Actually there are so many pasts and futures , relative to each other, that if the multitude of these are relative, then the immediate presences, which are immeasurable anyway, tend to form an immeasurable plane of imminance.
Who in the world can measure this plane, and from what vantage point?
The way You describe this imminance is linear, but in fact it is circular and spherically virtual!
Again it seems abundantly clear, that Your ultra literally real presentation consists of a fixed abstraction, from which there is no possible move toward transcendence. And although the ideas presented are, or should even must be right, the absolutely can not justify them in the ultra positioning in which and through which they are presented because of th or lack of focus. The lack of cosmological and quantum relationships, which do require the transcendental objective to arise, are dynamically missing, whereas the have long ago been shifted to.
Instead, You are suggesting that evil be defined as the starting point, where it has already been discovered that evil is not an entity, as darkness is not, but an absence of goodness and light.
If You can dispense with these, then the eternal move ment of light and its lack , the idea formed by planetary revolution and slowly interceeding shades of grey. then, you would be coming closer.to this idea if depth from which enemates the figurative qualifier by which this urgency to repair perceptive abilities to acquire this depth is becoming a death or life requirement, to save the planet.
Here is Wittgenstein commenting on a multidimensional description of death:
(It befits the criteria by which temporal signification is absolutely examined):
“Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”
Peacegirl: do You see the reverseability between the eternal continuity and the phenomenal experience of the present moment as purely descriptive? The present is simply s state of Being, in other words, nominally speaking.
But the implication consists not with that order, it is not a unanimous with it, it is transcriptive, using it’s object( cessation, temporal gap: Death, as a metaphore; to in drive it into within It’self, into it’s being.
This is something of value , and implies Wittgenstein nominal expression as covered by the see-shell hiding the pearl. You do have to dive deep to get at it!
If I may borrow a partial narrative from a concurrent thread , “Biological Will”,
“the hundred times refuted theory of ‘free will’ - get beyond the peasant simplicity of this celebrated concept ‘free will’ and banish it from one’s mind - the causa sui is the best self-contradiction hitherto imagined, a kind of logical rape and unnaturalness: but mankind’s extravagant pride has manged to get itself deeply and fightfully entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense…”
To illustrate a similar point regarding our previous correspondence on contradiction.
Let’s allow the veracity of self contradiction .as per a generalized aspect of dynamic object construction, without which, the objective of transcending it would have been not possible.
This is the hidden aspect of intentionality, and a determinancy to construct human liberty and personal freedom, not bound by imperial design and suppression of thought through political oppression.
Once that object has been constructed, it may be a problem to deconstruct it eidectically., however convincing it may appear.phenomenological.
The contradiction does not disappear, it merely transposed into modern garb.
The self contradiction become a a.social one, and it’s collusive suppression can be covered up only for so long.
That is what is was talking about.