« Home | The Eternal Dichotomy » | Risk: def-n: "danger of harm or loss" » | Prayers for our present future » | The 3 Things You Can Never Talk About.... » | Promises made - Promise kept » | When did the Crossover Happen? » | The art of communicating - the communication of ar... » | In Memoriam » | Who is truly the most powerful person in the world... » | A Spriritually Sanctified Evening »

The significance of time

Time is irrelevant.

Today, in my time zone, it is Saturday, Feb. 18, 2006. I wrote and posted the blog immediately prior to this one yesterday, Feb. 17. I had sent an e-mail to a friend on Feb. 15 telling him that I had already "scribed" the content of that blog in my head, but wouldn't write it for a day or two because I was still feeling a bit manic, but I gave a few details of its content.

I also received an e-mail on Feb. 16 from one of my blog readers who had put a comment on an earlier blog wondering if I had been offended by the comment. He was asking if that was why I hadn't written one for a few days.

What's the relevance of me mentioning all that? When I composed, then posted the entry, I got a message from Blogger saying a few users were having problems, that I should clear my Blog cache and try again. I had no idea how to do that, so I cursed under my breath for not having saved a draft copy and simply signed off and back on, thinking I had lost a few hours effort, and would have to start all over.

One of the points I made was how fascinating it is to me to backtrack on thinking to see where I came from. Well, go back and check out YESTERDAY's (Feb. 17) blog.....and you'll see it's been dated FEBRUARY 15th. That would be the date I composed it in my head! So it existed in one form (thought-form) but not written form. Yet, when it got written, the earlier date got applied automatically (Blogger puts that date on, not me). Does this mean Blogger is "backtracking" my thoughts too!! Bizarre coincidence? Serendipity? Food for thought? Bipolarism out of control?

It's like the movie Groundhog Day. You keep going back in time until you get it right.

How does one "go back in time"?

How does one "see you tomorrow"?

The only actual time that exists 'is' the exact present moment. Which begs the question "how long is a moment?".

I'm writing this blog in your past (because you're reading it now, which is in my current future)....

Time that has passed only exists by association through recall, memory, recording and time-stamping of events, occurences, or crossover points.

Time that hasn't happened yet (future time) only exists in imagination, planning, or anticipation.

So, does time actually exist at all? Does that old tree in the forest make a noise if it's not heard?

My answer would be a resounding 'YES', but maybe not for the obvious reasons. It exists because we create our own existence, our own reality, our own being. You doubt that? Things very often are not what they seem to be. We see what we choose to see, or sometimes what we think we see. We hear in the context of how we hear. Try this on for size as an illustration.

Yesterday, I used this zen-like image to indicate one particular view-angle of my dot.
Now click on it.

So, which image is it? Is it a function of the time that you saw it? Time, as a reality is non-existent, and therefore not significant. The passing of time is irrelevant. It is the marking of time that has great significance, because it allows a common reference.

As long as you're in the same time zone.
and your watches are synchronized.
and the plane's on time.
and you agree on leap year.
and you're using the Chinese calendar.
and it's not half an hour later in Newfoundland.

BUT if you AGREE on the reference timeline, then it can be used as a linear point(dot) of reference. A given. A common stipulation. It depends on your point(dot) of view, suppose.

Once we've established a sequential timeline (the sequence of writing my blog entries, for instance), that timeline can be altered as I so frequently and intentionally did in yesterday's blog by including past links throughout the blog. Now my "story" can be read sequentially, in the order they were written, or they can be reconstructed in an interwoven way to give a totally different read.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to apply that same characteristic concept to TOLERANCE? Just stipulate, regardless of point of view, that it's a common reference.

I think it can be done. It'll just take some time.

to you all.

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me