Lance, I felt like I was going through a "contraction" today. And the thought came up: "but I just can't stop identifying with the thoughts/image of myself". Like, identification is happening and there's nothing I can do about it! I've lost all understanding/realization! I'm identifying again! Despair! But! I read this essay and thought: the feeling that identification is happening does NOT mean it's actually happening. The idea of "identification" is ridiculous, really.. like WHO's identificating?So I came to the conclusion that identification, like contraction, is not a real process that happens. So, in other words, no "regression in understanding" actually happened. It's just a feeling.
Hello again, Ilona! Thank you as always for reading, your careful consideration, and your comments!
There's a lot that we could unpack and go into great detail on here. Let's jump to the end as you already have the "punch line:"
"...no "regression in understanding" actually happened. It's just a feeling."
This is exactly right. Feelings spontaneously happen/appear. Thoughts do as well. What do thoughts and feelings appear TO? What is "it" that KNOWS there are thoughts of feelings (or anything else!) in the first place?
It's your fundamental nature -- the "light behind consciousness." No matter WHICH thoughts or feelings arise, *the fact that they are experienced* is the reality that you are. You can think/feel "I am One with The Universe..." Or you can think "I'm a miserable little human being..." but does either of those constellations of thoughts/feelings change the fact that awake awareness is already present to know/experience those constellations?
Does thinking "I DO exist" increase your existence? Does thinking "I do NOT exist" decrease your existence? Does thinking "I am present" increase your presence? Does thinking "I am NOT present" decrease your presence?
Identification is a natural, conceptual, spontaneous process. It doesn't need to be "stopped." It's certainly *helpful* if the process is more in alignment with the reality of what you already are. But even if it's out-of-alignment, that does nothing to change the reality of what you already are. You are what you are whether you think about it or not; whether you identify in alignment with it or not. So the process of identification is not something you need to worry about overly much.
"... I just can't stop identifying with the thoughts/image of myself"
So don't try to fight it. Just understand NO MATTER WHICH conceptual model your thinking mind wants to adopt to identify with, *that model will fall short of the reality that you actually are.* It's impossible for a conceptual model to accurately contain the totality of your being/nature. A conceptual model can't even begin to contain the depth of a single sip of coffee! So there's no way it could begin to grasp the nature of a person :) Just recognize the mind WANTS to identify, and that whatever it comes up with (no matter what), it will "fall short" of reality. With that understanding you can relax and let the mind do it's "identification" thing without getting tied up in too many knots.
"...the feeling that identification is happening does NOT mean it's actually happening."
Hopefully this isn't quibbling over words (if so just disregard)... but I'd say it's okay to say it's "actually happening" -- but I'd add the caveat that "...just because it's happening doesn't mean it's TRUE."
To illustrate: imagine you're in a hot, arid place and see a mirage: is the mirage REAL? Of course the mirage is real - you can see it! But a mirage is the appearance of water where there is no water. So is the mirage "true?" Obviously not. It's a real appearance - and yet the real appearance *does not indicate fundamental reality accurately.*
Does that make sense? All conceptual identification processes are exactly like that. They APPEAR to indicate something with definitely clarity. Yet WHAT they indicate is fundamentally erroneous. Always.
If it helps, Peter Brown frequently pointed out how this mental identification of/as "self" is a SUBSET of the mind's natural affinity to identify ANYTHING. For example my thinking mind can consider me as seated in a chair at a table, typing on a keyboard, looking at a computer monitor and so on. "Chair," "table," "keyboard," "monitor," etc., are ALL erroneous identification activities of the thinking mind.
So it's not that there's something special, or especially bad about identifying as the "self." It's just more of the same of this useful, but erroneous, conceptual modeling/labeling activity that the thinking mind is always engaged in. It can be HIGHLY useful, even though it's epistemologically erroneous. So we shouldn't begrudge the thinking mind's tendency to do this. But we do ourselves a favor to remind ourselves, just because this is USEFUL, that does not mean it is TRUE.
Thank you!! What is identification then, actually? Is it like labeling thoughts with the words "I", "me"? Like thoughts about thoughts? Or it's more like paying too much attention to the thought, like when you watch movie and start to worry about character on the screen? Or it's more like believing that thought is true? And why does identification bring so much suffering? Sorry for that many questions. I have come across the fact that even after I have seen that I remain when thoughts go away, therefore I am independent of them, and they cannot harm me, I am more fundamental than thoughts and all that, even after this the belief in thoughts, in the mental image, returns. Not just thoughts return. Identification returns, there are moments when I am sure that my thoughts are true... At these moments very unpleasant emotions come, such as fear, shame, resentment etc...
A person has to decide on their own definition, of course. I define it the way many other have, that is...
"Is it like labeling thoughts with the words...?"
It's labeling ANYTHING in experience with words/concepts. That's what I was trying to indicate with my discussion of "chair," "table," "keyboard," etc. above. There are facets of my experiencing that I'm labeling "chair." The word "chair" is a concept. What exists in experience are visual patternings, and transient bodily sensations (while I'm sitting in it).
Try to define the word "chair." The result will be a string of words (concepts). The visual patternings and bodily sensations simply are what they are regardless of those concepts, or not employing concepts at all. Applying the concept "chair" as a LABEL to the phenomena in direct experience is what I mean by "identification." Identification in this sense can be VERY useful, but it's never "true."
"...is it like labeling thoughts with the words "I", "me"?"
The words/concepts "I" and "me" are exactly the same kinds of things as the words "chair" or "table." And they are used in exactly the same way - they are labels. But admittedly the "I" situation is MUCH more complicated/detailed than the "chair" situation described above.
"Like thoughts about thoughts?"
Thoughts about thoughts are still just thoughts. I can think about the word "chair" and its definition - that's thinking about thinking. I can think about the visual patterns of "seeing a chair..." But the visual patterns are what they are already whether I think about them or not. So no amount of thinking is equivalent to what I am actually seeing. What I am seeing is just what-it-is. Thoughts are something else; different from seeing entirely - like the difference between the taste of a sip of coffee and hearing a dog bark. We can differentiate experiencing in all kinds of ways! But it's always "just this" singular, unified reality of experiencing as-it-is.
"And why does identification bring so much suffering?"
I'd have to say go read my essay on suffering -- and yet I know that essay is only about half as long as it should be. My apologies. But suffering (as I define it) is cause by believing yourself to be nothing other than your self-image. Your self-image is limited, just as the concept "chair" is infinitely limited compared to the actual aspects of your experiencing that you merely label as "chair."
Your self-image might imply you're a person worthy of respect. If someone then does something disrespectful, you can get upset thinking: "That's not fair! I deserve respect!"
But in reality you ARE the totality of your experience: the self-image, the other person, their actions, you reactions... it's ALL just going on in your direct experience. You can think about this or not think about this, and it doesn't really change anything. That is the *totality* of your reality - and THAT is what you are. If you attempt to describe or analyze it, that's just more of what's going on. None of that will increase your being/presence/awareness, etc.
"even after this the belief in thoughts, in the mental image, returns. Not just thoughts return. Identification returns, there are moments when I am sure that my thoughts are true... At these moments very unpleasant emotions come, such as fear, shame, resentment etc... "
This is VERY good that you notice it and recognize the pattern!! If you can, try not to worry about it. You've spent a lifetime "identified" that way! So it should be no surprise that at times you "revert" to feeling like that. Don't fight it :) Try to relax... this is simply a habituated way in which the thinking mind moves...
As you said: " I have seen that I remain when thoughts go away, therefore I am independent of them, and they cannot harm me, I am more fundamental than thoughts..."
Exactly right. So when the "identification" returns and when you feel those thoughts are "true"... don't fight, don't resent... simply take a few moments to relax (because everything is okay)... and then simply ask yourself some questions. Test your experience directly as you have done already:
Is there MORE being/existence when "identification" is absent?
Is there MORE awareness/experience when "identification" is absent?
Is there MORE presence when "identification" is absent?
Is there LESS being/existence when "identification" is present?
Is there LESS awareness/experience when "identification" is present?
Is there LESS presence when "identification" is present?
What knows existence is?
What knows awareness is?
What knows presence is?
There is nothing to force. Your fundamental nature is already illuminating ALL of this. You can think about it, or not think about it, yet it still goes on. You can be confused about it, or not confused about it, yet it still goes on.
Thinking is simply what we call one aspect of activity within experience. Seeing is another, hearing is another... they are all appearances within the reality that is never not there.
You are the *totality of that reality* itself - *not merely the appearances* within it.
It takes time for the thinking mind to relax enough to where this can be fully grasped. Don't struggle or fret. Simply look as many times as you need to, as often as you care to. Ask those questions above and simply look. The answer is obvious. It's so simple you can't think about it. That's why our hyperactive minds don't like to accept it :) If the thinking mind does accept it, then the mind has nothing to do, which is very uncomfortable for it (at least for a while). Don't worry. In time your mind will relax :) Simply try to see that-which-is-present regardless of whether identification is occurring or not.
This discussion about how thoughts form duality but awareness is inherently non-dual, reminds me of a fantastic book called philosophy in the flesh. The whole premise of the book is systematically, constructing an argument, saying that all thought is inherently metaphor. Metaphors aren’t just something we use but thoughts are metaphors that have their base in bodily experiences that then chain these metaphors together lead to greater concepts and abstractions. However, they repeatedly show that all metaphors are inherently dualistic because they have a figure and a background. The metaphors that we have for concepts like time or justice can seem contradictory, but yet true within the confines of each own metaphor but alternate in what’s the figure and what’s the background.
I'm not familiar with the book, but that thesis makes sense!
With regards to conceptual thought, I prefer the term "symbols" over "metaphors." But that is arguably splitting hairs. Concepts *represent* something other than themselves. So, yes, the dualism is "built in" on at least two levels.
Thank you for the comment as I've never thought about those two levels explicitly. There is a dualism in the contrast between the symbol and what the symbol represents. But, even further, there is the whole point that having the symbol in the first place is to *make a distinction.* As you say, a figure and a background; a distinction *between* "this" and "that."
So all concepts are both "divisive" and representative. Two steps removed from reality-as-it-is :)
This is what makes "The Fundamental" so difficult to talk about! How do you talk about the totality of the figure AND the background? How do you integrate a fundamental distinction? The "knack" comes when you realize the distinction is conceptual/abstract and there is no fundamental division in the first place.
I think they use the term metaphor instead of symbol specifically to talk about that figure/background and it reminds me of something Alan Watts said in one of his books about you can’t have an object without the space around it. They’re one and the same or two extremes of the same thing.
It also reminds me of one of your other posts about needing to lose a belief or beliefs in general and see through the weakness of concepts. Their work shows that all thought is map and menu, not territory and food. It is not literal, although useful. They go through how this even applies to our concepts of mind and time and multiple other things.
One big way we think about time is as if time itself is moving. In this view, we’re standing still and events flow toward us, like a river. That’s why we say things like “The time will come” or “The deadline is approaching.”
The other main way flips it: here we are the ones moving through time, as if we’re walking down a path. Time is fixed, and we’re traveling along it. So we say things like “We’re approaching the end of the year” or “We’re coming up on the holidays.”
Both metaphors are totally normal, and we switch between them without even realizing it.
Other Metaphors We Use
Time as a resource: “I don’t have enough time,” “You’re wasting my time.”
Time as money: “Save time,” “Spend time.”
Time as a container: “In the weeks ahead,” “Throughout the day.”
Time as a place or landscape: “He’s stuck in the past,” “Looking forward to the future.”
Each one brings out certain aspects while hiding others.
Because we use multiple metaphors at once, contradictions pop up. In one frame, we move. In another, time moves. In one, it’s measurable like space. In another, it’s this unstoppable force sweeping us along.
That’s why the same phrase can mean different things. “Let’s move the meeting forward two days.” If you’re in the time-is-moving mindset, that means the meeting comes closer, it’s earlier. But if you’re in the ego-is-moving mindset, it means the meeting gets pushed later, further down the road.
"...Alan Watts said in one of his books about you can’t have an object without the space around it..."
Thank you for the clarifications - they make sense! Love Watts' work so much. Yes! Space is what joins all, not what separates "things" :)
"...needing to lose a belief or beliefs in general and see through the weakness of concepts..."
Hopefully this isn't too nitty-gritty, but I'd replace the word "weakness" with "limitation." Concepts - *because* of their necessarily-limiting nature - are astonishingly powerful. But, yes, your point is well taken!
Nice points all on time! Time itself doesn't exist. It's just a concept. As are the ideas that it flows or that things move through it. But both are false because there is no time. It's an artifice; a cognitive framework WE erect. It's very, VERY powerful and useful. And totally false :)
Sean Carrol comments frequently on how the "laws of science" are time-invariant; that they often work equally well backwards as well as forwards in time. How could this be, he asks.
It's because there is *no* time. We created the conceptual framework and and the conceptual descriptions of how the universe seems to behave. They are completely abstract; nature itself isn't beholden to our descriptions of it. We invented useful descriptions that allow us to predict patterns. Our descriptions have nothing to do with what reality IS. They are just a way to talk ABOUT it.
In other words, time is simply a matter of HOW you think about it because there is no "time" apart from the conceptual thinking about it.
Again its power in forming predictions is not in question! But hopefully it's clear that just because something is useful, that doesn't mean it's true. My entire essay on scientific laws deals with that question.
Lance, I felt like I was going through a "contraction" today. And the thought came up: "but I just can't stop identifying with the thoughts/image of myself". Like, identification is happening and there's nothing I can do about it! I've lost all understanding/realization! I'm identifying again! Despair! But! I read this essay and thought: the feeling that identification is happening does NOT mean it's actually happening. The idea of "identification" is ridiculous, really.. like WHO's identificating?So I came to the conclusion that identification, like contraction, is not a real process that happens. So, in other words, no "regression in understanding" actually happened. It's just a feeling.
Hello again, Ilona! Thank you as always for reading, your careful consideration, and your comments!
There's a lot that we could unpack and go into great detail on here. Let's jump to the end as you already have the "punch line:"
"...no "regression in understanding" actually happened. It's just a feeling."
This is exactly right. Feelings spontaneously happen/appear. Thoughts do as well. What do thoughts and feelings appear TO? What is "it" that KNOWS there are thoughts of feelings (or anything else!) in the first place?
It's your fundamental nature -- the "light behind consciousness." No matter WHICH thoughts or feelings arise, *the fact that they are experienced* is the reality that you are. You can think/feel "I am One with The Universe..." Or you can think "I'm a miserable little human being..." but does either of those constellations of thoughts/feelings change the fact that awake awareness is already present to know/experience those constellations?
Does thinking "I DO exist" increase your existence? Does thinking "I do NOT exist" decrease your existence? Does thinking "I am present" increase your presence? Does thinking "I am NOT present" decrease your presence?
Identification is a natural, conceptual, spontaneous process. It doesn't need to be "stopped." It's certainly *helpful* if the process is more in alignment with the reality of what you already are. But even if it's out-of-alignment, that does nothing to change the reality of what you already are. You are what you are whether you think about it or not; whether you identify in alignment with it or not. So the process of identification is not something you need to worry about overly much.
"... I just can't stop identifying with the thoughts/image of myself"
So don't try to fight it. Just understand NO MATTER WHICH conceptual model your thinking mind wants to adopt to identify with, *that model will fall short of the reality that you actually are.* It's impossible for a conceptual model to accurately contain the totality of your being/nature. A conceptual model can't even begin to contain the depth of a single sip of coffee! So there's no way it could begin to grasp the nature of a person :) Just recognize the mind WANTS to identify, and that whatever it comes up with (no matter what), it will "fall short" of reality. With that understanding you can relax and let the mind do it's "identification" thing without getting tied up in too many knots.
"...the feeling that identification is happening does NOT mean it's actually happening."
Hopefully this isn't quibbling over words (if so just disregard)... but I'd say it's okay to say it's "actually happening" -- but I'd add the caveat that "...just because it's happening doesn't mean it's TRUE."
To illustrate: imagine you're in a hot, arid place and see a mirage: is the mirage REAL? Of course the mirage is real - you can see it! But a mirage is the appearance of water where there is no water. So is the mirage "true?" Obviously not. It's a real appearance - and yet the real appearance *does not indicate fundamental reality accurately.*
Does that make sense? All conceptual identification processes are exactly like that. They APPEAR to indicate something with definitely clarity. Yet WHAT they indicate is fundamentally erroneous. Always.
If it helps, Peter Brown frequently pointed out how this mental identification of/as "self" is a SUBSET of the mind's natural affinity to identify ANYTHING. For example my thinking mind can consider me as seated in a chair at a table, typing on a keyboard, looking at a computer monitor and so on. "Chair," "table," "keyboard," "monitor," etc., are ALL erroneous identification activities of the thinking mind.
So it's not that there's something special, or especially bad about identifying as the "self." It's just more of the same of this useful, but erroneous, conceptual modeling/labeling activity that the thinking mind is always engaged in. It can be HIGHLY useful, even though it's epistemologically erroneous. So we shouldn't begrudge the thinking mind's tendency to do this. But we do ourselves a favor to remind ourselves, just because this is USEFUL, that does not mean it is TRUE.
Hope that is of some help? All the best!
-Lance
Thank you!! What is identification then, actually? Is it like labeling thoughts with the words "I", "me"? Like thoughts about thoughts? Or it's more like paying too much attention to the thought, like when you watch movie and start to worry about character on the screen? Or it's more like believing that thought is true? And why does identification bring so much suffering? Sorry for that many questions. I have come across the fact that even after I have seen that I remain when thoughts go away, therefore I am independent of them, and they cannot harm me, I am more fundamental than thoughts and all that, even after this the belief in thoughts, in the mental image, returns. Not just thoughts return. Identification returns, there are moments when I am sure that my thoughts are true... At these moments very unpleasant emotions come, such as fear, shame, resentment etc...
"What is identification then, actually? "
A person has to decide on their own definition, of course. I define it the way many other have, that is...
"Is it like labeling thoughts with the words...?"
It's labeling ANYTHING in experience with words/concepts. That's what I was trying to indicate with my discussion of "chair," "table," "keyboard," etc. above. There are facets of my experiencing that I'm labeling "chair." The word "chair" is a concept. What exists in experience are visual patternings, and transient bodily sensations (while I'm sitting in it).
Try to define the word "chair." The result will be a string of words (concepts). The visual patternings and bodily sensations simply are what they are regardless of those concepts, or not employing concepts at all. Applying the concept "chair" as a LABEL to the phenomena in direct experience is what I mean by "identification." Identification in this sense can be VERY useful, but it's never "true."
"...is it like labeling thoughts with the words "I", "me"?"
The words/concepts "I" and "me" are exactly the same kinds of things as the words "chair" or "table." And they are used in exactly the same way - they are labels. But admittedly the "I" situation is MUCH more complicated/detailed than the "chair" situation described above.
"Like thoughts about thoughts?"
Thoughts about thoughts are still just thoughts. I can think about the word "chair" and its definition - that's thinking about thinking. I can think about the visual patterns of "seeing a chair..." But the visual patterns are what they are already whether I think about them or not. So no amount of thinking is equivalent to what I am actually seeing. What I am seeing is just what-it-is. Thoughts are something else; different from seeing entirely - like the difference between the taste of a sip of coffee and hearing a dog bark. We can differentiate experiencing in all kinds of ways! But it's always "just this" singular, unified reality of experiencing as-it-is.
"And why does identification bring so much suffering?"
I'd have to say go read my essay on suffering -- and yet I know that essay is only about half as long as it should be. My apologies. But suffering (as I define it) is cause by believing yourself to be nothing other than your self-image. Your self-image is limited, just as the concept "chair" is infinitely limited compared to the actual aspects of your experiencing that you merely label as "chair."
Your self-image might imply you're a person worthy of respect. If someone then does something disrespectful, you can get upset thinking: "That's not fair! I deserve respect!"
But in reality you ARE the totality of your experience: the self-image, the other person, their actions, you reactions... it's ALL just going on in your direct experience. You can think about this or not think about this, and it doesn't really change anything. That is the *totality* of your reality - and THAT is what you are. If you attempt to describe or analyze it, that's just more of what's going on. None of that will increase your being/presence/awareness, etc.
"even after this the belief in thoughts, in the mental image, returns. Not just thoughts return. Identification returns, there are moments when I am sure that my thoughts are true... At these moments very unpleasant emotions come, such as fear, shame, resentment etc... "
This is VERY good that you notice it and recognize the pattern!! If you can, try not to worry about it. You've spent a lifetime "identified" that way! So it should be no surprise that at times you "revert" to feeling like that. Don't fight it :) Try to relax... this is simply a habituated way in which the thinking mind moves...
As you said: " I have seen that I remain when thoughts go away, therefore I am independent of them, and they cannot harm me, I am more fundamental than thoughts..."
Exactly right. So when the "identification" returns and when you feel those thoughts are "true"... don't fight, don't resent... simply take a few moments to relax (because everything is okay)... and then simply ask yourself some questions. Test your experience directly as you have done already:
Is there MORE being/existence when "identification" is absent?
Is there MORE awareness/experience when "identification" is absent?
Is there MORE presence when "identification" is absent?
Is there LESS being/existence when "identification" is present?
Is there LESS awareness/experience when "identification" is present?
Is there LESS presence when "identification" is present?
What knows existence is?
What knows awareness is?
What knows presence is?
There is nothing to force. Your fundamental nature is already illuminating ALL of this. You can think about it, or not think about it, yet it still goes on. You can be confused about it, or not confused about it, yet it still goes on.
Thinking is simply what we call one aspect of activity within experience. Seeing is another, hearing is another... they are all appearances within the reality that is never not there.
You are the *totality of that reality* itself - *not merely the appearances* within it.
It takes time for the thinking mind to relax enough to where this can be fully grasped. Don't struggle or fret. Simply look as many times as you need to, as often as you care to. Ask those questions above and simply look. The answer is obvious. It's so simple you can't think about it. That's why our hyperactive minds don't like to accept it :) If the thinking mind does accept it, then the mind has nothing to do, which is very uncomfortable for it (at least for a while). Don't worry. In time your mind will relax :) Simply try to see that-which-is-present regardless of whether identification is occurring or not.
Thank you! This is very helpful!!!
P.s. you underestimate my obsession with seeking - of course I've read all your essays! :)))
Haha! Well sorry I haven't written MORE content ;) More will be coming as soon as life allows. Juggling a lot these days.
You're very welcome! All the best!
This discussion about how thoughts form duality but awareness is inherently non-dual, reminds me of a fantastic book called philosophy in the flesh. The whole premise of the book is systematically, constructing an argument, saying that all thought is inherently metaphor. Metaphors aren’t just something we use but thoughts are metaphors that have their base in bodily experiences that then chain these metaphors together lead to greater concepts and abstractions. However, they repeatedly show that all metaphors are inherently dualistic because they have a figure and a background. The metaphors that we have for concepts like time or justice can seem contradictory, but yet true within the confines of each own metaphor but alternate in what’s the figure and what’s the background.
I'm not familiar with the book, but that thesis makes sense!
With regards to conceptual thought, I prefer the term "symbols" over "metaphors." But that is arguably splitting hairs. Concepts *represent* something other than themselves. So, yes, the dualism is "built in" on at least two levels.
Thank you for the comment as I've never thought about those two levels explicitly. There is a dualism in the contrast between the symbol and what the symbol represents. But, even further, there is the whole point that having the symbol in the first place is to *make a distinction.* As you say, a figure and a background; a distinction *between* "this" and "that."
So all concepts are both "divisive" and representative. Two steps removed from reality-as-it-is :)
This is what makes "The Fundamental" so difficult to talk about! How do you talk about the totality of the figure AND the background? How do you integrate a fundamental distinction? The "knack" comes when you realize the distinction is conceptual/abstract and there is no fundamental division in the first place.
I think they use the term metaphor instead of symbol specifically to talk about that figure/background and it reminds me of something Alan Watts said in one of his books about you can’t have an object without the space around it. They’re one and the same or two extremes of the same thing.
It also reminds me of one of your other posts about needing to lose a belief or beliefs in general and see through the weakness of concepts. Their work shows that all thought is map and menu, not territory and food. It is not literal, although useful. They go through how this even applies to our concepts of mind and time and multiple other things.
One big way we think about time is as if time itself is moving. In this view, we’re standing still and events flow toward us, like a river. That’s why we say things like “The time will come” or “The deadline is approaching.”
The other main way flips it: here we are the ones moving through time, as if we’re walking down a path. Time is fixed, and we’re traveling along it. So we say things like “We’re approaching the end of the year” or “We’re coming up on the holidays.”
Both metaphors are totally normal, and we switch between them without even realizing it.
Other Metaphors We Use
Time as a resource: “I don’t have enough time,” “You’re wasting my time.”
Time as money: “Save time,” “Spend time.”
Time as a container: “In the weeks ahead,” “Throughout the day.”
Time as a place or landscape: “He’s stuck in the past,” “Looking forward to the future.”
Each one brings out certain aspects while hiding others.
Because we use multiple metaphors at once, contradictions pop up. In one frame, we move. In another, time moves. In one, it’s measurable like space. In another, it’s this unstoppable force sweeping us along.
That’s why the same phrase can mean different things. “Let’s move the meeting forward two days.” If you’re in the time-is-moving mindset, that means the meeting comes closer, it’s earlier. But if you’re in the ego-is-moving mindset, it means the meeting gets pushed later, further down the road.
"...Alan Watts said in one of his books about you can’t have an object without the space around it..."
Thank you for the clarifications - they make sense! Love Watts' work so much. Yes! Space is what joins all, not what separates "things" :)
"...needing to lose a belief or beliefs in general and see through the weakness of concepts..."
Hopefully this isn't too nitty-gritty, but I'd replace the word "weakness" with "limitation." Concepts - *because* of their necessarily-limiting nature - are astonishingly powerful. But, yes, your point is well taken!
Nice points all on time! Time itself doesn't exist. It's just a concept. As are the ideas that it flows or that things move through it. But both are false because there is no time. It's an artifice; a cognitive framework WE erect. It's very, VERY powerful and useful. And totally false :)
Sean Carrol comments frequently on how the "laws of science" are time-invariant; that they often work equally well backwards as well as forwards in time. How could this be, he asks.
It's because there is *no* time. We created the conceptual framework and and the conceptual descriptions of how the universe seems to behave. They are completely abstract; nature itself isn't beholden to our descriptions of it. We invented useful descriptions that allow us to predict patterns. Our descriptions have nothing to do with what reality IS. They are just a way to talk ABOUT it.
In other words, time is simply a matter of HOW you think about it because there is no "time" apart from the conceptual thinking about it.
Again its power in forming predictions is not in question! But hopefully it's clear that just because something is useful, that doesn't mean it's true. My entire essay on scientific laws deals with that question.
“My entire essay on scientific laws deals with that question.”
I am looking forward to that one. I am working my through in order.
That's quite a commitment :) I appreciate your effort and consideration! And hope it's at least modeartely enjoyable ;)