|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 15:53:34 GMT -5
I can't find anything outside of what's happening now. Thinking about yesterday or tomorrow is still happening now. See last post above. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:17:15 GMT -5
Yes. Not thinking of past and future is what it means to be present. In your opinion for you maybe but not for me. amit amit, I just read your post, the time says you wrote it 50 minutes ago. The words you wrote go back many years, you don't even remember when you learned the meaning of the words. Those words and the meaning necessarily exist in the past. You couldn't draw on their use unless they existed in the past in your memory, in your neural structure (have you ever tried to learn a second language?, you'll understand what I mean). So a word is a copy of an event, a description of an event. Imagine sitting with a blind friend, you are watching a tennis match and are describing to your friend the action. The action is, yes, in the present moment. But the description of the action cannot coincide simultaneously with the action, necessarily. Likewise, any time language is used there is the same problem. The time factor can be narrowed, but language is always a copy, time is always a factor. This is what E and ZD (and some others) are continually pointing out....in that.........most of us live with this internal inner dialogue going on in the head. Therefore, almost invariably, if you are thinking, you are not in the present moment (psychologically, experientially, subjectively), even though the events happening in the brain are happening in the present moment. Likewise, reading this post, subjectively, you are not in the present moment (unless you are). ...........Seeing the difference is why it's so cool to...actually...be...in...the...present...moment. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Feb 11, 2015 16:21:56 GMT -5
I can't find anything outside of what's happening now. Thinking about yesterday or tomorrow is still happening now. See last post above. If I count to ten in my head, it's only ever happening now. I'm not sure if I'm missing the point entirely here (not enough sleep and haven't eaten breakfast  ) |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 11, 2015 16:29:51 GMT -5
In your opinion for you maybe but not for me. amit amit, I just read your post, the time says you wrote it 50 minutes ago. The words you wrote go back many years, you don't even remember when you learned the meaning of the words. Those words and the meaning necessarily exist in the past. You couldn't draw on their use unless they existed in the past in your memory, in your neural structure (have you ever tried to learn a second language?, you'll understand what I mean). So a word is a copy of an event, a description of an event. Imagine sitting with a blind friend, you are watching a tennis match and are describing to your friend the action. The action is, yes, in the present moment. But the description of the action cannot coincide simultaneously with the action, necessarily. Likewise, any time language is used there is the same problem. The time factor can be narrowed, but language is always a copy, time is always a factor. This is what E and ZD (and some others) are continually pointing out....in that.........most of us live with this internal inner dialogue going on in the head. Therefore, almost invariably, if you are thinking, you are not in the present moment (psychologically, experientially, subjectively), even though the events happening in the brain are happening in the present moment. Likewise, reading this post, subjectively, you are not in the present moment (unless you are). ...........Seeing the difference is why it's so cool to...actually...be...in...the...present...moment. Why are you telling me what you think I experience? Cant you see the absurdity of that without considering that you might be projecting something of relevance for you which has nothing to do with my context whatsoever? amit |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:37:10 GMT -5
I'm saying there is a key you haven't mentioned.  Why bother telling me there's something I haven't mentioned unless you intend to mention it? Did you ever go on an Easter egg hunt as a kid? (or give one). What's the most important thing to do? Count the eggs before you hide them, that's the only way to know if all the kids have found all the eggs, or not. I'm just saying one egg is missing. I don't care if you hunt for it or not. (But it's pretty obvious, once it's obvious, like finding the last egg). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:41:39 GMT -5
amit, I just read your post, the time says you wrote it 50 minutes ago. The words you wrote go back many years, you don't even remember when you learned the meaning of the words. Those words and the meaning necessarily exist in the past. You couldn't draw on their use unless they existed in the past in your memory, in your neural structure (have you ever tried to learn a second language?, you'll understand what I mean). So a word is a copy of an event, a description of an event. Imagine sitting with a blind friend, you are watching a tennis match and are describing to your friend the action. The action is, yes, in the present moment. But the description of the action cannot coincide simultaneously with the action, necessarily. Likewise, any time language is used there is the same problem. The time factor can be narrowed, but language is always a copy, time is always a factor. This is what E and ZD (and some others) are continually pointing out....in that.........most of us live with this internal inner dialogue going on in the head. Therefore, almost invariably, if you are thinking, you are not in the present moment (psychologically, experientially, subjectively), even though the events happening in the brain are happening in the present moment. Likewise, reading this post, subjectively, you are not in the present moment (unless you are). ...........Seeing the difference is why it's so cool to...actually...be...in...the...present...moment. Why are you telling me what you think I experience? Cant you see the absurdity of that without considering that you might be projecting something of relevance for you which has nothing to do with my context whatsoever? amit Your answer indicates you don't understand what I wrote. That's the curious part. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 11, 2015 16:41:52 GMT -5
amit, I just read your post, the time says you wrote it 50 minutes ago. The words you wrote go back many years, you don't even remember when you learned the meaning of the words. Those words and the meaning necessarily exist in the past. You couldn't draw on their use unless they existed in the past in your memory, in your neural structure (have you ever tried to learn a second language?, you'll understand what I mean). So a word is a copy of an event, a description of an event. Imagine sitting with a blind friend, you are watching a tennis match and are describing to your friend the action. The action is, yes, in the present moment. But the description of the action cannot coincide simultaneously with the action, necessarily. Likewise, any time language is used there is the same problem. The time factor can be narrowed, but language is always a copy, time is always a factor. This is what E and ZD (and some others) are continually pointing out....in that.........most of us live with this internal inner dialogue going on in the head. Therefore, almost invariably, if you are thinking, you are not in the present moment (psychologically, experientially, subjectively), even though the events happening in the brain are happening in the present moment. Likewise, reading this post, subjectively, you are not in the present moment (unless you are). ...........Seeing the difference is why it's so cool to...actually...be...in...the...present...moment. Why are you telling me what you think I experience? Cant you see the absurdity of that without considering that you might be projecting something of relevance for you which has nothing to do with my context whatsoever? amit But to respond to your point about the present moment. If there is a resonance that there is only the present moment, whatever the content of that moment might be, it will always be in the present moment. I fully accept that is not how you have described it for yourself. amit |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 11, 2015 16:42:41 GMT -5
Why bother telling me there's something I haven't mentioned unless you intend to mention it? Did you ever go on an Easter egg hunt as a kid? (or give one). What's the most important thing to do? Count the eggs before you hide them, that's the only way to know if all the kids have found all the eggs, or not. I'm just saying one egg is missing. I don't care if you hunt for it or not. (But it's pretty obvious, once it's obvious, like finding the last egg). What is that key? amit |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:44:03 GMT -5
If I count to ten in my head, it's only ever happening now. I'm not sure if I'm missing the point entirely here (not enough sleep and haven't eaten breakfast ) Read my responses to amit.....they are my response to you. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 11, 2015 16:45:24 GMT -5
Why are you telling me what you think I experience? Cant you see the absurdity of that without considering that you might be projecting something of relevance for you which has nothing to do with my context whatsoever? amit Your answer indicates you don't understand what I wrote. That's the curious part. O.K amit |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 11, 2015 16:46:45 GMT -5
If I count to ten in my head, it's only ever happening now. I'm not sure if I'm missing the point entirely here (not enough sleep and haven't eaten breakfast ) You're not missing anything that I can see. It's always now, even when we're thinking of the past or the future.  Time is just borrowed presence. It just so happens that nature has extended humanity an overabundant credit line.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:47:59 GMT -5
Why are you telling me what you think I experience? Cant you see the absurdity of that without considering that you might be projecting something of relevance for you which has nothing to do with my context whatsoever? amit But to respond to your point about the present moment. If there is a resonance that there is only the present moment, whatever the content of that moment might be, it will always be in the present moment. I fully accept that is not how you have described it for yourself. amit I would call that a logical, conceptual answer. That's fine. .....and it's good that you see it is not what I have described......... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:48:56 GMT -5
Your answer indicates you don't understand what I wrote. That's the curious part. O.K amit OK. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Feb 11, 2015 16:52:33 GMT -5
But to respond to your point about the present moment. If there is a resonance that there is only the present moment, whatever the content of that moment might be, it will always be in the present moment. I fully accept that is not how you have described it for yourself. amit I would call that a logical, conceptual answer. That's fine. .....and it's good that you see it is not what I have described......... Why is it so difficult to get that what some consider a problem is no problem whatsoever to someone else. amit |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 11, 2015 16:56:20 GMT -5
I would call that a logical, conceptual answer. That's fine. .....and it's good that you see it is not what I have described......... Why is it so difficult to get that what some consider a problem is no problem whatsoever to someone else. amit I would suggest you reply to the OP and say, no problem, I always exist in the present moment........in fact, I don't know what you're talking about. (Sorry if I missed that earlier response). |
|
) 
