Forever Now

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

-1- wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:19 am
I am sorry. Change in movement requires change in states; and change in states requires change in movement. This follows directly from the law of preservation of energy.

If no force acted on any moving object in the universe, things would still keep on moving. If no movement was present in the universe, no change would take place.

The two are inseparable, and one acts as the "motivator" or causator of the other, and vice versa.
That is circular but the reason your thinking seems to work is because there are (at least) two meanings to the word time. There is absolute time and relational time. Movement requires absolute time and relational time requires movement. But change in states does not require change in movement.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:38 am
-1- wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:11 am 2. That which registers / is aware of movement, can be itself moving. I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk.
No it cannot.

The I that knows movement does not move. The I is like space, it it everywhere at once. You simply cannot ignore the non-moving space in which all movement is possible. Movement would be impossible without space. It is not space that moves, it is the thought in that space that moves aka the mind. The mind and space are the same ONE PHENOMENALLY.

But In reality, there is no such thing as things, space, or mind. These are mental phenomena. The real reality is not an experience, it is inaccessible to experience. That which is everything AT ONCE unbroken cannot be an experience.

Objects including the body on the bike are 'thoughts' aka movement in the non-moving perciever. The movement is perceived, the body/object is the perceived, the body object is not the perceiver. The perceiver cannot experience itself as an object in timespace duality, it is beyond time, it is timeless thoughtless awareness space.

There has to be something that doesn't move or change for there to be recognition of movement and change.


I know the car on the street is moving, as I bicycle along, or walk on the sidewalk...is perceived by that which is inconceivable. And yet at the same time in the same instant IS ALREADY this immediate 'here and now'

Life is one unitary flow in constant flux that cannot be approached or stopped.The only place time can reside is in the mind of the perceiver which is not an object, but knows every object thought when it arises one with the knowing. Thoughts have no reality in and of themselves separate from the perceiver. Thoughts artificially create things in a world of no such things which is of this ever endlessly flowing naturally occurring spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable uncreated life living itself.

.

.
Some of what you say is okay but a lot is not. The perceiver and what is the perceived are not the same. How time works and how the brain processes time are key issues. Without time and without the brain the perceiver won't perceive anything.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 3:00 pm
Some of what you say is okay but a lot is not. The perceiver and what is the perceived are not the same. How time works and how the brain processes time are key issues. Without time and without the brain the perceiver won't perceive anything.

That one is able to perceive means one cannot be what is perceived, so yeah, not the same thing, one is the absolute not-a-thing, the other is relative to that aka not-a-thing thing-in.

"There is no linear time, only different points of view on one eternal moment of now"

.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Forever Now

Post by -1- »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:19 pm
That is circular
No, it is not.
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:19 pm but the reason your thinking seems to work is because there are (at least) two meanings to the word time.
There is absolute time and relational time.
Are you bringing in relativity theory? If not, then I respectfully can't make sense of the above sentence.
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:19 pm Movement requires absolute time and relational time requires movement.
Ah. You are not speaking from relativist point of view. You just speak off the top of your head.

I could counter that relativist time requires absolutist time inverted, and that is done by an inverse matrix mulitiplication.

Deny that.
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 2:19 pm But change in states does not require change in movement.
Sure it does. Freezing water makes molecules move less distance and less randomly in direction. Gas converted form water (change of state) can't happen without molecules moving faster, and in longer distances between collisions.

What do you mean "state"? Something different?

Oy, I'd better get out of this discussion. Your expressions are unexplained and yet hold individualized meanings, which you probably can't properly define anyway.

Forget me. Just go on as if I never added these two posts.

Carry on. As you were. I will stay clear off this topic, I promise.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Time exists without movement because there is a type of time that doesn't require movement. Newton deduced the existence of absolute time. So do I. I didn't make up the terms relational time and absolute time. I simply explained the difference.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:05 pm Time exists without movement because there is a type of time that doesn't require movement. Newton deduced the existence of absolute time. So do I. I didn't make up the terms relational time and absolute time. I simply explained the difference.
Time never runs out.

The absolute time is inseparable from the experience of time.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:43 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:05 pm Time exists without movement because there is a type of time that doesn't require movement. Newton deduced the existence of absolute time. So do I. I didn't make up the terms relational time and absolute time. I simply explained the difference.
Time never runs out.

The absolute time is inseparable from the experience of time.
Why do you say that? You experience relational time, not absolute time. Can you explain the difference between absolute time and relational time? You seem to be saying that they are the same thing. They are not the same. Absolute time comes before movement and relational time comes after movement.

Time may or may not rum out. It depends of the cause of absolute time.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 8:58 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:43 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Tue Mar 20, 2018 6:05 pm Time exists without movement because there is a type of time that doesn't require movement. Newton deduced the existence of absolute time. So do I. I didn't make up the terms relational time and absolute time. I simply explained the difference.
Time never runs out.

The absolute time is inseparable from the experience of time.
Why do you say that? You experience relational time, not absolute time. Can you explain the difference between absolute time and relational time? You seem to be saying that they are the same thing. They are not the same. Absolute time comes before movement and relational time comes after movement.

Time may or may not rum out. It depends of the cause of absolute time.
I'll explain, but I'm not sure you will understand what is being said, unless you understand Nonduality. If you do not understand Nonduality what I say will not make sense to you. So in order for you to truly understand what is meant by FOREVER NOW....you will have to study Nonduality.

Okay here's my explanation...it's not going to be a prefect explanation, because words are dual by nature.


Difference is a mentally constructed idea, it's an illusory artifact imprinted upon the screen of consciousness which is absolute.
The human instrument for seeing is like a camera, a camera takes a picture, but the camera is not the picture. The one that appears to be looking out of your eyes is but one single snap-shot of the absolute already inclusive of the absolute, inseparable from it.

Each perspective of ''all that is'' is a tiny imprint upon the screen of consciousness, giving rise to the appearance of a separate seer seeing from a unique perspective, a unique snap-shot imprinted upon the screen of awareness. Every bodily mechanism shares that same one awareness, as the body is inseparable from awareness. Just as a camera shares the same reality with the reality it is taking snap-shot pictures of.

That each picture appears to be a different perspective is the illusory cause of a separate seer. But all these snap-shots are all appearances of the same one source. The movie of everything and nothing playing infinitely for eternity appearing to change upon the changeless screen of awareness.

The camera, aka the eye, aka the instrument for seeing is not the image it sees.

An image is simply a tiny snap-shot of ''all that is'' observing itself. So there is no actual observer, just the appearance of one as images appear on the screen of awareness the seer. The seer being inseparable from the seen, existing in the exact same unbroken now...aka the absolute.

All images are one of an infinite amount of images the absolute is seeing which cannot be determined or known to have a cause...therefore, all images are images of the imageless causeless undermined absolute one.. here now.. nowhere without beginning nor end.



The absolute being without cause. Cause is an appearance within the absolute, so the appearance of cause is already inclusive of the everything that is causeless, therefore cause is illusory because it's already contained within what is already present which is uncaused.

This implies that cause and effect cannot be separated from each other and an action cannot be separated from the next action. Cause and effect exist in the exact same moment as one singular action.There is no break in the symmetry which is absolute that can stop and determine differences, for there is only the absolute in which differences are inclusive appearances of what is already absolute that cannot be determined.

The force or energy that causes motion has no cause.Therefore, that which has no cause cannot possibly have an effect.

A single cause cannot be determined separate from the absolute that is always present.

In other words, cause and effect give birth to each other in the same moment, like the ocean waving to itself.

There is a third natural law of motion, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But this is already occurring within the absolute, not outside ... observing is from within itself, it's not outside looking in...it's inside looking out. All one unitary movement that has no cause, all phenomena therefore is the result of a causeless cause.


The important point to understand about motion is that the force or energy that causes motion has no cause.

Time is an illusion, it does not exist outside of this ever present timeless presence that is ''all that is'' absolute here now nowhere and nowhere else.

.

.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

You have adopted a point of view. My point of view is that there are two forms of the universe: here and there. Here has a mental form. There has a physical form. Without the physical form there would be no mental form. If there is no physical form, the explanation of the mental form is what? Just what you say so?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:32 am You have adopted a point of view. My point of view is that there are two forms of the universe: here and there. Here has a mental form. There has a physical form. Without the physical form there would be no mental form. If there is no physical form, the explanation of the mental form is what? Just what you say so?
Your response is a typical re-actionary response to that which the mind cannot understand.

No physicality actually happened or actualised, physical has no knowledge of itself like I've already explained, physical is a conceptual appearance of no thing...not-knowing known...in the same one moment. Nothing cannot be explained without filling that nothing up with something aka concepts, so it's not something that can be explained....all it can be is listened to and recognised for what it is. It's not about getting something, it's about recognising what's already here and always has been forever.

No thing ever spoke a word. Although it appears this Everything speaks.

There is a state Beyond the state of 'Knowing' and 'Not Knowing'. We must understand that 'Knowing' and 'Not Knowing' pertain to the Mind. Mind itself is an unavoidable and ever flourishing Imagination. Existence itself is a cleverly designed, unavoidable Drama.

What is beyond 'Knowing' and 'Not Knowing'? .....SILENCE

Take it or leave it jj...it's your drama or peace what ever you prefer.

I've found my everlasting peace, and part of that peace is talking about it on this forum...although that does appear to contradict itself, but it's divine contradiction since nothing can ever disturb what is always and ever at peace...no matter what appears to happen.





.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Duality appears to be and even if it is an illusion it works just fine. Nondual followed duality. Besides, how do you know? It seems that you know what you don't know.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:20 pm Duality appears to be and even if it is an illusion it works just fine. Nondual followed duality. Besides, how do you know? It seems that you know what you don't know.
How does any ''you'' know? the same way all ''you's'' know. They know by knowing they are known, and knowing that anything known cannot know, for they DID NOT make this knowing happen. IT was already here now.

It's not the personal I that knows...the personal I is known by that which cannot be known.

All knowing / knowledge is sourced from the same place, namely, here now, nowhere where it always IS and always has been. Where else would knowledge exist? ...it's been here the whole time else it could not have been known... for anything to be known, there has to exist a knower.

That knower is in every ''you'' ...any claim of knowership pertains to a knower....so you are basically creating a knower in the claim of knowing, which has to have always existed...else there wouldn't and couldn't have been knowing. Therefore knowledge is omniscience..always present one with the knower.

Nowhere aka NOW HERE is just another term for infinity. Infinity cannot happen, because infinity is the immediate happening as experienced as and through the lens of perception aka the mind body mechanism..aka the known....this is infinity looking at itself infinitely for eternity where nothing ever happened.

You cannot know the knower ..YOU ARE the knower.

You are infinity looking at itself...in relation with itself...known to itself only.



.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Memories exist but memories are not sensed. Now is what is sensed, not what is remembered. Thinking that memories are sensed or now is remembered is tangled.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Forever Now

Post by Dontaskme »

jayjacobus wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:49 pm Memories exist but memories are not sensed. Now is what is sensed, not what is remembered. Thinking that memories are sensed or now is remembered is tangled.
No idea what you are saying..but okay if you say so.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Forever Now

Post by jayjacobus »

Marks ends his article with "This is the only now there is.”

That could be true but the only now is ever changing.

Or one might say,

"There are a sequence of nows that come from one temporal point and the sequence is mainly in the past."

In other words the past is actually a series of prior nows.
Post Reply