Thought is independent of time

thedope:

You're positive? :-D Form is self-defining, not 'negatively' defined from without.

That second sentence there. The future is not? Yet to come? Or not yet to come?
I'll take your comma to be a comma until you tell me it isn't, or edit it into a full stop. Not that it makes any diference! lol

Well, it's not remote. About it being non-local, how far out are you after all?

You saw disincorporation without it being the last thing you ever saw?! I'm just kidding, I know it's never seen. How to reincorporate you into the land of the living after such a vision I wonder... kidding again, I'll stop wondering, at least for you. Consciousness has no need, no desire to transcend the physical, despite what you as an individual see fit as 'intent'. The mind loves its embodiment. If you feel differently, then seek the minds that don't. They love you.

Don't hear him on this Greengrassofhome! lol All I ever get from him on this is static! :-D

The whole has never stopped being in definition. How couldn't the part define it?


Wolf:

You might be able to, but I can't, not seeing how they suggest it at all. There's life beyond death all right, so long as you don't die.

 

No I am not kidding. What question have I not answered? Do you have some specific point to make other than you don't like what I say?
Could you be specific? What is your argument, simply that you are better than me?

 

I've made my points, with more specificity than you can conceive.

And where, exactly, did I assert that I was "better than" you? What I proved (not asserted; proved) was that you can't deal with concrete issues or with facts. You run and hide behind a wall of meaningless pseudo-philosophy, and if anyone calls you on it you wail that they are doing that which they are not-ie, you accuse me of asserting superiority when I did no such thing.

I don't intend to degenerate into your frankly absurd parsing of posts and your sliding away from meeting an alternate proposition head-on. But I will say this: I don't doubt you have something worthwhile to say. I just wish you'd say it, and not adopt such useless circumlocution that confuses the many and frustrates the rest.

 

thedope:

I'm herein you on this. I'm still me though. Motion is spacetime, yes, but here is yet to be here despite it already being here. Motion. Would you have the future drawn down to the present? Or do you love the future? Are you unafraid to realize the imaginary? Are you, as some of us travellers sometimes say, a friend to the future? If so, you will go to it! :-D

 

If you mean optimistic in general, yes. Negative space is the not it of it. It is not negative in the sense of not existing but in the sense of not conforming to a specific form. Your form and a rocks form are not the same. The form of a rock occupies space that you as a physical creature/form, do not/cannot occupy at the same time. At the same time however the experiential conjugations of rock are to us a substantial content of our life.

The future is an expression of current considerations. No difference can be made in the future. To have a different future we make a different choice in the present.

Beyond symbols.

I said nothing of need or desire. I said consciousness does transcend time.

He seems to be of his own opinion. Are you looking for allies? I am not.
There is nothing amiss or missing from the broadcast of reality. I don't give you static. I give you a consistent statement which you do not appreciate. It is not a station you care to tune into which is alright by me but I am less amenable to the thought that you might find me detrimental company to anyone.

Because parts, forms, do stop being, in part.



Wolf:

There is life beyond death. My wife died, I have not.

 

To who?

"I could eat alphabet soup and shit better arguments than the abject rubbish that you post."

You make an unsubstantiated claim and I reported your statements accurately. The record is clear.

When a person says someone is wise it is his own illumination that he sees, a recognition. The same is true of those who find others ignorant. I do not speak to confound. If there is something you do not comprehend in what I say, then ask for clarification, I am not a mind reader.

The only alternate proposition that you had offered until this quote is that I am full of shit. Do you mean that I did not meet an alternate proposition head on because I didn't tell you to fuck off?

 

I can see your conception. Here is not yet to be here, here is always here. Your level of anticipation gives you the impression that you are yet to be as you desire more. I have no concept of without. I have everything I want always. There is no question of more, no anticipation of more. Gratitude overwhelms my sense of longing for. Our hopes and dreams may or may not materialize in time but what will be done, is done.

I know she loves me all I gotta do is worry about standing up.

A child loves. A cock loves to strut it's stuff. A craftsman loves to ply his trade. A god loves to give it all away.

Let there be.

Having and being are the same truth.

 

thedope:

There's no hoodwinking me there thedope. What of it's not it?

lol :-D Your arguments are abject rubbish, even if you're not! It is as though you expect me to bend to your expression, your 'treatment' of words, when my own expression incorporates more. :-D All form conforms to its specifics. Form is its specifics. The stumbling block for you is motion. No need to show you where or how, or even why. As you were, thedope.

"No difference can be made in the future" he says! lol Abjection, your honour!

Oh? So what's all this from you I hear about the non-locality of reality?

Well it doesn't, not needing or wanting to. Consciousness doesn't transcend the body of individuals. What it does want is to become its own time.

lol Nothing consistent about it whatsoever! You on the other hand... everyone who accompanies us in any way towards our own expression is an ally. Yes, the flame wants fuel. But beware the damp rag! lol

And in whole? No. Definition does not stop with its definitions.

No, what will be done, will be done. Everyone loves to get ahead of themselves, but do so lovingly, not only wilfully and you'll meet me in expressing our will. Here is yet to be here, always being here. I'm happy for you, if you'd like me to be.

lol

I was with you until you got to god. lol And receded even further with away.

Done.

And becoming? Desiring?

 

Hoodwinking is not on my list of things to do and I rarely even feel like flirting.
A cow is not a horse. Cow equals not it and horse equals it. A blanket is not a car. The car being it and the blanket being not it.

You yourself say you are not me and this is a negation, not an affirmation. Form is defined by negative space even by you.
We live in a world of reflected light and in order to distinguish one light from all light a shadow is cast.

My arguments?
Be specific. I don't expect to you to bend to my expression but you behave exactly as I have described claiming a form by virtue of negative space. "I am not you." And here we have the claim that you are greater than I, "when my own expression incorporates more." If incorporation in time is our truest measure then I have many years on you dear one.

I understand exactly that our form is an identity consistent to our emergence but the perception of separate individual, separate organization, relies on the shutting out of much information. As you describe it, I can't see. Then there is the state of mind called focus where all other subjects are left idle while you lend yourself to specificity.

It is not words that I rely on Dejavu for my definitions in life. Words are symbols of conditions. I describe my familiarity with our states of mind.
Your words incorporate more what Dejavu?

The stumbling block is only the mote you inadvertently bring with you in your blindness. I see very well. There is no need for you but you seem to be needy of it. I am grateful for it.

Who's judgment do you defer to? What difference can be made in the future?

You don't remember? Here it is still, reality is non-local, nor is it remote.

Simply, we share our thoughts. Knowledge is being shared.

I have said the same thing over and over without variation despite your consistent objection to it.

I prefer family. Alliances have a tendency to change allegiance.

 

for thought to be dependent upon time, one would have to be only capable of it at certain times or kinds of times. this does not appear for the most part to be the case.

i suspect what the op wished to discus was neither thought nor time, though to be more specific is a bit unclear.

 

Definition ends with the end of description.

Another way to say what I mean is what is willed to happen does happen. What is wished for often does not.

I play you so predictably. You seek to save, I only spend.

They are just so.

 

Between cradle and the grave is a fairly specific time of it being capable... I already brought up the example of a baby needs to learn to walk before that becomes an unconscious thought process, and we can see the deteroriation of that process often in the elderly.

But even within more obvious activities of conscious thought, the baby is going to need time to learn the foundations of math before it can learn algebra. The philosophy major in college is likely to clear space in their memory banks and forget much of what they learned in the one semester of Home Economics in HS to focus on the information presented in their major.

Much of what we do, learn, and think has to be reinforced VIA repetition and time before it seemingly just 'comes to us.'

 

This is not an assertion that I am "better than you". It is an attack on your posts. For all I know you are the love child of Ghandi and Mother Theresa. Your inability to distinguish between in personam attacks, and attacks on content, illustrates well your argumentative weaknesses.

yes. It is clear that you are struggling.

The usual psycho-babble inanities.

Indeed that is precisely NOT what I said. I said I thought you had something worthwhile to say. And at least telling me to fuck off is comprehensible, unlike the gibberish you usually write.

 

Your statement was,

and I asked you if that is your only argument, that you could present a better one?

Why don't you answer the question, provide a better argument for whatever it is you are arguing for? It seems the only thing you are arguing for is that you consider what I say as full of shit. On what reasonable basis?

This statement communicates nothing that I can quantify, an entirely subjective metric.

And I said "The only alternate proposition that you had offered until this quote..."

You don't address what I write with any clarity beyond your generalized characterizations, i.e. "the gibberish you usually write". The only thing clear about that complaint is that I write what you are complaining about but your complaint contains no specificity that I can debate. That is with the exception that you don't like my style of speaking. To that complaint I say
if you don't understand something ask for clarification.

 

Fine, then try to think something that doesn't take time.

 

thedope, I shall not stoop to parsing your posts and individually stripping them, as you do to mine. Your re- and mis-interpretations are evident. Your arguments are not.

 

thedope:

Come on thedope, you always feel like jumping in wherever I post. I've got nothing against it. I asked what of it's not it. Not whether your various examples of it are the same, as examples.

That's differentiation, not negation shadow-man! Form is self-defining. You will never define negative space. I should never have asked you to. lol

More expression. To be specific, they allow more movement for others expression around them. It certainly doesn't make me better than you, but different, to say the least. An example, your "Here is not yet to be here, here is always here" compared to my "Here is yet to be here, always being here". My expression incorporates more, while not cancelling yours out, at least not in full.

Thanks thedope, but nothing is preventing me seeing nothing. To the point though, or mote if you like, how is it you can't see that motion is not the instant itself? Is it anything like how I see that it is?

Every difference, if you are truly allowing all difference to be made here in the present. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I pronounce this man innocent! Of all charges of perspicacity! :-D

Yes, you keep saying it and think it consistent because you can consistently keep saying it. But it is not consistent, in your never demonstrating reality to be non-local.

Well, you've got me there. Save for how simply. Some of us, while arguably not sharing 'better' than others, are more aware that sharing is what they are doing. lol
I've got nothing against stooping to be understood. As for understanding however....

No need to be obfuscatory. I have never objected to your saying anything, no matter how repetitive. Nor do I even object to your not seeing how my replies make your repetition boring! I do object to boredom though. I am prejudiced that way. lol

It's good to see you showing some preference for a change! lol But is your family then not an alliance, but a reliance?

No, that's only yours with your own.

Can you expand a little on the distinction you make here?

Says the christian! lol No, I don't want to be spared lifes expenditure. You have to admit your finding me predictable is not without its surprises. I am not the instrument you think I am, being my own ongoing instrumental.

lol But not having, not being?

 

Well not always Dejavu. Sometimes you are enough said for me. I am one not it of the it that is you.

I don't view you as different but the same.
As a matter of perception of form, form is not self defining. You must interpret form at a distance.

This is an example of form being defined by negative space taken from a dictionary I did not write that illustrates exactly what I am referring to;


negative staining

n
biological staining: staining of an area around a biological subject, rather than the subject itself, so that the subject can be clearly seen against it.

I don't get the same calculations from your statement. The first part of it, "here is yet to be here" makes no sense. Here has never been anywhere else and will never be anywhere else.

I made no such claim of a lack of vision. I made no claim that motion is not an instant. Like I said, the mote is something you brought with you

Then the difference is not fashioned in the future and I pronounce this man tongue tied.

What locality is real to the exception of any other locality? Can you give me the location of everywhere, other than to say here?

I do bring out your darker side.

Your replies are just not all that. I do apologize however as it was to the hearing of what I say that you objected, not that I said it. Static was the claim and of course you would be bored with anything that doesn't polish your nob, that is we find those most agreeable whom we agree with. I am observant that way.

My family are those who do their own will. Then yes I can rely on it.

It is so for everyone. What definition can you pass without description?

Will is the process of making decisions.
Wish is to have a strong desire. To have a desire for something is not the same as attaining something and desire lends the experience of desiring.

You are a fountain of life.
The measure you give is the measure you receive. Giving is the demonstration of having and giving away is to bless it on it's journey. Away means without strings attached, free flowing. God/good loves to be demonstrated in everyone's life. I chose both the word god and the word away with the
perspicacity you would claim me liberated from, expecting you to comment as you did to satisfy my sense of humor.

Becoming and desire are not the same. We are becoming, that we have, having and being the same truth. Desiring gives the experience of desire. We are not always desiring. Acceptance gives the experience of satisfaction.
To desire being is like being unaware that you are sharing.

As to the point of the thread as always, consciousness is timely but the time it chooses to take is optional.

 

thedope:

Now you're just using us as an example. One more time. What of it's not it?

All knowledge is perceived thedope. As a matter of perceiving form, form is nevertheless self-defining.

What negative space? Wait, forget I asked. I will not be accused of being a human spitball.

It makes perfect sense. Here is always here, thus it is always yet to be here. Its having yet to be here does not make it anything other than here. If here is not yet to be here, what is? Nothing you say? Nothing but here you mean! Motion is key thedope. You won't see the light without it. I'll take you through the motions a final time. As you say, here has never been anywhere else, and will never be anywhere else, but that is because it is yet to be here, not ceasing to be here. Do you see, yet? :-D

Since it's something you can see, but I apparently can't, can you tell me what it is?

This man clearly knows not what he says your graces! He pronounces that no difference is made in the future, yet I am here now, ahead of his pronouncement, differing with it, and unable to do otherwise. I do not mean for my tongue to runneth without warrant, but here be a man whose innocence precedes him!

There is no locality that is real to the exception of any other, but that doesn't make reality anything more or less than local! lol

Sure you do thedope. What was it you said you were? Familar with all forms of human depravity wasn't it? lol

And what about the slaves, those who do the will of others? Are they reliably free to your familiarity also?

None, but then I am not the whole. I don't doubt your potential to speak for everyone, but I can't see how you can speak for everything. What end of description?

Will is decision but not desire? I can't see how. It's this blindness of mine thedope. The mote you see. That I don't.

I'm beginning to agree with meagain! I'm never one to say stay on topic, finding everything to be on topic, but let's at least let him catch up :-D

And now for something completely different.