New Discovery

[peacegirl]

Pg

I don’t want to speak for Meno but what I interpret from that, is that contrast or differentiation has to exist for the other to exist and he may mean for you to reintegrate that differentiation or contrast back into your philosophy so it can make sense logically/reasonably.

You mean counterfactuals? Or showing a way to falsify it? It's still very abstract for me. For me to do that, I need a concrete example of what in the book is not showing this contrast? He is speaking without any reference to the content.

The only way we can exist is through balance of varying differentiations. Take ignorance and wisdom for example, can’t be wise if there is no ignorance to be wise over. There are two or more variables in any case. Same for Determinism, we can only discuss determinism because there is a contrast or differentiation to it. If that’s what he means, Do you get it?

But the differentiation was discussed thoroughly. If we had free will (differentiation from determinism), we would be able to choose what we don't prefer in favor of what we do prefer when comparing alternatives. We could choose otherwise given the same exact scenario, but we know first of all that it is impossible to prove this. I'm not sure what I'm missing, but thank you for trying to explain.

He might mean you may be lacking a little vision if discussing singularly I think, though I am not completely sure because I’m not In Meno’s body and mind as my functioning identity. It only seems abstract, usually when thinking or discussing we think of the mass and collective of humanity, at least I do or in my own experience of discussing, it isn’t just me I think about. To evolve the species, you have to think and implement for the species collectively and figure what’s best. It may seem abstract, but it’s reasonable. If you think singularly then you only think for you and your perception is limited by you.

It's reasonable if it's clearly explained. He is making assumptions that everyone should be able to understand his very confusing terminology. I asked him to give a concrete example. He hasn't done that. I asked him what is the discovery. He didn't answer. How can someone give any kind of critique without knowing what the discovery is?

So before we progress we may need you to agree there is a differentiation/contrast and the semantics though they matter to an extent, won’t matter so much as long as it’s known and understood.

As I said, there is a differentiation between free will (the ability to choose either this option or that option equally when there are meaningful differences), and not having free will (being unable to choose what is less preferable or valuable to the individual given meaningful differences). He has proven that it is impossible to choose what offers the least satisfaction when something of greater value is offered as an alternative. Why are people making much to do out of this, when it is so obviously true using themselves as a reference. No one can judge what is good for the collective in this case since this is part of the problem; this constant judgment of what is right for everyone. The only thing this knowledge can do is remove any justification that would give someone permission to hurt others. How? By preventing all hurt to them, all critical judgment, and all blame from the environment. Obviously that's not an easy task, which is why he did not say we should suddenly stop blaming. There's much more to it than that. I agree that semantics is not a problem if it can be straightened out. The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated. There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don't want to, or against or will. Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.

[iambiguous]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right?

Whole "discoveries" can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don't want to, or against or will.

Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.

Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.

Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the "laws of matter" as "intended"?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it's not God.

Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I'm off the hook, but...but still able to be held responsible for "choosing" not to understand it.

You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.

By the way...

Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been...terminated by her?

Why?

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

[peacegirl]

The terms "free", "greater satisfaction", "will", "choice", "cause", and "determinism" can create major problems in communication if they are not defined in accordance with the definitions being articulated.

What on earth does this mean? Well, whatever the definition of the words she uses to assert it say it means.

Right? Well, if up on the skyhooks that comprise their own intellectual contraptions in books. Or posts here.

WRONG

Whole "discoveries" can then be created in the heads of some simply by insisting that only their own definitions count.

No iambiguous. This discovery was not created in his head. Well everything is in our heads actually, but his definition is much more accurate because it clarifies what determinism really means. It does not mean we don't have a choice. It does not mean nature is dictating what we MUST choose before we choose it, as if it has already been scripted. That's like saying it's already been fated that I let my child get hit by a car, even though I can stop it. When a person says nature caused me...this implies that you had no choice in the matter because it was a choice that you didn't consent to. Of course you had a choice or you wouldn't be able to deliberate over options AND THEN CHOOSE. Isn't that why you create the false dichotomy in your head between nature causing (which gives no choice), and autonomy (free choice)? You can't have both because they contradict themselves, but you refuse to see it, of course not that you could have seen it differently. I'm not blaming you. Instead, you pooh pooh this knowledge by insisting that the way determinism is defined can't be improved upon. That's why you keep saying nature made me do this or that. Nature didn't make you do anything if you yourself didn't want it.

There is a definite problem with the conventional definition of determinism (which brings up a cascade of issues with all the other terms) since nothing causes us to do anything (which is implied in the definition) if we don't want to, or against or will.

Wow. The human will itself embedded [and then said to be embodied] in a cascade of definitions.

Yes, that's why he said, "I did something of my own free will" is perfectly fine if it means "I did something because I wanted to." But this does not mean my will is free. Also, due to this more accurate definition, the word "cause" does not mean we are caused, against our will, to do anything. This has created so much confusion in this longstanding debate, it's ruining the ability to reconcile "responsibility" with "determinism" and is preventing a major breakthrough that will change our world for the better.

Though some suggest that nothing causes this argument to be made other than by way of nature compelling the one making it to define the words only as, well, nature intended her to.

Only that brings us to yet another quandary: What does it mean to speak of the "laws of matter" as "intended"?

By God perhaps?

Or, as some of us suspect, by whatever the final explanation for existence itself is.

In other words, if it's not God.

I've said this before, this question, although interesting, has nothing to do with the purpose of this discussion which is to share this major work for the benefit of humanity.

Iambiguous still doesn't understand that, and says it's an intellectual contraption in the author's head.

And yet in a way that still escapes me, I suspect she will argue in turn that I do not understand that only because nature has not [as of now] compelled me to.

So, I'm off the hook, but...but still able to be held responsible for "choosing" not to understand it.

You're off the hook because your will is not free. No one is holding you responsible.

You tell me what this means. You know, for all practical purposes.

By the way...

Peacegirl [of late] has apparently been compelled by nature not to respond directly to the posts I create here. Our own exchange has been...terminated by her?

Why?

I am sorry if I missed some of your posts. I may not have seen them because I have been responding to quite a few people. Can you bump them?

Well, my guess is that nature has compelled me to point out that her own narrative here is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist tract. What I keep pointing out to her is that it is not what she believes is true that matters nearly as much as that she believes that all others are obligated to share in that belief.

Another psychological embodiment of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

This has nothing to do with obligation. If people see the soundness of these principles, they will, of their own accord, desire to learn more. If not, then not. I have no control over what people are interested in. I'm hoping that there is interest and people will want to spread word about this knowledge so it can be carefully investigated. He even mentioned that at the end of the book.

I am hoping that when I am no longer here, those who
understand these principles will continue to carry the ball. It is
important to understand that my prediction of 25 years or that this
great change would take place in the 20th century was based on my
conviction that there would be a thorough investigation and
understanding of the principles involved, but as yet it has not been.
In other words, if Gregor Mendel had predicted that his discovery
about heredity would come to light approximately 30 years after his
death, he would have been accurate, but he had no way of knowing
when it would be confirmed by science. He knew it was coming, but
could not know when. In my case, however, I was allowing 5-10
years for this knowledge to be understood by science and the
political world, taking for granted that the intellectual capacity was
available and would thoroughly investigate what could not be denied.
I still believe the intellectual capacity to understand it exists today,
but to quote Morrison again, “Now we encounter the stubborn
resistance of the human mind which is reluctant to give up fixed
ideas. The early Greeks knew the earth was a sphere but it took
2000 years to convince men that this fact is true. New ideas
encounter opposition, ridicule and abuse, but truth survives and is
verified.”

Can you see the problem I have with regard to my
discovery? If it took 2 thousand years to get the shape of the earth
scientifically confirmed so that all mankind would accept it, how
long do you think it will take to get this knowledge in my book
scientifically confirmed and accepted when 98% of mankind believe
that man’s will is free and when this belief hermetically seals a door
behind which is the discovery that will bring about this Great
Transition. However, two things are certain. This discovery must
come to light sooner or later because God is giving us no choice in
this matter. 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. And
when it finally arrives, we will all be here to celebrate the inception
of this wonderful new world.

[Meno_]

Peace girl,



There are only a few loose ends remaining in this truly Messianic tribute, and I hope I do not come off as making my living by switching metaphors, or, by a sarcastic method they call switch and bait.

By God, I wish proof would convince everybody .

I just came across a thriving business and it is really strange that the birth of that business should take place in the birth place of the most admirable religion, the most spiritually promising and rational that ever was invented.

As a matter of fact. I was so petrified and putryfied by it that it almost struck me in the very cores of my being


Now You know, Peacegirl how Christ loved the little children and that Christ traveled the Silk Rpad, and picked up a lot of neat stuff there although it now contested.

And I personally loved children as well even before I had some before being a parent


But let me cut to the chase.
Advanced technology is certainly based on the appearance of hidden variable, but through these 2000 years of scientific development, it has become almost obvious, that it has progressed determinitely.

The pictures I am not about to show You some entrepreneur posted on some website that I repressed so far down into the subconscious, that I even red flagged it as never recoverable.

There is a thriving business in India which shows little children who have been kodnapped with throats cut , heads missing all body cavity cut open , with entrails slaughter animals display in butchery, blood everywhere.
You may get the picture.
That is if You can find it.


Now I'm cutting the reel here, the real, by asking the question , no. by intreducing the proposition that mean I g theory and subsequent arguing over the transcendence between man's appearent cruel nature, has always shadowed his humble beginnings as the animals that they were once and, the animals WE are currently necoming deconstructed into.
The viral distribution of these pictures, provide not be some productions of overambitious art work, like some installations exhibited in the distant past:

A sculpture of an aids victim's blood flowing out , visually captivating and horrifically tying into the SM culture of human life. No it did not pave way into the urban legends inspired by horror flicks, they were and still are the result of vicissitudes surrounding the death klnoll of representation.
Or posted beheadings by terrorists, and movies of deliberate murder, snuffing out any reservation about human value.




But this is not what reality should have evolved to. The freedom of will is alive and well both for better and for worse.

It is unimaginable that quick turnaround is feasable, and it is time and space that literally has become the most sudden apprehension of the awareness of the speedup of quantum time

[Meno_]

The quantum of time is not like the 007 bravura as seen on the wide screen. It is related to the last frontier. Philosophy's most recurrent and poignant preoccupation
involving with ontology. Vis., that suggests the following :

If the requisite time for God's return. Whether it be Jesus or another Jewish Messiah, or be a Superman ;time has really shrunk reality , and with it , the experience of what it means to be human.

Cosmological time cam not determine whether this new , much wider Return, can come about in an eternal orbit of inconceivable circumference, before , this planet of ours the treasury box of all our joys and contentions, will not survive the death of our sun, or the ruinous use of similar energy nuclear.

The fact is planet suicide will occur before cosmological extinction.

So I do agree partially about Your Discovery, and it's foundation of a reassertion of God's will, It's Absolute guaranty, but such guaranty is naawd on the very far sign post of understanding the real awareness of what Eternity is, how it develop universally . Science fiction can not even begin to see this and popular awareness , knowledge of it, as an understandable process, depends on a unified form, to see it sprout the seed.

That it is happening now in so Hemwral understanding of the forms of God's Magnificence, is discounted by the above example of what is being done not for children, but with them

This is a.tickler that even puts to shame an adult crucifixion.

This and all cruelty must be overcome , with a new anti-over coming, and we all suspect we know how hard it is to. convince philosophers .

For those above minor premises. the major one. Yours, appears at the moment, inadequate.

Sure , all bets are on The Coming Singularity Singularity in perhaps another.generation, but that is 25 more years. and frankly in the quanta of a moment, such equovocation, is very tenuous.

Unless , all of us can truly start to appreciate the gift of living in the moment, even the most advanced connectors between real and simulated phases may not prevent cut off.

[Meno_]

And lastly , I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, short of such sire states of affairs, a war of worlds is inevitable in many forms, as advanced simulator stimulative high functioning intelligence will present the struggle between God, and His Fallen Angel.
Only His Absolute Intelligence can intercede. by partial reintegration of his source with It's Promise.
All Relations between sources of this Promise with It's manifold forms, must be made aware, so that the Will to choose will appear as determinedly on God's Camp, and never fall to the auntlest of deceptions with which Satan is the master manipulator.

[Meno_]

Closing remarks.(brief)


As I indicated to Artemis previously,
Time travel is possible to go back and start the.process of information enrichment , where it will really be possible to achieve social change through intercession at the minimum of individual entropy, and this way change the future .

This is so eclectic and without appearing merit, that if I were to tell You , in my case, it took a very long time of meditating on time to achieve it, while putting it to successful 'temple' test, to my knowledge 2 times, diminished my own self uncertainty diminish to reasonable levels.

That is why i am partially augmenting. Peace Girl's Discovery, by forming a founsatio, that serves as the outflow of fear corresponding to the prevailing doubt of It's Veracity.

Nietzche knew this, and his apparent
contradictory assertive narrative served only as a.stepping stone to the birth of the tragedy if , it were ultimately proved as the existence of necessary evil.
By going beyond difference we can later partially reintegrate the objects of transference.

Aim high and hit the mark

[peacegirl]

Closing remarks.(brief)


As I indicated to Artemis previously,
Time travel is possible to go back and start the.process of information enrichment , where it will really be possible to achieve social change through intercession at the minimum of individual entropy, and this way change the future .

If you believe time travel is possible, then communication will be impossible. One of the premises regarding death is due to the fact that we live in the present. It's impossible to go back in time in a time machine unless you are a science fiction writer. Time is not a dimension. We live in the present, the sun shines in the present, we do everything in the present. Light does not carry the past with it. I really don't want to go off on another tangent, so let's drop it.

This is so eclectic and without appearing merit, that if I were to tell You , in my case, it took a very long time of meditating on time to achieve it, while putting it to successful 'temple' test, to my knowledge 2 times, diminished my own self uncertainty diminish to reasonable levels.

Temple test??? To my knowledge 2 times, diminished my own self-uncertainty to reasonable levels? Can anyone translate what meno is saying? I can't make heads or tails.

That is why i am partially augmenting. Peace Girl's Discovery, by forming a founsatio, that serves as the outflow of fear corresponding to the prevailing doubt of It's Veracity

Is founsatio a word? I looked it up and can't find it.

Nietzche knew this, and his apparent
contradictory assertive narrative served only as a.stepping stone to the birth of the tragedy if , it were ultimately proved as the existence of necessary evil.
By going beyond difference we can later partially reintegrate the objects of transference.

Aim high and hit the mark

Evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, which Spinoza knew. Everything was necessary but it isn't necessary that evil continue anymore. We have aimed high and hit the mark!

[peacegirl]

And lastly , I'm merely playing devil's advocate here, short of such sire states of affairs, a war of worlds is inevitable in many forms, as advanced simulator stimulative high functioning intelligence will present the struggle between God, and His Fallen Angel.
Only His Absolute Intelligence can intercede. by partial reintegration of his source with It's Promise.
All Relations between sources of this Promise with It's manifold forms, must be made aware, so that the Will to choose will appear as determinedly on God's Camp, and never fall to the auntlest of deceptions with which Satan is the master manipulator.

Are you Christian? Just wondering because you are bringing up Satan and the promises of God.

[Meno_]

Peace girl,


I am a believer. That suffices.
I think a point maybe missed, by my integrative efforts to answer you in a narrative unity , in stead of pointing out incidental and particular irregularities.

That the effort of.
augmentation was not mentioned or maybe even noticed by you is surprising . at least from a point of view of initial analysis.

At least credit could be gained from some form of recognition of impartiality, not that I require a dynamic, structural flow into the pros and cons of unifying variables heretofore not spelled out


At any rate, it is what it is, and we are all prevy to it without exceptions.

Now coming to a.particular application:

The treatment of alcohol addiction could infuse a notion that periodic are more likely to accept the notion of some measure of partial recpgnition may indicate a willed effort on their part to enable them to reintegrate some fairly stable understanding of themselves, in between when they're off the wagon, therefore it is a time changing interventove effort to get into the zone, and move them along to at least partial sobriety.

Get the picture? And this is an applied form of impartial opinion, while I am talking non metaphorocally, but using
sub stance beneficially and progressively.

Can You relate to this, Peace Girl?
For, at times it's more prior i tive, to control one's self then to worry about timely assumptive views about the world at large.

[Meno_]

I so not see how to miss this objective impartiality flowing into both an appreciative awareness , and a.functional utility thereof - should not enter the state of mind as the primal determinant. Weather it be purely volitional or partially so.
To discount states of mind is like foraging into the philosophies of mind
and finding no relevant application; whwre by leaving everything to simulation and artificiality

[Meno_]

Evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, which Spinoza knew. Everything was necessary but it isn't necessary that evil continue anymore. We have aimed high and hit the mark!

[Meno_]

Evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, which Spinoza knew. Everything was necessary but it isn't necessary that evil continue anymore. We have aimed high and hit the mark!

[Meno_]

Evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, which Spinoza knew. Everything was necessary but it isn't necessary that evil continue anymore. We have aimed high and hit the mark!

Spinoza may have known it, but he may not felt the need to contradict its variable and standard interpretation. as standing contradictorily to it's opposing power to force ( a will)

He may have been unable relate to -beyond that opposition, for then, the ontological question would surface of how to account for the opposition.

[Meno_]

I so not see how to miss this objective impartiality flowing into both an appreciative awareness , and a.functional utility thereof - should not enter the state of mind as the primal determinant. Weather it be purely volitional or partially so.
To discount states of mind is like foraging into the philosophies of mind
and finding no relevant application; whereby leaving everything to simulation and artificiality

[Artimas]

Love is the answer to your satisfaction and determinism debate. Love can counter a greater satisfaction.

A woman being abused in a relationship will not feel satisfied, but stay because she loves the abuser, same with a male in some cases.

At least one of them.

[Meno_]

Love is the answer to your satisfaction and determinism debate. Love can counter a greater satisfaction.

-----

But, if you find a derivitive, even one, a man dragging a woman into his cave, the similar one that has been compared to an abyss, a Platonic love cave , seeking release to the light, ?
then how can he understand that she needs more to cum to his senses?

------
A woman being abused in a relationship will not feel satisfied, but stay because she loves the abuser, same with a male in some cases.

At least one of them.

[Artimas]

Perception also can travel in time. Dreams, remote viewing,etc. pre-determinism.

The body changes with the present.

[Meno_]

https://youtu.be/lSYFJB7o9ZQ

[peacegirl]

Perception also can travel in time. Dreams, remote viewing,etc. pre-determinism.

The body changes with the present.

Many things can travel in time in our imagination, our dreams. I'm not sure what you mean by remote viewing and pre-determinism. This is the problem in philosophy. Everyone is speaking a different language. All views whether it is your idea of remote viewing or pre-determinism (whatever that means), can only be expressed in the present moment. We live in the present. You cannot show me an example of where we don't live, speak, think, sleep, write, talk, in the here and now, not yesterday, and not tomorrow. These imaginings about the past and future are also in the here and now. If we had amnesia, we would live like animals in the present. They don't remember the past and do not have the capability to imagine the future, which is all part of the brain's ability to remember and to think about the future, IN THE PRESENT.

[Artimas]

Perception also can travel in time. Dreams, remote viewing,etc. pre-determinism.

The body changes with the present.

Many things can travel in time in our imagination, our dreams. I'm not sure what you mean by remote viewing and pre-determinism. This is the problem in philosophy. Everyone is speaking a different language. All views whether it is your idea of remote viewing or pre-determinism (whatever that means), can only be expressed in the present moment. We live in the present. You cannot show me an example of where we don't live, speak, think, sleep, write, talk, in the here and now, not yesterday, and not tomorrow. These imaginings about the past and future are also in the here and now. If we had amnesia, we would live like animals in the present. They don't remember the past and do not have the capability to imagine the future, which is all part of the brain's ability to remember and to think about the future, IN THE PRESENT.

It isn’t imagination and you’re wrong. Imagination is not what you think it is or what most think it is. Near everything is possible to exist, merely about separating the noise and the plausible. The imagery is important. I have a thread that explains why. The impossibility of a possibility. It’s due to what you’re promoting here and I explain why psychologically.
The subconscious/unconscious mind that can grant imagery to the conscious surface has no discretion of time.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00250015-6
For some reason they took the images off the pdf there, I wonder why.. maybe too many catching on that aren’t using it responsibly. They took a lot of the evidence off, it’s 5 pages now. I have the original 28 page pdf. Send me your email or something, I will send it to you. Let me know if this doesn’t work. I uploaded it. https://docdro.id/Tc8QVH7

Also Meno I think meant to say “foundation” not founsatio, you can tell he’s in a rush typing.

Once again, that’s the body you reference, not the mind. Ever talk to someone and they weren’t present listening? One can be in the past or future in their mind and a lot of times if logically/reasonably accurate, it’s a true prediction of it.

Attained balance = timeless awareness.

[Meno_]

Yes, Peace Girl, that was a mistake. We all live in the image. The IMAGO the original film, of experience which does not translate into am awareness , until the word, which was in the beginning.

Philosophy does talk in many languages, and it is the responsibility of conscious thought to sort it out.
That kind of activity can not be done without imagination to conxiebe succession and hierarchy that only the word can introduce.
That is the primal failure of the fall and no secondary derivitive of it, to live without imagination, to ignore words which mean something otjer then a warning .The warning does not
necessarily imply determination in order to love a life, except to mean -driven to find truth, and act accordingly.

Every generation has.to live the truthful life , anew, relearning it by themselves, because otherwise it consists of mere directives in a dusty manual.

The Bible is the best seller of all times, yet has lost meaning for many in the sue course of time, it's imagery has been superimposed into a recording image.

Marcus Aurelious said it well, when he said that an untested wisdom is not wise. A superimposition with Botticelli's Venus emerging from the see, may indicate a dial interpretation. between the sound of the roaring sea. With God yelling at his Son: " Watch out and see, it is merely a shell, a seashell."

Nut of course being a little kid he goes for Her, and Pa tries to cover for him by by 'discovering' the futility
of self sacrifice.

But that is another story, partial to other expression of feelings, justified by a different set of rules, within the imagimation of Other Minds


It can just as well be asserted that the saying " live in the present is merely a metaphor. I am writing this determenently, in order to understand time, and end up with a metaphore, no matter how you slice it.

The present moment is already gone as soon as it is lived. We always live predeterminately on a conscious level, and in the proximate future as the last flows into the future.

This can be imagined or illustrated. Y set theory as well.
The perfect essence of the imperfect reflection must end sadly, paradoxically, because perfect presence implies slicing the gap between the relative and the absolute set up to a scintilla of a slice: where a scintilla is immeasurable.

Time expanded into the very tiniest segments end with uncertainty which is the quanta of temporaluty.

In that sense the flow of time covers that minute gap between conscious and unconscious flow.

There really is only relative time and the relation must be a measure of one signified epoch to another.

Signification depends on signs, and since the present has no sign , it is not significant enough to take measure of.

It is merely a metaphore, her and now, as well as the next nano second.


Imagination is , on the other hand, capable of recreating a time such as one can imagine of suspended animation. But then again, that implies Other minds, and verification of shared imminance takes more than telepathy, recognition .

That those kinds of states are absolutely certain to have arisen, is within the boundaries of certainty as well.

[peacegirl]

Perception also can travel in time. Dreams, remote viewing,etc. pre-determinism.

The body changes with the present.

Many things can travel in time in our imagination, our dreams. I'm not sure what you mean by remote viewing and pre-determinism. This is the problem in philosophy. Everyone is speaking a different language. All views whether it is your idea of remote viewing or pre-determinism (whatever that means), can only be expressed in the present moment. We live in the present. You cannot show me an example of where we don't live, speak, think, sleep, write, talk, in the here and now, not yesterday, and not tomorrow. These imaginings about the past and future are also in the here and now. If we had amnesia, we would live like animals in the present. They don't remember the past and do not have the capability to imagine the future, which is all part of the brain's ability to remember and to think about the future, IN THE PRESENT.

It isn’t imagination and you’re wrong. Imagination is not what you think it is or what most think it is. Near everything is possible to exist, merely about separating the noise and the plausible. The imagery is important. I have a thread that explains why. The impossibility of a possibility. It’s due to what you’re promoting here and I explain why psychologically.

But the imagery that someone is experiencing is in the present Artimas. We don't live in the past.

The subconscious/unconscious mind that can grant imagery to the conscious surface has no discretion of time.


https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00250015-6

And that imagery being brought to the conscious surface is happening in the present.

For some reason they took the images off the pdf there, I wonder why.. maybe too many catching on that aren’t using it responsibly. They took a lot of the evidence off, it’s 5 pages now. I have the original 28 page pdf. Send me your email or something, I will send it to you. Let me know if this doesn’t work. I uploaded it. https://docdro.id/Tc8QVH7

Also Meno I think meant to say “foundation” not founsatio, you can tell he’s in a rush typing.

I thought so, especially when I looked it up and couldn't find the word. But because there are so many philosophical terms that are important to the concept, it behooves the poster to try to be as clear as possible.

Once again, that’s the body you reference, not the mind. Ever talk to someone and they weren’t present listening? One can be in the past or future in their mind and a lot of times if logically/reasonably accurate, it’s a true prediction of it.

That's not what I'm referring to. Any thought we're having in the present about the past is related to the memory we have in our mind. If we lose the memory we lost the connection to the past. We don't live in the past Artimas. We do everything in the present, even remember past events.

Attained balance = timeless awareness.

We can have remembrances of time past, but we cannot actually live in a time period that has already occurred (or for that matter in a time period that has yet to occur) except in our thoughts (which are occurring in the present). If we lose that memory due to amnesia, that experience doesn't exist for us because it's not in the here and now. Why do animals not fret about the past? Because the connection to the memory center in their brain is not developed due to lack of language.

[Artimas]

Animals aren’t as complex as humans yet. Animals don’t fret about the past because they appreciate simplicity of the present. They are determined and easily shaped by environment, lack of consciousness.

That’s the beauty or point Pg, we can take the information without experiencing it from past/future, this is the differentiation between us and lower conscious animals, which I view them as sub/unconscious, due to their knowing but not possessing the ability to understand complexity through a-priori.

We could possibly physically recreate past/future moment, by altering environment to match specific times. With the future this is a given, the past would be trickier.

What if you have no direct memory, what if you’re fed memory through the collective sub/unconscious? Via imagery. And this collective is an infinite of time past and future. Like a cloud of data.

[peacegirl]

Yes, Peace Girl, that was a mistake. We all live in the image. The IMAGO the original film, of experience which does not translate into am awareness , until the word, which was in the beginning.

Philosophy does talk in many languages, and it is the responsibility of conscious thought to sort it out.
That kind of activity can not be done without imagination to conxiebe succession and hierarchy that only the word can introduce.
That is the primal failure of the fall and no secondary derivitive of it, to live without imagination, to ignore words which mean something otjer then a warning .The warning does not
necessarily imply determination in order to love a life, except to mean -driven to find truth, and act accordingly.

Every generation has.to live the truthful life , anew, relearning it by themselves, because otherwise it consists of mere directives in a dusty manual.

The Bible is the best seller of all times, yet has lost meaning for many in the sue course of time, it's imagery has been superimposed into a recording image.

Marcus Aurelious said it well, when he said that an untested wisdom is not wise. A superimposition with Botticelli's Venus emerging from the see, may indicate a dial interpretation. between the sound of the roaring sea. With God yelling at his Son: " Watch out and see, it is merely a shell, a seashell."

Nut of course being a little kid he goes for Her, and Pa tries to cover for him by by 'discovering' the futility
of self sacrifice.

But that is another story, partial to other expression of feelings, justified by a different set of rules, within the imagimation of Other Minds

It is true that to live a truthful life we cannot learn everything vicariously. We have to experience life for ourselves to gain true wisdom. That is why children feel the need to experience life on their own terms as they become young adults. Still not sure what this has to do with the truth that man's will is not free and what this means for our benefit.