time as illusion

i recently read some allan watts (LSD using western philosopher who goes beyond words like no one i've read before) and he got me wondering about what he calls "it". i think it would translate as "soul" or "totality of experience" or "the universe". anyways, he says "it" is everything there ever was, is, and will be. and "its" all NOW--because thinking about the past or the future, no matter how you slice it, the act of thinking about these things happens this moment... so again: all is now...

and if there is no other time than the present, than our ideas of dichotomies and linguistic conventions that seperate right from wrong and black from white are really crap, since the only thing seperating these seemingly differering things is time...and time is an illusion (at least our conventional use of time is)...so really there are no seperations, and that which is without seperation is one...which brings us to the good old, "all is one." so time would seem to be the key to the "oneness" we always hear about...

so my question for all of you is, now that you have the rundown of this train of thought, is this bull honky or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

allan watts (LSD using western philosopher who goes beyond words like no one i've read before)

---

Well, this brief autobiographical detail tells us all we really need to know, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

and if there is no other time than the present, than our ideas of dichotomies and linguistic conventions that seperate right from wrong and black from white are really crap, since the only thing seperating these seemingly differering things is time...and time is an illusion (at least our conventional use of time is)...so really there are no seperations, and that which is without seperation is one...which brings us to the good old, "all is one." so time would seem to be the key to the "oneness" we always hear about...

---

Fine - poof! Time's gone. Now what do we do with the past? How do we explain decay, age, and moments that we cannot access (since that's where the past resides)? If all moments are now, then I should have access to all the moments of my life, right? One wonders if Mr. Watts made this observation while under the influence...

thanks for the response: your attack of allan watts was an ad hominon fallacy. he might have used LSD, but he claims to have used it like an astronomer uses a telescope: to go beyond what the senses naturally allow us in order to make insights into what the senses do allow us.

anyhoot, about what we ought to do with the past: your definition of the past as decay, age, and inaccessable moments is one way to look at what's done and gone. but i think what watts is trying to get at is that our idea of a "past" is just that, its an idea. ideas exist in our minds. that is not to discredit ideas, but what it is saying is that our "idea of the past" is something that happens this moment, not in the past or in the future. for instance, if an idea is to be proven true scientifically, it needs to be in accordance with reality over and over again. reality is the time and space of right now--not then or some day. then and someday are both ideas that can't be verified in an "objective" sort of way (since verifcation takes place now, not then). i hesitate to use objective in my rhebuttal since i feel that subject and object have unnecessarily been split due to our misconception of reality and time. anyways, in a sense you do have access to every moment of your life leading up to this moment in that every moment was completely neccessary in order for now to be as it is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

so my question for all of you is, now that you have the rundown of this train of thought, is this bull honky or what?

---

It's bullyhonk, big time bully honk. ;) The past is a reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

It's bullyhonk, big time bully honk. ;) The past is a reality.

---

does that mean that the future is a reality too. cause the past exist just as much as the future does. both are ideas, not actual phenomenon. only in linguistics does the past exist (and you might say that in memory the past exists, but memory is a thought, and a thought is done in words, ie... linguistics), cause that is the way our language works. and english rules of grammar are not reality? so i think where we differ there virgil lies in our ideas of reality. yours reality consist in linguistic conventions, mine is right now...which is part of linguistic conventions, but not encompassed by them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

does that mean that the future is a reality too. cause the past exist just as much as the future does. both are ideas, not actual phenomenon. only in linguistics does the past exist (and you might say that in memory the past exists, but memory is a thought, and a thought is done in words, ie... linguistics), cause that is the way our language works. and english rules of grammar are not reality? so i think where we differ there virgil lies in our ideas of reality. yours reality consist in linguistic conventions, mine is right now...which is part of linguistic conventions, but not encompassed by them.

---

I have to laugh at philosophy. It drives me bonkers. Actually I ignore it mostly. The past has happened, the present is now, and the future will come. What is so hard about that? I am made up of my past. Aren't you, or do you spontaneously reconfigure yourself every present moment? What you are pondering on is no different than pondering how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. A complete waste of time, which you don't find as real anyway. So how can you waste it? What a buch of convoluted hog wash, or what did you call it, bullyhonk. I like that.:D

Sorry billyjack if I'm a little petulant here. These kind of philosophic discussions bring out the curmudgeon in me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

does that mean that the future is a reality too. cause the past exist just as much as the future does.

---

The future only exists if you go along with the idea of predestination/fate. The past exists because it has an effect on the present.

Well, to be honest I didn't quite follow the original post! The way I see it:

The past = memory
The present = now
The future = anticipation/expectation

Or, in terms of what (I think) the query is:

The past : existed
The present : exists
The future : will exist ?..... (or is this just grammer?)

And time, is our way of measuring all of the above, in the same way that the kilometre is used to measure distance.

Perhaps, if it's time you are looking to understand, you should try reading some Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time - for example), which brings a bit more of a logical approach to the subject. Whether you believe it, or not, is down to you.

alrighty then,

i believe that there is such a thing as the progression of time, but time itself as a value is a human system such as math, and logic. it is a self referencing value system with an inherant value only in the organization of thought but utherwise serves only to dilute our perception of reality. consider that western culture is one of the only societies with a linear perception of time, the rest are cyclical, like that chinese and the mayans. consider that if time is cyclical is there any progression, or only repetition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bii

And time, is our way of measuring all of the above, in the same way that the kilometre is used to measure distance.

Perhaps, if it's time you are looking to understand, you should try reading some Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time - for example), which brings a bit more of a logical approach to the subject. Whether you believe it, or not, is down to you.

---

well, thanks for the input. just as the kilometer is a measuring tool of distance so is time a measuring tool of existence. note here, the kilometer isnt something that is real, its a conventional tool to make space measurable. so goes with time, its a measuring tool. but dont mistake the kilometer for true space, and dont mistake time for true existence. if we do, it would be like mistaking the menu for the food, and we end up hungry. that is why i find this subject of the utmost importantance...i feel that by looking at time and reconstructing our mistaking of the "menu for the food", we can begin to live at one with the earth and the people in it, rather than against. so call this line of reasoning crap or bull honky if you must, but i think it to be fundemental to not destroying the planet.

and i've read hawking. he's good. i think what i have to say here flows well with what modern science is coming up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

The future only exists if you go along with the idea of predestination/fate. The past exists because it has an effect on the present.

---

okay dokay. the past is concept that exist only on the presupposition that there is a future. the two go together like heads and tails. saying one can exist without the other is like having light without dark (if there wasn't any darkness to contrast our conception of light, everything would just be blah...i dont know what we would call it. we need opposites to know things.) the idea of past goes with the idea of the future like heads goes with tails. and past and future are both faces of the coin known as now!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskele

alrighty then,

i believe that there is such a thing as the progression of time, but time itself as a value is a human system such as math, and logic. it is a self referencing value system with an inherant value only in the organization of thought but utherwise serves only to dilute our perception of reality. consider that western culture is one of the only societies with a linear perception of time, the rest are cyclical, like that chinese and the mayans. consider that if time is cyclical is there any progression, or only repetition.

---

i agree for the most part. i think at the end there you're speaking of the eternal recurrance of the nietzchian theme and his dyansian conception of the eternal universe. but i dont think he woud call any moment a repitition anymore than we would call the repition of drum beat the same beat every time. its going on the same rythym, but its context in term of its place in the musical score is changing, although it repeats. so maybe time lies between the conceptions of progression and repetition. when i think of what this would look like in terms of shape, i think of the dna double helix (following a form but changing as it goes round and round)

I have a suggestion if anyone wants to understand time. How can you have a discussion about time without bringing into the discussion space and motion. It is the trllogy of time space and motion that make the objective in our obstructed universe. A great book that in my opinion explains time,space and motion is The Unobstructed Universe by Steward Edward White written in 1940. The book says that time has three aspects-sidereal,psychological and orthic. Orthic is the correct or true. The book goes on to answer in my opinion any question you might have as to what is time and more importantly what is real and what is illusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

okay dokay. the past is concept that exist only on the presupposition that there is a future. the two go together like heads and tails. saying one can exist without the other is like having light without dark (if there wasn't any darkness to contrast our conception of light, everything would just be blah...i dont know what we would call it. we need opposites to know things.) the idea of past goes with the idea of the future like heads goes with tails. and past and future are both faces of the coin known as now!

---

Ok, again. This only works if you believe that what happens in the future is already decided: you can call it predestination/fate whatever you want. The past exists because it is known, experienced and has an effect on the present. The future does not have an effect on the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, again. This only works if you believe that what happens in the future is already decided: you can call it predestination/fate whatever you want. The past exists because it is known, experienced and has an effect on the present. The future does not have an effect on the present.

---

I would disagree,the present now moment appears to be conditiond by intents you have made at any particular now moment. The essense of time is really receptivity which encompasses all pasts and futures of individuals and the whole human race even the universe. Nothing is as important as what you think. Thought is indeed the activating frequency that brings about all present experience now. Time is a grand illusion and is how we maintain an ego that has no reality in Truth. Actually without a thought you would be free and know time in its essence.

sorry, published too quick there.

the instantantienty of time, as a concept, as what Conrad said made the perfect life/mindset..."the care of the past and the future in every passing moment of the present". Lofty goal maybe. RJS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysalready

I have a suggestion if anyone wants to understand time. How can you have a discussion about time without bringing into the discussion space and motion. It is the trllogy of time space and motion that make the objective in our obstructed universe.

---

by saying all is one or all is now, this implies that now or all is space, time, and motion. so your categorized trilogy of the three latter concepts was taken into account in previous entrees, i think. but i dont think we need to seperate them like that. its watt's contention (the guy this thread started up talking about) that all these things concepts such as space time and motion are really the same thing, call it "it" or existence or the universe or "you" if you like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, again. This only works if you believe that what happens in the future is already decided: you can call it predestination/fate whatever you want. The past exists because it is known, experienced and has an effect on the present. The future does not have an effect on the present.

---

our actions in the present moment are just as much reliant upun our "conception" of the past as our "conception" of the future. note:i say conception, as in concept, as in idea, as in its all in our heads. when dealing with the concept of time, we deal not only with what was, but what will be. keeping the future in mind keeps us out of jail or from falling off mountain tops. so although the future hasn't happend yet, we act in accordance with the idea that it will. just as we act in accordance with our ideas of the past. shoot, this is how the scientific method is constructed: learn from the past so we can predict the future. once again, there is no past without future. as long as we are dealing in concepts, you have to accept the conceptual existence of its opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysalready

I The essense of time is really receptivity which encompasses all pasts and futures of individuals and the whole human race even the universe. Nothing is as important as what you think. Thought is indeed the activating frequency that brings about all present experience now. Time is a grand illusion and is how we maintain an ego that has no reality in Truth. Actually without a thought you would be free and know time in its essence.

---

time is an illusion, at least our conception of it is. so i agree on that. and i also think that what we think is important as well. but, to use an allan watt's analogy, keep in mind that thought is like a spotlight. it focuses in on things and makes them extremely clear at the expense of ignoring everything else. but our body and its reaction to its surroundings is more like a flood light--not extremely focused but at the same instance ignoring nothing. thought, or mind if you will, goes together with body. so i would say that without a thought you would know the essence of time (this is the whole idea of the hindus, zen, and toaist meditators) since time only exist in thought! but you need to be able to come back to thought to disect and understand the state of "non-thought" in order to communicate that experience with everyone else. and yes, the ego is a myth as well! if time is an illusion, than as herman hesse said, the line that seperates good from bad and right from wrong is an illusion as well. because the only seperater of these ideas is an illusion:time.

I think time and space is how we keep from recognizing oneness or the unobstructed universe. Time and space maintain our separete sense of self and are always obstructions and so we live in this obstructed universe, the world of duality and are quiite blind to the world of unobstructed freedom and light. Someday may we all wake up from this terrible dream of death and destruction and know ourselves without illusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysalready

I think time and space is how we keep from recognizing oneness or the unobstructed universe. Time and space maintain our separete sense of self and are always obstructions and so we live in this obstructed universe, the world of duality and are quiite blind to the world of unobstructed freedom and light. Someday may we all wake up from this terrible dream of death and destruction and know ourselves without illusions.

---

cheers

billyjack, Watts would admit that he had his personal faults and that he was part showman, but his writing you could say is ofttimes visionary, is wide-ranged, and is tinged with wit. His focus was on the here and now, not some plan or scheme, which is good advice. You might like Charlotte Joko Beck. She certainly read him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

i agree for the most part. i think at the end there you're speaking of the eternal recurrance of the nietzchian theme and his dyansian conception of the eternal universe. but i dont think he woud call any moment a repitition anymore than we would call the repition of drum beat the same beat every time. its going on the same rythym, but its context in term of its place in the musical score is changing, although it repeats. so maybe time lies between the conceptions of progression and repetition. when i think of what this would look like in terms of shape, i think of the dna double helix (following a form but changing as it goes round and round)

---

yeah, i can see your imagery of a double helix, but i question it. is it necessarily true that there is only one strand of time, or two, or three, what if time is more akin to a net, in that we occupy one strand of time that loops and knots itself even as it connects and binds other strands. this replication going on continously so as to make a limitless twisting weaving that time makes. anywho...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by byquist

billyjack, Watts would admit that he had his personal faults and that he was part showman, but his writing you could say is ofttimes visionary, is wide-ranged, and is tinged with wit. His focus was on the here and now, not some plan or scheme, which is good advice. You might like Charlotte Joko Beck. She certainly read him.

---

i'll look her up. any writing with new analogy's to describe time and its relationship to oneness is always welcome...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triskele

yeah, i can see your imagery of a double helix, but i question it. is it necessarily true that there is only one strand of time, or two, or three, what if time is more akin to a net, in that we occupy one strand of time that loops and knots itself even as it connects and binds other strands. this replication going on continously so as to make a limitless twisting weaving that time makes. anywho...

---

agreed. there are many meanings that can be used as a definition of time. its your contention that these meaning might be connected the way the sqaures on a net are connected with knots. . . i never thought of it like that--i just figured the connection that these differing meanings of time had was that they are all representations or metaphors or ideas regarding time, when in actuality time cannot be represented with language or thought anymore than the "self" can be. ie...all these differing meanings of time are ideas. but ideas arent reality. so maybe time doesnt exist in reality. maybe time is just a net we throw out to make sense of things, to control things, to see things in terms of causes and effects. because if i had the ability to digest experiences in life like i digest food, and not think about what has happened and only experience what is happening, then i wouldnt know what past was, and therefore i wouldn't know future either. i would just know experience, i would just know now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysalready

I have a suggestion if anyone wants to understand time. How can you have a discussion about time without bringing into the discussion space and motion. It is the trllogy of time space and motion that make the objective in our obstructed universe. A great book that in my opinion explains time,space and motion is The Unobstructed Universe by Steward Edward White written in 1940. The book says that time has three aspects-sidereal,psychological and orthic. Orthic is the correct or true. The book goes on to answer in my opinion any question you might have as to what is time and more importantly what is real and what is illusion.

---

I agree with above poster, I'm obtaining new insights to time, space and motion with The Unobstructed Universe study/read. Another book someone here might be interested to read Eckhart Tolle The Power of Now, and he has a new book A New Earth; has been on Oprah Winfrey's Book Club. Pretty good read, my opinion, to read with The Unobstructed Universe.

To get a slight grasp on this idea of time/space being One, consider when looking at the sky at night, at all those twinkling stars; according to science you are now viewing something that is either millions of light years away, or you are looking at the past, at something that is not there anymore, that perhaps has changed in some way, such as the astronaut who returns home and only a few years has elapsed for him, while on Earth 20 years has gone by. out there in space, the boundaries are not the same as traveling around here in a car.
cherrio, fascinating conversation, whatever I'm glad to be here now. Can't really think of where I'd rather be..:idea:

Time is a relative term. We try to materialize it whereas it is totally immaterial. There is no time and our framing of it is only out of illusions.

There is no beginning and no end. Can you say when time started? By what calculation? Your measure is limited and time in essence is illimitable thing.