Perspectives on Time & Space

I relish the opportunity to share in black & white - it helps with my own clarity - so here is my current understanding of Time & Space.

Firstly - I imagine everything as One process - constantly unfolding & evolving, on all scales, within & without - micro & macroscopic - simultaneously, imminently, entirely unified - and this One process is self-existent, in & of itself.
Any details we care to imagine of how or why are irrelevant for the time being.

Secondly - contained within this One process - is the potential for, and the actuality of, perception (awareness.)

Thirdly - implicit to perception is perspective.
What is perspective but a view into the One process, but it is a pin-hole view which is conditional to the nature of the specific perspective itself.

Perspective is synonymous with sovereignty, allowing the One process unique & diverse degrees of autonomy - the apparency of individuality - the apparency of separate identities - & is achieved through form.

However, recalling earlier in the third point - perspective within form is conditioned (restricted) - to relativity.
It is limited to its own uniqueness - and is imposed upon by the perception of itself in relation to "other."

Despite the abstract reality of unity - our understanding is conditioned by our relative perception - & the innate & fundamental paradigm of ourselves in our environment is naturally & instinctively firmly anchored in relativity.

Our understanding has constructed a conceptual world to match the apparency of form - hence our linear logic & reason operates with subject & object - cause & effect etc.

This is how it is - these are the natural operations of our perception, natural operations which residually create fundamental assumptions - upon which the remaining structures of our paradigm are built.

Conditions such as Time & Space - are inherently basic building blocks within our paradigm.

However - upon closer examination - what do we find?

We find that they are inextricably linked to each other - but in fact they are conceptual structures - both leaning upon the other for mutual support - time uses space to excuse itself & visa versa.

Let's follow through from the beginning.

We have One process.
We have perception.
We have perspective.

Process is perceived by perspective - and instantly becomes memory.
Time is no more than a metaphor - for the apparent continuity of process - perceived as process, & memory of process.

Hence we invent the concept of linear time - that's how we come to terms with what our instinctive perception is informing us.

Perception includes the perception of memory.

We have constructed a "time line" - conceptually - where "now" is sandwiched somewhere between "past" & "future."

But what is really happening?

Now (the process) is absorbed into subtle memory - constantly, imperceptibly - and this memory itself creates for us the perception of continuity. 
By assuming a past - we can then project this assumption forward along our imagined "time line" - and imagine a "future."

It is hard to imagine an alternative, because perspective is implicit, even in the act of imagination.
Perspective is identical to our usual perception, and includes memory - even in our imagination - but it is possible (just) to take memory out of the equation - to perceive that there is only process.
Perception, perspective & memory are responsible for our relative interpretation of process - into time - but time is only a conceptual construct.

To simplify - the substantial is the process - the conceptual is our interpretation.

Now - on to space.

Still holding firmly points 1, 2 & 3 from the above - we understand that space is also a condition of perspective.

It is our conceptual construct for the field in which form arises, remembering that form is only an apparency of the One process.

We assume this field to be as recognised by our perception, accompanied by the mutual support of "time."

That is - to travel (space is already presumed here in the verb "travel") from point A (another presumption of space) to point B (& another) - will take "time" (yes - another presumption - all conceptual.)

We know that from our subjective experience, to be at either point A or point B - could both be defined as "here" - demonstrating purely the relative, conceptual distinction between "here" & "there."

So therefore, points A & B - exist, simultaneously & constantly - from their own unique perspectives - as "here." 

In that thought experiment - we simply transposed our unique, individual perspective between two conceptually constructed points - further to that, we can also imagine that at no stage between those two points - (ie. at any, & every infinitesimal degree along that imaginary line) - would we find any point that was not also "here."

So - "here" & "there" are conceptual constructs derived from our relative perspective, viewpoints of perception, conditioned by their own nature.

Again - this is hard to imagine - but the distinction between our perspective of this field in which the apparency of the One process arises - is therefore distinctly different from what this field actually is - because this field exists - as all possible perspectives - simultaneously - or indeed with no perspective whatsoever - it just "is" - but it cannot be "seen" or imagined - because both acts imply a single perspective. We cannot "see" or imagine this field - nor can it be seen or imagined - it can only "be" itself.

It is One, enormous "here" - without a "there."

Nor can we have any real notion of the size of this field - as in & of itself, it is without comparison - and all of our notions of size are from a purely relative perspective - "this" measured against "that."

Without an alternative to measure space alongside - our understanding of "size" is restricted to "smaller than" or "larger than" - where every "than . . ." is merely a conceptual component within the same system - a system that is being compared to itself.
Therefore - "size" is self-referential only, & exists only conceptually - other than that - "size" can have no meaning whatsoever.

However - isn't meaning itself also only pertinent to perspective?

Our interpretation of "space" - linked with our interpretation of "time" - conjours up for us, conceptually - time & space - which are both purely derivatives of perception. 
In other words - perception conjours up relativity - both time & space are only conditions of perception. 
By allowing ourselves - as simply as possible, to just "be" - we gradually withdraw our perception away from these perspectives - which bind us to the limited feelings of perceived relativity and its inherent identities - liberating awareness to enjoy its own being - literally beyond (or before) time & space.
Time & space only exist as and when they are conceived - but because we habitually do this, we are left with a residual impression which has conditioned our awareness.
Withdrawing from these conditions - is to find a true liberty. 

Time & Space is the playground of our infinite nature - our totally liberated and singular consciousness - Time & Space is the "virtual reality" that we take to be the real thing - but consciousness is the real thing, all along.

It creates for itself - a playground - but it does not need to invent or create Time & Space - because they appear, automatically, the moment perception induces relativity - the apparency of form, the apparency of objects in relation.

This is a relative realm, fashioned by perception, from & within the infinite consciousness - hence all of our reason is relative, our logic is relative, our perception is relative, our imagination is relative - but our consciousness (being) is absolute.

However - consciousness may only know itself by reflecting apparent differentiation - form of any degree - including the perception of conceptual thought. 
Pure consciousness - is actually - unconscious.

No comments: