Time as nontemporal

[Nagelfar]

Consider for a moment that every past experience you've ever had never actually happened.

You, only now, at this moment, remember it as thinking it had happened; but it is only now that is. Yet nothing is moving forward even; not even the rearrangement of matter.

Ten seconds ago when you began reading this post was an implanted memory of a time sequence. There is no time, just now. You thought you had this consideration already ten seconds into it when you began reading the first sentence of this paragraph, as it is purportedly what gave you the moment to comply and to so consider such a thing, but that too is an implanted memory without a past, of having done this once already, for the comprehension of where you are now, and I may say "and so on" but the next thing will never happen. The past never happened, you were always pre-established as you now are, right now & just now, stuck in space & programmed in the frozen masterpiece of now to believe in time or that you were ever anywhere but where you are now.

You believe the past implies a future but the consideration of the future is properly only a past. As well the (empirical) present, as it is reflectively considered, is also properly a past, but a past never was.

You are the point from where all consideration of time irradiates and flows back, it is dependent on your eternal present, not on your past or future, for intelligibility. For past, (temporal present) & future are abstract objectifications that are only possible to make as such in the true present; which is the everything.

Any instant you try to frame, in your consciousness, the subject of your consciousness: it is bound to fail. Objectification is always false. To be objective is always to be wrong. "Self" is the attention given to a particular manifold of phenomena, applied to our own conscious, that our consciousness frames for us as having subjects commonly connected. Yet that then becomes an object for ourselves. In framing it that removes it from its subjectivity, and is thus false. Every way you frame (make into thought-object) the subjectivity of any condition, effectively removes its condition from it as a subject.

Subject is lived, not captured and conveyed. We can explain objects in communication, and can explain subjectivity only when it is objectified; but we should then be aware of the fact that when objectified, we are not communicating the truth of the matter.

 

[L2R]

for all intents and purposes, like my tattoo reads "it doesn't matter". the objective is objective enough, even if it is fundamentally not.

 

[Nagelfar]

Fair enough.

It's no more than an illustrative example of how nothing may be its own context.

 

[Dedbeet]

Time is mental, and the only way to see this is clarity on the fact that any pondering or imagining or thinking of time has to happen "presently" the whole time, in the here and now, or the thinking couldn't happen.

In other words, you can't think of the past or future, IN the past or future. You can only think of it "now, presently". And that now is always now -- it's non-temporal.

This can't be grasped mentally, only "seen" by letting go of the sense of reality given to time. It is in fact "Non-grasping".

for all intents and purposes, like my tattoo reads "it doesn't matter". the objective is objective enough, even if it is fundamentally not.

And when there's no sense of intent or purpose? The objective isn't objective, and typically that isn't even noticed.

In fact I'd say it's so much taken for granted, that "non-objectivity" is assumed not to exist at all, due to its blatant obviousness. That's why so-called 'enlightenment' is a failure (of attempted objectivity generating a sense of subjectivity/self), not the success or end result of something.

 

[Nagelfar]

Poignantly stated Dedbeet.

 

[Dedbeet]

Consider for a moment that every past experience you've ever had never actually happened.

You, only now, at this moment, remember it as thinking it had happened; but it is only now that is. Yet nothing is moving forward even; not even the rearrangement of matter.

Ten seconds ago when you began reading this post was an implanted memory of a time sequence. There is no time, just now. You thought you had this consideration already ten seconds into it when you began reading the first sentence of this paragraph, as it is purportedly what gave you the moment to comply and to so consider such a thing, but that too is an implanted memory without a past, of having done this once already, for the comprehension of where you are now, and I may say "and so on" but the next thing will never happen. The past never happened, you were always pre-established as you now are, right now & just now, stuck in space & programmed in the frozen masterpiece of now to believe in time or that you were ever anywhere but where you are now.

Fwiw, I would not say that it's static or preordained.

Again, this is conceptual, and is the way the mind works: If it isn't changing in/as time, it must be frozen/unchanging outside of time.

No, this is still a temporal-mental (dual) view and does not communicate anything real at all. Words can't do "nontemporality" any justice, as the mind is just stuck with two opposing views on everything -- neither of which are reality!

Because the two poles depend on each other for their "existence" and can't stand/exist alone, just as a magnet has to have both north and south poles to be a magnet.

Even life/death, existence/nonexistence, are unreal polarities. And how to call them unreal, when this suggests another polarity (real/unreal). Ya see? The whole mess collapses, so to speak.

Peace...

 

[Nagelfar]

Saying it is static is not the same as saying its preordained, as that latter concept requires time. Fate and destiny are prior to you thinking it, and so are just as false if this is posited as it is here. They only exist while you are thinking it, posed to be not while you are thinking it, a contradiction.

You're falling into the error of transcendental realism here; to say that anything exists beyond your mind is nonsense. Because it has to be entertained as an idea to exist; if we place it beyond our idea it is still our idea doing that. Therefore a concept of a reality that transcends us is absurd; if we can frame something beyond us; it is not beyond us but immanent within us by the very fact that we can frame it.

Dialectic cures all paradox by way of contradiction: this does not mean it is dual. We are all the various separating terms of things in ourselves. We are the unity to the object we perceive outside us, for its duality presupposes its unity within us for us to pose ourselves against it at all; it is already one with us before we sense that we come into contact with it. Not just the essence of its archetype; but its novel particularity that surprises us as well. There is no truly alien surprise that goes outside of our mind, since it wouldn't exist, and not just wouldn't exist *to us* as we comport ourselves, but not exist in its entirety, and so on forever.

One can't say neither of two terms are reality; the reality is their synthesis: the dialectic is not static itself; though its terms may be, one is always dynamically subordinate to the other. So any dual term, requires one of the two first for its functional meaning, but it can't be first with regard to its antithesis or synthesis, which is a priori.

 

[Dedbeet]

Saying it is static is not the same as saying its preordained, as that latter concept requires time. Fate and destiny are prior to you thinking it, and so are just as false if this is posited as it is here. They only exist while you are thinking it, posed to be not while you are thinking it, a contradiction.

You're falling into the error of transcendental realism here; to say that anything exists beyond your mind is nonsense.

I'm suggesting the opposite -- only what exists beyond the mind is real.

The mind is composed of pairs of opposites -- it's a closed system consisting of co-dependent complementaries (that look like real polarities, but aren't).

Thus, life and reality are in the journey (the direct living of life), and that is really the final answer.

 

[Nagelfar]

I'm suggesting the opposite -- only what exists beyond the mind is real.

The mind is composed of pairs of opposites -- it's a closed system consisting of co-dependent complementaries.

Thus, life and reality are in the journey (the direct living of life), and that is really the final answer.

That's nonsensical from my school of thought. Nothing exists beyond the mind, so to say what you are is to say real is only unreality; only what has no use to you has use to you, etc. It's nihilism. A type of nihilism you yourself reject by positing it as a thought. It is from the illusion that your mind is limited by something beyond itself, which it is not.

You claimed the following in another thread and deleted it before I could respond, but it suits here just the same:

Fwiw, I say that mind is matter, and matter is mind. Consciousness, I have no comment on at all.

I say consciousness is what underlies both mind & matter: it is the actus purus of the scholastics.

 

[Dedbeet]

That's nonsensical from my school of thought.

I'd expect nothing else from *any* school of thought.

I mean, I just said that every school of thought is ultimately nonsense. Your reply is expected (chuckling).

I say consciousness is what underlies both mind & matter

Fwiw (admittedly, little or nothing), I say that mind is matter. And matter is mind. The two are inseparable. Schools of thought that want time to exist supramentally will take severe issue with this statement, granted.

 

[Nagelfar]

I'd expect nothing else from *any* school of thought.

I mean, I just said that every school of thought is ultimately nonsense. Your reply is expected (chuckling).

Thought is, lets say, what is sensical as by definition. What I am saying is only professing things which lay beyond your thought (thinking) is nonsensical. Your school of thought is a school of thought for what is not thought. But your definition of what is not thought is your thought; there is nothing else beyond it and your idea of non-thought is an idea, and so not the idea you think you have framed.

I think you have your categories mixed up. Thinking is the active subject of the passive object of thought. What you are in fact denying are the objectifications of thought, any object of thought, while affirming the subjective reality of thinking (but not when made into its own object) that is without memory and non-reflective without becoming dead objects of thought.

Every school of thought is a form of internal sense: so if you say what lays beyond your thought is real and put only value in that; I say your opinion is no different than any form of realistic residua in philosophy: whether it says there is a transcendent God, or a material universe beyond our knowledge of it, etc. Which are all empty assumptions which are thinkable only in so far as they are just thinkable, and so are never actual.

 

[Dedbeet]

Thought is, lets say, what is sensical as by definition.

To me, thought is story-line, and the Time-Life history of the world is no more interesting or "real" than Hansel and Gretel. Thinking can be entertaining, and that's all. Fiction and non-fiction are basically both fiction to me.

It's all in how one looks at it, in one's attitude, so to speak. Nothing else really matters.

Peace...

 

[Nagelfar]

To me, thought is story-line, and the Time-Life history of the world is no more interesting or "real" than Hansel and Gretel. Thinking can be entertaining, and that's all. Fiction and non-fiction are basically both fiction to me.

It's all in how one looks at it, in one's attitude, so to speak. Nothing else really matters.

Peace...

Thinking is the criterion by which we measure thought. Thought may be 'story-line' & 'fiction', but you cannot say thinking is. Just because we only have thought-objects to put thinking toward, does not mean thinking is "non-actual", only that thought is.

 

[Dedbeet]

Thoughts arise and vanish all the time. No thought is ever sustained or lasting, nor is one free to call up particular thoughts at will. Thought occurs -- it's a happening among all happenings, and does not deserve the special status it pretends to accord itself.

In fact it does not accord itself such status, only ceaselessly tries to. Primarily through imagining it's in contact with the thoughts of others -- which are thoughts happening in the same mind that all thoughts happen in: The one they happen in. That is not solipsism, that is fact.

A full acknowledgement that "all thoughts I've ever thought, have been thought here, including the thoughts of others" is the beginning of the end of the mind's special status, and one's transcendence of mental-emotional nonsense. It's the death of the ego, not its survival point. The ego requires others.

Peace...

 

[Nagelfar]

The ego is the origin of the positing of others as its own socius. Others exist in the ego of "every" ego.

There is no absolute mind transcendent above ones own mind that contains every thought ever thought; that is as fallacious as something beyond thought itself which is external in any capacity. The same error as positing an external that cannot be truly posited because it is a subject of Subject.

The thinking activity is always in the moment of the eternity of presence, and travels along thoughts; some more enduring as 'sensation' or 'physical objects' in regard to thinking than others, some thought is very fleeting yes.

To have something presupposed to mind is to deny ones mind, even whether it is another mind.

If the "ego requires others" (which I agree) how can you say it is "imagining it is in contact with the thoughts of others"? Since your mind defines what thought is, it must be in contact, in real true unity, with the thoughts of others when they are perceived.

Thinking is act; it is in the act of trying that it is, and can wind around on itself like a dog chasing its own tail, but it is accorded such status by being act; when one tries to make it fact is when one denies its subjective significance.

Anyhow, everything we frame around an empty space of our thinking; that we feel out as should having been there, but never able to experience directly, by maintaining a 'circumference of understanding' that suggests it's existence; only gives lie to the space we do not give existence to because we ourselves do not for whatever reason.

 

[Dedbeet]

So-called oneness is simple -- too simple for the mind.

The seer is the seen. The perceiver is the perceived.

Thus, ego sees ego.

One who sees a lot of egoic people is seeing their own reflection in various guises.

"Non-ego" cannot see ego. You won't hear "non-ego" complaining about "all those arrogant assholes" (from a presumed squeaky-clean standpoint). Ever.

Nondivision is simple and effortless.

Divisiveness takes hard work. Endless hard work.

And the tortured is always the torturer.

Peace....

 

[Nagelfar]

So-called oneness is simple -- too simple for the mind.

In all points I can agree but here.

We as we exist, as amongst the multiplicity, is this oneness: for all the multiplicity is resolved in that sole invariable amongst all multiplicity which is our cognito ergo sum.

 

[Dedbeet]

Wherever you like... thanks for the "back & forth". Always gives rise to interesting thoughts.

 

[Nagelfar]

Welcome. Resurrect any-thing laid out in my posts as a point of contention, at any time, as I don't foresee myself not checking back here in the near future.

 

[Dedbeet]

^^ I'm not interested in points of contention, for what it's worth (only in peaceable exchange of thoughts). I really hate tense conversations -- they feel unpleasant to me and I dislike the feeling of "competition between who's right and who's wrong". Uggh. Ideas and concepts are just not that important.

Peace...