Thought is independent of time

I see this as a Gestalt (see Gestalt Psychology---the theory that gave rise to Gestalt Therapy.

Gestalt means form---in this case the assumption is that human perception starts with the big picture--the whole thing---then it breaks it down to the key objects that are significant to that perception. For example, if you are looking for a box--you first pereceive the whole landscape, which immediately breaks down into its parts, until you identify the box. The box is what is important and stands out against the tree behind it, the grass below and around it, the sky, the naked woman who you caught unaware and quickly hid behind the bush before you noticed, all disappear into the background because of the gestalt of the box which you now focus on----like an idiot, because if you were looking for naked girls always you would have seen the girl, and probably caught plenty of good gestalt, before she jumped behind the bush. But no! You're looking for a box! What's wrong with you...?!

...oh sorry----I always get sidetracked by naked women... What were we talking about again?

 

This is a consolidated response to Dejavu's p-articulars.

The word it is not it, it being a symbol for a condition, not the condition itself.
That words are symbols for conditions means that the conscious can carry condition far afield of where it may have been initially encountered. That is we may experience a working facsimile of physically distant actual conditions by using the symbols for them. In this way consciousness transcends the appearance of time and space.

As to description/definition Dejavu's statement that he cannot pass a definition without description is acknowledgement of what I said and we need look no farther for an exception, the theoretical definition of everything , because the practical current emergence for Dejavu is that he can't do it and Dejavu being the perceiver is the only measure he has of the world in absence of trust. To him perception is knowledge but knowledge being shared, being is not always perceived.

None of us would be hoodwinked into accepting positions we don't agree with. Certainly in this way time and space become irrelevant to our conscious considerations. There is no timely evidence available to one who does not allow the evidence in time to enter into their own personal gestalt or model of the world, (kingdom of personal cognizance, that which we invoke)

As to form being self defining, a form takes shape of itself but it's definition/ description is given to it by the perceiver. We name the animals who otherwise have no name. The whole defines the parts, the parts exist, but a description by the part can only speak from it's particulate position. So no, the part does not define the whole, even in part. Everything has no particular name. The lion for example speaks himself of all life being all in but lion is a term that is unfamiliar to the lion itself. Everything is something but nothing in particular.

There are two parts to the description, the second qualifying being, nor is it remote.
As to the yet to be of here, yet to be, is a current perspective only. Although we can effect a trajectory through effort, all effort is made in this moment and in no other. No effects are fashioned in the future.

The point of stating my familial associations is that there is no one who does not do their will. I can rely on a single ubiquitous motive and not be allied to the effectively indecisive of themselves.

On the subject of the unwilling, our inheritance is not for us to decide. That is some are born with more apparent liberty than others through no effort of their own. Circumstance is not a reflection of will, attitude is. You can exercise your will to happiness regardless of circumstance or length of days.

 

thedope:

Not talking about the word. Last time, from me anyway. :-D What of it's not it?

I'll have you know I can do it very well! I hope the naked ladies are listening.

I will always get about in trust, despite having had it shaken to the ground.

I am reminded of your position: "Life cannot be harmed". In a way I admire it, even though in doing so it's as though I'll have to watch your back for you! lol That life need not be harmed isn't 'safe' enough a position for you I suppose.

No. Everything is not nothing in particular. Utterly nonsensical. The part not defining the whole, even in part? The whole, as you conceive it, is finite. Thank goodness it's not your conception alone! :-D

That is the only qualifying part of your description of reality! lol This posted reply here belongs to the future of yours there, effected by yours truly, fashioned no less, despite it. :-D Effects are fashioned in the future because they are fashioned in the moment. You are a drag on the future el dopo. Not necessarily though. I'll give you that!

 

I am curiously relieved because I don't think you will get the answer you want
from me even though my answers have explained through numerous examples the not it of it. First it must have a value and all that does not meet that value is not it. It stands in relationship to all that is not it and not it helps distinguish what it is as in your statement, "you are not me".

Question thedope;

Answer Dejavu;

What is it then that you do well in contravention of this previous statement?

That position is extrapolated from the position that reality cannot be harmed

You are incorrect as to my conceptions. Any effort to define the whole from perspective of the part is impossible, not the effort but the ability to arrive at the correct definition. Your attempt to assign the moniker of utter nonsense to what I said flows naturally I suppose from you errant speculation about my position.

Any partial definition of wholeness makes the meaning of wholeness obscure.
My meditation is beyond symbols and beyond time limits.

Non-local in the sense that your discretely perceived situation is not the only contributor to your life.

Drag on the future? Slowing time down. Warning warning, alien object approaching! Never fear watch smith is here, this instant is infinite.

 

thedope:

No they haven't.

No. If it is everything that it is, it stands in relation to itself. Everything is not nothing in particular.

Lovemaking, you dope. At least from my perspective! lol

And? It's like your saying the it of it is only it as valued to be such. I value your life. And your extrapolation is fine by me. I don't speak for everyone though even though I want to. To all my family, and allies, I say, make it real!

A 'correct' definiton of the whole! LOL You still don't grasp that definition doesn't stop with description? Infinity. The part does define the whole in part, it's why I can call out certain of your utterances to be the nonsense they are. :-D

Where is your meditation thedope? Simply...beyond? It's in you to meditate! That much I gather.

No, not non-local in that sense whatsoever. :-D

Now the instant is infinite! That's acclaim I can get behind, or ahead of, or into with unplumbed aplomb! lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6ZX5-TkOxA"]dj crystl - meditation - YouTube

 

Describe everything in particular.

Lovely.

A correct definition of the whole, there isn't one is my point from a particular position, but not because the whole is not yet to be but because of limited perspective.

Beyond symbols.

Certainly not in contravention of your solipsistic horizons.

smiles all around

 

"Time cannot exist because motion is an infinite number of instances. Infinity cannot exist in a period of time" - My husband

 

thedope:

Everything describes itself. For me to do it would be a life sentence! When I say I want to speak for everyone, it is only that everyone may speak for themselves! Metaphysician, heal... all else! :-D

The whole is yet to be whole thedope. Infinity can't not be infinite.

Sure, but you also say it's beyond time limits. Is your meditation time itself? :-D




Sappho:

"Infinity exists instantly, as motion itself, allowing all time existence." - Eternity ( the nakedest lady if I may say so ) ;-D

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsLazV6XX94"]Jonny L - This Time (Cool Dub) - YouTube

 

Not everything explains or gives account of something by giving details of it's characteristics. Not everything characterizes somebody or something by labeling or typifying. Not everything draws a shape and not everything represents something pictorially or with a model.

 

Glad you got that off your chest. Now can we go back to letting everything describe itself? That is, if you're not going to get in on the act?!
:-D

 

Did you see that thing?

 

Sorry, yes of course I did thedope. It must be all that foggy nonsense about non-local reality you've been laying about my head.

 

I didn't. I wonder if it could describe itself to me?

 

I would say that yet again consciousness transcends time if you can see a future that has not yet occurred.

 

How can you see something that has not yet occurred, and by definition may never occur? You may imagine it, conceive of it, envisage it, envision it, or any number of synonyms....but you cannot see that which is not, and which may not come to be.

 

I agree that there is no future to see but then again seeing is a work of the mind. To envisage means to foresee or visualize and to envision is to picture something mentally. So I say that at least one level of consciousness is transcendent of time. Even though there is no extant future we can predict when a spacecraft will intersect a target millions of miles away many years from now.

 

Bullshit. Prediction of the position of a moving body is calculable according to scientific principles. Guessing a future event is not.

More pseudo-intellectual stuff that is as real as sparrow milk or rabbit feathers.

 

I said nothing with pseudo meaning, I mean what I say.
I said nothing about guessing a future event, in the same turn however
that scientific prediction may not hold true. Something untoward may happen to the spacecraft on it's journey. There is no guaranty of a future. There is a statistical possibility that the earth will suffer a cosmic collision. There is no extant future nor can we produce the past, both are constructs of living tissue involved with extant materials. Scientific principles are developed through the intent of mind. Knowing the effective parameters of this moment allows us to influence or take advantage of current emergence in an ongoing basis. It is not a matter of predicting future events, there are no future events. The only eventful moment is now.

 

What an unmitigated crate of sputum.... "scientific principles are developed through the intent of the mind"? Ah, of course. So Newton DID invent gravity.

I'm sorry thedope, but you are a LONG way out of your depth.