Thread: Time

Last one... For all the marbles...

Q:If two egos going in different directions are stopped at a mountain road intersection after dark... which one has the right of way?

The one turning in.

ClouD is full of shit, Xei, Onus.
I am full of shit.
Don't point the gun if you only have one bullet.

Past the bullshit, past the nonsensical mental masturbation, who are you?
What I am, what I am experiencing without all the adornments, is what is. Not some pseudo idealistic vision of any forum, nor the posts on it.

Calling someone a fool is prized in Zen, as the fool knows nothing. Zen being dharma, chan, meditation. All that fucking shit.
The fingers pointing to not a thing. The fingers pointing to silence, to simplicity and reality.

You know nothing of meditation and still speak in dismissal, and if you did know something of meditation it wouldn't be called a knowing. It would be an experiencing. Not just some fleeting text you saw on the internet.
It would be the flowing of your words. It is not a drug, it is reality.
How is it any more of a reality than yours?
It isn't. Your reality is the same, but you're covering it with more realities, and so am I.

Meditation is everything.
You sit there in meditation watching the words you type, and so do I.
Zen is this. Zen is everything that is, and isn't.
Whether you acknowledge it or not. Whether you convince yourself of this and that or whatever.

In our very existence, we exist equally.
Who and what the fuck are you to tell me to do anything, and who and what the fuck am I to tell you to do anything.
We have the existence right to do everything and nothing.

It is, and just is. Fuck your pseudo intelligence and fuck mine.

Fuck it.

We're all a bunch of fucking idiots.

You're a fucking idiot. Get over it, or don't.

I've had enough of this shit anyway.

Originally Posted by really

No fools. None at all.

All are innocent.

All Perfect.

Innocence in it's concept is bullshit.

Perfection is wholeness.
In wholeness, perfection is null.
In perfection, perfection is null.

Fuck it, no need to state silence.
Fuck that too.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Innocence in it's concept is bullshit.

What concept?

There is no such thing as time.

ClouD is full of shit, Xei, Onus.

Hi wot? Haven't been in this thread yet.

Anyway, yeah... the paradox of causality...

Two ideas;

1. In the paradoxial model, causality is basically a one dimensional line which cannot be infinite but must be infinite. One of my ideas is that the omniverse may have a strange temporal geometry in which this question is resolved. Bit of a cop out but hey.

2. Consciousness is intrinsic to time. We often see the current time as a passive flag on a line which moves from left to right and at some time will intersect the section of the line which lies within our lifetime. This model is stupendously unlikely because it is incredibly unlikely that the flag would be somewhere within our 100 year life span when the length of the line is 10,000,000,000s of years. Instead we have to take into account consciousness and realise that the time must intersect our consciousness time span. Then the idea that there is an infinitude of time line (I phrase it like that because there could well be other time lines if multiverse theory is true, which I think it is) is not so unreasonable, because in the egocentric model one does not have to 'wait' before existing. It's rather like the real number line. Say your life has the range 33291920 to 33291925, and the current time progresses from -oo to +oo. It's not right to say that the number 33291923, for example, will never occur. All moments 'exist' within our four dimensional space time (appealing to determinism). Even if they don't intersect with the now, they are real, and we experience them if they intersect with our consciousness.

Xaqaria.

HAHHAHAAH

Time is not an object which we can be rationally analyzed.

"For anything to have an end, there has to be a time when it exists and a later time when it has stopped existing."

This sentence is meaningless for time itself, true for something happening within time only.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Xaqaria.

HAHHAHAAH

I'd ask what this is all about, but I'm afraid I'm still not going to understand you even after your response.

Well, in the end I think time looks like a venn diagram.

So all points in time occur at once... differently... as they intersect and balance out.

Now you can do one of three things with that statement.

One. Completley ignore it.

Two. Think it is an ignorant statement made just to sound cool even though you think it doesn't.

Three. Agree with it and nod your head at the way you interpret it.

Four. Think that I just said some random subjective crap that popped into my head without analyzing it much.

At any rate, the illustrated point if you circle around my circlular logic is that paradoxes can't be solved any more than can pseudo-deep proposals be interpreted accuraltey, (the one I just proposed.) That is the nature of a paradox. Our little human brains can't comprehend it.

Either wait till you reach a higher plane of existance or wait for our brains to evolve over another X billion years. But as of now, we will just pop our neurons. It's interesting to discuss though.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd ask what this is all about, but I'm afraid I'm still not going to understand you even after your response.

LOL

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

"Speak for yourself!", said the masks to each other as they fervently scrape at the walls of themselves in casting judgement, attempting to defend their digital turf, and all the while making endless assumptions in order to make their moment more "real" than the next.

"Oh, the silly games "we" play", said I... as he marionettes the masks to and fro...

HA!

Egos start to harden just before they crack... Mon Chéri

Oh shut up - your vague passive judgments do not save your face. Making nonspecific references and insinuating that we are defending our ego's whilst acting under a persona does not defend anything else said.

Do I have to smoke weed to have a coherent conversation here?

Why do people keep throwing around the word ego here as though it is some sort of intellectual trump card that negates the previous context? There are many different forms of the ego and definitions so saying that our "ego's" are going to crack is not even specific.

I am left to assume that you are using the layman's definition of ego as in my pride of self rather than the various other definitions of ego (ie. Freudian, Jungian, evolutionary, cognitive ego, etc.).

Of course, what we can do is make more vague references when we do not have a decent rebuttle and somehow make it sort of seem like we are right while simultaneously trying to indirectly insult the other person.

Well, I am going to get straight to the point - you're not really saying anything and it pisses me off that people come into the middle of a decent conversation and say things like "The world is nonperfect but in a whole perception perfection does not conceptually exist"

It's sophomoric nonsense.

~

Hear hear. :\

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why do people keep throwing around the word ego here as though it is some sort of intellectual trump card that negates the previous context?

Because it draws lines and is therefore not Real, but illusion.

Ego - the dualistic animal mind that thrives in separation and division.

Originally Posted by really

Because it draws lines and is therefore not Real, but illusion.

What does this have to do with the ego? Reality and surreality are completely irrelevant from both the psychological ego consciousness and the laymans ego "pride". I don't your reference. Are you trying to say it makes people confront their true selves? Because if that is the case, I would say that mentioning death usually does a much better job at making people confront their real lives rather than pointing out the fragile definition of their consciousness.

Ego - the dualistic animal mind that thrives in separation and division.

This is not even close to the academic use of the word ego in the psychological realm nor the layman realm so it really confuses the hell out of me.

Now to tackle your definition:

Dualistic mind: the ego, as usually defined, is already part of a hierarchy (Freuds;ego,supergo,id, jung;ego, complex, personal unconsciousness, collective unconsciousness, etc.). So, claiming that it is dualistic in nature does not even come close to respecting the dynamic scale of consciousness. More importantly, this is just an arbitrary definition you made of your own. I have never seen the word ego thrown about so much with such a promiscuous definition. It seems to constantly change depending on the context and whatever works best for the authors argument.

Thrives in separation and division: if you take a gander at the cognitive realm of psychology, you will see that the nature of the human mind is to adapt things categorically and works most efficiently on a top-down processing model. Thus, humans are almost always thriving to categorise and bring things closer together in order to understand their enivornment and the world around them.

Where this separation and division thing is I don't understand what you are talking about. Take for example that we have both naturally agreed upon many rules to even have this converstaion; the rules of language, socially (or online) acceptable behaviour, syntax, grammar, etc. The fact is that our very discussion on these boards shows the true symphony of unison that truly is the human race.

Perhaps it is the ones making the vague attempts to reach beyond their own context that are the ones trying to separate and divide. Some people are so obsessed about talking about the "profoundness" of the universe and yet offer absolutely no substance in their reasoning that what you end up with is a flimsy philosophy that is the equivalent to the thought patterns you might have while zoning out to Pink Floyds Dark Side.

~

More words...

Reduce the reducer...

Then we'll talk.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

More words...

Reduce the reducer...

Then we'll talk.

This is not simply a matter of reductionism. It is a matter of proper communication and use of language.

If you are allowed to simply arbitrarily change the meaning of any word whenever you feel like it, then the very foundation of language is disrupted and it is pointless to have a conversation.

The truth is that there needs to be a consistency and mutually agreeable grounds for words. Otherwise, we lead to confusion, tangents, and a completely selfish or meaningless conversation.

Constantly changing the meaning of the word "ego" or throwing it in a sentence whilst changing its contextual meanging constantly doesn't make things more concrete or profound - it makes it confusing and meaningless.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What does this have to do with the ego? Reality and surreality are completely irrelevant from both the psychological ego consciousness and the laymans ego "pride". I don't your reference. Are you trying to say it makes people confront their true selves? Because if that is the case, I would say that mentioning death usually does a much better job at making people confront their real lives rather than pointing out the fragile definition of their consciousness.

This is not even close to the academic use of the word ego in the psychological realm nor the layman realm so it really confuses the hell out of me.

Now to tackle your definition:

Dualistic mind: the ego, as usually defined, is already part of a hierarchy (Freuds;ego,supergo,id, jung;ego, complex, personal unconsciousness, collective unconsciousness, etc.). So, claiming that it is dualistic in nature does not even come close to respecting the dynamic scale of consciousness. More importantly, this is just an arbitrary definition you made of your own. I have never seen the word ego thrown about so much with such a promiscuous definition. It seems to constantly change depending on the context and whatever works best for the authors argument.

Thrives in separation and division: if you take a gander at the cognitive realm of psychology, you will see that the nature of the human mind is to adapt things categorically and works most efficiently on a top-down processing model. Thus, humans are almost always thriving to categorise and bring things closer together in order to understand their enivornment and the world around them.

Where this separation and division thing is I don't understand what you are talking about. Take for example that we have both naturally agreed upon many rules to even have this converstaion; the rules of language, socially (or online) acceptable behaviour, syntax, grammar, etc. The fact is that our very discussion on these boards shows the true symphony of unison that truly is the human race.

Perhaps it is the ones making the vague attempts to reach beyond their own context that are the ones trying to separate and divide. Some people are so obsessed about talking about the "profoundness" of the universe and yet offer absolutely no substance in their reasoning that what you end up with is a flimsy philosophy that is the equivalent to the thought patterns you might have while zoning out to Pink Floyds Dark Side.

~

By definition, of course. Essentially, the ego is personal and separate - a division. It is natural; inherent.

What is to be proud? What is to die? What is to confront? What is to process?

Put it into Context. It does not change.

If self is illusion, if all matter is illusion, and if all perception is illusion then what possible sense could it make to question whether time is 'real' or not?

Originally Posted by really

By definition, of course. Essentially, the ego is personal and separate - a division. It is natural; inherent.
What is to be proud? What is to die? What is to confront? What is to process?
Put it into Context. It does not change.

Are you agreeing to a consistent definition or simply continuing on your
arbitrary chain of random semantics?

Your questions are meaningless if your premises do not have definitions for others to understand. You might as well be babbling to yourself like a bum preaching on the corner - no one else will understand what you are talking about unless you make it clear what you are saying and how you are using dynamic words like ego.

You originally said that the ego is about separation and division now you say it is personal and separate. Do you not see the completely vague terminology you are using?

Here are questions that arise from what you have said:
- Separate from what? Your phenomenological experience? Others minds? Spirit? Soul? Others cognitive perceptions?
- A division from what? A division from your split mind? Division from your soul? Division from others?
- What is natural and inherent? Having an ego? Obviously this is the answer, so what are you saying is natural and inherent?

What a tangent. This is unbelievable. I'm actually trying to argue this same crap over several different threads and the sad part is I have no idea what the original topic is because people are screwing around the context so bad that no one understands each other.

Just a bunch of Furby's sitting in a circle babbling nonsense. Well, sorry to ask you guys for some meanings but I'm interested in what you are actually saying.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

If self is illusion, if all matter is illusion, and if all perception is illusion then what possible sense could it make to question whether time is 'real' or not?

Cartesian circle again. Why bother questioning anything if nothing can be known? Why bother existing and talking if nothing can be certain or knowable to begin with?

If you doubt your own existance and feel that life is a full illusion and feel everything is pointless to begin with; kill yourself.

~

Noise trying to make other noise less noisy. A koan will help only if one is prepared to read between the lines.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

Zen, dharma, chan, meditation, etc etc.
What is this shit?

"Zen is just zen, there is nothing comparable to it. It is unique. Unique in the sense that it is the most ordinary and yet the most extraordinary phenomenon that has happened to human consciousness. It is the most ordinary, because it does not believe in knowledge. It does not believe in mind. It is not a philosophy, not a religion either. It is acceptance of the ordinary existence with a total heart, with one's total being. Not desiring for some other world, supermundane, supermental. It has no interest in esoteric nonsense, no interest in metaphysics at all. This very body the buddha. This very earth the lotus paradise." ~ Osho

Originally Posted by O'nus

Cartesian circle again. Why bother questioning anything if nothing can be known? Why bother existing and talking if nothing can be certain or knowable to begin with?

If you doubt your own existance and feel that life is a full illusion and feel everything is pointless to begin with; kill yourself.

~

Hoo-boy, where to start?

You're sure finding a lot of stuff in my post that I didn't put there, maybe you're really just using me as an excuse to take issue with yourself? That's cool, I can be your shadow.

Cartesian circle? Not at all! I think you just like saying 'Cartesian circle'.

My existence is the one thing I don’t doubt! And illusion is only illusion, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t sweet! I’ll stick around this Garden of Earthly Delights for as long as my body holds out. Death will be sweet too but I’ll get there eventually, I'm in no hurry.

And the whole pointless/suicide thing is your trip, not mine. Knock yourself out. Send me a postcard.