize that for quantum mechanics to work, nature not only plays with dice, but randomness serves as a requirement if one wishes to predict with any statistical accuracy.

Yup. That's also right. Does this mean that randomicity is more real than order? Perhaps not. It just means that Quantum Theory requires probabilistic math, which is IMO fairly unsensational, since probabilistic models have been used to describe nature before QT.

Cheers, Thomas

[sahyo]

Lynd does not say that time is an illusion, but the "instant" is an illusion. "Now" and no "then" are thus abstractions; in reality there is only the continuum. Now and then are indistinguishable. In his own words: "There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness."


tiinstantme illusionwhichnot

"present"moment" not but wording pointing which not saying tiinstantme

lyndthinking"in"onto"around"whichnot

:)

[vicente]

Yes, perhaps Peter Lynds' Indeterminacy vs Discontinuity is suggesting that because there is no instant in time, that the instant, or the Now, is not real. The paradigm shift however, that time and the instant cannot be part of each other, will, in my opinion, lead to the bigger view that it is time which is not real, and not the common-sense approach that the dream must be real because we are in it.

One problem is that we "think", that is, believe, the world revolves around us,...thus, as I have said before, we see light as having a speed of 186K MPS in relation to our object-ive reality. Yet, from light's point of view, it is still, and without time. Light is the "instant", the Now,...so ultimately, how are we going to get around the undeniable fact that light is real?

Let's imagine a moment that light, not the object-ively perceived projection, but light itself, that is, zero mass, is The Now. With that in mind, you may ponder that since light, from the scientia object-ive point of view, moves 186K MPS, that if you move faster, say, 185K MPS, that you will be closer to light, and thus closer to the "instant", or the Now. Yet, even at 185K MPS, according to the counter-intuitive Theory of Relativity, light still goes 186K MPS faster in relation to you,...not 1K MPS faster.

The Now is the Now,...not the "almost Now",...the almost now, in relation to the Now, is as much NOT the Now as 185K MPS is not the presumed speed of light.

As you have heard me state many times before, I say "so-called" speed of light, because from light's point of view, which by the way, is the only valid point of view, light travels no distance in no time, thus, requires no speed. The speed of light is a purely object-ive rationale. From light's point of view, we are 186K MPS slower than the Stillness of Light.

vicente
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 26 2003, 12:17 AM
I often find it difficult to to explain that there is no past in the Now, or time in the Stillness of Light.
Maybe that's because, as Thomas mentions, we live 'in' an 'enfolded' 'continuum' such that the 'past' and 'future' is 'embedded' in the 'present'. At least that's how I 'see' and 'experience' what's going on in the ongoing NOW. The notion of "no past" thus does not 'compute' in my scheme of things.

Aas for the "Stillness" of "Light", I have the same 'problem' of having no idea at all of what you are pointing to by talking in such fashion. You see, as far as I perceive and experience Light, both the 'physical' kind and the 'spiritual' kind, I find it to be continually or 'steadily' active as opposed to being "still" (i.e., in complete 'stacis'), though I admit, theoretically at least, if one somehow managed to latch on and STAY latched on to a Light 'wave', it would look and feel like it was just 'there' and not 'moving' (relative to the 'observer', that is).

I must say I don't know why anyone would want to do that, though -- that is, why anyone would want to 'live' 'in' absolute stillness for very long. Seems to me that the staticity of such peception and experience would sooner or later become 'boring', to anyone who liked 'adventure' and exploring 'new horizons', at least. Glad I wasn't born a really slo-mo (to the point of looking/feeling "still" at any given time) carrot or something like that; though I have to admit, there were times in my life when I was so busy and bedraggled and beseiged and beset by all the 'motion' in as well as around me that I found 'attaining' and 'maintaining' "stillness" for significant periods of time both restlful/therapeutic and educational (the latter, in terms of experientially 'showing' me that things like hurry and worry were both undesirably and unnecessarily Love-Fun-Joy-'upsetting' and and counterproductive.

Based on what Thomas quoted from the article you cited, "There's no such thing as an instant in time or present moment in nature. It's something entirely subjective that we project onto the world around us. That is, it's the outcome of brain function and consciousness.", I very much doubt if reading the article would do anything to change my above expressed experience-based 'opinions'.

You see, my 'philosophy' or 'attitude' in this regard is that, whatever "I" "am" is, it is presently 'incarnated' in a body-brain 'consciousness' instrumentality. It is sort of a bloom where you're planted approach to Life, instead of dedicatedly trying to either 'escape' or 'transcend it (the 'medium' 'I' 'am' 'presently' 'in', that is), qualified, as stated above, by the fact that it may be very therapeautic and beneficial to do so when and if one has gotten either hyperactively or despairingly/hoplessly entangled in one's personal life-web.

I used to 'practice' things like 'meditation' and 'thought stopping' (I 'used' anything that struck me as having a chance of being beneficial in 'my' 'value system') and continued to do so as long as I thought-n-felt it was creatively beneficial for me to do so. Now, I rarely feel the 'need' or 'desire' to do that - just happily 'contemplate' matters in a 'healthy' way as 'I' move along in the ongoing NOW.

My attitude toward such 'practices' is that they are like seeing/working with a 'therapist' or studying with/earning from a 'teacher' or 'book', etc. Such are very 'good' things to 'do' when the 'occasion' is 'appropriate' (as alluded to above), BUT such 'doing' or 'way of being' may be·come very 'bad' IF AND AS people REMAIN in and continue to 'practice' such modality(ies) beyond a certain point. That's would be like a bird finding and then choosing to remain 'in' a 'nest', or a caterpillar that spun a coccoon and entered a chrysalysis (sp?) time period, but then chose not to 'emerge' and butterfly-fly in the garden of earthly-creation.

That there are those who remain in 'just' doing-being in 'such' fashion is one thing (I mean, some people may take a whole lifetime or more to 'heal', be·cope 'healthy', etc. does not strike me as out of the ordinary. But that there are those who advocate being-doing in 'such' fashion as though it represented the 'pinnacle' of human actualization, and get away with doing so (i.e., they are often 'accorded' the 'status' of 'wise' seers and sayers), flabbergasts me. But then it ain't just 'wolves' that put on shephards' clothing - I guess, given the 'low' level of development of most people's capacity for 'discernment', I shouldn't be surprised, really.

Maybe I am missing something here, however. I'm 'all ears' waiting to hear, if you care to try to articulate how you 'attain' and continue to 'maintain' perception and experience of a totally pastless-NOW and complete Light-stillness beyond a short period of time and ever-'function' in 'the world' on that basis -- assuming you do, that is. What will help me understand what you are referring to the MOST, I think, is actual nitty-gritty specifics pertaining to your 'practice'.

- David

[Thomas Knierim]

Vicente: The paradigm shift however, that time and the instant cannot be part of each other, will, in my opinion, lead to the bigger view that it is time which is not real, and not the common-sense approach that the dream must be real because we are in it.

Mathematically it is a piece of cake to pose a vector space in which time becomes sort of unreal and yet retain a perfectly consistent model of the universe. But what practical value does that have?

The way I see it, we are free to choose how we think/perceive of time. For example, we can create ourselves an earthly model of time where the notions of an instant and the notion of motion are mutually exclusive.

These two notions are antithetical and thus create logical paradoxes, namely the ones mentioned in Lynd's paper. To my surprise Lynd states at the end of the paper that he thinks of himself as having solved Zeno's paradox 2500 years after it was posed.

This strikes me at foolish for a number of reasons. First, Lynd's "solution" was already brought forward by Parmenides' contemporaries. Lynd is 2500 years late! Second, it is not really a solution.

The notion that there is no instant comes with the implication that the "Now" never occurs. In other words, there is no present. This is probably just as odd as concluding that motion is an illusion. In addition, Lynd's "dynamism" contradicts your idea of the "stillness of light".

In practice, we maintain a notion of time that fuses both views by assuming that both, motion and the "Now" are real. The concept of an instant is dealt with by infinitesimal calculus, whereby we think of the instant as an idealized entity, one that exists primarily in mathematics.

Infinitesimal calculus gets rid of the Eleatic arguments in a much more elegant fashion (and IMO more effectively) than by just stating the antithesis.

Vicente: As you have heard me state many times before, I say "so-called" speed of light, because from light's point of view, which by the way, is the only valid point of view, light travels no distance in no time, thus, requires no speed.

Okay, from the happy photon's point of view -if it were conscious-, the entire universe is traversed in an instant, and since an instant does not exist, space does not exist. No time, no space. From light's point of view there is nothing. Nothingness!

I am not sure why you say that the reality of electromagnetic waves (light) is the only valid reality. In what way are photons ontologically superior?

Cheers, Thomas

[Thomas Knierim]

Asheera: "present"moment" not but wording pointing which not saying tiinstantme

lyndthinking"in"onto"around"whichnot

Hi Asheera,

Is there anything that speaks against using nouns, or applying conventional grammar and orthography? It seems that few people can be bothered to contemplate undecipherable messages.

Cheers, Thomas

[rich]

Comparatively thinking, the amount of time we have in our life span, seems like the twinkling of an eye.

Time and tide wait for no man. (an old saying)

[sahyo]

thomas :)


Is there anything that speaks against using nouns, or applying conventional grammar and orthography? It seems that few people can be bothered to contemplate undecipherable messages.


are speaking for using nouns, and-or conventional grammer and orthography, 'rules'?

perhaps if people read without thinking ;)

[vicente]

Yeap, Zero certainly upsets logic.

When I speak of Light, I'm not speaking of phots that science made real, merely by adding an -on. I'm speaking of Clear Light, the fulcrum upon which the simulated light of duality, the projection, effects its motion.

In Peter Lynds hypothesis, the "instant" may not be real,...but in the realization of buddhahood, that Nothingness is all that is real. It is this calculating, belief clinging, object-ive dream that is the delusion,...not Stillness. What do you think the Buddha's were pointing to?

DavidS,...most of us are familiar with Sciences object-ive view of light, that it travels 186K MPS, however, from Light's view of itself, Light travels no distance in no time, thus has no need of speed. It is only from our human perceptive point of view that we see Light traveling at 186K MPS.

Remember in physics 101, there is no time and zero mass at the so-called speed of light?,...why,... because light itself is "Still", that is, it is Motionless. No time, no mass, equals Stillness,...pure unveiled Consciousness. From Light's point of view we are moving 186K MPS slower than the Stillness of Light. Many say, how can that be,...how can something be slower than still? Again, this can be realized by looking at it from Light's perspective,...or, simply imagine yourself accelerating to the so-called Light Speed, and realizing Stillness. How did you do that? How did you go from a perceived 0 to 186K MPS and reach Motionlessness.?

From non-conceptual observation, that is, without predispositions, everything in nature is Light. Matter is simply a slowed down version, like the phase transition from vapor to water to ice...and even though matter has slowed, it, like light, does not move either. That is, it does not slide from point A to point B,...it leaps,...thus duplicating itself from point A to point B,...and when a few billion of this leaps occur together, we perceive physical motion. Its really not that complicated,...although it appears a pretty big shift for belief clinging consciousness. Light has actually not "moved" one centimeter in all eternity.

Motion/energy, thus matter/form, is simply the polarization process precipitated through a perceived "separation" from the Stillness of Light. Actually, matter/form is not really Light,...it is simulated light. For an analogy, imagine a movie theater. The film is a perceived moving projection sourced by a light, which is Still in the projector. Very basically,...as simulated light, alleged photons, perceives itself as separate from Light, it slows, that is, gets caught up in the polarization process, through self-organizing torus shaped phots that reverse their wave induced pressure from the inside out to the outside in, thus closing the torus hole and manifesting a perceived particle of matter/form.

Motion/energy is just matter/form seeking balance,...seeking its home within the Stillness of Light, the Clear Light of Reality that the Buddha's spoke of. However, matter/form can never reach the Stillness of Light, because matter/form is perpetually in motion, the centripetal/centrafugal pulse of duality, that perceives it is separate.

That which seeks, continues to seek. Consciousness though, when it Lets Go of the seeking, can enter the Still Nowness of Light. However, as Ping Wu said, we still live in the Valley of the Blind, where the one-eyed man is treated for his illness.

vicente
:)

[a random hack]

read without thinking

reads without thinking, thinks without reading, laughs without knowing why :lol:
speaks without shutting the door
What do you think the Buddha's were pointing to?

:lol:

Comparatively thinking, the amount of time we have in our life span, seems like the twinkling of an eye.

Compared to what? :)

[rich]

a random posted, Comparatively thinking, the amount of time we have in our life span, seems like the twinkling of an eye.
Compared to what?

Since the big bang/or the beginning of cosmic evolution. Life span of a person is very very short.

How would light be viewed, if none had eyes? Would we just play
'go-seek' instead of 'hide-and-go-seek'? B) :unsure: :blink:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by vicente@Aug 26 2003, 11:11 PM
That which seeks, continues to seek. Consciousness though, when it Lets Go of the seeking, can enter the Still Nowness of Light. However, as Ping Wu said, we still live in the Valley of the Blind, where the one-eyed man is treated for his illness.
Hi Vicente -

In my view, you are 'blind' to what Thomas and I are trying to give you a glimmer of. And your self-flattery is so great, methinks there may be no way of any 'light' getting through. I sadly think-n-feel very much the same way in relation to many Jews, Christians, and Muslims also make a 'carrier' out of projecting that they are being 'unjustly' persecuted and martyrd (in various ways) for their 'superior' stance by 'less-knowing' folks, and sustain it by 'glorying' in the thought-n-feeling that they have a halo above their heads.

I reiterate, just in case you wish to deal with the substance of the issue instead of prima-donna tiptoe-dancing through fields of tulip-details:

Just what's so great about prolonged experience and perception (or the other way around) of stillness?[/B] ("stillness" as 'defined' by you) -- in my view, complete stillness/staticity = no Life = a changless 'death' state. Strikes me as 'analagous' to taking in a big breathe and then just holding it (or exhaling and then just holding it there), or something like that.

I don't know. It occurs to me that I might not find whatever you say persuasive. Maybe that's what this lifetime of yours is all about - to experience the 'consequences' of getting to a 'point' which you convince yourself is some kind of "Stillness of Light" 'pinnacle' and then just ranting "I'm the king of the castle and your the dirty rascal(s) at the rest of humanity" to (perversely) generate a sense of excitement and boost your sense of happiness as you stay there! -- in your 'mind' that is -- since, in my observation-n-experience-based view, it is impossible for any aspect of Life to remain 'still' for very long. :ph34r:

David

[a random hack]

One problem is that we "think", that is, believe, the world revolves around us,...It seems that few people can be bothered to contemplate undecipherable messages.
perhaps if people read without thinking "I'm the king of the castle and your the dirty rascal(s) at the rest of humanity"

Since the big bang/or the beginning of cosmic evolution. Life span of a person is very very short.

And compared to a sneeze, life is very very long. So what?

[sylph]

Yes. It's all relative.

[sylph]

Originally posted by asheera@Aug 26 2003, 09:34 PM
perhaps if people read without thinking ;)
Reading requires thinking nevertheless... asheera-talk is reading with extra obstacles. :wacko:

[rich]

Hack replied:And compared to a sneeze, life is very very long. So what?

Dear Hack,

Did you say, "So what? " I could be snippy, and say, "That's what!" But since I am not snippy, I won't say it. ok, "IT", there I said it. ;)

But you do not find rich, saying words like
that & what. Now do you, do you, DO YOU?
Think it over, carefully think it over, in this thread on justifying your existence, or how you spent your T I M E in this world. :P

[a random hack]

Is that what this thread is about? :lol:
No place I'd rather be, rich.,
except work, gotta go :D

Anyway, that's only half the 'what'...
So, IMO, don't get hung up on half-whats

[sonrisa]

what about half-wits Random? :P
As for time, wouldn't know about that since I never seem to have any! :D

[rich]

what about nit-wits Random? :P
As for time, I don't think it will last. :D

[sahyo]

perhaps if people read without thinking ;)
Reading requires thinking nevertheless... asheera-talk is reading with extra obstacles. :wacko:


sylph :P ;)

which thinking-thinks-'seeming' -"extra obstacle",
is thinking-'expecting' to read which thinking-thinks-thought-'should-can'-understand
when cannot

[rich]

Borrowing asheera's words,

"which thinking-thinks-'seeming' -"extra obstacle",
is thinking-'expecting' to read which thinking-thinks-thought-'should-can'-understand when cannot"

to describe myself as being lost in this thread called time, 'cuz do not
understand what all of you intellects are writing about. " causeless fulcrums", " now stillness of light", etc. ; Way too abstract for me. Above my understanding. :)

[dog goddess]

it's not the time that really matters, it's what you do with the time.

[sahyo]

it's not the time that really matters, it's what you do with the time.

time?
do?

:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Sep 13 2003, 08:59 PM
time?
do?
Yes, asheera - as unconceived as these thangs may be to you ;)

Let's put aside 'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics which have no functional relevance to the world of in-the-moment human ex·peer·ience. There is still somethang, let's call it Practical Wisdom, which pertains to the questions which you raise (correct me if I'm wrong here) implying that the concepts of 'time' and 'do' have no practically relevant significance whatseover.

The following Thought for the Day from John McEnulty, just received as part of an ongoing free subscription, I think, art·iculates such Wisdom quite well - the Wisdom pertains to the daily-life 'art', or 'craft', of 'Navigating' the 'Ocean' of 'NOW' which our brain-consciousnesses float/swim in.

Note: In this case, the imaginatively creative 'navigating' action references the 'do' which constitutes one of your questions, asheera; and the metaphoric Ocean of NOW references the 'time' which constitutes the other one:
========
Almost everything depends on how I use my time.

Time can be thought of as precious, scarce, not enough.

Or it can be seen as an endless ocean, ever flowing.

Both are true.

I choose to experience it as an endless ocean.

And I get to make that choice daily. Things come up that need to be
done. I start scheduling, rationing time, realizing its scarcity.

I go into the stillness, realize there is an infinite amount of time.
I have just chosen to put things into time slots that they are too
big for. They are overlapping, crowding, time is running out.

But time never run out. It runs on and on. It is literally endless,
infinite.

I have all the time I need.

I create emergencies, shortages of time.

There are real emergencies, times when we need to focus and get
things done, stop the bleeding. But there's time for those things too.

The only thing I don't have time for is panic, rush, hurry. That
produces results that have to be redone. So sometimes the faster we
go the more time we waste.

I love going to the still point, becoming calm, using my time, my
big, endless, spacious, comfortable time.

Well, that's it for now. Time to contemplate.

==========
Emanations
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
12/03/2003, St. Louis, MO

Although I am using the Yahoo system to send out the Thought for the Day, you may still write to me at Eman8tions@aol.com and I will be happy to hear from you. Or you can simply hit reply and I will receive your email though it will not actually be posted.

It is not necessary to subscribe to Yahoo in order to read Emanations Thought for the Day. You may simply visit Yahoo Groups Eman8tions and anyone can access the archives to read the daily message(s).

To receive Emanations, please sign on to Yahoo at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eman8tions/
and request Emanations Thought for the Day. Please sign on to accept "special notices". There's no cost for a Yahoo account, of course.

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.
If you are receiving Emanations as a forward
please feel free to subscribe for yourself.

Web site address:
http://Emanations.net/

[sahyo]

Almost everything depends on how I use my time.

Time can be thought of as precious, scarce, not enough.

Or it can be seen as an endless ocean, ever flowing.

Both are true.

I choose to experience it as an endless ocean.

And I get to make that choice daily. Things come up that need to be
done. I start scheduling, rationing time, realizing its scarcity.

I go into the stillness, realize there is an infinite amount of time.
I have just chosen to put things into time slots that they are too
big for. They are overlapping, crowding, time is running out.

But time never run out. It runs on and on. It is literally endless,
infinite.

I have all the time I need.

I create emergencies, shortages of time.

There are real emergencies, times when we need to focus and get
things done, stop the bleeding. But there's time for those things too.

The only thing I don't have time for is panic, rush, hurry. That
produces results that have to be redone. So sometimes the faster we
go the more time we waste.

I love going to the still point, becoming calm, using my time, my
big, endless, spacious, comfortable time.

Well, that's it for now. Time to contemplate.



Let's put aside 'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics



;)


;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 3 2003, 04:14 PM
;)
Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your ;) is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.

So much for 'ambiguities' which 'attend' 'quippy' communication.

David :)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by DavidS@Dec 4 2003, 02:22 PM
Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your ;) is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.
Well, am I to assume that you don't 'wish' to 'clarify' your communication or simply that you 'gravitate' (i.e., prefer, for personal 'reasons' or 'nonreasons') to wallow-swim in muddy water?

[a random hack]

david,
you always get so bugged by things you can't understand?

[rich]

Originally posted by DavidS+Dec 7 2003, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Dec 7 2003, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DavidS@Dec 4 2003, 02:22 PM
Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your ;) is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.
Well, am I to assume that you don't 'wish' to 'clarify' your communication or simply that you 'gravitate' (i.e., prefer, for personal 'reasons' or 'nonreasons') to wallow-swim in muddy water? [/b][/quote]
a random hack, responded to david's post like this:a random hack
Posted on Dec 9 2003, 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
david,
you always get so bugged by things you can't understand?

Rich responds to ARH with this: ;)

[rich]

Originally posted by dog goddess@Sep 14 2003, 10:38 AM
it's not the time that really matters, it's what you do with the time.
It all started, [font=Arial] When dog goddess posted the post above. Then, asheera posted:Posted on Sep 14 2003, 10:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's not the time that really matters, it's what you do with the time.

time?
do?


Sequentially, David S made the following reply:
DavidS
Posted on Dec 4 2003, 01:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (asheera @ Sep 13 2003, 08:59 PM)
time?
do?

Yes, asheera - as unconceived as these thangs may be to you

Let's put aside 'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics which have no functional relevance to the world of in-the-moment human ex·peer·ience. There is still somethang, let's call it Practical Wisdom, which pertains to the questions which you raise (correct me if I'm wrong here) implying that the concepts of 'time' and 'do' have no practically relevant significance whatseover.

The following Thought for the Day from John McEnulty, just received as part of an ongoing free subscription, I think, art·iculates such Wisdom quite well - the Wisdom pertains to the daily-life 'art', or 'craft', of 'Navigating' the 'Ocean' of 'NOW' which our brain-consciousnesses float/swim in.

Note: In this case, the imaginatively creative 'navigating' action references the 'do' which constitutes one of your questions, asheera; and the metaphoric Ocean of NOW references the 'time' which constitutes the other one:
========
Almost everything depends on how I use my time.

Time can be thought of as precious, scarce, not enough.

Or it can be seen as an endless ocean, ever flowing.

Both are true.

I choose to experience it as an endless ocean.

And I get to make that choice daily. Things come up that need to be
done. I start scheduling, rationing time, realizing its scarcity.

I go into the stillness, realize there is an infinite amount of time.
I have just chosen to put things into time slots that they are too
big for. They are overlapping, crowding, time is running out.

But time never run out. It runs on and on. It is literally endless,
infinite.

I have all the time I need.

I create emergencies, shortages of time.

There are real emergencies, times when we need to focus and get
things done, stop the bleeding. But there's time for those things too.

The only thing I don't have time for is panic, rush, hurry. That
produces results that have to be redone. So sometimes the faster we
go the more time we waste.

I love going to the still point, becoming calm, using my time, my
big, endless, spacious, comfortable time.

Well, that's it for now. Time to contemplate.

==========
Emanations
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
12/03/2003, St. Louis, MO

Although I am using the Yahoo system to send out the Thought for the Day, you may still write to me at Eman8tions@aol.com and I will be happy to hear from you. Or you can simply hit reply and I will receive your email though it will not actually be posted.

It is not necessary to subscribe to Yahoo in order to read Emanations Thought for the Day. You may simply visit Yahoo Groups Eman8tions and anyone can access the archives to read the daily message(s).

To receive Emanations, please sign on to Yahoo at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eman8tions/
and request Emanations Thought for the Day. Please sign on to accept "special notices". There's no cost for a Yahoo account, of course.

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.
If you are receiving Emanations as a forward
please feel free to subscribe for yourself.

Web site address:
http://Emanations.net/

which was followed by a post from asheera, asheera
Posted on Dec 4 2003, 06:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


QUOTE

Almost everything depends on how I use my time.

Time can be thought of as precious, scarce, not enough.

Or it can be seen as an endless ocean, ever flowing.

Both are true.

I choose to experience it as an endless ocean.

And I get to make that choice daily. Things come up that need to be
done. I start scheduling, rationing time, realizing its scarcity.

I go into the stillness, realize there is an infinite amount of time.
I have just chosen to put things into time slots that they are too
big for. They are overlapping, crowding, time is running out.

But time never run out. It runs on and on. It is literally endless,
infinite.

I have all the time I need.

I create emergencies, shortages of time.

There are real emergencies, times when we need to focus and get
things done, stop the bleeding. But there's time for those things too.

The only thing I don't have time for is panic, rush, hurry. That
produces results that have to be redone. So sometimes the faster we
go the more time we waste.

I love going to the still point, becoming calm, using my time, my
big, endless, spacious, comfortable time.

Well, that's it for now. Time to contemplate.



QUOTE

Let's put aside 'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics
QUOTE


and another reply from david:
DavidS
Posted on Dec 5 2003, 04:22 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (asheera @ Dec 3 2003, 04:14 PM)


Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.

So much for 'ambiguities' which 'attend' 'quippy' communication.

David

PROMPTING A Random Hack, to make his post:
a random hack
Posted on Dec 9 2003, 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
david,
you always get so bugged by things you can't understand?

and semi-finally, rich, the author of this very post, put in his $.02
by posting this:
rich
Posted on Dec 10 2003, 03:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (DavidS @ Dec 7 2003, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (DavidS @ Dec 4 2003, 02:22 PM)
Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.

Well, am I to assume that you don't 'wish' to 'clarify' your communication or simply that you 'gravitate' (i.e., prefer, for personal 'reasons' or 'nonreasons') to wallow-swim in muddy water?

a random hack, responded to david's post like this:QUOTE
a random hack
Posted on Dec 9 2003, 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
david,
you always get so bugged by things you can't understand?


Rich responds to ARH with this: rich
Posted on Dec 10 2003, 03:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE (DavidS @ Dec 7 2003, 11:15 PM)
QUOTE (DavidS @ Dec 4 2003, 02:22 PM)
Hi asheera - I can't tell from the 'verbal' data arrangement whether your is an 'indication' that you personally think that John's statement dealing with choices, etc. in relation to 'time' fell into the category of "'idiotic' mental-n-emotional 'fixations' on purely 'intellectual' theoretics" OR if you were winking in 'assent' that it did not.

Well, am I to assume that you don't 'wish' to 'clarify' your communication or simply that you 'gravitate' (i.e., prefer, for personal 'reasons' or 'nonreasons') to wallow-swim in muddy water?

a random hack, responded to david's post like this:QUOTE
a random hack
Posted on Dec 9 2003, 12:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To finalize this phase of the thread, and hopefully all principles are satisfied with their input, hope I have all of the" in their proper places, shall close now, with a ;) and a ROTF :lol:
</span>

Please forgive the author for not quoting the technicolor version, but since y'awl understanding folk, do not think juh mind @ all. ;)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Dec 8 2003, 10:12 PM
david,
you always get so bugged by things you can't understand?
True enough, hack. That 'bug' bite itch is what 'impels' me to ask for 'claritin'. :)

[DavidS]

Excellent sequential-summary re·view, richie! It all thread-fabric hangs together. :lol:

[a random hack]

True enough, hack. That 'bug' bite itch is what 'impels' me to ask for 'claritin'.

doesn't this ever bug you? :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by a random hack@Dec 11 2003, 08:14 PM
True enough, hack. That 'bug' bite itch is what 'impels' me to ask for 'claritin'.

doesn't this ever bug you? :lol:
Nope, scratching itches is (part of) the 'fun' of engaging in life's 'games' for me. Often, though certainly not always, this leads to a very pleasurable, 'satisfied' "Ahhh". :)

i must say, I never did cotton to the kind of strict 'meditational discipline'[see **Note] many advocate as well as practice, which 'forbids' moving to become more comfortable, 'disallowing' even the 'scratching' of 'itches' that are easily within reach to be 'scratched'. That struck me as being 'masochistic'. Though I do understand the importance of and 'practice' my 'ability' to 'not 'mind' and gracefully 'suffer' unpleasantnesses I am unable to do anything about. I'm a path-of-least-'resistance' flavored-milkshake loving fella.

My choosing to ask for itch-relieving 'claritin' appears to 'bug' you though. Care to ponder and 'splain why so?

[**Note: This reminds me of a story, true or not I don't know, I heard about the Dalai Lama being served a non-vegetarian meal on an airplane flight, which he proceeded to eat. The person next to him was a bit aghast, commenting "I thought all Buddhists were completely devout vegetarians." The Dalai Lama, replied: "Only the very strictest.", as the sorty-joke goes. :lol: ]


:)

[sahyo]

doesn't this ever bug you? :lol:



My choosing to ask for itch-relieving 'claritin' appears to 'bug' you though.




question reads asif bugged, david?

:lol:

[rich]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 15 2003, 06:43 AM



doesn't this ever bug you?* :lol:



My choosing to ask for itch-relieving 'claritin' appears to 'bug' you though.




question reads asif bugged, david?

:lol:
p/o rich's post:
Please forgive the author for not quoting the technicolor all principles are satisfied with their input, hope I have all of the[" in their proper places, shall close now, with a and a ROTF


Please forgive the author for not quoting the technicolor version, but since y'awl understanding folk, do not think juh mind @ all.




and the thread goes on, and on 'n on & on & on & on & on & on & on 7on & on & etc.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Dec 14 2003, 04:43 PM

doesn't this ever bug you?* :lol:
...
question reads asif bugged, david?
Sure does, asheera . . . it's probably an 'in the eye of the beholder' kind o' thang.

I don't know if what follows will clarify/answer your what lies behind your question, hack, but it expresses more succinctly than I think I could my 'philosophy' pertaining to 'scratching itches', among other thangs. I don't know the guy (John MacEnulty) personally, but his meditational ramblings sure seem to be synchronous 'blessings' (to me, that is):

It is when we do nothing about the things that bother us that we
become disturbed.

This can happen for a number of reasons, the most common being simply
fear.

Sometimes we are just trying to be what we think of as considerate or
unselfish, not wanting to bother or hurt someone else with our
problem, sacrificing ourselves for what we may think is the greater
good.

Or we might have a spiritual misunderstanding and think that
confrontation is unhealthy, that we should simply learn to let go and
trust God to work everything out.

But regardless of the reason, concern is a call to action.
Frustration and worry are inherent in inaction in the face of a
problem.

We need to do the footwork, solve things to the best of our ability.

We need the courage to change the things we can and the serenity to
accept what we cannot change. Being able to tell the difference is
the key.

How do we know that we should accept something? We need to have had
the courage to change the thing and not to have had it work. Then we
know. Otherwise we are just copping out.

Contemplation still plays a big part though. We need the clarity and
peace of mind before we go bounding out and attacking windmills. We
need the clarity that comes from going within before we take action.
We need to let our mud settle, our thoughts clear.

Life is about finding out how to do all of this. It gets very
confusing. When am I supposed to confront, let go, meditate? But we
learn by taking the path, acting, doing. So the answer is to make a
lot of mistakes and keep learning from them.

Make no mistake, learn nothing.

Make mistakes, learn.

=======

Emanations
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
12/14/2003, St. Louis, MO

Although I am using the Yahoo system to send out the Thought for the
Day, you may still write to me at Eman8tions@aol.com and I will be
happy to hear from you. Or you can simply hit reply and I will
receive your email though it will not actually be posted.

It is not necessary to subscribe to Yahoo in order to read Emanations
Thought for the Day. You may simply visit Yahoo Groups Eman8tions and
anyone can access the archives to read the daily message(s).

To receive Emanations daily, please sign on to Yahoo at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eman8tions/
and request Emanations Thought for the Day. Please sign on to accept
"special notices". There's no cost for a Yahoo account, of course.

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.

[...]

It is when we do nothing about the things that bother us that we become disturbed.

..false. When we do nothing about the things that bother us, whatever those things may be, they arise and whither as clouds in the sky without effecting emotional disturbances. Only when we think the bothersome has to be dealt with in some way, we start to believe we're disturbed...

[sahyo]

and if don't believe'awho'?

[...]

..that belief withers too...

[sahyo]

read as though belief?, ...

[...]

..nono :nono: asheraa :thumbsup:

[sahyo]

ah :)

[todd]

Just found this topic.

I checked Linds theory and I found on the same page an interesting opinion of Eric Engle, which I consider very pertinent:

Eric Engle (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001333/01/ZENO.html)

Reading the articles I have a vague impression that Linds tries a sort of generalization of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, also playing unscientifically with the nature time/space : continuous or discreet. What I don't like is the fact he is too arbitrary in his theory when to consider time/space discreet and when continuous.

Of course, Einstein opened Pandora's box, and now we can talk about continuous/discreet - wave/particle nature of time, space or energy, vicinities, distribution theory etc. There is nothing new here. But we have to be consistent in our assumptions instead of manipulating notions to fit our clumsy ideas.
I'm not convinced Linds really understands what he's saying.

[the greek]

One man's theory:

An earlier post hinted at the heart of the "time" issue. Light never moves. Objects never move. They merely reposition themselves, take a quantum leap through space.

Recent research into teleportation touches on this theory, where scientists have manipulated information of an atom and duplicated that same atom's information, making it appear that the same atom moved or appeared in two spaces simultaneously. This was conducted in an area detached from the originally-cloned atom.

A famous physicist shed "light" on a similar topic years ago: Max Planc (spelling?), who initiated the concept of what later became known as "Planc length."

Time might indeed be still, which is most likely why there is no apparent beginning and no apparent end to time. The most likely scenario is that there exist only fleeting points in time which co-exist with the "duality" of Planc dimensions.

This is a paradox, but so too is "acceleration" to the speed of stillness.