Examining Time Through Experience

I'll attempt to explain a few thoughts of mine and hopefully leave it open for discussion. I'll try to keep it short because I don't plan on adding videos and I know not everyone has the attention span to read through a long breathed thought.
-----------------------------------

Without duality time does not exist (in fact without duality nothing can be precieved). Time is real and unreal. Time is a paradox as all life is. Nothing is at it seems in the material body (it is difficult for me to articulate what is or isnt outside of this physicality so I will speak only on what most can relate to for the moment).

Time exist first in its dualistic form because we understand that our form of time is malleable. This loose function of time in turns shows us that time, as the majority of us accept/observe/define it, only exist in acceptance or faith in this form of time.

Today could be seen as Monday or it could be just another nameless day. Monday creates the form of the beginning of a week, where "just another nameless day" creates a less measureable time. "Just another nameless day" is WITHOUT certain aspects of Monday and vice versa. The lack of of these aspects existing within our observation or definitions of these two different times, actually define the time itself (IN THE MOST LITERAL TERMS). Make no shake of the head to this, these subtle changes are less observed, but the background to any stage is just as important as the characters are to the entirety to the act.

Imagine the Jetson and Flinstone family switching roles switching times.

_____

MY EXPERIMENTATION WITH TIME

For whatever reason I have been a rebel of sorts. Had to do everything different from everyone around me. Constantly reinventing myself. This path has lead me to very different times and oppurtunities very early in life. I was able to experiment with time via the medium of natural sorts (I will attempt to stay within the lines of ATS by keeping it at that). These experiments threw me through various times where I existed as a king with many wives, a great warrior with the admiration of my peers, the systematic family guy, the angry punk, intuitive and wise guru, the care free and loving rastafarian, and humble hermit. I would experience these LIFE TIMES, but before I knew it I was "pulled back" from the nameless days and nights, and "reinserted" back into the material body that existed within a matrix of time that we define as Monday afternoon. And upon remembering what a Monday afternoon meant (work in the am) I attempted to imagine myself back with no luck. I only remembered the bits and pieces of my past that best SUMmarized these times. The bolded lettering..

This is when I realized that if it was not for monday and what it detailed, those namless days would of only held no significance. Due t o the lack of of certain aspects of time did the attraction exist. I also realized the choice I had been given.

____________

Its much like DNA having certain traits turned on or off. Two strands of polymeres combine to make one and the many dna to make the cells, and cells make the organs, and organs make the body. Time exist in many forms and functions, complimentary to eachother, if WE chose (some chose to smoke and eat unhealthy amounts of sugar creating cancer cells. I know I do), in the body of the universe.

We chose form and time

There is no such thing as time, in REALITY. It's just a convention and a trick of the egoic mind, nothing more.

The truth is that we are already in eternally, and the only thing that's ever happening is occuring through the eternally unfolding present moment of now.

I will argue there is time and that it exists alongside no time to create a paradox in which A reality is played out.

reply to post by ImmortalThought

I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.

I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.

I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.

Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.

Originally posted by ImmortalThought

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.

I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.

Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.

No, there's only the eternally unfolding present moment of now, that's it. But there's part of us which refuses to except that and will go to any lengths to persuade us otherwise. The resolution to the apparent paradox, is the eternal now as all there is, but the "self" cannot accept it, since it's very existence depends on the concept of past and future, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.

Why must we be so insistent that time does not exist? That time is but a figment of our imagination, passing by only because we insist in our minds that it must.

I will argue that time exists. Not only within our minds but that time is a real thing. It may not be touched like you may touch a stone, but it exists as much as any other force of nature - of gravity, of electricity, of magnetism. Why can these things unarguably exist but not time?

Surely you cannot touch the force of gravity, you cannot reach out and grasp at it, yet gravity is not argued to exist only within our minds, until one starts to argue about the very fabric of reality itself.

I'll tell you what I think time is. Time is the very essence of change. Without time, there is no change. Indeed the way we measure time is by change. It seems backwards because if time is change, and the only way to measure time is by change, then how can we ever get a truly accurate reading of time? Yes, this is a big problem in any argument about the nature of temporal reality.

We do not completely understand time, anymore than we understand the other forces of nature. Yet, we understand time less because it cannot be described as either a weak nor a strong force. In our own minds time can seem to go by painfully slowly or it can go by ridiculously fast, yet it would appear to an observer outside of our minds that time goes by just as it did before. Time is neither strong nor weak, or anywhere in between. It's a force of change. Things can change fast or they can change slow but the amount of time in between the change is always the same...

Another problem we often encounter in thinking about time is one put best by Greek philosopher, Zeno, a paradox he put as "Zeno's Arrow". Read about it if you'd like to understand what I'm talking about if you don't already. Time can either go by in 'instants' or it can flow smoothly, like a river. Does time go by fraction by fraction or is there an infinite amount of instants between one second and another?

reply to post by ImmortalThought


u should go to basics u know of a thing to mean its objective perspective

time before anything is individual free move, u have u aware before moving which is nothing value

then u as free move wills or means, which is always to past value

then u as present free objective present as a result of its move realisation which is always else then its means or wills

then u as the end constancy of ur free move, which is ur future concept as it is always existing as long as u r still present now

the problem u describe, i see it more being for what world reality time mean all individuals in one freedom time concept i guess, so the problem is what time cannot b objective, since by definition what is objective is else freedom so never anyone that would move, objective freedom is of its constancy fact that stay then still more

dou the paradoxe sense

truth is absolute superiority and when truth is freedom then freedom is absolute superiority always

that is why in all logics future is better then past but present is by definition what is true so absolutely free then all superior value existence objective reality

Originally posted by thed3adbeat
Another problem we often encounter in thinking about time is one put best by Greek philosopher, Zeno, a paradox he put as "Zeno's Arrow". Read about it if you'd like to understand what I'm talking about if you don't already. Time can either go by in 'instants' or it can flow smoothly, like a river. Does time go by fraction by fraction or is there an infinite amount of instants between one second and another?

Yes, that is a paradox, that at any given moment, nothing is moving, and yet there is relative motion, and the movement of bodies through space, so I'll concede that there's a paradox here re: time/no time.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ImmortalThought

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.

I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.

Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.

No, there's only the eternally unfolding present moment of now, that's it. But there's part of us which refuses to except that and will go to any lengths to persuade us otherwise. The resolution to the apparent paradox, is the eternal now as all there is, but the "self" cannot accept it, since it's very existence depends on the concept of past and future, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.

How can you understand what is current without knowing what is not. I believe what is difficult for people to grasp is a function of time which is not past present or future. Instead to see time as a choice. Our very existence which depends on the concept of choice, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.

Time duality is of existence and not of existence which designs the totality of what we precieve as time. The choice between what I see as time worthy and what you see as time worthy maybe different but still make up the total of time and not time or the aspects of the duality of time.

Because we live in time we want to live without. Once we are without we want in. That is what creates time the choice between the two and movement in which we evolve through the change of times.

Originally posted by thed3adbeat
Why must we be so insistent that time does not exist? That time is but a figment of our imagination, passing by only because we insist in our minds that it must.

I will argue that time exists. Not only within our minds but that time is a real thing. It may not be touched like you may touch a stone, but it exists as much as any other force of nature - of gravity, of electricity, of magnetism. Why can these things unarguably exist but not time?

Surely you cannot touch the force of gravity, you cannot reach out and grasp at it, yet gravity is not argued to exist only within our minds, until one starts to argue about the very fabric of reality itself.

I'll tell you what I think time is. Time is the very essence of change. Without time, there is no change. Indeed the way we measure time is by change. It seems backwards because if time is change, and the only way to measure time is by change, then how can we ever get a truly accurate reading of time? Yes, this is a big problem in any argument about the nature of temporal reality.

We do not completely understand time, anymore than we understand the other forces of nature. Yet, we understand time less because it cannot be described as either a weak nor a strong force. In our own minds time can seem to go by painfully slowly or it can go by ridiculously fast, yet it would appear to an observer outside of our minds that time goes by just as it did before. Time is neither strong nor weak, or anywhere in between. It's a force of change. Things can change fast or they can change slow but the amount of time in between the change is always the same...

Another problem we often encounter in thinking about time is one put best by Greek philosopher, Zeno, a paradox he put as "Zeno's Arrow". Read about it if you'd like to understand what I'm talking about if you don't already. Time can either go by in 'instants' or it can flow smoothly, like a river. Does time go by fraction by fraction or is there an infinite amount of instants between one second and another?

Agreed and by no coincidence I was writing about change and time in a similar post to newage as you posted this. Time DOES exist.. But it doesn't exist. The change between the times is time.

reply to post by ImmortalThought

It's not a choice between two, but the creative choice from all that is possible. You don't or can't choose something simply because of what it's not, that's not absolute freedom, and thus lacks power, and I might add, authenticity.

I think you are mistaken.

There is a no-mind mind, a non-seeking beginners mind which knows something about this that you may not have considered before.

I tell you what - I'll try on your ideas if you will try on mine, how's that sound?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

It's not a choice between two, but the creative choice from all that is possible. You don't or can't choose something simply because of what it's not, that's not absolute freedom, and thus lacks power, and I might add, authenticity.

I think you are mistaken.

There is a no-mind mind, a non-seeking beginners mind which knows something about this that you may not have considered before.

I tell you what - I'll try on your ideas if you will try on mine, how's that sound?

It sounds like you have found the time in which you first stated you did not have. The previous abscence of time has become time you have made through change.

I think our only difference is that you do not see that time is how you choose to define it whether you choose to define it or by negation define it.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by ImmortalThought

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImmortalThought

 

I think that reality is playing itself out within the framework of eternity, which would imply an eternal recurrence, to which I add the word "evolutionary" as in an evolutionary eternal recurrence, to describe a progression in complexity, but the "arrow" is verticle, and non-linear, and therefore has no correlation with "time" as we concieve of it ie: past-present-future.

I could go on but I don't have the time right at the moment to give this the attention it deserves.

Exactly the time you dont have here is time existing somewhere else, and by relation exists here though in the background. That is what you call an enternal recurrence or what I call the repetive function of a paradox.

No, there's only the eternally unfolding present moment of now, that's it. But there's part of us which refuses to except that and will go to any lengths to persuade us otherwise. The resolution to the apparent paradox, is the eternal now as all there is, but the "self" cannot accept it, since it's very existence depends on the concept of past and future, as a recording and projecting and meaning making machine.

Time does exist, but not in the way most people think it does. It is this 'unfolding' of events in the ever present now that time manifests. Time is merely a process. The future exists only in your dreams, the past exists only in your memories.

Time and space are both merely processes which create the illusion within our conscious that everything that has and will ever happen hasn't already happened all at once in the exact same place.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Agreed. This is an aspect of time, being that of a process in which we see an unfolding of events. But we have to remember that the events that have not unfolded have been given no time and exist behind the illusion of non existence.