Section 35 (last updated 2.03.2021)
“Onion”
When we say nothing is the negation Sartre takes it as the non presence of a specific thing that is at one point present, and this is simultaneous with the thing being present, when a thing is present somewhere it is not present somewhere else, the law of non contradiction. For example John is here in front of me but a few inches besides it is not-John, it is rather Steve. This understanding makes it not part of the existence of a thing but the part the thing-is-not is just some other thing. However not John is as much as part of John if we take it as the determination of John, when John moves his hands up or throws a ball, we do not identity the throw as John, but something that John determined as his actions, which is distinct from John making the action.
Nothing seems to be this place where John can express himself into actions that are not identical with himself. This is why the ancients took the idea of nothing as a void. The void is not emptiness that things are contained within, this is characteristic of space, in the spatial sense there is a field lacking in quantity which allows mass to occupy and change position. However we do not have an explanation of this same phenomenon in the domain of time, what plain or substrate allows for one event to change, what enables a future event to occupy the place of a past one? The idea of void is more characteristic of this capacity in time because it is an internal area or dimension within the object that is free and unoccupied by any event. Just like space is unoccupied by a mass, a void is free from an event. It is this area that events fall into and it is their negation as it always remains eventless, there is away room for the different possibility of an event. The object seems to be the mediation between two dimensions of void distinguished from each other in the thing distinguished from itself.
The object is a mediation or a relation between two dimensions of nothing, one where everything is possible but nothing is there, space, the external; and the other everything is there but nothing is possible, this is time, the internal side. These dimensions converge onto each where everything possible is simultaneously present, but only a single thing at a single time is there at once,. This is what philosophers call the “onion” between every layer is also a non layer.
When you peal an onion to get to the centre you realize the centre is made from nothing but the layers that are being pealed. This is in fact what an atom is because an atom, or any object, is only a body from a certain distance, enter upon this body, and it becomes a spatial extension for other set of bodies. (See zooming)
Every moment in a moment
Enlightenment,I.e., “Satori” in Buddhism is marked by seeing the “bigger picture” so that the “little” things do not become bothersome. Enlightenment is achieved by the practice of meditation which is following the middle way, not only in behaviour, but that consciousness is centred, and this is done with inducing deep breathing, either by breathing exercises or long distance walking and endurance training, once the brain intakes an optimal level of oxygen, it naturally begins to perceive a wider and more general picture of the environment, not merely able to see more, but rather have a better understanding of the notion produced by the intricate relations of each thing making up the whole. This is opposed to “narrow vision” which only sees the whole as each part on its own failing to see how that one part relates to other parts to make up a whole.
(The case against reality) It is almost entirely evident that in evolutionary science an organisms has a greater chance of survival if it’s senses are limited to only certain conceptions of the environment. This is counter intuitive because one immediately thinks that having awareness of every possible aspect of what to expect and happen in the environment, or taking in more of reality than less, would grantee the greatest chances of survival as more possibilities are taken into consideration. However it is the complete opposite that is the case for life, the more concentrated and limited the senses of the organism to a set of particular aspects in the environment, the greater it survives in those circumstances, venture off from them then a new set of adaptions have to be acquired. This almost implies that whatever the conception of the organism is, produces for it the actual, an organism which lives under a rock has only what the rock discloses as it’s reality, and therefore in a sense it is safe from danger outside the rock, a praying mantis is not even within the reality of a pill bug.
But seeing too much light blinds, hearing to much sound confuses, the organism therefore regulates these elements of reality into a narrow reception, the nervous system And we can say that evolution began with the simplest of organism because these organism had the most narrow view of nature, regulated the fundamental of nature and grew with that broader and broader scope of awareness of reality, the bug is within our conception as an insect, within its conception we are only perhaps a great mass in motion. The development of nature itself almost simultaneously developed with the evolution of its organism inhabitants. In other words there is no different between the development of organism and environment, at least early on, and this difference became more evident, fungus is an organism in the form of an environment.
The notion of time as linear is an evolved and acquired conception. What a linearity of time does is that it organizes a set of discrete moments into the same duration so that they become indistinguishable as the same moment: duration makes the beginning of one moment and the end of another indistinguishable so that it all appears to be the same happening. This is why time is associated with the motion of forward, things change but the moving forward maintains the same stillness. The present moment always appears to be the same continuity.
Tesseract
The present moment is a tesseract of every possible moment. The senses limits this complex structure into an abstraction of one of its moments, where each difference of an event can be perceived one at a time but what this means is that the form of a moment is for there to always be a moment present and from the observer view a single event happens at a single moment, when I am sleeping I am not playing sport, this is how experience appears, the moment your in is the limit of an event to happen and in order for a different event to happen requires doing that which occupies a different moment.
In an infinite state of time all events exists simultaneously at the same moment or rather these different moments occupy instantaneously the same space. in the latter case nothing will be picked out, but because there are so many different possible events or likewise differences within the same event, the rate of conception is faster than the processing rate, or in other words the rate at which the conception is understood. When we say that the mind can conceive an infinite number of events but only understand few, this means that the mind concludes or rather convolute this infinity of differences into a general narrative which formulates a particular experience to derive some certain meaning out of. But the discreetness that makes events different for conception or the conception disclosing the difference that make events discrete, is filtered out and is seen as a continuity of the same duration.
An “event” here is not defined only as something happening within the reference frame of perception, thought or whatever modes of knowledge, as in the case of a car passing by or an idea popping up in the mind, but rather an event is conceived and sought after in the sense that it is arrived at as a physical place, except the way to get to an event is not through space as you would get to an object, it has no location in space, as we say we are going to an event like a party not for the location as parties can happen anywhere but rather for the experience, you are trying to get something out of the party. what is conceived into being and what happens constitutes the same thing, this means that the location for an event has been led up to this point, you are brought here for the event to happen not that you randomly come onto a scene and an event occurs through that., in order for a passing car to even be recognized in passing requires that it is conceived and understood as what it is, so that a car passing by, by virtue of being conceived as such constitutes an event. And as the car passes by, something else, like a little bug, is already there in the same reference frame but it was not conceived therefore it did not constitutes an event because it’s existence was not present within the conception, but once it is conceived it now constitutes the event. Here we are simply recognizing the active property of consciousness that looks for what it finds. If everything is already out there what it looks for is therefore a property of its desire and therefore constitutes a moral justification.
The use of the term “desire” here has the most general meaning, as in the case of Aristotle he says ‘God desires pure contemplation’. But from another point of view the bug is conceived and constitutes an event, for example the bug for me was not present but for its predator it was part of an event. Even if there is no external conceiver, the bug conceives itself, and therefore at least in that sense perseveres itself. An event in this sense is defined as an amusement or an occasion, as we mean a special and worthy occasion, it is defined as such because it is at the least novel enough for the conception to even recognize and analyze its presence.
Everything is the event for something
Every single little thing in the whole of things has the whole of everything as an event.
Tesseract is a hyper-cubic, grid-like structure . can perceive five dimensions as opposed to four, able to see every moment in the past, present, and future.
These illustrations are extrapolations meaning it is how the abstraction of an infinity of possible moments looks like from the outside. But in this state there is no real externality, and it just exhibits the same reference frame layered by an infinity of moments all occurring at the same time but with slight changes
The mind by way of its perceptual capacities filters out this flux by picking a part in it, this part is not a portion but an instance and in order to go through that experience it has to at least involve specific variables. Perception goes through each instant at a time but because there are so many instances and going through them at a rapid rate makes them all appear as one and the same moment in motion.
Where is it located
The idea of the tesseract naturally brings the question about its spatial extension, in other words where is it located? Idealism locates this infinite possibility in the mind, or that the mind is the source of this infinity, as Alan watts say “behind your head”, in other terms the “blind spot” or the uncertainty principle. Whereas materialism answers that it is located outside in physical space matter which the mind is only a product of, possibility is in the configurations of objects in space where everything is laid out. Both are partially correct but not in the same way because idealism is more fundamentally correct while materialism is particularly correct. Idealism is correct because the furthest a potential moment is away from the senses it is actually abstract, it exhibits no experience in the sense of having weight to be measured, it is not quantifiable in height length depth etc. This is more descriptive of models explaining the nature of time because although objects may not exists within the same locus, they can exists within the same time.
This not only means that there is a general measure of time which everything is subject to, like it is 2 o’clock here and 11 o’clock, but that objects sharing time independently from their location in space have an actual physical interaction between each other, this is known as “entanglement” simply means that things are made by the same stuff or that the same stuff that makes things has the same continuity in being their substance, and that changes in this substance happen like a gradient, like a drop makes a ripple in the water, it has a widespread affect on the entire landscape in different degrees, where the drop lands has the greatest impact and furthest away from the point of impact has the least effect, perhaps only a little wiggle in the liquid.
Time physically bounds events and has a physical affect on the objects within them but it’s physical properties cannot be measured, the quantities of an event cannot be measured only an object that is singled out and examined against other objects can, an abstract event like an idea is tangible only in that it exists, in the sense that it is known and can communicate meaning derived from it. Even the quantities we measure in physical objects are abstract qualities communicated for their meaning.
Materialism is right because to even have sense of any point in this infinite potentiality requires a limitation of it to a particular moment, as specific as possible, that exhibits the most approximate measures and is quantifiable in both exact number and feeling of it, an object occupies this role. This is how feeling and understanding can even make out from infinite convulsions a particular phenomenon. In fact this is what feeling and sensation is, it is the sense that narrows down from everything the most peculiar case, and it maintains itself against the multiplicity of all things at once in that specification. When everything breaks through the concentration on a single thing, the single thing which maintains its focus on a particularity looses itself, dissipates, in other words dies, this is why sensation is also a preservation centre, when a sharp objects goes too deep into the skin, it breaks through, and everything therefore breaks into the wound, bacteria, the elements etc. And everything pours out, blood nutrients etc.
Infinity is not located only in the mind nor outside in the physical space because both of these are the same particular continuity of an duration which a sequence is extrapolated from and maintained as the frame of reference , there is a part of this duration a hyper particle like concentration that maintains its capacity to focus on a single aspect only at a given time but then takes that and jumps around everywhere, on every point of this continuity having the ability to rest itself on any one point of the duration, this transcendental element is consciousness. As a meditative exercise, try looking out through your eyes away from your mind and into an object, but once staring into the object turn your concentration back into your mind where you began the focus, you will reach a middle point of awareness where there is no internal or external but the same phenomenon, which is in a limbo state between what you identify as your internal mind and external object where both of these have the same continuity, the middle point between mind and object is their fact of being the same thing.
The view that time is the conception of an infinite possible events into a particular and real duration leaves abstract and makes foreign the very real experience within an event, which aside from being abstract is also very concrete, the experience in the event involves contact, grinding, touching, friction, heat, cold, all these feelings and emotions and destruction and generations of matter moulding and smashing into each other. The old philosophical notion that man is distinguished from animals on the grounds that he is a thinking being as if thinking and feeling are entirely separate, fails to acknowledge that feelings are forms of thought, or in other words they are rational forms which constitutes the subject matter of psychology, the rational study of emotion, insofar as feeling and emotion can be studied in a rational manner means they are rational aspects.
Friction
What we experience as physical contact between two objects or more generally what space is itself is the interaction between events. We say that space is the medium where things interact but that does not explain what space is as this medium. Space is simply the interaction itself. Space as self externality assumes something to be external from so that there is distance between the identity and the non-identity of the thing which it moves into. For example “friction” is the resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another. The resistance is a thing maintaining itself against something different, enough friction causes fire, we might ask how is this possible, the shallow answer is that heat is produced with enough contact of one surface over another with a certain rate, the faster the interaction the greater heat production. But the same question can be asked in terms of heat, how did heat come up to be from the interaction between the surface of two objects?
The heat of fire as a result of the friction between things is an arrival of an entirely new event. Fire is an entirely new event that arose from the interaction of things that had no reason to suggest they possess fire as a possible event. But objects so far as they contain heat, and they mix their heat together with a certain speed, produces fire which is a more fundamentally implicit event in both. How from friction results fire is actually more mysterious than we think because fire is an entirely new event
Contact in space is how events interact which appears to the observer as how things within an event interact, but these so far as being each other, is how events arise out of space. We have to walk a certain distance to see the city appear in the horizon
Sensations like perception filters the infinity of all moments into one of those moments, in one sense vision is more blind to things than receptive, this is how anything can be seen at all otherwise there would be too much to see at once. However layered onto that single moment we perceive, is an infinity of all other moments, this layout is outside time, meaning every moment is present all at once having no past present future, and what is happening in that moment is eternal meaning that it defines that moment as such and it is incorruptible, it just stays that way as that instance. But because the observer passes in other words their conception changes to another moment, they witness them as passing, or things as moving.
In common experience physical contact is more immoderate and therefore is assumed by the understanding to be more primary.
So when you think when you come into contact with something that causes the change in the event, like if I tip over a cup it falls, but this action is simply to arrive at that event which was potentially in the former.
The will and the conception
Where the idea of the will or rather “free will” comes into the idea of the conception follows this logic; since the limitation of the infinite is being unlimited and so the particular aspect of infinity is to posit a limit means that a limited being is limited to a set of finite events and cannot experience all the possible ones that they could experience given they are unlimited relapses back to the limitation of the infinity being no limit: A finite being can only experience so much from all possible events that they could experience or rather even if their finite duration of life can disclose an infinity of micro events, that all possible events are ordered into a hierarchy of events, some that happen unconsciously and ones that happen consciously, like how many times you scratch, move your eyes, or even more abstract how many thoughts pass through your head, these to some degree happen always unconsciously, but there is at least a few generally recognizable events like traumatic events that one is conscious of, for example a single person can only get into a car accident so many times or get arrested so many times. It could be that what we identify as finite events are the ones we are conscious of while the infinite of possibilities events happen as equally real but uncaonaiously.
These big traumatic events one wonders whether they had a prior conception of and if they could of have avoided the attainment of them. Could it be that the individual conceives these events as possibilities prior to them happening, and then latter one makes the will to go into that route and attain the experience of that event? If all possible events simultaneously exists at a hyperbolic dimension, like in the tesseract, and the individual has the capacity to conceive these events prior to experiencing them, is there an element of free will where the individuals chooses to not go through that route of experience, and if so, how can this be done?
The individual conceives a certain possible route by doing a set of behaviours that leads them into that direction, so long as they continue in doing certain behaviours a certain conception follows inevitably. The individual can change their “fate” per say and conceive some other direction of events by doing other behaviours. For example if an individual is developing violent tendencies throughout their daily life, it is only a matter of time before they reach the conception of a possible event where they get arrested for assault. The latter possibility is a real route of experience that has already and is already happening at a hyperbolic dimension, but it became accessible by a set of actions that worked towards that. The person should not remedy his behaviour by suppressing it because there is a reason why they are developing violent tendencies in the first place and suppressing these real feelings is identical with acting on them in the first place as they ignore them into being, in other words, negligence is a form of action in the court of law. This is the psychoanalytic element to the consciousness as it determines its particular experiences. It has to address why it is developing these violent tendencies for instance it might be lacking good sleep and so the will is weakened, or it has given into too much sexual indulgence which has obscured a real sense of love making into sadomasochism.
Anyone who seriously studies criminal psychology will observe that all extreme criminal activity has been developed through a process of indulging in these personal vices that extended into acting on them onto others. For example the infamous serial killer Ted Bundy associates his murders which always involve rape with over indulgence in hardcover pornography. This indicates that there is no such thing as conception alone without resulting in some acting. Conceiving something over and over again results in acting on it.
Mental disorders
Mental feedback loops are not arbitrary because thoughts are trying to communicate something important and it is only when the observer does not probably reason those thoughts, make sense of them, apprehended them, thoughts take on a feedback loop and continue repeating themselves in the mind restlessly, they do not let go of the observer. It is on some level a survival mechanism because there is potential danger needing to be assessed and ignoring that is detrimental, i.e, deterioration to the mind, so it has to protect itself.
The observer has failed to properly reason and therefor to resolve his mind, he develops a fixation, meaning that he cannot but keep seeing the same thoughts, and they take on certain repetitive manner eventually developing into anxiety disorder. We now a days look at mental “disorders” as if they happen arbitrary, like a broken record, meaning that we do no know their cause. It is only recently that mental illness is discovered to have a strong link to physiological effects, that is stress inducing illness, cancer for example has a strong link to physiological stress like lack of sleep, over eating, peck of exercise, these negative habits produce physical stress that links to the development of cancer.
The old claim that “it is just in your head” as to suggest something is not real ignores problems that the mind communicates with the individual. The individual ought to listen to their mind as if what is being thought has the same efficacy of reality as if some event happens right before the eyes. However it is more difficult than just simply “listen” to the mind but the individual must also resolve their mind and they can only do so if they are mentally fit, in other words can reason well. The mind brings about logical challenges to the individual and these challenges are identical with life scenarios the individual is dealing with. How well the observer reasons determines their access to knew information that will naturally arise when properly resolving a logical problem. The proper way to resolve a logical problem is not by having technical skill but rather logic presents to the individual issues of ethics they must dispense with and determine, and it is in their choices in deeming what is ethical that determines the success of their resolution. For what is ethical is not relative even though there are an infinite possibilities.
which takes the centre of attention and all the importance will go to that one idea that simply arose. The reader instead must anticipate the spontaneity of ideas that arise in the mind and deal with those case by case as seeing them for what they are part of the same spontaneity. In the same way we approach objects that come into our vision.
Justify the future beforehand
When pondering things throughout the day, we assume that these thoughts are random, in either recollecting past memories or thinking about a possible scenario of the future. However we exclude from this pondering a quality we normally associate with deliberate thinking, which is trying to rationalize, understand, and make judgments about the subject matter under question. When we unconsciously ponder about something, we do not say we are trying to understand it, however it is still the same process of thought happening when unconsciously pondering something as opposed to when consciously understanding it. When we unconsciously think about something at the present, the mind as an efficient principle is rationalizing and fathoming a future event it did not yet come to experience at the present. The mind anticipates possible events in the future, thats although do not happen at the present, are likely to happen at some later point in the present. And so the mind thinks about the experience as if it happened and rationalizes and makes sense of it either morally or logically, so that when it does happen, it can detach judgments about it and automatically undergo throughout the experience, the deliberation has already been made in the past, the experience is achieved in the future.
Did we choose the time we are in?
When we say someone conceived themselves into being, or as the Hindus says, the individual conceived the life they live, as if they chose that life, we also have to ask; did they also choose the time period they are in? The question that follows is why would they choose a previous time given that a later time involves more development and better quality of life? These question are based on a few assumptions of modern times about the idea of time and consciousness that the Hindus for example along with other cultures did not share. first it assumes that time is linear in the sense of development, the more time passes the greater the development happens, which is not wrong but the fallacy is to assume that the form of time is this kind. The ancients on the other believed that time if cyclical, that history goes through these cycles of development.
The individual at their time period is identical with the development of consciousness through time, so that individuals at older ages are identical with the consciousness of that time. It is only a matter of being at a later age can one claim that if people choose why choose before, but that same question applies, why choose now and not later? The developmental aspect of time is the actual formation of a circle, the drawing of the circumference per say to make the line curve for a circle. But time nevertheless as a general form is a circle, this is the only way it can be an actualizing system, otherwise it would just be forever passing, no needing to connect anywhere, just an infinitely extending line, while a circle has the point which initiated to return to. I chose that time period because I am this time period, in other words, a time period is defined by the development of its people not that people are defined by their time, even though that is true also, in the sense that the culture of the specific time educates it’s people.
The tesseract is simply the domain where the free will acts to determine a finite set of experienced events for the particular side of the universal.
Since infinity is eternal it has the necessary “time” to go through every possibility, every single movement from scratching your head to smirking at someone is recorded as a possible instance that occupies spatial dimension. It is very difficult to understand how this is physically true because space would then just be entirely filled with the matter of every action and there would be no place for one movement to make a different action since that would already be made to occupy the place where it would be done. But this type of movements, which is now one object externally moves outside another is not the standard for time because there is another type of movement, a thing moving within another, as the sun moves within the sky, the person moving within the earth, there are these movements of things happening within other things
Even the negative is a positive determination
“The primary contrariety is that between positive state and privation-not every privation, however (for ‘privation’ has several meanings), but that which is complete. And the other contraries must be called so with reference to these, some because they possess these, others because they produce or tend to produce them, others because they are acquisitions or losses of these or of other contraries. Now if the kinds of opposition are contradiction and privation and contrariety and relation, and of these the first is contradiction, and contradiction admits of no intermediate, while contraries admit of one, clearly contradiction and contrariety are not the same. But privation is a kind of contradiction; for what suffers privation, either in general or in some determinate way, either that which is quite incapable of having some attribute or that which, being of such a nature as to have it, has it not; here we have already a variety of meanings, which have been distinguished elsewhere. Privation, therefore, is a contradiction or incapacity which is determinate or taken along with the receptive material. This is the reason why, while contradiction does not admit of an intermediate, privation sometimes does; for everything is equal or not equal, but not everything is equal or unequal, or if it is, it is only within the sphere of that which is receptive of equality. If, then, the comings-to-be which happen to the matter start from the contraries, and proceed either from the form and the possession of the form or from a privation of the form or shape, clearly all contrariety must be privation, but presumably not all privation is contrariety (the reason being that that has suffered privation may have suffered it in several ways); for it is only the extremes from which changes proceed that are contraries.”
The pre-Socratic talk about this paradox. (Zeno paradox) Aristotle dismisses Zeno’s paradox on the ground that motion can be observed, which is actually among the rare feeble rebuttals Aristotle offers. Zeno paradox still remains true for non classical models of motion, however the observation of the motion Aristotle talks about is still an aspect or a natural resolution to the contradiction in nature raised by Zeno paradox. And this is consistent with Aristotle model of becoming as the substance of being, that being is not just an ideal and perfect Form but is active it is not given but determined, they if all the events making up time already happened they would not need to exist, as we say ‘past is gone’ you can never have a moment once it has passed, you can try to recreate a similar moment but never the exact one, this is the law of irreversibility in nature and it is the function of the Forms no matter how ideal and eternal they are, to be maintained as such, by being experienced as a duration having a beginning and end and intermediaries in between and a sense as if ‘time is running out’ , the problem with Zeno paradox is that it does not consider the nature of the conception which exists indifferently and independently from infinity as the capacity to surpass it by narrowing it to a particular abstraction of it and than proceed to be limited to viewing each abstraction at a single time as if the whole is not immediately present. And so instead of everything all being present for ever at once simultaneously, each moment compiling this infinity is viewed one moment at a time for all time. It is a different perspective of infinity which the particular nature occupies and the one which describes the infinity as every possibility, it has to be one possibility over another for it to be all of them.
The conception latches itself to a particular sequence of events and experiences the whole relative from that sequence and the moments of the sequence relative to each other at a certain rate. The nature of the conception finds a host per say, let’s say a man who will grow up in Georgia with white skin complications and with a certain height and body weight etc. So far being that man the entire rate of the universe accords itself to the rate of the life duration of that man, the stars appear to be moving very slow over thousands of years, the season come every 4 quarters, durations in the world seem to have certain pace to them given the way the man experiences his events. However the stars have died and have been born and are in an infinite state of flux between those two points, it is only stopping this rapid movement at one of its moment.
People often wonder why casinos are so successful when they maximize on something so simpleton like slot machines and roulette wheels, but these games have recognized something fundamental in reality, it has maximized on the idea of chance as a state of uncertainty and the ability to determine a definite moment in that of certainty, just one moment of certainty is enough in an infinite state of uncertainty. This is actually how the conception picks out from infinite flux of uncertainty a definite moment. Except it does not begin with uncertainty and goes on to certainty but is already in a certain position meditated by uncertainty as the movement to go into to different certain moments, our cogito principle and the same law of entropy, uncertainty is the state between two certain systems.
Thrust involves the stride
We hear for example in Aristotle’s and Hegel’s logic, even more primitively in ancient Buddhist philosophies, the thrust involves the stride, up involves down. These philosophers utter the ancient idea that there is a relation of opposites.
These movements are discrete from each other, in the sense they act differently, opposed, etc., one happens at one point in time and the other happens at different point in time. However there difference we are told involve each other, you would not know the motion of up
If it was not relative to a downwards movement. But moreover, they presuppose each other because the relation is prior to each components as a distinct action. In other words, up and down are simultaneous actions, before they are abstracted into one or the other movement. This means that their distinctness is how they have a simultaneous relation of occurring at the same time and both contributing to the same relation as each identifying the other as distinct. Breathing-in is discrete from breathing-out, so that when one happens, the other is not happening at the same time, so that it can happen at a different time, temporally right after.
The moment of change between one moment and another is both moments laid out on each other simultaneously. Their relation being more fundamental than each constitutes for both their distinct place in conjunction with each other. The fundamental relation is their convulsion, their distinction is their clarity.
Pierce says about time:
“Time with its continuity logically involves some other kind of continuity than its own. Time, as the universal form of change, cannot exist unless there is something to undergo change, and to undergo a change continuous in time, there must be a continuity of changeable qualities.” (Pierce Law if mind)
Every moment is discrete and this is why they are different experiences, however they are not ultimately discrete because there would be no alteration between different moments, but time would be stuck at one moment and the distinctness of that moment would be maintained fixed against all others. If there would not no identity of a single moment because if there is no other reference point than the present moment would be a pure continuity and there would be nothing to distinguish into another moment. The common denominator of discrete moments, or what they share, have in common, and constitutes their continuity in time, is the fact that they occur for something, or that they are happening to an observer. Although the moments in time are discrete in that they offer different experiences, or rather different aspects of the same experience, they are occurring as part of the same continuity to something that is in part discrete in them, their conception, which maintains one up, one down, both different, and both the same.
Nothing is something is the very quality of consciousness. If nothing is a Being it still remains nothing, but it is also at the same time a Being, so it is both of these features. Logos “Everything changes and nothing stands still.” We take the differences between these concepts as absolute differences so that the definition is connected with the word, nothing must be not being, so it can be nothing, otherwise it is being, which at that point being is not nothing, it is something other than nothing. However while making these distinctions and maintaining them,
We experience reality like this, first person point of view, which exhibits a certain moment happening here and now where everything is positioned accordingly at that instance, for example, the gun is held at a certain degree angle, the trees are right in front of the house in the distance etc.
We experience reality like this, first person point of view, which exhibits a certain moment happening here and now where everything is positioned accordingly at that instance, for example, the gun is held at a certain degree angle, the trees are right in front of the house in the distance etc.
A slight movement in the perception changes the positioning of the scene but maintains the same strictness of a moment being arranged in certain way but this time differently, just a slight movement in perception changes the positioning of everything, but the frame remains the same maintains the frame for their to be certain arrangements.
In this reference frame we see a moment arranged in a certain way with things happening but we cannot discern the moment of change from one moment to another that changes the arrangement in the scene, we just presuppose thatcher observer changed their position therefore everything is seen from a different angle. But for an observer to change their position brings out a potential position that all the objects within his perception must have had but not initially observed. The moon appears to change position against the landscape it is observed in relation to
We cannot assume change from something because it is in motion because change involves something to be static in order for a difference in its morphology to be discerned. The human brain can perceive about 10-12 individual images per second, faster than that the brain blends the images together into motion.
However there is a split moment, the change from one moment to another is the conception of both moments simultaneously. this is the shift in conception
We can look at one thing and look away at another thing than look back at the first thing and it will still be there. Or we can look at a thing and as we keep looking at it move around it and observer it from different positions, or we can grab the thing and turn it looking at and twirl it around observing every angle of it. All these ordinary ways of observing a thing is really the conception of a thing as a sequence, we just do not see separation of each movement making up the sequence because the sequence is also in a particle like state, in other words, it is a bundled up together object.
Law of fatigue is not just a biological or evolutionary function as in the case an organism looses energy and resources. In the universe there is no lack of energy per say, or getting tired, as the law of energy perseveration required energy to be more used and spent in order to be persevered rather than maintained or generously resourced. Fatigue as a universal principle is simple set of conditions falling into the wrong place, as they say, “all the pieces fall into place”, energy is the condition having right relations and connections while fatigue is these same conditions having wrong relations, or related with each other in wrong way. It is not wrong in that it happens, the wrong is in what is conceived an is in aspect of the observer, which does not mean that wrong is subjective to the observer but it is ascribed to the individual, in other words, the individual is the objective measure of what constitutes wrong.
If everything is already potentially out there, what the individual chooses is the actual determination of right and wrong. The difficulty here is that if everything is potentially out there does that mean it is inevitable for some people to choose some wrong things, as the wrong produces it’s own demand? this is a question of what the will is, what are you willing to do or refrain from doing.
The saying monkeys typing all the words will eventually write the bible. This is inaccurate because order is a particular feature of chaos not general. Chaos is just simply everything being there undifferentiated. Order is the abstraction from everything a single thing that is distinguished.
We interpret this as a convulsion or a “glitch” but really it is absolute motion or in other words it is how anything moves at all. It is at two different places at the same time.
A glitch we interpret as an indiscernibility on the part of the system or a reality, as we say there is a problem in the system. this inability to discern is not in reality but is in the capacity of the observer. Reality has too much information for the observer to process, given the limitation of the observer which is not their weakness but is also their skill to apprehend reality in a particular manner, the observer determines a sequence in a particular manner and ignores all else. Otherwise reality is an infinity of all events of all time, every single move of every single action.
Consciousness develops an indifference to this and than determines a particular duration, and it is this experience of it that in the first place makes infinity be complied of a single distinct moments. , in other words reality in order to be the eternity of all possible moments is simultaneously maintained as each moment by an equally infinite subset of consciousness identifying with a particular moment, which is the determination of infinity in a specific manner. Each moment comes along with an observer of that moment, and a certain set of moments forming a duration develop an identity. And this is how any one moment maintains itself through its change comes to constitute a timeline.
Add water droplets land on water before they merge, the vibrations the water lees the air between the droplet and the other water mass a part for a time being.
The form of the tesseract is the nature of consciousness the observer takes to limit the infinity of reality into a particular sequence.
The geometric element that the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square.the centre cube is the present moment and disclosed in the bigger cube is right cubical cells, these are other potential moments not occupying the present.
In a non linear state of time all the moments exists simultaneously. All these moments are blended into each other within the same reference frame. But the reference frame is determined by the conception of possibilities taking up an instant moment. This limits the flux into a particular order of experience, what seems to be a constant flow of time are each of the moments instantaneously coming following the other, like a rapid fire movements. One reference frame holding an infinity of moments, the limitation of this is that it is unbounded so that the observer is the quality that developed as the limit of this infinity .
The change from one moment to another is very interesting at the infinite level because the reference frame itself is the change and not the objects in that reference frame. This is counter intuitive because the experience of change at the empirical and sensible level of the observer, shows there to be only one moment, the present, which although different things happen at the present, the present is all that happens. The present is this static reference frame, a limitation of time, that slough the concept of the conception changes, the form of the conception remains at a limit. The present is the reference frame as a limit of all possibilities occurring at once
The change from one moment to another is disclosed by a third aspect, the relation of these two moments, where one is passing and the other is coming, remains static and unchanged. There has to be this static element, which is there always needs to be something coming and there always need to be something passing, otherwise when one moment changes to the other, at that instance of change, there is no guarantee that one moment will lead into another because the moments exhibit different orientations of the same thing, and therefore in order for the thing to be the same, requires a distinct view that maintains it as the same.
the reference frame itself is constant, this appearance is due to the fact that the observer filters out the conception disclosing their events and only experiences the contents of the events. In other words, filters out the relation between events, the fact that there is a simultaneity of passing and coming, and only sees what either is or is not, which are both the same in happening at the same time at the same place, where something is, is also where something is not. The presence of one thing requires the simultaneous non presence of some other thing.
A background of feeling
“Without doubt the sort of observations most prominent in our conscious experience are the (209) sense-perceptions. Sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, constitute a rough list of our major modes of perception through the senses. But there are an indefinite set of obscure bodily feelings which form a background of feeling with items occasionally flashing into prominence. The peculiarity of sense-perception is its dual character, partly irrelevant to the body and partly referent to the body. In the case of sight, the irrelevance to the body is at its maximum. We look at the scenery, at a picture, or at an approaching car on the road, as an external presentation given for our mental entertainment or mental anxiety. There it is, exposed to view. But on reflection, we elicit the underlying experience that we were seeing with our eyes. Usually this fact is not in explicit consciousness at the moment of perception. The bodily reference is recessive, the visible presentation is dominant. In the other modes of sensation, the body is more prominent. There is great variation in this respect between the different modes. In any doctrine as to the information derived from sense-perception this dual reference, external reference and bodily reference, should be kept in mind. The current philosophic doctrines, mostly derived from Hume, are defective by reason of their neglect of bodily reference. Their vice is the deduction of a sharp-cut doctrine from an assumed sharp-cut mode of per-(210) -ception. The truth is that our sense-perceptions are extraordinarily vague and confused modes of experience. Also there is every evidence that their prominent side of external reference is very superficial in its disclosure of the universe. It is important. For example, pragmatically a paving-stone is a hard, solid, static, irremoveable fact. This is what sense-perception, on its sharp-cut side, discloses. But if physical science be correct, this is a very superficial account of that portion of the universe which we call the paving-stone. Modern physical science is the issue of a co-ordinated effort, sustained for more than three centuries, to understand those activities of Nature by reason of which the transitions of sense-perception occur.” (Whitehead nature alive)
But then we also subconsciously notice that the conception is constantly changing to disclose a set of constantly moving objects disclosed within each and every time the conception that disclosed the object changes. the reality is that the change the observer experiences within their reference frame as the interaction of objects in motion is really the interaction of his conception viewing different details of the same event, his conception going through many realizations of different qualities concerning the forms of objects, and that’s identical with these details of the objects moving while his conception catching them still as the reference frame is still.
Every possible angle of a thing exists as a possible conception of it from a different being observing it at that angle.
The content disclosed in the conception maintains a continuity, but the reference frame is their discreetness. every conception of a thing, whether it be observing a different angle of a thing or a different thing altogether, is the moment of that thing, the conception of the thing is the moment of that thing, otherwise the object disclosed in that conception has every possible moment of it, every possible way of being conceived, as a potentiality for every observer.
is a metamorphism maintains the same constant, each moment as itself into the same
phi phenomenon
phi phenomenon is used in a narrow sense for an apparent motion that is observed if two nearby optical stimuli are presented in alternation with a relatively high frequency.
All that is happening is one dot is taking its turn to disappear at one time at a rapid rate.
the reference frame itself is the change, and the content is still, every conception of a static form, is made discrete into a distinct reference frame making a single possible moment among an infinity of those.
A scene layered on a scene, event within an event
The way these infinite series of possible events are structured spatially is that they are disclosed within the conception of one of their real moments at a single instance in time. So that when you look at an object at a certain angle, you are seeing one of it’s possible moments occupying a position in space.
(see objective subjective)
Infinity of finites have as their identity infinity, infinity has the diversity of being distinguished as finite from nothing or that if nothing is infinite it is identical as 1, but infinitely. This diversity of infinite of finites possess the identity of infinity in each finite.
the motion of going through infinity of finites dissipates to a state of freedom to determine. Like in the old film going through multiplicity of images moving it appear that the images are one continuous whole proceeding from one definite point towards another.