Kevin's Watch

I think it is impractical to focus too much on the present. Why? We are on a journey. While only the present exists to us - only the stimuli bombarding our brains, if indeed life is that - it is still true that we perceive a future and a past before and beyond us, and that to some extent we should act in a way to reach a better rather than a worse future. For us AND those around us.

aliantha wrote:This is all very cool stuff. But one can take it too far.

I used to know a guy who argued that he couldn't be held accountable for stuff he did in the past because it was, y'know, past, and "I'm not that person any more". Not as in, "I've changed for the better," but as in, "That was that moment and this is this moment." Jerk.

(He had numerous strategies for dodging responsibility -- this was just one of them. )

Ya, I'm pretty sure you've done that too. What really is the point of dodging responsibility anyway? Keeping eyes off of you?

Now, Socrates once explained that, in consideration of his life as he lived it, why he was innocent of the charges the state laid upon him, or why the charges were utterly absurd, then took responsibility for them in effect by saying that he still owed the state his life and his death and that he had no power to run away. His fair reward was a quick death.

I did my best to make my own explanation for my life and listed my human form as openly as I could. My head is still on my shoulders. It must be that I am OK, or as close to it as any of you.

Aliantha, that guy was wrong. He was in exactly the same moment when he claimed absolution as when he sinned (randomly adopting Christian terminology because sometimes it just sounds way more badass ).

Vraith wrote:On topic though, in some ways Cambo's answer makes perfect sense...while being insane at the same time.

I take that as the highest compliment. But your answer, Vraith, also makes perfect sense and is another way I might have explained myself.

Linna, I read that quote a little differently than you do (your reading may be closer to Lewis' intent, though, idk). It got me thinking about how temporal matters were a different thing than eternity. Time is finite. We don't intuitively think it is, but it is. It is stretched and molded by gravity, and something that can be shaped can't be inifinite. Time had a beginning, at least as we know it, and eternity stretches backwards as well as forwards. And if time as we know it had a beginning, it could have an end, too. There was once no-time; there could, and probably will, be again. So if eternity (or the inifinite, or anything we can legitimately call God) exists, it exists outside of time. Maybe not completely removed from time- I believe we can reach out to touch eternity from our temporal existence- but independent of it.

Linna, I read that quote a little differently than you do (your reading may be closer to Lewis' intent, though, idk). It got me thinking about how temporal matters were a different thing than eternity. Time is finite. We don't intuitively think it is, but it is. It is stretched and molded by gravity, and something that can be shaped can't be inifinite. Time had a beginning, at least as we know it, and eternity stretches backwards as well as forwards. And if time as we know it had a beginning, it could have an end, too. There was once no-time; there could, and probably will, be again. So if eternity (or the inifinite, or anything we can legitimately call God) exists, it exists outside of time. Maybe not completely removed from time- I believe we can reach out to touch eternity from our temporal existence- but independent of it.

Ah. See, here I would have to disagree with you. If it made it, it already depends on it in that part of its memory if you will. Unless we consider deism, a teaching in which god has turned away from and perhaps even forgotten the world in the pursuit of some other activity, to be the "true" teaching, then that greater god is dependent on time and its creations in shaping what it is. I think that unless god literally forgot its own creations, it still is dependent upon them in order to sustain itself. And if it forgets us, then how do we exist? God is the sustaining force for all of us!

Imagine a cobra and a tamer. One dances in tune with the other. The dancer turns away from the cobra, but the dancer recollects the cobra more strongly than the cobra will remember the dancer. Which is god? Typical definitions of god would say the dancer, with the greater memory, is closer to god.

Interesting response, Holsety. I can see your reasoning, however my beliefs don't include a creator god, which is part of why I assumed my reading would differ from Lewis' intent.

My God is more in common with deist version than the theist, in that I don't see God playing an active role in the finite universe, in creation or any other activity (miracles, etc). In fact, when I use God the word is virtually synonymous with abstracts like Eternity and Infinity, coupled with panentheistic ideas of Unity and Interconnectedness.

Cambo wrote:Interesting response, Holsety. I can see your reasoning, however my beliefs don't include a creator god, which is part of why I assumed my reading would differ from Lewis' intent.

My God is more in common with deist version than the theist, in that I don't see God playing an active role in the finite universe, in creation or any other activity (miracles, etc). In fact, when I use God the word is virtually synonymous with abstracts like Eternity and Infinity, coupled with panentheistic ideas of Unity and Interconnectedness.

Sorry. You did use the word god in parentheses so I got the idea you might believe.

I would still say that it would be strange for something somehow responsible for the existence of time to be beyond it in such a sense that it would be unaffected by it[/i]. It would only be unaffected in that it would, in the long run, appear to a larger watcher to have never been touched by it in the first place. But for those within it, it would feel as though it were effected by it. Since eternity would be unable to watch itself perfectly, who is it to say that it is beyond time? Who are we to say that eternity is beyond time either, when we cannot grasp it either? It certainly seems tautological to say it is necessarily so, however...

(I did notice the bold/italics thing but I decided to be indifferent to it...)

EDIT-Solution decided: stay out of Hile Troy's Think Tank right now, it is too easy to be deluded into egotism that is damaging there. Here, egotism can be dealt with more rationally and more appropriately since individual/group experiences are more run-of-the mill discussions in the close.

Holsety wrote:Ah. See, here I would have to disagree with you. If it made it, it already depends on it in that part of its memory if you will. Unless we consider deism, a teaching in which god has turned away from and perhaps even forgotten the world in the pursuit of some other activity, to be the "true" teaching, then that greater god is dependent on time and its creations in shaping what it is. I think that unless god literally forgot its own creations, it still is dependent upon them in order to sustain itself. And if it forgets us, then how do we exist? God is the sustaining force for all of us!

Imagine a cobra and a tamer. One dances in tune with the other. The dancer turns away from the cobra, but the dancer recollects the cobra more strongly than the cobra will remember the dancer. Which is god? Typical definitions of god would say the dancer, with the greater memory, is closer to god.

You reminded me of yet another quote from Conversations With God.

I tell you there is no such experience after death as you have constructed in your fear-based theologies. Yet there is an experience of the soul so unhappy, so incomplete, so less than whole, so separated from God's greatest joy, that to your soul this would be hell. But I tell you I do not send you there, nor do I cause this experience to be visited upon you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you reject Who and What You Really Are.

Yet even this experience is never eternal. It cannot be, for it is not My plan that you shall be separated from Me forever and ever. Indeed, such a thing is an impossibility - for to achieve such an event, not only would you have to deny Who You Are - I would have to as well. This I will never do. And so long as one of us holds the truth about you, the truth about you shall ultimately prevail.

You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you reject Who and What You Really Are.

Here is when I would have to argue with god. Let us take the womb and pregnancy. It would seem that, without choice, we take in more than necessary merely to maintain ourselves and grow larger, eventually become ejected from a state of complete subsistence in the womb. Is this done by choice? Not as humans would be capable of understanding it.

Holsety wrote:Sorry. You did use the word god in parentheses so I got the idea you might believe.

No need to apologise. As you say, I did employ the theistic word God. Fair assumption to make.

Holsety wrote:I would still say that it would be strange for something somehow responsible for the existence of time to be beyond it in such a sense that it would be unaffected by it[/i]. It would only be unaffected in that it would, in the long run, appear to a larger watcher to have never been touched by it in the first place. But for those within it, it would feel as though it were effected by it. Since eternity would be unable to watch itself perfectly, who is it to say that it is beyond time? Who are we to say that eternity is beyond time either, when we cannot grasp it either? It certainly seems tautological to say it is necessarily so, however...

Ah, see I don't know if eternity is completely unaffected by time. Just, as you say, larger. My point was really that eternity has to be in some sense external from time, since eternity is infinite and time finite. I think they are related in some sense.

Cambo wrote:It got me thinking about how temporal matters were a different thing than eternity. Time is finite. We don't intuitively think it is, but it is. It is stretched and molded by gravity, and something that can be shaped can't be infinite. Time had a beginning, at least as we know it, and eternity stretches backwards as well as forwards. And if time as we know it had a beginning, it could have an end, too. There was once no-time; there could, and probably will, be again.

Yes! Time is just a direction.

--A

Avatar wrote:

Cambo wrote:It got me thinking about how temporal matters were a different thing than eternity. Time is finite. We don't intuitively think it is, but it is. It is stretched and molded by gravity, and something that can be shaped can't be infinite. Time had a beginning, at least as we know it, and eternity stretches backwards as well as forwards. And if time as we know it had a beginning, it could have an end, too. There was once no-time; there could, and probably will, be again.

Yes! Time is just a direction.

--A

Ah, but is it also a vector?

I dunno...what definition of magnitude are you using?

--A

I think that spacetime is emergent.

Basically I feel that existence is a process of creation/annihilation ala quantum field theory.

I think that the creation/annihilation is simultaneous, however there is internal differentiation whereby what we call 'reality' arises (hence spacetime is relative).

Holsety wrote:

You, yourself, create the experience, whenever and however you separate your Self from your own highest thought about you. You, yourself, create the experience, whenever you deny your Self; whenever you reject Who and What You Really Are.

Here is when I would have to argue with god. Let us take the womb and pregnancy. It would seem that, without choice, we take in more than necessary merely to maintain ourselves and grow larger, eventually become ejected from a state of complete subsistence in the womb. Is this done by choice? Not as humans would be capable of understanding it.

Well, not believing in any of this, I'm not saying I have the answers. But I don't understand what you're saying, either. We don't take more than is necessary while in the womb. We take what is necessary to grow in the various ways we need to grow in order to be able to live without the womb. Which we then do.

And sorry we've gone off track here. Heh. That quote (although not the part Holsety carried into his last post, which I just quoted) just sprang to mind when Holsety said "I think that unless god literally forgot its own creations..."

Holarchy wrote:Basically I feel that existence is a process of creation/annihilation ala quantum field theory.

Physically? You mean the universe is coalescing in one direction, and falling apart in another?

--A

Cambo wrote:Time is finite. We don't intuitively think it is, but it is. It is stretched and molded by gravity, and something that can be shaped can't be inifinite.

As a math major, I take offense to this piece of logic!
Think of an infinite sheet!

(Tell me whether you want to resolve this one yourself; if not, I'm thinking of posting pictures of parametrized surfaces. But first I would have to find or create such pictures... and I am lazy.)

Although... this could be a sidetrack... I mean, to me it's just as important that God be immutable throughout time, and if He could be "shaped" He's clearly not immutable. So it's a moot point and I'm not really arguing about something I'm very invested in...

aliantha wrote:This is all very cool stuff. But one can take it too far.

I used to know a guy who argued that he couldn't be held accountable for stuff he did in the past because it was, y'know, past, and "I'm not that person any more". Not as in, "I've changed for the better," but as in, "That was that moment and this is this moment." Jerk.

Yeah.. I think the thing is... that he's taking a beautiful truth (namely that "people can change") but he's attempting to use it to enable his denial of the ill that's in him.

And even though he really is a "different person" from who he was two days ago, is he still a person who would do that same thing as "that other guy did," if he was faced with the same circumstances? Probably!

Interesting Cam/Linna....but I think Cam's got at least the better beginning, cuz there's a difference between the mathematical and the material.

Locally there's a couple odd things that might matter...when a black hole forms, a point [actually a sphere...] comes where time ends...for it itself, and for anything that gets too close. [another odd thought occurred to me when I first heard that black holes might bleed/evaporate...there's outside of it [time] the physical body of it [no-time] and the leaky event horizon [some-time]...I just though that funny]
But for a photon time never begins.
I guess that means that people [and a lot of other things, too] are literally trapped between the light and dark...for all time.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

aliantha wrote:This is all very cool stuff. But one can take it too far.

I used to know a guy who argued that he couldn't be held accountable for stuff he did in the past because it was, y'know, past, and "I'm not that person any more". Not as in, "I've changed for the better," but as in, "That was that moment and this is this moment." Jerk.

Yeah.. I think the thing is... that he's taking a beautiful truth (namely that "people can change") but he's attempting to use it to enable his denial of the ill that's in him.

And even though he really is a "different person" from who he was two days ago, is he still a person who would do that same thing as "that other guy did," if he was faced with the same circumstances? Probably!

Exactly. One example:

Me: "I just discovered huge holes in my two new wicker chairs."

Him (grinning): "Yeah, my son and I were wrestling a couple of weeks ago."

Me: "But now my chairs are ruined. How are you planning to set that right?"

Him (shocked expression): "But I am not that person any more. I'm not made of the same cells as I was when that happened."

Holsety, while I have told a white lie or two in my time, I have never stooped to the breathtakingly low level of responsibility-dodging as this guy.

aliantha wrote: Him (shocked expression): "But I am not that person any more. I'm not made of the same cells as I was when that happened."

That has to be, and I mean this with no exaggeration, one of the worst and stupidest excuses I have ever heard.
OTOH: I am in awe of the sheer audacity of it.
On the gripping hand: You should have shot him [or at least called the cops and had him arrested] for trespassing and other stuff...after all you never invited HIM into your house.

aliantha wrote:

Linna Heartlistener wrote:

aliantha wrote:This is all very cool stuff. But one can take it too far.

I used to know a guy who argued that he couldn't be held accountable for stuff he did in the past because it was, y'know, past, and "I'm not that person any more". Not as in, "I've changed for the better," but as in, "That was that moment and this is this moment." Jerk.

Yeah.. I think the thing is... that he's taking a beautiful truth (namely that "people can change") but he's attempting to use it to enable his denial of the ill that's in him.

And even though he really is a "different person" from who he was two days ago, is he still a person who would do that same thing as "that other guy did," if he was faced with the same circumstances? Probably!

Exactly. One example:

Me: "I just discovered huge holes in my two new wicker chairs."

Him (grinning): "Yeah, my son and I were wrestling a couple of weeks ago."

Me: "But now my chairs are ruined. How are you planning to set that right?"

Him (shocked expression): "But I am not that person any more. I'm not made of the same cells as I was when that happened."

Holsety, while I have told a white lie or two in my time, I have never stooped to the breathtakingly low level of responsibility-dodging as this guy.

Ah. I have made that exact argument, but never on the material realm to defend myself from a material action.

Besides, his BRAIN CELLS (and skin cells, probably bone cells and some others too) are still the same, so goes to show what he knows about biology. (IIRC)