jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
It is not unclear at all. Your claim is a claim without a basis. I say that it is a naked claim.
Depends what you build your basis on. The basis I use is direct experience which is prior to conceptual thought. Thought attempts to make sense of direct experience - actually your only way of knowing the world/universe. When explanations (which are always only thought) are not in tune with reality then the explanation cannot be true (BUT: at the same time it seems to be true within the conceptual structure/belief-system you have erected).
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 3:41 pm
You don't consider my premise nor do you consider my argument. You simply do a hachet job on thinking.
OK, let answer more directly to your post (sorry if I have not gone into that properly):
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
One cannot say that A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A.
That is an impossibility.
One can say it, but it makes not much sense. Still the thought system most of humanity uses is built on exactly this mistake.
A can only be an object (or subject) if there is at least one B (an object). Without B there is no A, no subject, as it couldn't differentiate itself from anything. So saying that I am "A" is useless if there is only A.
If you go deep enough into your own direct experience (strip away as many layers of conceptual thought as possible) you will find that neither A nor B exist as separate entities. You will find no thing, but only *this*, infinity, eternity...
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
Time is dependent on motion and motion is dependent on time.
NO!! That is an impossibility.
Yes, and as you said, motion is only possible if there are separate objects, but what if there are none? You might still be able to make them up, bring them
into existence via dualistic thinking (which is exactly what we do) and then built a theory of time on top of the wrong assumption - but this doesn't make time real, it makes it something we can use like many other crazy ideas (useful or not) but it won't become anymore real because of that.
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
What must be is the first reference to time is a different time than the second reference to time.
Time itself is only an idea, a reference to an idea is again not more than that.
But yes, in a way the reference to the second time, if you call it
now, this moment, is the only
time that really exists (it's not really time though as time needs a past to qualify as time - otherwise its simply now and calling it time is confusion).
The past, the first reference to time, is only a thought, again happening now, the second reference to time is always now (or you might have two points of time, both only remembered, both in the past - they are as such both only thoughts happening now).
jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:08 pm
I deduce that the first reference to time is relational time and the second reference to time is absolute time.
I am not sure how you came up with the name, relational time, but I guess you call it relational as it seems to be in a certain relation to now, which I guess is what you refer to when you mention "absolute time", right?
What puts things into relation? What can put now, this moment, reality, into relation with the past (which again only exists as thought happening now)?
The answer is thought. Thought is as such the relation that "relational time" uses to relate to the now. Agree? Or do you see another kind of relation? If so can you please let me know what kind of relation?