Truth is Timeless

[SteveA]

Truth is timeless

Knowledge desires itself to be timeless, because knowledge that is no longer relevant isn't knowledge but an outdated belief soon to be forgotten.

If we sample a few statistics of some quantity that exists in time, we might perceive a (at least roughly) straight line passing through them over time - for example, there is one pencil on my desk this moment ... there is still one pencil on my desk (a few moments later) ... there continues to be a single pencil on my desk (many repetitions later), hence there appears to be a property that is "timeless" with regard to the number of pencils on my desk, 1,1,1,1,... and I can create a "law" that states there is always a pencil on my desk and it holds true most all the time, except for the occasions when there are there are none or 2 or something else.

After seeing some moments in which there were no pencils or 2 or more pencils on the desk, I could construct a more reliable law of physics stating that the number of pencils on a desk remains the same over time, and this proves even more accurate than predicting there will always be only 1 pencil on my desk.

But the tradeoff is that the law no longer tells me specifically how many pencils are on the desk - it doesn't tell me the time anymore and I have to go out and take a sample of reality (look for any pencils on my desk) in order for the law to be useful in making a prediction.

Consider the construction of a physical principle that says that temperatures are generally hotter during the summer, as determined by the trajectory of the Sun across the sky than the winter.

Now we have this in a form that is rather timeless (assuming the existence of the Earth and the Sun and typical seasons) - but it can't tell you whether or not its summer or winter, you still have to go outside and measure the time in order to make a prediction.

If we step back a second and look at what properties knowledge gained over time should possess - learned knowledge, being a product derived by observations over some period of time, and encompassing a description of all those events, applies over that memory/period of time (and hopefully extends beyond it).

In this sense such knowledge acquired via. the extraction of common properties to events that change over time, is itself not subject to being dependent upon a specific time (except the period of time over which it was learned or witnessed to apply).

But if we stepped back further and considered how a truly timeless law would exist it would have to always be true, even before it was recognized in some period of time.

Such laws should be able to apply to all things that will, do and have existed over time. If they apply to all objects over time and they describe the manner of change of those objects within time, then they would be the mechanism by which time itself is constructed.

I believe there's a fundamental difference between such a set of eternal laws and those we perceive in the form of physical events over time - the eternal mechanisms constructing states of things in time can create infinite representations of these, whereas no set of physical laws we can describe appears able to, in an apriori manner, denote an infinite set of distinct objects (we eventually run out of symbols and use vague "next" references for time or space to imply continue doing the "same" thing, without a specific numeric quantity or distinct set of elements represented - you're suppose to inherently be able to possess an unlimited ability to count or distinguish between objects, though over time ... implying we're suppose to have access to the symbols constructed by this eternal temporal mechanism (and I use the term "mechanism" vaguely as it doesn't appear describable in any finite physical terms nor even as a finite set of recurring processes constructing events, though it's often consider to resemble such - you need something that's capable of constructing infinite numbers and despite some claims, I don't think anyone has given a precise description of such a thing and it would appear to be subjective because the quantity of available distinct perceptual symbols, which determines the range of counts over which it can span, is subjectively determined)).

As usual, I tend to ramble, but maybe someone will find some interesting bits in there.

[labelwench]

Knowledge desires itself to be timeless, because knowledge that is no longer relevant isn't knowledge but an outdated belief soon to be forgotten.

On another thread, I questioned whether energy served it's own purpose, much as Knowlege is granted a reason for being in the above statement.

If I'm crazy, I'm obviously not entirely alone.

That a simple organism, our species, whose biology is of apparently finite duration, should even contemplate a concept that is impossible to define, in the context of our brief moment of personal being, and then go on to create the mechanism of language and symbols whereby we attempt the impossible with nearly nothing, is like.....

.....trying to lasso an elephant with an overlong strand of cooked spaghetti.......

The odds are possible that you might land your toss, but you are never going to be able to hold onto that puppy....

.....but who am I to deny you the pleasure of trying,.... besides to give you a few pointers on how best to hold your coils, rotate your wrist, and pitch the slack of such entangled possible pasta parameter.....

Aren't we all busy trying to rope our dreams?

Regards,

Labelwench

[SteveA]

On another thread, I questioned whether energy served it's own purpose, much as Knowlege is granted a reason for being in the above statement.

If I'm crazy, I'm obviously not entirely alone.

That a simple organism, our species, whose biology is of apparently finite duration, should even contemplate a concept that is impossible to define, in the context of our brief moment of personal being, and then go on to create the mechanism of language and symbols whereby we attempt the impossible with nearly nothing, is like.....

.....trying to lasso an elephant with an overlong strand of cooked spaghetti.......

The odds are possible that you might land your toss, but you are never going to be able to hold onto that puppy....

.....but who am I to deny you the pleasure of trying,.... besides to give you a few pointers on how best to hold your coils, rotate your wrist, and pitch the slack of such entangled possible pasta parameter.....

Aren't we all busy trying to rope our dreams?

Regards,

Labelwench

I'd take the hint and stop trying, but something else appears to be pulling the emotional strings and I admit in that respect, I'm just a puppet. Elephants are just so sexy and using a spaghetti rope as a lasso is way too cool to resist trying ... you're just trying to tempt me to try it! ... no, I'll resist ... see how strong willed I am? ... oh, dang, I give up, you win LOL

*begins trying to think of how you could possibly lasso an elephant with a spaghetti lasso*

(Ahha, I just need to find an elephant that likes eating spaghetti and then I can lure it in with the lasso!)

Still the question remains over who/what pulls the emotional strings that effectively lasso me into trying to figuratively "lasso the elephant" in your example. That's not an easy question to even begin trying to answer (though I do have some possible ideas on the subject).

[jag]

.

For me, spirit and soul are only ideas/concepts/inventions of the human mind.

The world comes into being only when you are born in a body. No body - no world.
.

Hi Melanie,

To me the attachment of the human mind to our heart
is the seed of a potentially timeless soul. I believe in the possibility that our souls can survive the death of our
bodies and continue to move toward the heart of
timeless truth.

It sounds like you live inside your own heart. That's
a pretty cool place to be.

It's hard for me to hear you with just my mind. I like that
you try to make me understand with my heart. It's
difficult for a novice like me but I enjoy my heart when
I can find it.

jag

[melanie]

Hi Melanie,

To me the attachment of the human mind to our heart
is the seed of a potentially timeless soul.
I believe in the possibility that our souls can survive the death of our
bodies and continue to move toward the heart of
timeless truth.

The (heart) aka the one soul is here now, as sensations sensed, expressing as and through the many.
IT pervades and encompasses this timeless immediate here and now- it is unborn and knows no death.
WE are here-now as the transient 'experiencing' of IT

The above statement is difficult for the conditioned mind to grasp, it is transcendentally beyond it.


This Is It - I Am It

This Is No-thing - I Am No-thing

This Is Everything - I Am Everything

The expression of Nothingness, the Divine Paradox...



_________

All things -by Hadewijch

All things
are too small
to hold me,
I am so vast

In the Infinite
I reach
for the Uncreated

I have
touched it,
it undoes me
wider than wide

Everything else
is too narrow

You know this well,
you who are also there

_________________

[jag]

WE are here-now as the transient 'experiencing' of IT

Are we merely transient biengs who's only purpose
is for IT to become aware of itself? Or does my
temporal existence have value to IT of a timeless
nature?

I don't believe that I am IT. I am only a fleeting
reflection of IT because I still identify my self with
this body and my thoughts and experiences up to
this point in time.

jag

[SteveA]

Are we merely transient biengs who's only purpose
is for IT to become aware of itself? Or does my
temporal existence have value to IT of a timeless
nature?

I don't believe that I am IT. I am only a fleeting
reflection of IT because I still identify my self with
this body and my thoughts and experiences up to
this point in time.

jag

IT might have determined the conditions in which you began life, but I don't think IT can determine what additions and changes your actions make to yourself via. IT.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion that some god created the entire history of the universe and populated it with various "souls" to watch the show (maybe give it a rating - who knows).

Now could (or even to what purpose) could such a being, not already a part of yourself, specifically pick YOU to witness it? It couldn't know specifically who you are, nor have any specific reason to pick one or another if we're referring to just the single property of being a soul.

The only other alternate would appear to be if such a "being" who was not a "soul", select "ALL souls" to witness it - in which case you'd be a part, or alternately selected "THE (singular) soul" and that happened to be you also.

But notice that you could not be unimportant or discardable in any of these cases as they are all or nothing properties, unless the selection of the soul was onesself (out of many), which case the being (possessing a soul) could specifically select a single soul (its own) to witness the event.

So if we tried to consider that a grain of sand from some perspective is insignificant and we could replace it with any other grain of sand with equal significance, it ends up being that every grain of sand is as valuable as all grains of sand, even if only a single one or a figurative handful was selected, because otherwise there would not specifically be a use for sand in particular and we could, for example, use either pebbles or sand - but once again, if pebbles are substitutes for sand, then the pebbles, for whatever purpose there is for this use are identical to sand and any specific pebble selected is just as important as all the sand and the pebbles because the sand and the pebbles and the process of being able to "use" some (for whatever purpose) is critical - if there was somehow a manner to select the "wrong" particles of sand, then there would be a way to differentiate between the "right" and "wrong" sand and hence these would not be identical grains of sand and only the "right" ones would be the sand for this purpose.

(I admit it's a bit hard to grasp some of these ideas, but for your question regarding what value you might have to IT - you'd have at least as much value as the end product that depends upon your existence to create, and you're not replaceable even if you were a randomly selecting thing out of an infinite number of things if something needed to be selected from this infinite quantity - if the selected thing was not important, then there would have been no reason for any of the rest to exist and it would have already not existed - your importance from an individual perspective that distinguishes you as either being selectable or not by some external things for some purpose is not the perspective IT has (unless IT is YOU, or at least that you specifically have a unique relationship to IT - which defeats the idea of replaceability, because then you can know whether or not you selected the useful or not useful or "correct' or "incorrect" thing)).

I know I've already made this too long, but just to make it clearer, let me give this physical analogy - if electrons are identical and there's a vast (or even infinite) supply of them that have replaceable properties, we might be tempted to assume that an individual electron is not critical for some particular use - for example, the electrons hitting the screen of a monitor in order to draw some specific forms could be swapped around without a change in the desired image - but consider that there is no reason to arbitrarily select one electron versus another, if they're indistinguishable, any electron is as good or useful as every other for the purpose. In fact, it's the property that specific finite quanties of electrons can be utilized over time that gives them there value and the fact that their properties are not distinguishable (from a limited perspective - actually every electron detection, and hence perceived electron is unique and not identical to any other such event), and in the same sense every photon in the universe is as useful and valueable in witnessing the universe as all of them combined because we cannot reject the detection of them as individuals without being unable to see the rest.

And on a personal note, I can't imagine that anything could create the fact of my existence - the details over time can be conditionals and even determined by things beyond (to some extent, but I can't be powerless or I would not recognize myself as specifically being someplace - it's only by my doings that I know where I am, otherwise I'd probably just be witnessing a vast sea of things or no-things with no specific significance relative to me) and the simple fact that I exist, though not in a specific form or state, is just an inherent personal attribute that I can't imagine could be determined by anything else - if I did not exist, then I wouldn't have any opinion on the subject either

[Unreal Zelta]

I firmly take Aristotle's position that all men desire to know, but what he finds is not knowledge, but himself. The 'himself' is not some form of spiritual overlay, but his actions in review.

regards

Zelta

[melanie]

Are we merely transient biengs who's only purpose
is for IT to become aware of itself? Or does my
temporal existence have value to IT of a timeless
nature?



jag

Hi Jag

'You' are infinite consciousness reflecting itself.

There is nothing outside of consciousness.
The apparent external is a reflection a mirage.




The actual 'mechanism' -behind it all-
is lying in wait(latent)
for consciousness to enlighten its very self with its own sound and light show,
thereby bringing a facet of itself into awareness.
The 'Real' is the 'substance' of appearances.

Consciousness is no-thing.

There isn't a suitable word for THAT which is no thing. Substance points to that which is the substrate, the ground, the source, the is-ness of the apparent universe.

All that exist are 'sense perceptions'
We are the 'experiencing' of these senses as and through perception.

I don't believe that I am IT. I am only a fleeting
reflection of IT because I still identify my self with
this body and my thoughts and experiences up to
this point in time.

Is Consciousness exclusively tied down to an apparent sequence of 'individual' sense perceptions?

Or is it truer to say that Consciousness is the being of any possible perception?

That Consciousness is the one 'light' that endows the many apparent variations of individuated perspectives?



From an impersonal analogy.
Every leaf that falls from every tree does not have its own personal gravity.

Yet the falling of every leaf could be said to be a unique expression of the gravity principle.

In every case it's the same gravity--One gravity.


In the falling of an individual leaf, 100% of gravity is involved.
But that does not mean that 100% of gravity is exclusive to any particular falling leaf.

Consciousness does not perceive from different perspectives - different perspectives appear in Consciousness.

Any possible perception is the display of the SAME Consciousness.

Ideas about splitting in time and space are strictly appearances appearing in the non-splittable Consciousness.

Consciousness is not some great perceiver in the sky.
It is not Consciousness of objects - it is Consciousness as objects.

So, if there is the perception of the sun on Jags face - that's not Consciousness's perception (as such),
it is Consciousness expressing AS perception.

Consciousness is the very aliveness of anything and everything that arises-it is the very Being of 'things'

Sense perceptions, like other knowable things are appearances.

It's not Consciousness perceiving objects - it's Consciousness appearing as objects, including sense perceptions.

[jag]

Hi Jag

'You' are infinite consciousness reflecting itself.

There is nothing outside of consciousness.
The apparent external is a reflection a mirage.




The actual 'mechanism' -behind it all-
is lying in wait(latent)
for consciousness to enlighten its very self with its own sound and light show,
thereby bringing a facet of itself into awareness.
The 'Real' is the 'substance' of appearances.

Consciousness is no-thing.

There isn't a suitable word for THAT which is no thing. Substance points to that which is the substrate, the ground, the source, the is-ness of the apparent universe.

All that exist are 'sense perceptions'
We are the 'experiencing' of these senses as and through perception.




Is Consciousness exclusively tied down to an apparent sequence of 'individual' sense perceptions?

Or is it truer to say that Consciousness is the being of any possible perception?

That Consciousness is the one 'light' that endows the many apparent variations of individuated perspectives?



From an impersonal analogy.
Every leaf that falls from every tree does not have its own personal gravity.

Yet the falling of every leaf could be said to be a unique expression of the gravity principle.

In every case it's the same gravity--One gravity.


In the falling of an individual leaf, 100% of gravity is involved.
But that does not mean that 100% of gravity is exclusive to any particular falling leaf.

Consciousness does not perceive from different perspectives - different perspectives appear in Consciousness.

Any possible perception is the display of the SAME Consciousness.

Ideas about splitting in time and space are strictly appearances appearing in the non-splittable Consciousness.

Consciousness is not some great perceiver in the sky.
It is not Consciousness of objects - it is Consciousness as objects.

So, if there is the perception of the sun on Jags face - that's not Consciousness's perception (as such),
it is Consciousness expressing AS perception.

Consciousness is the very aliveness of anything and everything that arises-it is the very Being of 'things'

Sense perceptions, like other knowable things are appearances.

It's not Consciousness perceiving objects - it's Consciousness appearing as objects, including sense perceptions.

Hi Melanie,

It seems that consciousness must have rules that control its expressions of perception.

Everything we see in nature is vibrating in such perfect harmony. The one exception is human kind. Did something happen in our past that caused us to spin out of control? Did we eat some forbidden fruit? Was there some kind of rebellion in consciousness?

Our beautiful planet appears to be hanging in some balance between good and evil, survival and destruction, like some lost child waiting to be rescued.

jag