Thread: Consensus Reality

Originally Posted by really

To make sense of it, yes. You have yet to actually explain why you disagree and make a readable post, like the rest of us. Otherwise you just ask a pile of seemingly rhetorical questions where I can't even tell if you are being sarcastic or not. Also let's try not to go back to one-liner explanations either, shall we? Let's go back to #94

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They are called stump questions and stump arguments, and you keep dodging them... because you are stumped.

You really only speak for yourself here.

Originally Posted by really

You really only speak for yourself here.

You two are speaking different languages here. That is why each of you is projecting on to the other. You two don't understand each other. You need to understand each other before you either agree or disagree.

If I may try to paraphrase each other's position in a way that can help understanding, I would say that REALLY is saying that all things begin and end in eternity and eternity is only now, not in the past or future. This is a mystical viewpoint where one's relationship to time is a vertical one where time is horizontal. It could be thought of as time is the rim of a wheel, not linear. The eternity is not on the rim, however, but in the hub. From the hub, there are spokes going to all points on the rim. So each present moment in time we are on the point where a spoke (eternity) meets the rim. This is the wheel of time.

UM is thinking of time as linear, and that the present moment is between the past and the future, and that time flows from future to the past and the present moment keeps moving into the future turning it into the past. And eternity is infinite past and future.

Is this true? Am I understanding your viewpoints?

I studies a little of hypnotherapy and neurolinguistic programming. It should come as no surprise that there are different ways people look at time. Some people visualize time as a line going from left to right in front of them at about belly button level. Others visualize time as as line from behind them stretching out in front of them. These are just a few ways of looking at time, but they affect how one perceives the world and how effective or happy one is in relationship to time. People who view time going from left to right in front of them are very good at planning, as they can see the past, present, and future right in front of them. They are usually very successful at their jobs. But they are always scheduling and planning and worrying about the future. They are never in the moment. They are never here/now.

People who see time as stretching out in front of them and the past behind them, are usually very carefree and happy people, but can't quite plan things that well. They are very here and now. They are very spontaneous. But they usually are not as effective in society. So being flexible in how one sees things conceptually one can be the most effective and happy. And we can understand each other by being a little flexible and seeing that the way we choose to see reality is through a conceptual filter that isn't the absolute truth.

Through NLP and/or meditation we can change how we conceptualize reality in order to be more successful, happy, and wise. Which ways do you view time? How do you symbolize time to yourself? How do you conceptualize time?

Keep in mind that Reality is not a concept.

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is part of our disagreement, but other matters are involved. Even if it can be successfully argued that the entire scheme of time is one coherent whole existing in eternity and not linear, there is the issue of who observed the big bang, the formation of Earth, and the earliest stages of evolution. No matter how time can be classified, those events did not have observers. Also, Really started asking about how things happen relative to other things, which I still don't see the sense in. He asked what the big bang happened relative to. I have been illustrating the nonsensical nature of that issue.

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You are observing those events now, which is the only time they or anything can be observed.

No, I am analyzing those events now. Knowledge and understanding are not the same as observation. Also, humanity collectively doesn't know the full details of what happened in those events, not even a trillionth of a percentage of the full details, yet the events led/lead to where we are now. Did the events we don't specifically know about happen?

Originally Posted by Taosaur

On a slight tangent, I was just rereading this old thread, http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459 where you kind of sort of agreed with me, UM, on essentially the same matter we're discussing now (though with less talk of temporality).

I said I used to believe it. I don't now and didn't two years ago. I also said your idea is interesting, which it is. What I was expressing was an understanding of where you were coming from and a reason for not telling you about it at first, but I was not expressing actual agreement.