A form of time must exist!

Deneb #3

When I was younger in the 1980′s I use to ask the question:”do we find ourselves in dream.” Because, if life is everlasting on Other Side, therefore we are dead, or just here to experience life. I was so glad to find Sylvia Browne who could validate my thoughts…That we are here to to learn for God what “He already knows.” Because as you know in life there is nothing like experiencing in the flesh. So since we are part of God, all the experience’s goes back to God, which therefore helps perfect our soul. The statement written by Sylvia Browne, Novus Spiritus Philosophy,” He/She already knows,” is the complete answer. Sylvia Browne mentions in her book Temple Of The Other Side, The Temple of Azna (Our Mother Goddess), “We are like a Molecule of God’s body.” “God experience’s what we experienced, what we experiencing now, and what we will experience is already residing with-in God (HE/SHE)”. As A Gnostic Christian, an Essene, we see God as Yin & Yang … We have a Mother God and Father God. Which Create God. Father God is Intellect Mother God is Emotion. We need to have a balance in life of the intellect and emotion. Too much intellect will lack emotion. Too much emotion will lack intellect. Sylvia, adds that it is important to ask God daily for your “Intellect and Emotions to be cemented,” which is one of the many “Tools for Protection,” we use. So YES Life always was. Not here on earth, though we have traveled and experience life on different planets. Though most of us here reading this IS in our last life.

Gordan, I really like your thoughts on this, I’ll try not to steal them now…………. It’s been long recognized by science that time is a function of movement,… that is,.. physical movement of solid physical matter. And of course we measure time by this movement (the earth orbiting the sun, etc). But the advent of Einstein’s E=Mc2 really shook up the world. If this mind-blowing solution, derived from elegant and seemingly flawless equations could be proven correct, it meant that energy and physical mass are the same thing. Physical mass could be looked upon as very dense energy,…. all is energy. As soon as the first atomic bomb was exploded, it proved beyond any doubt that Einstein was correct, all “is” energy. So you see the relation to time is unavoidable, because physical movement “is” time as we know it. And of course this paradox, if that’s what it is, became famous from Einstein’s widely publicized… “time slows down approaching the speed of light”….. extension of E=Mc2. And this has been proven to be true through various methods, including an atomic clock traveling at 600mph in a jet was able to register a time variant, even at that speed………… So if time is nothing more than physical matter in motion, and physical matter is nothing more than condensed energy, then what does this tell us about the nature of time? One thing is unarguable, you can not call time an illusion, unless you call physical matter an illusion. And this “is” the great stumbling block for many, and for good reason. After all, can something be an illusion if everyone feels it and experiences it constantly? So far I haven’t given you a single opinion of my own, and I’m not going to offer much. Just this;…. in my opinion the word “illusion” is harsh, and used with careless abandon at times. Without being very precise in what you mean when using that word, then by extension you must also say that all of creation is an illusion. But very few have the gonads to come right out and say that, I know I certainly don’t. As the Buddhist’s are famous for saying,…”everything is true some of the time, and nothing is true all of the time” (time pun not intentional)

Deneb#11 I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that what folks here are discussing is not linear time, that is, physical matter in motion. Then are we dismissing what even defines the word “time”? If you don’t define time as matter in motion, then what we’re talking about is a concept that is not “time” in the English language. So I ask the question;…….. is what we’re talking about here “time” as it is known and understood, or another concept where the word “time” has been superimposed with a different meaning. All the paradoxes of time have been used as exercises for the mind in every university in the modern world for decades. But I’ve never heard of anyone devising a new definition for the word. But if that’s what we’re doing here,….. PLEASE…. clue me in, I’m intrigued.

Gordon, I reread your piece. When you said that “linear time is an illusion”, I didn’t take it to mean that you think matter in motion is not real. By common definition the word illusion denounces the reality of the object in question. When talking about this subject it has become common to use the word illusion loosely, or casually. When you made that statement, I took it to mean you were saying that linear time is not as it appears to us, when it is seen at a higher and unlimited perspective. But were you actually saying that it is not real and does not exist? I’ve seen various terms in this discussion that are not defined, so I made certain assumptions. My understanding of the term “linear time” is that it denotes no gaps, no leap-frogging. Non-linear time having been discovered theoretically through Quantum mechanical equation, and somewhat substantiated by observed detection of subatomic particles. When I said I liked what you wrote, I thought you were talking figuratively, not literally. Now, I’m no longer sure I know exactly what anybody here is talking about. I don’t want to repeat myself, so I’ll end it here. But I would like to know exactly what is implied by the major terms in use, and if they are employed literally, or figuratively. Because I’m wondering if there is something being discussed here that I’ve missed altogether.

Lots of questions, and not enough time to answer them all tonight, so expect further posts from me tomorrow.

Definitions, always a good idea. By “linear time” I mean time as perceived by human beings to form a sequence or “line” from one “time” to the next, as opposed to other alternatives, all of which would be “non-linear”, such as experiencing multiple times at once, all time as one eternal Now.

The definition of time as related to matter in motion is great in physics since one is chiefly concerned with measuring time, and one measures the passage of time by tracking matter as it moves.

But the physical definition does not take into account perception of time. In fact, the view of time in mechanical physics treats time as a parameter, a dimension, but there is not much in the way of a description of the “nowness” of time in physics. In general relativity, time is another dimension of spacetime, but again little notion of the conscious perception of a NOW moment, or even a difference in character between the “past” and the “future”… in fact in both mechanical physics and Einstein’s physics, time is completely reversible. You could run time in reverse. The basic physics is insensitive the directionality of time. In other words mechanical physics is about reversible processes.

In order to get the directionality of time, you need to look at the physics or chemistry of entropy, which always increases. This gives us the notion of the arrow of time. With this arrow of time, and time as a linear parameter in physical equations, we’re pretty much set for mathematical notion of what we would call linear time.

I would suggest that you get more of a sense of “now” when you start looking the quantum theory, because quantum theory is all about the collapse of probabilities into actual observations, which seems to capture the essence of an undetermined future coalescing into a concrete past, at this magical turning point called the Now. But this takes us beyond the known, delineated concepts of time used in physics and gets us more into speculating about the interpretations of quantum theory.

So when I say “linear time is an illusion” what I mean is that this notion of a “now” moment that moves along a timeline from past to future is not fundamental to the physics of the universe.

Then what is the notion of linear time if it is not fundamental to the physics of the universe, well I would suggest that it is a property of consciousness: conscious beings focusing on a particular sequence of events, seeing cause and effect, being an actor exercising free will and seeing the impact of that.

Back to the CD analogy… the mathematical description of the universe exists as a supercomplicated function in the mind of God. That’s the CD collection. Conscious beings have ways of entering into parts of this supercomplicated function as experiencers, where they then start to experience successive now moments.

Now back to Deneb’s question. Let’s say we experience this ascension thing, and pass through it. Then we look back on it. Is it “done” or is it “still happening”? If it is “still happening” is it happening to us or to someone else?

I don’t really know, I think that is a really hard question to answer. What have channels said about this?

Seth, the entity channeled by Jane Roberts, spoke extensively about this issue. He says that the soul contains many parts, and that the parts do exist simultaneously. But he also said in one part of his many works… and I will try to track down the reference … that there are other parts of each one’s own soul that are “behind” you in time, and other parts that are “ahead” of you in time. Let’s say I was a Roman soldier in a past life. If I interact with that past life now, although I’m interacting with myself, it’s a different part of my soul than the one I am identified with now. It’s a different Roman soldier. That other part has his own independent existence and will in his future, one day, be Gordon in 2010. However the world that he experiences will be a result of the choices that he and his contempararies make, so it might be much different or more advanced than the “current” 2010 that we know.

I think that is all a bit mind-boggling myself, but if you consider that Seth also talks about multiple parallel lives simultaneously, and a veritable plethora of probable selves in addition, then I guess parallel personas stretching back into the misty dawn of time is just blowing circuits that were already blown.

My view tends to follow Seth’s except that I’d add the element of focus in consciousness. Instead of looking at all parallel realities, and all past lives, as equally vivid and real, I tend to draw a distinction between the lives that exist “only on disk” and the lives that are experienced or played back. I think the difference is the focus of consciousness and will. My viewpoint is that Seth is talking about the full CD collection, but seems to imply that it is all living and breathing fully, all all the same time, all now, all evolving, all changing, all growing.

I just can’t handle that much all at once and hence my story of the soul putting varying amounts of energy into different realities, timeframes, so that probable realities are not ALL fully realized. But that could just be my little monkey matrix putting a limit on the greatness and grandness of God.

Gordon, I appreciate your posts, your reply, and your knowledge of this general subject, which is clearly greater than mine. It seems as though I should give up trying to discover the predominate camp, or point of view within this discussion. Maybe it’s out of place, and it’s only me who needs this in order to contribute anything coherent here. For me to try to communicate my vision of higher reality from a place in my mind that is a much broader perspective than what I inhabit, and to do it concisely and in short order, would be a hell of a trick if I could pull it off. As much as I would like to contribute something, I think for now I should remain the observer and perhaps make inquiries if I may.—————————————Question;….. when you say that linear time is not fundamental to the physics of the universe, it seems to me that this is predicated on the Now Moment having no flow, but is an instant in the Mind of God. If this Now Moment is not a singularity in the Mind of God, it seems to me that the aforementioned concept begins to fall apart. And if you are saying that it is a singularity, how are we to grasp it in a meaningful way? I other words, where is the progression, or I should say delineation. Where do we go from there?——————————————–Question; You say that linear time is a function of consciousness. Is there anything that isn’t? If everything came from a single point of consciousness, then everything that exists must be a form or consciousness, or consciousness transformed. I’m not trying to be thick, it’s just that I’m not quite grasping why one function of consciousness is a literal illusion in particular, while others are not. Thank you Gordon so much for what you have contributed here. Bye for now.

Gordon, hello again. Your posts here have been challenging to me because they have hit me square in the face with the fact that there are concepts I have openly welcomed into my mind without bothering to actually process and delineate. You invite me to try to communicate this image in my mind of higher reality, what’s the worse that could happen? Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that I could, if I’m not careful, produce a mass of incoherent dribble and will be too embarrassed to post it. I decided to give it a try thinking I may have to do it in stages. In order to do this I will have to construct as you have suggested, a framework. This framework must be based on the vantage point of this image in my mind that I visit on occasion, as I purposely did last night in bed. So here goes nothing (that was a pun, you’ll get it soon).—————————————————————————————— The opening concept is “non-locality”. It is spoken of down through the centuries by mystics, initiates etc., in particular Buddhists. They try to actually go there (that would be contradictory, wouldn’t it). I’m sure you have heard it referred to as the “void”, or Nirvana. My understanding of non-locality comes primarily from books by Dr. David R. Hawkins. In a very good dictionary, if you look up the word “erudite”, you will see his picture there. I say this so you will realize that when I talk about non-locality, you are not only getting the thumbnail version, you are getting the grade-school version. Non-locality is considered the very essence of God which is unknowable. I think of it in terms of the child quintessentially asking the question; “so what happened before this “Big Bang” thingy?”. Or; “where did consciousness come from?”. When I first encountered this concept “non-locality” many years ago, at first I thought it was synonymous with Omnipresence. But I soon realized that it was in fact the opposite. We can “know” omnipresence because it is the stuff of consciousness, and we are in, of, and are consciousness. But when it comes to non-locality, to quote Dr. Hawkins in his book “Reality and Subjectivity”, I have it right here,; “truth is verifiable only by identity with it and not by merely knowing about it”. In a number of books, etc. over the years I have read of this place, that is, non-place, (the incongruent nature of this subject is a constant annoyance) referred to metaphorically I presumed, as the ultimate reality of God, who is dreaming us and all that exists. And this primary essence of God is unknowable because we at not in it (Damn! there it is again), because we are not of it (that’s a little better). So why do I bring up this mind-numbing enigma? Because it is the vantage point of this image in my mind I have referred to. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t claim to actually go to this no-place (how is it possible to “go” to a no-place), as many Buddhists and others do, I only see it as a construct of my mind that is metaphorical, analogous, and translating. Albeit vivid and fascinating, also beautiful. But difficult to describe coherently. I think I’ll stop now and see if this framework holds up. You Gordon, Deneb, and of course anyone else is invited to “have at” this concept. Suddenly I thought of Dante’s famous quote; “abandon all hope all ye who enter this place”.

Gordon, hello again. I came to a realization last night that was surprising, and it’s somewhat embarrassing to tell you about, but I feel honor bound to tell you rather than make excuses to relieve myself in this situation. When, last night, I again went to that place in my mind where I see images of a great mass of consciousness, from a perspective outside of consciousness, I saw something different as I always do to some extend, because when the focal point changes the image will change to a lesser or greater extent. What I saw this time was something I never noticed before. When I see these images they are almost always hysterical colors and varying intensities of light all in constant motion. The only thing I see that I could describe in some detail would be from the vantage point of what you could call the “cheap seats”. But I’ve become well familiar with the position of the cheap seats for some time now, so I don’t tend to spend much time there, as the image is well-burned into my memory. So mostly I spend time trying to get up close where it becomes confusing and irregular and highly variable depending on what particular thing I’m focusing on. But last night when I got up close, I saw something I never noticed before. When focusing on a field of colors in waves and in motion, somewhat regular and defined, as I have seen many times, It suddenly hit me that I wasn’t seeing motion at all. The effect was similar to motion film which creates the illusion of lifelike scenery in motion. Nothing was actually moving, just transforming constantly giving the appearance of movement. Then it suddenly hit me. This is not “my” mind showing me something new, this is the concept that “you” have been trying to communicate here in your own way. And then something else hit me. Everything I see here I got from someone else at one point or another. This so-called place, this construct of my mind, is nothing more than analytical mind pictures. Just concepts that resonate with me as factual, that I got from someone else, that I paint on a screen in my mind. This realization at first was a stunner, but I knew at once it was true. I’m actually grateful that I came to this realization before I went on to misrepresent myself here. ——————————————————————————–I can’t apologize for this occurrence because I’m glad it happened, but I can apologize for perhaps wasting your time. There is in fact no concept in my mind in regards to this general topic, that isn’t “in the literature”, and I’m sure you’re familiar with more of them than I am. So as you can imagine, I’m not “feeling this” right now, in terms of the topic of discussion in this forum. But since this post has taken the form of a confessional, I think I will tell you something personal, something I never talk about with anyone. It’s related to something you asked me, about if I have experienced what you call “a transcendence”. I’m not sure if I know exactly what you mean by that, but if in general you mean metaphysical experiences, yes I have, quite a few. All of the most intense and prolonged of these experiences occurred when I was a young man, between 1976 and 1981. All of these experiences, which varied a lot, are all well, to very well represented in the literature. Not to belittle their power and life-changing effect, but they did range from common to at least known. The two most intense came from out of the blue…………………. All of a sudden I feel a sudden wave of embarrassment, or something similar. I never, ever talk about these things. But rest assured these are things you are well familiar with I’m sure, either by personal experience or in the literature. I must say, I am most curious to see your reply to this most unusual post I’m making. I’m not sure if any of this is doing you any good, but it has done me good, so I thank you and wish you well until next time Gordon.