Really? You see a lap?? I just see legs and knees and ass... same as before, only bent in the shape of what we call a "lap". As far as seeing time, there are clocks and watches... depicting that which we call time.
No, you don't see your ass, unless your sitting on a mirror and looking at your ass while you're in the process of sitting. Besides, the ass is not considered part of the lap, only the top of the thighs. It's the thing other people sit on dummy! You don't sit on your own lap, you sit on your ass. And you don't see time by looking at a clock, only the measuring of time. A clock is a device used to measure the effects of time. HTML:
Did you just call me a dummy? You're funny. Actually I was envisioning looking at someone else who was sitting down, not myself (you assumed that now, didn't you?), and yes I can see their ass, or parts of their ass, depending on the perspective. And I used the ass as part of the equation because in order to bend in the shape that we call a "lap" we would need to employ the use of an ass. Seeing or not seeing the ass part is irrelevant. There is no such thing as a body part or object called LAP. And I actually never said we see time. If you read my post carefully you will see that I said clocks DEPICT that which we call time. Dummy! LOLOL! Oh, and if you want to debate about which parts of the ass one can see when someone else is sitting down, let me know. We can start with the crack (especially if they're a plumber) and perhaps about 35% of the cheek (right or left, you pick).
Sorry for the dummy part, and yes, I was trying to be funny. Yes, there is such a thing as a body part called LAP, objectively speaking. If you want to step outside of objective speaking then there is no such thing called a leg ... or ass either. It too is just a collection of muscles, bones, sinew, cells, molecules, atoms ... just like a lap is the "front part of the body from the waist to the knees", of which the ASS is not the Front Part of the Body. One does not sit on their LAP ... they sit on their ASS. HTML:
A lap, an ass, time.... all these from one perspective could be said to exist (are real), from another perspective they don't (are not real). Sometimes when communicating about metaphysical concepts it's easy to switch back and forth between the relative and the absolute. And while one person is speaking about the relative the other is speaking about the absolute and so there's no meeting of the minds. Even within the realm of objective experience, a "lap" doesn't endure but only becomes manifest with the act of sitting. In a similar fashion, "time" doesn't endure but only manifests when we are not present, or when we use the concept as a tool for practical earthly concerns. By the way, I'm not insisting that the lap example can be used to perfectly describe the phenomenon of time... although I find the conceptual similarities to be provocative.
I think you've got it here Darrell. Only I'd say the passage of time rather than its effects. Time is as real as everything else.
Understood. However, my intention was to use the word 'effect'. Because the effect of time is space. There would be no space without time to define its dimensions (size / volume). Cause and Effect ... And I don't deny "Time is as real as everything else." Anything and everything one conceptualizes is real to the one conceiving. At least until the truth is realized ... HTML:
I'm not at all sure it's a question of us conceptualizing anything. Time flows by itself without us. Without it there would be no form - therefore no brain to do the conceptualizing.
I agree with you.... that it is absolutely real to the one conceiving until truth is realized. And then when truth is realized, it becomes only relatively real... not absolutely. And that's why I speak of it as not being "real", because I've experienced and have awareness of that dimension of stillness that is beneath time. I call it space sometimes... but it is not measurable space. It is the absence of form.
The error in this kind of thinking is to indicate the 'brain' and 'mind' are the same thing. Again, I agree that "without it there would be ... no brain", but disagree that the brain does the conceptualizing. Mind is not a tangible object (cannot be seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor tasted, nor smelled) like the brain ... it is not the same thing. Mind does the conceptualizing. Mind created everything, including the (known [perceived] and unknown [unperceived]) Universe (big-U). HTML:
The key thing on which we differ is this idea that mind produces everything. I'd say it is produced by a power higher than mind, and antecedent to it.
