It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lying it

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Question:

Who is encompassing the total some present, which is yet so continueing live, and beginning and ending?

Answer:

Present!

See yet, too?

So...

Some One Who reaches and controls the single, total present = Present (Lively, Secret Person Total Itself)! None yet can master etc. total yet, except Present.

In depths...

Total naming:

First naming "Present"; middle naming "Matter"; and last naming "Moment".

matter 
–noun
10 ground, reason, or cause: a matter for complaint.

Who totally for the ground, for the reason, and for the cause? Present Matter Moment! Or the Grounder, the Reasoner, and the Causer. Lieing ground, reason, and cause up yet so like a quality 'mat layer' (also classified 'a matter').

Conclusion...

If you, lying present, can neither reach present nor control present totally, then you are yet not Present utterly.

Can any tell the time length for "present" yet? Beginning! And it is no length measurement for "beginning" when you clock for the during start, instead of foolishly clocking the during and instead of foolishly clocking the 'before till the during' start.

Present is immeasurable and secret unless you let your actual mind know (mentally locate and see) it. Knowing it = an actual measurement for any etc. otherwise immeasurable.

Share your 2 cent for the implications only.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by Mabus]




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I SEE. its ALL relative to perception of chosen language and even still, its all relative to your ability to and of perception(?) of non perception. All of what you can ever propose is biased opinion, and there is no way to prove it otherwise. Even 1+1=2 is biased opinion, the opinion of a perception biased by its visit to/in an illusory hypothetical dream state. Yet this is just my feeble opinion, and I could be lying, but I doubt it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
God knows, if Strings hold all dimensions together, then it depends on the nature of the strings, discrete, or continuous wave like. Light can be modelled both ways so my hunch is you can look at it both ways, so it depends on your standpoint, the present is either infinitesimal or discrete and longer than that.

[EDIT] What I have written may be complete arse.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by redled]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
My friends and I always play a game and see if anyone can tell me when is right now(present)? It's now.... no wait.... now! LOL I've had some good times with that. Thanks for the memories, or is it all still happening right now?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
well the past me would scratch his head and think of some semi-rude comment to say...

but the present me would egg it on and say something like:

If the present is now, but now is not a measure of time, why do we say stuff like "I just did it now."

Anyways, I'm writing this in my past present time for your future present time when you read it...



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   


Whoa Mcfly slow down there.

haha couldn't resist.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
My Actualist Speech:

We are yet, basically, each quite yet the:

Presentness
Presenter
Present (implying gift)
Presence (only while others are yet noticablely an immediate vicinity; proximity)

^^And such for both an indefinately short and definitely short semicolon rather than period. Well, such is if you feel the difference indicating actually with seeing, say, the same thing yet while also seeing it different yet. Unlike a paradox the both, concerning moment, semi wise, don't conflict, but go with and for each other. 'Semi wise' is since moment encompasses total some yet which also includes any thing or any one which is yet contradictory. So moment is a semi-paradox until Present Matter Moment lets a non-contradictory actuality unleash for ITSELF utterly.

Make note: For no thing or one is a period implication. Last I checked, the last you finished a letter you keep escaping it becoming the last. Therefore there is no actual period with any thing or any one. The semicolon is so instead, though your mind might not yet grasp such the actuality.




[edit on 29-10-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
How long does it take to say 'now?'



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mabus
My Actualist Speech:

We are yet, basically, each quite yet the:

Presentness
Presenter
Present (implying gift)
Presence (only while others are yet noticablely an immediate vicinity; proximity)

^^And such for both an indefinately short and definitely short semicolon rather than period. Well, such is if you feel the difference indicating actually with seeing, say, the same thing yet while also seeing it different yet. Unlike a paradox the both, concerning moment, semi wise, don't conflict, but go with and for each other. 'Semi wise' is since moment encompasses total some yet which also includes any thing or any one which is yet contradictory. So moment is a semi-paradox until Present Matter Moment lets a non-contradictory actuality unleash for ITSELF utterly.

Make note: For no thing or one is a period implication. Last I checked, the last you finished a letter you keep escaping it becoming the last. Therefore there is no actual period with any thing or any one. The semicolon is so instead, though your mind might not yet grasp such the actuality.




[edit on 29-10-2008 by Mabus]



Thanks, we keep going. So you are saying there is no end. There is no period; just semi-colons we manifest through?

What about the moment I have an idea, then the time between materializing it?
I think -"I am thirsty"
in my waking movements I see myself walking to the kitchen getting the glass of water, but then I am back where I started, but with a glass of water - "now".

So in the "now" 3 things just happened ; idea, materialization, and "now" - where I have the glass of water.


I don't have the option of skipping the materialization part. I have to visually DO IT for IT to manifest.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by redled
 


Hahaahahahahhaha good point... no matter how short the utterance it's too long to be accurate.

On another note... if time is just so many points on a line... does an event cease to exist immediately when the next point is reached? Or... can the past still be accurately said to be past, if it still exists ?

Ugh one other thing I've always wondered... if traveling at the speed of light and you put your headlights on.. does anything happen?



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Search for doctor quantum. He has alot of interesting things to tell you. Id go and check the OP's other posts, mabus has made many posts just like this. Some of them even say he wants to bring about the end times so he can "collect" his reward. Im guessing that hasnt gone so well.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The illusion we create of our experiences certainly is a lie....

Though that does not mean your post is,,,,

But the answer you seek to that point in the Now, or more accurately seeing through and experiencing what is before, after and now is found in my quoted story on this post OP


Here Authentic Honesty

Njoy

Elf.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
What the hell are you on about? The value of perception is basically nil, there is a solid existence that continues its immutable path without respect to our expectations. That means:

I contend time is a construct of our minds, nothing more. The universe spins without respect to the restrictive dimension of 'time' a flawed concept that is slowly being annihilated by particle physicists.

Our perceptions do not shape the world at large, merely they provide a reference point for the perceiver.

Secondly, you should try to reformulate your hypothesis. The words you sling together have no recognizable congruity. It is a word salad of the highest order. I cannot understand what you're trying to say.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Since most of our "reality" uses man's notion of linear time as a means to establish some sense of immortality through procreation, some might interpret this in the sameness of the saying;
man and woman are members of two constantly warring tribes, occasionally declaring a truce for the sole purpose of procreation.

Others, such as the Zulu People of Africa, state that humans once were monoecious, until a superior race of beings sent them into two caves, depending on which was entered, the human would come out either male or female.
Later, after the alien kings #1 wife felt compassion for the natives, taught them the pleasures of sexual intercourse, which slowed production of the natives slave-mining, the now infuriated king demanded his wife, (the cause of this drop in productivity), to remedy the situation.
To accomplish this, she manipulated the humans so that the woman would be inpregnated, which caused the men to stop the constant sexual intercourse, which increased productivity in the mines.
Then, an outspoken, unusually strong native challenged the king to a fight and in the battle, cut off the kings penis.
In retaliation, the king stabbed the challenger through the nasal cavity with his fingers and sucked out and consumed his brain.

Stories such as this and the Sumarian accounts of their tablet story are considered past tense in a linear sense. If the concept of linear time was interpolated, the past and future could well be the now, or the present.

If this was the process used, then the present would always be, the linear past and future no longer calculated in time as we know it, thus all knowledge, experience, discoveries, and things that produce culture, habits, use of natural resources, etc... or, or conciousness, would always be in the present, combining the past and future as presence of or present knowledge, and not distiguish a difference, but rather include that which is known in the present.

This linear time could also be a plausible conception regarding trinity.
What if God, Jesus, Holy Spirit were the current, past and future but together, the present? No line depicting linear time, but a circle, always in the present with no beginning, no end, no finite point at all. One circle, the present, with three perceptions of accumulated knowledge defining the now of conciousness.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Secondly, you should try to reformulate your hypothesis. The words you sling together have no recognizable congruity. It is a word salad of the highest order. I cannot understand what you're trying to say.

I agree, I have seen the "calculating now" before as to how it can been done, but the wording in the OP is a little confusing.
I think the previous posts on this thread speak for most answers, so I won't beat the horse, but I will say that "now" if to put on a linear scale, can only exist in retrospect, there is really no point of trying to define it as is, because if you are looking for confirmation, then it must be in retrospect, think about it.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
now is all there is.....always!
its everywhere all the time its the past,future and other places which are the lie/con....
realise 'now' and the rest will take care of itself



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join