Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 > _ > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > never really are in the present. > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > and let me remind that Niz said consciousness is just a fever. Which > means the present is just a fever. > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > W: You are always totally present (but always 200-400 milliseconds to > late), > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see the present as something > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > just a fever. > > Werner > > > -- > B: Ahh... but let's dig a little deeper, Werner. > > Is " being present " in the sense Krishnamurti talked about it > any different from Joe Couch Potatoe drinking his Blatz beer > and watching sports of TV? > > Don't get me wrong here, either. I agree 100% about the few > milliseconds late (maybe it is even longer). > > But you are talking about " being present " in a special sense, > so I am interested to see how you map the special sense you > are using it to the sense in which Krishnamurti used it. > > Cuz I don't think you are really saying that being present in > the sense that K talked about it is meaningless. Right? > > Bill > > > > W: If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > already has passed. > > Werner Pete: Great exchange, guys! IMO, talking about the present is trying to locate change. Perception changes, and in doing so, it leaves a residue in memory that we call the past. Perception, change, memory and anticipation are inseparable. When conscious, there is always perception. The question is, what is there, when perception is not? Perception is a fever, and there comes a point when no fever is perceived as health. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2006 Report Share Posted April 22, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > _SNIPPED< > > > > > > > Pete: Great exchange, guys! IMO, talking about the present > is trying to locate change. Perception changes, and in doing > so, it leaves a residue in memory that we call the past. Perception, > change, memory and anticipation are inseparable. When conscious, > there is always perception. The question is, what is there, when > perception is not? Perception is a fever, and there comes a point > when no fever is perceived as health Pray tell....whatever TIME is that? ......bob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 11:44:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:19:38 -0700 Pete S <pedsie5 Re: The Present Looking Backward > _ > > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > never really are in the present. > > What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > and let me remind that Niz said consciousness is just a fever. Which > means the present is just a fever. > > Werner > > Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " > What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > > > > W: You are always totally present (but always 200-400 milliseconds to > late), > Bill. And that's not a joke, only to see the present as something > wonderful or even as holy, is a joke. > > The present is the subjectivity of consciousness and indeed - its > just a fever. > > Werner > > > -- > B: Ahh... but let's dig a little deeper, Werner. > > Is " being present " in the sense Krishnamurti talked about it > any different from Joe Couch Potatoe drinking his Blatz beer > and watching sports of TV? > > Don't get me wrong here, either. I agree 100% about the few > milliseconds late (maybe it is even longer). > > But you are talking about " being present " in a special sense, > so I am interested to see how you map the special sense you > are using it to the sense in which Krishnamurti used it. > > Cuz I don't think you are really saying that being present in > the sense that K talked about it is meaningless. Right? > > Bill > > > > W: If, for example, you you are playing tennis and you try to catch the > ball you are always to late. When you see the ball near you it > already has passed. > > Werner Pete: Great exchange, guys! IMO, talking about the present is trying to locate change. Perception changes, and in doing so, it leaves a residue in memory that we call the past. Perception, change, memory and anticipation are inseparable. When conscious, there is always perception. The question is, what is there, when perception is not? Perception is a fever, and there comes a point when no fever is perceived as health. Such a condition could never be experienced, could it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Even looking backwards happens in the present. > >The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the >brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we >never really are in the present. > >What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " >and let me remind that Niz said consciousness is just a fever. Which >means the present is just a fever. > >Werner > >Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " >What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > >Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > L.E: There is a hidden assumption here that there is a you that is inside and a space between what is outside and coming in and what is inside trying to understand what is happening. Actually, there is no gap, no division in which this 200-400 msec to occur. The measurement by a machine may have a gap that is measured, but the human organism doesn't. There is a continuous flow with no break and there is no exact point where you begin and environment enters. The picture is innacurate and so are the conclusions. Certainly there is the speed of light, and the speed of sound, and even the time for a smell to migrate to and into your nose and register in the brain, but there is no gap where you are not and the environment is. Again, Tat Tvam Asi. You are that! Try to look into the meaning of the saying and these confusions will vanish. Larry Epston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Nisargadatta writes: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:26:09 EDT epston Re: The Present Looking Backward Even looking backwards happens in the present. > >The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the >brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we >never really are in the present. > >What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " >and let me remind that Niz said consciousness is just a fever. Which >means the present is just a fever. > >Werner > >Let's take a look at that. > " We never really are in the present. " >What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > >Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > Bill > L.E: There is a hidden assumption here that there is a you that is inside and a space between what is outside and coming in and what is inside trying to understand what is happening. Actually, there is no gap, no division in which this 200-400 msec to occur. The measurement by a machine may have a gap that is measured, but the human organism doesn't. There is a continuous flow with no break and there is no exact point where you begin and environment enters. The picture is innacurate and so are the conclusions. Certainly there is the speed of light, and the speed of sound, and even the time for a smell to migrate to and into your nose and register in the brain, but there is no gap where you are not and the environment is. Again, Tat Tvam Asi. You are that! Try to look into the meaning of the saying and these confusions will vanish. Larry Epston Yes, it's mind mistaking it's subjective creations for something objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/22/2006 8:46:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:26:09 EDT > epston > Re: The Present Looking Backward > > Even looking backwards happens in the present. > > > >The interesting thing maybe to add is that data processed in the > >brain need about 200-400 msecs to get conscious. And therefore we > >never really are in the present. > > > >What we see as " present " is just the subjectivity of consciousness " > >and let me remind that Niz said consciousness is just a fever. Which > >means the present is just a fever. > > > >Werner > > > >Let's take a look at that. > > " We never really are in the present. " > >What does that actually mean, thinking it through? > > > >Does it mean: " Being totally present, " is a joke? > > > > Bill > > > > L.E: There is a hidden assumption here that there is a you that is inside > and > a space between what is outside and coming in and what is inside trying to > understand what is happening. Actually, there is no gap, no division in > which > this 200-400 msec to occur. The measurement by a machine may have a gap > that > is measured, but the human organism doesn't. There is a continuous flow > with > no break and there is no exact point where you begin and environment enters. > > The picture is innacurate and so are the conclusions. Certainly there is > the > speed of light, and the speed of sound, and even the time for a smell to > migrate to and into your nose and register in the brain, but there is no gap > where > you are not and the environment is. > Again, Tat Tvam Asi. You are that! Try to look into the meaning of the > saying and these confusions will vanish. > > Larry Epston > > > > Yes, it's mind mistaking it's subjective creations for something objective. > > There is no such 'thing' as mind. Mind is the process of conceptualization that even names itself. The name it uses for itself is: " Mind " . toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.