Time as nontemporal

[CoffeeDrinker]

I think instead of past and future not existing it's that they always exist, and it's merely a mechanism of our brain's that makes us see time and memory the way we do. Which is just a different take on the same idea that time is only a construct relative to things with brains.
Because there's all kinds of problems associated with the idea of us being fed certain things, as if there's a great deceiver out there just telling us lies.
I think there's the oneness, and it's up to us to widdle down our notions and concepts to the point where we are ready to accept it as it is, as opposed to us being programmed from some outside source.

In a tangential note I think Trees are the highest possible life-form. They exist time-less, yet always reaching towards the sun with a hidden intelligence, completely free of any attachments except water, air, sun, and earth.
I wonder if being reincarnated as a tree is akin to living in nirvana.
Or maybe rocks?

 

[cosmic._.ape]

"Time is a concept generated by a sense experience of phenomenology, where things appear to have a beginning and an end. In Ultimate Reality there is no beginning or ending of anything."
John Gallagher

it can be applied to matter too

there's not ultimate particle -ultimately space, or matter, is infinite; doesn't matter how much we divide it we would always be able to divide it further (with improved technology) everytime someone claims to have reached the "ultimate particle", thus is, the atom, electron, proton, quarck, bossom, "spiegsz" etc etc what is showing is the techonological limit of our times. once we improve our perceptual extensors, we discover new ways to divide matter into smaller particles -or, as you wrote, "In Ultimate Reality there is no beginning or ending of anything"

to which John Gallagher answered "Moreover, we are creating that which we are observing"

 

[Nagelfar]

That's just the classing of the mechanism of time being transient itself, my thought experiment was more of a denial of the interaction of things themselves, no matter how infinitesimal or not: to divide perceived externalities ever more is just asserting the displaceability of any limit out to infinity (while there is always a limit beheld); which is not infinity proper but infinite indefiniteness.

 

[ebola?]

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.

What if there is existence beyond mind, yet absolutely unintelligible, as it inheres beyond objects taken by consciousness (which, as you say, are aspects of thinking)? What if such nonsense is (yet cannot be reckoned as a 'thing' apprehended)?

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.

I'm just going to riff with non-sequitor: I think that functional relation is key here: what if 'mind' engages that outside of it in mind's unfolding dialectical movement, thinking never apprehending this 'external' reality but rather participating within it, mind's unfolding thus contextually conditioned?

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.

Ah...here, it either turns out that I agreed with you the whole time, or your argument is beyond what I am capable of understanding. How is it that multiple subjects encounter one another? My (Hegelian?) guess is that intersubjectivity emerges when freely unfolding subjects arise of shared lifeworlds/contexts. Yet they cannot truly take one another as object. So does unity arise out of shared conditioning of objects taken?

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Naglfar is a rad band, btw.

 

[Nagelfar]

What if there is existence beyond mind, yet absolutely unintelligible, as it inheres beyond objects taken by consciousness (which, as you say, are aspects of thinking)? What if such nonsense is (yet cannot be reckoned as a 'thing' apprehended)?

There isn't. You have posed an existence beyond your mind "unintelligible" right there; but it's intelligible in so far as you regard it. So it isn't, and if you think it isn't, that is also your thought about it, refuting the very thing you are posing as a condition of it. It's an ideal of yours no matter how much you claim an ideal of a lack of your ideal to be a possibility beyond your idea of it; that possibility only adheres in your idea, and shall ever only do so, even if "it is": being & nonbeing are dialectically the same anyway. "It is" only so long as it isn't because you think it is.

Naglfar is a rad band, btw.

There's a Swedish band Naglfar, a Norwegian band Naglfar & a German band Nagelfar, and they all formed in the early '90s. Which one?

 

[ebola?]

It's an ideal of yours no matter how much you claim an ideal of a lack of your ideal to be a possibility beyond your idea of it; that possibility only adheres in your idea, and shall ever only do so, even if "it is"

But couldn't this denial of this ideal (an ideal of something as not only unintelligible but also beyond reference) point mainly to the limits of the internally referential system of ideals? Perhaps I misspoke earlier: my ideal of possibility beyond ideal doesn't posit something to which the idea of possibility actually refers; rather, it just entertains a guess that some-'thing'/no-'thing' inheres outside of thinking (but these descriptors fail). However, this must remain a "maybe".

There's a Swedish band Naglfar, a Norwegian band Naglfar & a German band Nagelfar, and they all formed in the early '90s. Which one?

Oh dear...the Swedes, I think.

ebola

 

[ebola?]

Okay...maybe we don't disagree: I think that outside and inside collapse as one/many/plurality/unity.

 

[Nagelfar]

However, this must remain a "maybe".

The "maybe" itself is just a dialectical moment of the cohesion of the movement of ones own immanent nature. A reference point is how it is viewed empirically, but think of reference as only pertaining to immanence, and then it's just a another layer of the internal. One necessary to exist, but not the root or origin.

 

[ebola?]

Right...I'm trying to talk about what lies outside of reference.

 

[Nagelfar]

Right...I'm trying to talk about what lies outside of reference.

I'm saying as much as you try, it won't. This means not that it is unreachable, but that it doesn't exist. We give it life to the level which we deny it, a real life, which makes it something. Making us always wrong if continuing to deny it.