Our place in time

[Avocado]

Trapped between a barbaric, cold, and uncaring past and an unknowable future, what is the present? What does it mean? Did you know that if you took the most widely accepted cosmological model of our universe and condensed it to 24 hours, only second has passed and each of us is alive for a mere 0.06 milliseconds? This is the closest I can put this into words, but the words I require to describe more escape me. For now, we should ponder what NOW means and how we can more fully be in the present rather than the past and/or future.



Addendum:
There are times when I want to freeze time in place so I may better study the current moment. The present fascinates me, yet it is something that always seems just beyond my reach.

 

[/DG/]

Is there like a question here or...?

 

[Avocado]

Is there like a question here or...?

Yes. What is now?

 

[/DG/]

Yes. What is now?

Right now it's 1:09am

 

[magpie]

Pondering what now means will only keep you from experiencing the present moment.

This isn't really related to what you're saying, I don't think, but it reminded me of it, not to mention this has been on my mind recently anyway. Does anyone else have that thing where your brain sort of flips a switch and you start carrying the knowledge of what death is with you? Less as a philosophical concept and more just the feeling you get when you think about the fact that your point of view will one day cease entirely and nothing will exist for you at all. You will just cease being. I wonder what that will be like, if it'll be like anything. It's weird because you can't know and you'll never actually know. It's all sort of farcical and pointless, the act of wondering.

 

[Avocado]

Right now it's 1:09am

You are a timezone ahead of me. Here, it is only 12:14.


But a good question is why it is now? The past is gone and the future is yet to be, yet now persists. It is an eternal now, yet it is not eternity. It is, but it is not. It is time, but beyond time. Why is there this this moment, and what is it to be fully here?

 

[Avocado]

Pondering what now means will only keep you from experiencing the present moment.

This isn't really related to what you're saying, I don't think, but it reminded me of it, not to mention this has been on my mind recently anyway. Does anyone else have that thing where your brain sort of flips a switch and you start carrying the knowledge of what death is with you? Less as a philosophical concept and more just the feeling you get when you think about the fact that your point of view will one day cease entirely and nothing will exist for you at all. You will just cease being. I wonder what that will be like, if it'll be like anything. It's weird because you can't know and you'll never actually know. It's all sort of farcical and pointless, the act of wondering.

All the time. I also go backwards and thing of switching on. That I came to be. The nothingness before birth. Not being.

 

[Avocado]

We live between our ears. So much noise.

 

[Avocado]

These feelings give me enough pause, I would like to just examine them. If money were no object, I would just sit in silence all day and introspect/meditate. Paradoxically, looking outside means looking inside. Just being.

 

[Zangetshumody]

Ive recently been contemplating the scope of my life's major work-focus. As my relationship to my own work, is itself quite a mysterious source of personal turmoil. I have recently come to the realization, that my work only amounts to a comprehensive and exhaustive science of reality (which encompasses both life, freedom and time). Such a grand claim on Science, has been suffocating within my own pursuit to develop my work: and has finally been contextualized by relegating science into its subordinate prominence, in the role that life discerns for it.

My science of reality, just as any other Science, ie a science of time: is not meant to feature a vicarious experience through an 'objective frameworks' (frameworks containing no vicarious component, or suitable feature, identifiable to the subjective consciousness- the ghost which gets inherited by whatever new parameters that the math models depict for the innumerate masses of Scientism to worship).

Science is meant to model formulaic limitations, by mechanistic description... in this sense, the magnum opus of intellectual pursuit, precipitates a stone that symbolizes the death of all flesh, cast into a prism of philosophical clarity: the science that can do no more— than delineate life into its constituent spectrum, or extraneously confirm when some ingredients which measures up to its prescription- pass over the limit it can represent the hurdle for.

I need to edit this post for clarity, but the conclusion is, science can only be a negative test, and so a philosopher stone cannot gauge or touch what life is, forever falling short of that positive definition; but it can be made to encompass every style of limitation (which conforms with 'death'). And so science cannot directly aide, although it can purify or cleanse (ignorance, mistakes, errors); and yet it is not the truth, or a God: because a stone is the weight of a limitation, it offers applicability for its use as a tool, however it never contains a prescription about itself (that doesn't escape a cascade of self-condemnation or the deprecation from its own inherent futility). {a small illustration of this is depicted by the exchange between [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] in this thread)

 

[Pionart]

Ive recently been contemplating the scope of my life's major work-focus. As my relationship to my own work, is itself quite a mysterious source of personal turmoil. I have recently come to the realization, that my work only amounts to a comprehensive and exhaustive science of reality (which encompasses both life, freedom and time). Such a grand claim on Science, has been suffocating within my own pursuit to develop my work: and has finally been contextualized by relegating science into its subordinate prominence, in the role that life discerns for it.

My science of reality, just as any other Science, ie a science of time: is not meant to feature a vicarious experience through an 'objective frameworks' (frameworks containing no vicarious component, or suitable feature, identifiable to the subjective consciousness- the ghost which gets inherited by whatever new parameters that the math models depict for the innumerate masses of Scientism to worship).

Science is meant to model formulaic limitations, by mechanistic description... in this sense, the magnum opus of intellectual pursuit, precipitates a stone that symbolizes the death of all flesh, cast into a prism of philosophical clarity: the science that can do no more— than delineate life into its constituent spectrum, or extraneously confirm when some ingredients which measures up to its prescription- pass over the limit it can represent the hurdle for.

I need to edit this post for clarity, but the conclusion is, science can only be a negative test, and so a philosopher stone cannot gauge or touch what life is, forever falling short of that positive definition; but it can be made to encompass every style of limitation (which conforms with 'death'). And so science cannot directly aide, although it can purify or cleanse (ignorance, mistakes, errors); and yet it is not the truth, or a God: because a stone is the weight of a limitation, it offers applicability for its use as a tool, however it never contains a prescription about itself (that doesn't escape a cascade of self-condemnation or the deprecation from its own inherent futility). {a small illustration of this is depicted by the exchange between [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] in this thread)

You know man, I got taken to court and the shit was a wrought, I'm overt as the gays, like a samurai stays, out in the sun cos he figures it's more fun to move puns, till he's proved one. (and ain't no sun, till I'm gone)

Funner than a gunner that don't wanna smoke my wanna go out in spades till it's played like a gem jewel of jade.

But I be doublin' it up, Irish lucker than clicks seen,
In the forest go I 1, 2, 4, and then 8, and a six-teen,
Rising from the ashes like the wings are torn a pool of fountain,
The lyrics that I split has got the whole damn clan of zum-a-mountin'

So I struggle to return to what was never now a mystery
The future just reversal of what y'all sayin' just ain't history
But actually I'm astrally a set up in your mind scene
Switching blades like letta say I'm betta but I'm kind-mean

I'm coming through I'm forcin' out a spinner that been chopped off,
Like a deleuze under water mammal till the line your head been knocked off?
Nah I'm just playin' I'm just sayin' gratter lottery that I'm still winnin'
I'm still hear I got no fear and got the parle voo all spinnin'

 

[Typh0n]

Ouf.

Thats a pretty hard question, [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION]

I'll do my best.

What I can tell you is that in my experience, I feel good when I know I'm going somehwere with my future, that is when I have projects and things are going to plan. Being in the present with no vision of the future seems pretty static, and will probably lead to non-being. I do not want non-being, I want being. The best way to be in the present is to work for something better in the future, something that you are passionate about.

Thats about it.

MY answer may not be what you wanna hear, and it is was works for me, so maybe it won't work for you, but there you have it.

 

[Avocado]

Ouf.

Thats a pretty hard question, [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION]

I'll do my best.

What I can tell you is that in my experience, I feel good when I know I'm going somehwere with my future, that is when I have projects and things are going to plan. Being in the present with no vision of the future seems pretty static, and will probably lead to non-being. I do not want non-being, I want being. The best way to be in the present is to work for something better in the future, something that you are passionate about.

Thats about it.

MY answer may not be what you wanna hear, and it is was works for me, so maybe it won't work for you, but there you have it.

As a rule, I'm prone to examine ideas and activities and things, and under examination, things become empty or at least emergent phenomena. The self does not even really exist in a way, as it is an emergent phenomena of neural processes and there is less "self" once you take away a few brain parts. Yes, it feels good to accomplish things, and we have a strange but exciting future immediately ahead of us, but if one projects forward a quadrillion years, you'll find everything is impermanent. Enjoy life while you can, as it is short.

Ive recently been contemplating the scope of my life's major work-focus. As my relationship to my own work, is itself quite a mysterious source of personal turmoil. I have recently come to the realization, that my work only amounts to a comprehensive and exhaustive science of reality (which encompasses both life, freedom and time). Such a grand claim on Science, has been suffocating within my own pursuit to develop my work: and has finally been contextualized by relegating science into its subordinate prominence, in the role that life discerns for it.

My science of reality, just as any other Science, ie a science of time: is not meant to feature a vicarious experience through an 'objective frameworks' (frameworks containing no vicarious component, or suitable feature, identifiable to the subjective consciousness- the ghost which gets inherited by whatever new parameters that the math models depict for the innumerate masses of Scientism to worship).

Science is meant to model formulaic limitations, by mechanistic description... in this sense, the magnum opus of intellectual pursuit, precipitates a stone that symbolizes the death of all flesh, cast into a prism of philosophical clarity: the science that can do no more— than delineate life into its constituent spectrum, or extraneously confirm when some ingredients which measures up to its prescription- pass over the limit it can represent the hurdle for.

I need to edit this post for clarity, but the conclusion is, science can only be a negative test, and so a philosopher stone cannot gauge or touch what life is, forever falling short of that positive definition; but it can be made to encompass every style of limitation (which conforms with 'death'). And so science cannot directly aide, although it can purify or cleanse (ignorance, mistakes, errors); and yet it is not the truth, or a God: because a stone is the weight of a limitation, it offers applicability for its use as a tool, however it never contains a prescription about itself (that doesn't escape a cascade of self-condemnation or the deprecation from its own inherent futility). {a small illustration of this is depicted by the exchange between [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] in this thread)

I also see science as a purifier rather than a complete view of reality and am glad somebody brought voice to this. I've yet to find a satisfying counterbalance though.

 

[Typh0n]

As a rule, I'm prone to examine ideas and activities and things, and under examination, things become empty or at least emergent phenomena. The self does not even really exist in a way, as it is an emergent phenomena of neural processes and there is less "self" once you take away a few brain parts. Yes, it feels good to accomplish things, and we have a strange but exciting future immediately ahead of us, but if one projects forward a quadrillion years, you'll find everything is impermanent. Enjoy life while you can, as it is short.

I don't really see the ego/self as a phenomena that can be discounted along with other phenomena. But thats me.

You're right though, noone knows what will be in a quadrillion years, but I have enjoyed life when I was younger, I used to live only "for the moment" and nothing more. Now, those times are gone, I got nothing tangible out of it. Don't get me wrong I still live in order to enjoy life, but I also believe there's gotta be a part of ourself that goes beyond atoms and molecules.

 

[Pionart]

Ouf.

Thats a pretty hard question, [MENTION=18694]The Wailing Specter[/MENTION]

I'll do my best.

What I can tell you is that in my experience, I feel good when I know I'm going somehwere with my future, that is when I have projects and things are going to plan. Being in the present with no vision of the future seems pretty static, and will probably lead to non-being. I do not want non-being, I want being. The best way to be in the present is to work for something better in the future, something that you are passionate about.

Thats about it.

MY answer may not be what you wanna hear, and it is was works for me, so maybe it won't work for you, but there you have it.

Simply put, you could ask continually "what is the best that I could be doing right now?" or alternatively "how could I be doing better?"

And then reduce the number of terms: "what's best", "do better"

Maybe switch it up a little, "better do what's best".

Then condense it even further and you get "bet".

Which means, when in doubt, take a chance.

 

[CitizenErased]

I sometimes believe I'm living two seconds at a time, i.e.: the past second, and the future second. I say the word NOW, and when I finish saying it, is not that specific NOW anymore. So NOW is just the average between the past and the future second.

"From now on" equals "in the near future"
"Up to now" equals "in the recent past"

I also find it confusing when people say "I should be doing ... now", because they refer to an extended amount of time. Maybe NOW is a chain of NOWS that happen to occur while you're doing something else (for example, saying the word NOW).

The question is: should we care about the NOW or instead of saying NOW so many times we should be doing those "something elses" in order to have better future NOWS?

(No, I'm not high, I'm just in the right mood for my writings)

 

[Typh0n]

I sometimes believe I'm living two seconds at a time, i.e.: the past second, and the future second. I say the word NOW, and when I finish saying it, is not that specific NOW anymore. So NOW is just the average between the past and the future second.

"From now on" equals "in the near future"
"Up to now" equals "in the recent past"

I also find it confusing when people say "I should be doing ... now", because they refer to an extended amount of time. Maybe NOW is a chain of NOWS that happen to occur while you're doing something else (for example, saying the word NOW).

The question is: should we care about the NOW or instead of saying NOW so many times we should be doing those "something elses" in order to have better future NOWS?

(No, I'm not high, I'm just in the right mood for my writings)

I say work for more future NOWS, lol, unless you are content with your life's situation, which usually happens only after a certain age and career experience.

 

[CitizenErased]

[MENTION=17729]Typh0n[/MENTION]

Yeah, I agree. When one is happy doesn't wonder about NOW or NOWS anyway (I believe).

 

[Typh0n]

[MENTION=17729]Typh0n[/MENTION]

Yeah, I agree. When one is happy doesn't wonder about NOW or NOWS anyway (I believe).

Ok, but is a happy person living in the now, or in a mix of the past, present, and future?

 

[CitizenErased]

[MENTION=17729]Typh0n[/MENTION]

I'd say all of them The present is the present because of a specific past, and their present happiness is directly affecting their immediate future (because acknowledging happiness, even if it takes a milisecond, makes you recognize the immediate future "nows" as happy). The present, depending on how positive/melancholic you are, is either the future of the past or the past of the future.