Nowhere to go, with the *universe* available?

[Dedbeet]

When it became clear that wherever I go, here I am -- I figured that getting somewhere else isn't nearly as important as the human race takes it to be. For the very simple reason that you *can't* get somewhere else.

Yes. Nowhere to go, with the whole universe available to get there.

Peace...

 

[wykydtron]

I was just in the bathroom. Now, I'm in the living room.

 

[Dedbeet]

So says thought, which believes in its stories.

The story was told where you were when it was told, and what told the story was not in the bathroom, nor did it see itself sitting in the living room.

 

[Dedbeet]

P.S. it's actually very easy to notice that wherever you go and finally get there, you're NOT there -- you're "here, right where you are".

What's a bit harder to notice is that the "there" that one thinks about is always "here" (as the thought) when it's thought about.

Some "reality" the mind sets up, eh?

Running away from "here", in the desire to get to a "there" that becomes "here" again.

BLEH.

 

[wykydtron]

So says thought, which believes in its stories.

But, when I believe in the stories, they are real. I become the belief, no longer the believer.

The story was told where you were when it was told, and what told the story was not in the bathroom, nor did it see itself sitting in the living room.

So says thought, which thinks about stories, but does not take part in them.

 

[Vader]

"Tomorrow never comes" is the temporal equivalent of the spatial observation, right? I think that concluding that the future is unimportant as a consequence of that fact would be no less foolish than concluding that we can never go anywhere because I am always here. I am always now, but the referent of "now" is constantly changing. By your logic, would it not be futile for an unhappy wife to divorce a husband and remarry, given that she'd still end up married to her husband?

 

[TheAppleCore]

I am always now, but the referent of "now" is constantly changing. By your logic, would it not be futile for an unhappy wife to divorce a husband and remarry, given that she'd still end up married to her husband?

My thoughts exactly. One "here and now" is not the equivalent of another.

 

[Psyduck]

maybe check Aristotles' notion of place (as contrasted from modern scientific conception of place)

 

[Dedbeet]

By your logic, would it not be futile for an unhappy wife to divorce a husband and remarry, given that she'd still end up married to her husband?

No; not if she was unhappy. But reality doesn't proceed over an actual timespan, like "She divorced and then remarried". One thing happens at a time. That's where the disconnect is, and it's imaginary. What you did above is tell a story; I'm telling stories too, but about actuality, the way it actually 'works'.

Why tell such stories? Because I think "the actual" is too obvious to be seen, and the mind misses it in favor of lending reality to the way stories pretend to operate. As though anything actually occurs over a span of time. It doesn't; one thing happens, then another happens, then another happens, etc.

These words are being read, and now these words are being read, now these words are being read . It's not occurring "over time" but in sequence, if you will, always "in the present" -- for everyone. IME, tuning in to how reality actually operates results in the sense of separation disappearing.

 

[Vader]

So, a woman is doing the right thing if she leaves her husband because she is unhappy. How is that not analogous to me leaving this place where I am unhappy to go somewhere else? I mean, your point was that the latter is pointless, because I can't go somewhere else. I don't see how you can treat the two cases differently.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

It's vitally important that the oxygen in my lungs moves to my bloodstream, which then moves around my whole body. That's movement for you.

 

[wykydtron]

No; not if she was unhappy. But reality doesn't proceed over an actual timespan, like "She divorced and then remarried". One thing happens at a time. That's where the disconnect is, and it's imaginary. What you did above is tell a story; I'm telling stories too, but about actuality, the way it actually 'works'.

Why tell such stories? Because I think "the actual" is too obvious to be seen, and the mind misses it in favor of lending reality to the way stories pretend to operate. As though anything actually occurs over a span of time. It doesn't; one thing happens, then another happens, then another happens, etc.

These words are being read, and now these words are being read, now these words are being read . It's not occurring "over time" but in sequence, if you will, always "in the present" -- for everyone. IME, tuning in to how reality actually operates results in the sense of separation disappearing.

So the content of the now changes, and it's not all the same? Likewise, the content of the here changes.