The End of Time - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T05:30:49Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/the-end-of-time?feed=yes&xn_auth=no"Motion is context. We, human…tag:theosophy.net,2009-10-29:3055387:Comment:208832009-10-29T05:04:29.249ZMikhayl Von Riebonhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MikhaylVonRiebon
"Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms,lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction." - in relation to this, i probably dont understand enough of what you mean.<br />
<br />
however i would ask exactly how is 'movement' and 'a change of context' different? if we can't perceive the former then it is just a concept like 'time'. are you implying that there is some 'movement' outside of…
"Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms,lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction." - in relation to this, i probably dont understand enough of what you mean.<br />
<br />
however i would ask exactly how is 'movement' and 'a change of context' different? if we can't perceive the former then it is just a concept like 'time'. are you implying that there is some 'movement' outside of perception? id be delighted if you could perhaps go into more detail. Define old?tag:theosophy.net,2009-10-22:3055387:Comment:205872009-10-22T01:04:07.112ZRichard Sillikerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardSilliker
Define old?
Define old? I watched the video twice so…tag:theosophy.net,2009-10-22:3055387:Comment:205852009-10-22T00:44:19.064ZRichard Sillikerhttps://theosophy.net/profile/RichardSilliker
I watched the video twice so that I could get a better "feel" for the subject. He is right about time it is indeed a concept. Though I am uncertain to his definition of motion, motion certainly exists. Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms, lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction. All experience is polymorphic, however our inability to "see" both change in context…
I watched the video twice so that I could get a better "feel" for the subject. He is right about time it is indeed a concept. Though I am uncertain to his definition of motion, motion certainly exists. Motion is context. We, humans and other rational paradigms, lack the capacity to sense movement. It is the change of context that we "see" and it is the binding of sensory flow that allows for abstraction. All experience is polymorphic, however our inability to "see" both change in context (motion) and bind the flow (movement) of information concurrently into an abstraction leads us to believe that experience is linear. We miss things because "we sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained". Countless others possibilities do exist it just that they are inexpressed. Inexpression is defined as those attributes of points that lie undisclosed within a given density As to snap shots of "now" having "structure", how about using "context" instead. The "now" is the event horizon. He seems to only describe hal…tag:theosophy.net,2009-10-20:3055387:Comment:205022009-10-20T06:00:09.971ZMikhayl Von Riebonhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MikhaylVonRiebon
He seems to only describe half the problem. if there is no awareness of time, then there is no awareness of change and thus no awareness of space or division for that matter. (infact awareness of anything seems to be somewhat integral altogether) so why Barbour claims that there are 'separate' platonia or 'instances' is beyond me. this separation seems to require another explanation. really this seems to just be a rekindling of leibniz' Monad. i would also question whether or not these really…
He seems to only describe half the problem. if there is no awareness of time, then there is no awareness of change and thus no awareness of space or division for that matter. (infact awareness of anything seems to be somewhat integral altogether) so why Barbour claims that there are 'separate' platonia or 'instances' is beyond me. this separation seems to require another explanation. really this seems to just be a rekindling of leibniz' Monad. i would also question whether or not these really are view shared by nagarjuna. from what i recall nagarjuna attempted to make no propositions at all, and that was the basis for his arguments against those that had. Very well done-tag:theosophy.net,2009-07-08:3055387:Comment:152252009-07-08T09:41:01.303ZDaniel W. Newellhttps://theosophy.net/profile/DanielWNewell
<b>Very well done-</b>
<b>Very well done-</b> Does this mean I'll stop gett…tag:theosophy.net,2009-07-03:3055387:Comment:150012009-07-03T22:18:08.744ZCharles Cosimanohttps://theosophy.net/profile/CharlesCosimano
Does this mean I'll stop getting old?
Does this mean I'll stop getting old?