New Discovery

The present is all we have as physical beings but we also have the mental baggage from our past in our memory and sub conscious
This is not a problem because these two states - the physical and the mental - exist together in all of us and all of the time as well
Remember that every second of the eternal now that you experience in your life will become the eternal past one second after this

All we can do is try to be the best versions of ourself that we can be regardless of the nature of time which is beyond our control any way
But all that is an eternal work in progress as one can never attain a state of perfection because the human condition is not capable of this

I agree, although there will be less baggage to deal with when children grow up in a world without blame, punishment, and critical judgement!

Nothing that you said negates that we live and think in the present. We can learn from the past looking back in hindsight and we can try to influence a future we envision. This still does not negate the fact that the past and future are concepts of the mind but don’t exist in reality.

We are actually becoming a more moral species over time as this is the nature of progress
But there is still plenty more we have to do before we can truly become universally moral

Don’t need to negate it really, just show that it’s temporary, the present is more temporary than a past and future. It’s in pieces, never everlasting. They definitely exist in reality, both are observable.

In practical terms the smallest measure of the present would be what we can perceive and separate from everything else
For the sake of simplicity I would say that measurement would be one second for anything smaller would pass too quickly
However compared to a Planck second which is the smallest possible unit of time there currently is it is very large indeed
The present is the smallest possible unit there could possibly be but this is soo small to be actually capable of perception

Any unit of measurement is still a measurement of change, however small. This doesn’t get us any closer to the past being a real thing in terms of it actually existing in real time, or in the here and now.

It’s the complete opposite. The present is all we have (each moment is a slice of life that is continually changing) which makes it feel as if the past causes the present, which it doesn’t. We only get pieces of the past in our mind’s eye, and imaginings of the future, but these thoughts and images are never everlasting because that’s not where we live in reality.

But it is where we live in reality, it is where we have lived and where we will live. The present moment is always moving and changing, and is something temporary not usually illusory? The past is there I can see it, it’s not moving, only growing larger, and the future is inevitable as well but also changing too but not as quickly as the present moment.

Past present future ,are mere images contained other images.contained this in stance, in a stance a posture of contention , holding up that image just a few moments.

This holding up can last a few seconds at most, then torn from within on a flash.

Bring it back again and again look,
this way and that, turn around,
I don’t want him to see me,
he really doesn’t like me,in the present
his beat friend told me.

Just a second I didn’t get that imagining some far.away island drink pina colada at sunset.

Go to work , no, Kropotkin, check out
that woman in the bright yellow hat
Ain’t she peculiar?

This moment on:
Your on target,
You ain’t one,
Just do Your thang,

Wait!
Tomorrow , pay check
& home, tv dinners the kids the grandkids bubbling with excitement but, god dann it it’s not ad hominem

What made you go to Europe so sudden?
Last summer? Liz is dead.

Tenement square changed and now, as suddenly time has receeded flashy
Into tahiti huts and can Gogh
Dramatics one jealous ear.Still!
Hanging, by a.thread,
Oh it’s a.crazy lazy dream
a dolly may have, it’s all
Cut!
Cut!
Off!
Off!

The steamy native hits back,
Ward travel in time, collusive cults staring that way into dark,he points toward that god and this
Oh pleeeeaaaase do not go on stop time atop it , a stop it, prop it but don’t drop it, lot it , bob it , got it.

his tool boring into soft.tissues,
angling this and that way, her old man
toward The sea went fishin’ caught one lost it on the way back to shore,
Hasn’t been seen back since mane drwnin of broken heart, or felled.by cranes asunder.flyin’ back from clock fights , now seeking warmer climate.

Faint glow of.thunder within cascades of subdued mixture pf laughter and disdainful clapping of hands

This as min.'d (Ed) comic effect interrupt flowing thought images defining flow of time , may be placed elsewhere ,
Coitus interrupt us of faculties far and wide.

Count them: Arc cha rec ter, art through premise, mag (z) d her and her rhythm"n blues, barbaric acts and unfathomable presumptions, the labyrinths of ambiguity, the miseries of peace ,and course the guy in philosophers fixed in aspic onentiger eye shewn2 3 ways, iirreligiois, irreverent jacob and last not least not waiting for no time world war three gib’s terrific oh happy our happy day, and deservedly deservedly d 63 mulling like the thinker aside in al-Qaida , a side of him , glossy film through darkness of the mirror darkly atlas, shrug! and not lastly or or save for.the beat# art themes.and beams of.hidden candles of.cathedral beams of ages.spiraling.spires, candles and hits on expired roaches.

And unmentionables like ; Carlos and
Delivery and anomaly. Few left out imclusovely pupiseleasly. , not willfully, and without that much determinance.

youtu.be/ehTsjtd-GAI

Oh, ech, ech, u2,
Peacegirl maybe should trans fore tis’ peace of… to writing. ? If You concur will ask Magazine, jee.! Or Mike?

youtu.be/9ckv6-yhnIY

Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, & if they have no transcendental relation, them, collusion or overlap define it through absorptive effects of mutual self consumption.

& I like u2.

Now will follow relatively non specifically without boundaries. A while at any rate .
Of Chang.e.


The past is a memory in the mind’s eye. That doesn’t mean our past experiences didn’t happen, but we reside in the eternal now. Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, and only becomes actualized in the present. I’m not sure how we got here, but the conversation has taken another detour. 

The past is a memory, the future is a dream

Doesent mean a memory through mind’s eye- but reside in the eternal now. (Significant)

That residence fades . with time/ in time. -is that fade within its own cogniscance or is able to recover it merely as a partial image ? (Memory of residence)

Is the partial image as represented become the control around which the significance between residence and the mind’s eye are negotiated ? ( Can current residence be tied to in a real way to the past to signify change)?

What is the difference? Is there one, that we can apprehend, or, is it mere entertaining visual clues? (Connecting partially cut images and reassembling them like Picasso did? ( Better melt them like a doll.i (Eeeeeeeeek.)).

m.phys.org/news/2011-04-scienti … nsion.html

The past is a memory in the mind’s eye. That doesn’t mean our past experiences didn’t happen, but we reside in the eternal now. Time is not a dimension. The future is only a dream of something yet to come, and only becomes actualized in the present. I’m not sure how we got here, but the conversation has taken another detour. 8-[ You might find this interesting.

phys.org/news/2011-04-scientist … nsion.html

Now, of course, you will have to articulate how the author defines WRONG. Only then can we compare it to our own definition. In order to determine if it is in sync. And, if not, then, by defintion, ours is WRONG.

That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author’s “discovery”. They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.

But where is the part where the meaning is intertwined in actual contexts in which it is demonstrated how human brains are either choosing things of our own volition or are “choosing” things [like definitions] that nature has compelled them to?

Thus:

See what I mean? How do you or the author demonstrate that any of this is true other than by insisting it is entirely in sync with the manner in which he defines the meaning of “free will”? Which is just another way of asserting that his own definition is not WRONG.

All the while insisting that none of this is not at the behest of nature’s immutable laws.

Same here. Somehow the laws of nature before, during and after someone makes a “choice” to stop their child from being hit by the car encompass your own defintion of “free will” and “fate” and “determined” and “want” and “greater satisfaction”.

Okay, fine. These definitions work for you. They sustain your own psychological equanimity. But in the manner in which I understand the meaning of those words [given a universe wholly ordered mechanically be the laws of matter] they don’t work for me. Then it becomes a matter of my demonstrating why they don’t work for me. Why I don’t embody the comfort and the consolation that your defintions alone provide you.

But: I have no such “discovery” up my own sleeve here. Nature has yet to compel me to go in that direction.

Your demonstration once again being that I am WRONG not to share your own definition of the words here that encompoass yet another assertion of the TRUTH.

As for the “benefit of humanity” what could that possibly have to do with pinning down the existence of God by pinning down the existence of existence itself. Besides…everything?

All those trivial pursuits just get in the way of nature compelling you to want to believe in a discovery that it compelled the author to make in order to sustain the greater satisfaction you both derived from a future that nature itself is compelled by the discovery to bestow upon humankind.

Then the part about where you and the author will be then. The part about the discovery “after the grave”.

Unless of course you are WRONG.

Still, the progressive future brimming with peace and prosperity can never be off the hook. That’s guaranteed by the definition the author gives to the words in his discovery.

You tell me: Can I?

Can I bump them autonomously? Or will they be bumped only if nature compels me to?

Think about it. Here and now in my head I have decided not to. But here and now in my head I am grappling to understand if what is unfolding here and now in my head is only ever what was ever able to unfold. How can I know that beyond all doubt?

How is this mental process encompassed in the discovery? Well, from my frame of mind [compelled or not], it is encompassed intellectually in a world of words. A world of abstract definitions intertwined in theoretical assumptions about how the brain “chooses” things.

And how “in your head” you then break that down into “before”, “during” and “after” each choice is made. That’s all still lost on me. For me no free will in a determined universe means inherently, necessarily intertwining them all in the laws of matter.

There would seem to be no exceptions throughout this entirely natural process.

Instead, the mystery still revolves [for me] around how mindless matter can evolve over billions of years into mindful matter able to become conscious of itself going all the way back to an understanding of why anything exist at all, and why it exists as it does and not some other way.

With or without God.

But obligations themselves would have everything to do with nature evolving into minds evolving into mental, emotional and psychological states that are no less compelled by the laws of matter.

What you really have no control over is, well, anything at all. And that is because the laws of matter encompass the human brain pondering the things it is able to delude itself into believing that it does have some measure of control over. Like the words we are exchanging here.

What you hope for is only what you are compelled by nature to hope for. The dominoes in your brain are no less toppling over only as they must.

I merely note that I am myself no less unable to actually demonstrate that what I believe here is true. I am merely making the assumption that nature has compelled me to believe that the definition and the meaning of the words “I” “choose” here are more reasonable than yours.

But even that gets swallowed up in the staggering gap – the blackest of black holes – between “I” and “all there is”.

I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt “scientifically confirmed” to be true about this future.

Also, not only are there still but a tiny percentage of us who don’t believe in free will, but what percentage of that tiny percentage actually believe in his own definition of “no free will”?

And the part about God…

Yeah, it’s not the Christian or the Hindu or the Shinto God. Or [no doubt] the countless Gods that are believed to exist on other planets throughout the universe.

But, seriously, in some detail, how would it be “scientifically confirmed” that the manner in which he construes the meaning of God here as “giving us no choice in this matter” can, in fact, be confirmed?

What on earth does he mean by this in terms of the behaviors we choose/“choose” from day to day?

Finally, this part:

“Until that time, however, every effort must be made to
bring this knowledge to light in whatever way possible. With the
public’s help, there is every reason to believe that the dawning of the
Golden Age will take place some time in the 21st century.”

I’m sorry, but I’m compelled to be honest: How seriously can I take this? Even if I did possess some measure of autonomy, this is basically the sort of la la land New Age conjecture that has been coming at us now for decades. Why? Because in a postmodern world where everyone is craving something – anything – that can take the place of all the old traditional, denominational Gods, stuff like this is just, well, “thought up”.

Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.

It’s really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It’s not just something “thought up” to make a lot of money.

Ambiguous: But the most general of all compilations of memory had to be excluded by deconstruction, because of the opposing trend of collected accumulations excluded the logical middle.

The reduction (phenomenological), treats the essential-(eidectic)- differently., hence Your basic presumption of the question of being or not being, bears an obligation backwards to forwards.

Hence , cosmological determinism transfers obligation for examination: by breaking this relevant problem down, into hands on , manageable quanta, and try to convince people of it’s ascendance, be it versed on slippery sloped tangents of accountability.

That centerfold like searching for hidden meanings of variables as motivations or even inspirational cliches , has become worn out.
Exhausted , the jump from the cave, for the early man, had he known of the proximate consequences, of the meaning for his quest, may not ever had been attempted.

His means perceived proximately as inadequate to his ends, may not have been able to gather the power to will the sacrifice that would reversely been defined as obligatory.

There is absolutely no need for justifying the differential interpretations of absolute differences between the two, and in order to come to terms between absolitely well intended outcome from it’s nemesis, revolves around the ‘set’ determinations of primordial choice expressed by Plato vs. Aristoteles.

That communal language is vastly indifferent toward understanding the language being used to justify it.

Had a friend in the 60’s who used the I Ching for any action he had to part take in , regardless of it’s simplistic complexity.

That he ultimately failed , prefigured his attempt as a 50-50 reoccurring daily test. The house odds defeated him.

Wrong in an objective sense, not in “nothing is wrong” if it’s in sync with the laws of matter. I guess you think nothing can be wrong.

What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?

You’re back to the same old false dichotomy that says either you are forced by nature, or you are doing things of your own volition. You are doing things of your own volition but that volition (or desire) but for the 100th time, that desire is not free to choose what it doesn’t prefer.

I don’t think it’s that difficult to see the validity of his statement that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It’s not rocket science. What follows from this knowledge is amazing, but you’ll never understand it because you don’t want to. No blame here, but it’s just the way it is. It appears that you want to make this out to be something made up in his head that could then be called a discovery. This is your intellectual contraption, not his.

If you listen to the philosophical argument, the definition of free will as it relates to the free will/determinism debate is that a person could have chosen otherwise (CHCO)

He never said that. It is at the behest of nature’s immutable laws but nature is not a separate entity that is forcing you, against your will. All this arguing over this ones simple and true statement. NOTHING CAN FORCE A PERSON TO DO ANYTHING, NOT EVEN NATURE, IF IT’S AGAINST HIS WILL TO DO.

I’m saying that when you use the definition that the laws of matter made you do something, it implies that you cannot change your course of action because you’re just following the dictates of some external force. You constantly say, “nature made me do this.” No, nature did not make you do anything you didn’t want to do.

It’s really okay iambiguous. If his definition of determinism doesn’t work for you because you believe your definition is more accurate, by all means stick to your definition.

You’re not wrong not to share this accurate definition that leads to the truth. Do what you must.

That is an existential question. This is a practical solution.

What about it?

Obviously, if the principles are inaccurate, then the discovery would be false, but the principles are not wrong. If you think they are, stick with your definition and don’t pursue this knowledge. I won’t hold you responsible.

You’re just a CD with a scratch in it. Sorry!

It was only ever able to unfold the way it did because you chose not to. It’s not a big secret.

Moving in the direction of greater satisfaction is not an abstract definition. Point out where there are theoretical assumptions? There are only two main principles that lead to the two-sided equation. This is the most down to earth, practical book, ever.

Yes, they are all intertwined but there is a difference between a choice that hasn’t been made yet, and a choice that has been made. Both are part of the deterministic process.

You’re right. There are no exceptions. That’s why it’s an invariable law.

Life is a mystery. Why we’re here and why existence is the way it is and not some other way, we may never know.

We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, which is why will is not free.

If you want to look at it that way, that’s fine with me, but you cannot escape the fact that you, the I, makes the choice even though the choice is not free.

But you do choose. The “I” that is you does choose but it’s not free. There is no free will where somehow the “I” can be autonomous or free from the movement toward greater satisfaction.

Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control.

This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn’t about making a lot of money.

How many of
you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own
wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of
building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the
great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge
another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of
the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book
like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant, or
less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

Sorry, I don’t speak intellectual gibberish. :wink:

Seriously though, I have basically given up understanding anything that you post. In fact, a part of me is still convinced that you just make these “points” up as you go along.

Why? Because [I’m thinking] you are yourself intent on exposing just how irrelevant much of what the “serious philosophers” here convey to us really is.

In other words, “for all practical purposes”.

An exercise in irony perhaps?

Irony? Not really, except to try to separate the iron from the 'or’e
Partially you are descripively within Your rights to stay this side of the chasm, for the tissue appear to indicate an unwarranted gamble.

This side of paradise indicates unwarranted duplicity and thus a debt incurred, literally. An inauthentic reserve of a civilizational discontent.

I am there as well, at least admittedly of good faithed efforts.

However I’m bound , bound to by a philosophical image, of giving light, claiming discovery by stratified deep freeze unto outdated and worn out constructions.

For someone whose bells tolles by vintage eternal reminders , the jump would indicate a real suicidal death, whereby Jesus’ prologue suffices:

You must die now, to be able to be with Me in heaven.

This partiality is witness to products of 2000 year’s. construction, but such a short tear down as the last two centuries gave rise to, has given Oracle’s power a grave deflation.

At least Your “part of me” , admits the possibility that a partial reconstruction may better then a total abandonment.

.
even out of context.

Rather that, then seeking equiminity between conscious and unconscious elements within the architecture behind their intentional usage,

extracting it from the philosopher’s stone is not quite as difficult as cutting a diamond in the rough.

That comes later, much later.

Last not least Del , karpel silhouette , Phenominal Raptor, & Mowk! hope u accept this u are part my imagined family.

And probably Trixie ultimate and my long lost friends who will in all probability will return. As everything and every body ussully does. Especially the German guy who had so much under wraps, with needless reserve & course St. James

That’s sweet of you, but I have to wonder about your own take on your posts. Sometimes there seems to be a English as Second Language issue, but I don’t know. I find it so hard to understand your posts, I don’t usually read them. Hardly something I want to do to a relative. Are you aware that the way you write is very hard to follow? Could you write the posts more clearly, but choose this way of writing for specific reasons?