Time in eternity?

Undercover_Prankstar · July 5, 2005, 8:52am

I think it’s very interesting to observe the way in which dimensions behave and interact with each other. Each of them seems to have a different function- nothing can exist without transcending all of the four known dimensions- length, width, breadth, and time. Even non-living objects are affected by time, in the sense that they are controlled by scientific laws that operate on a time principle, such as rust and decay. However, supposing we assumed that a fifth, or spiritual dimension existed. This would obviously not be affected by length, width or breadth, although it could assume those dimensions if need be? But what about time? Surely, the spiritual world must be subject to at least a concept of time?

Alexistentialism · July 5, 2005, 5:08pm

well, non physical causes can have non physical effects. a consequence of empiricism (which is the western/science foundation for “truth”) is that the non physical cannot be said to exist. of course, we are limited by our limited physical senses. so i assume there are many more dimensions, but that we need something beyond empiricism to reach them/discuss them. i think we do just that when philosophize about ontology.
thanks

Nick_A · July 7, 2005, 4:04pm

Hi Undercover Prankstar

What! 15 yrs old and thinking such thoughts. In do time you will be educated out of such thinking and become normal.

I sincerely hope not and will now pass on to you the words of a modern educator, one of the few that I admire:

As I understand it, time as the fourth dimension is the eternal repetition of a moment that manifests as a point. It is like a drop of water continually descending onto a piece of paper. Eternity, or the fifth dimension is an eternally repeating series of points or moments in time. This is why man is said to exist in eternity. However, there is a virtual infinity of possible eternities and they comprise the sixth dimension which taken as a whole, comprise “Now”.

Have you heard of the idea that “Time is breath?” Science considers the universe as having a beginning and an end. However it is also considered as part of the cycle of the “Breath of Brahma” So what science refers to as beginning and end, ancient teachings refer to as a breath or the cycle of inhalation and exhalation.

Also, the Buddhists use the term “Kalpa” as an expression of time. During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

I know it in esoteric Christianity as an aeon or age where a higher cosmological influence enters into the earth exists but gradually loses its potency and finally dies out. Then we have the “return”.

I would definitely say that time is more than just the mechanical measure we identify it by.

Undercover_Prankstar · July 10, 2005, 9:44am

Hmmm…perhaps space extended becomes time. I know we measure the distance between the earth and certain stars etc. in light years, which are defined as the amount of time it takes the light we see to reach us. But why is that? Other than because it would be impossible to measure the distance in kilometres without getting an astronomical number? It’s interesting that people are measuring space in terms of time.Quote:
become normal.

omg, please no! That’s the last thing I want to be

It is impossible to deem thought meaningful if all nature is mechanistic and random…what?! Hey, give me a break. I’m a 15 year old kid.

Rami · July 10, 2005, 10:20pm

You boys and girls are getting mixed up, “something” occupies emptiness. “Nothing” does not change, i’m sure “something” changes but “nothing/emptiness” does not. Should we forget the notion of “time” now?

Nick_A · July 11, 2005, 1:02am

Rami

I don’t see why. God may be beyond time and space and only conceivable to us as no-thing, but God’s voluntary devolution into time and space or what we call “creation” functions in accordance with the laws of time and space adapted for the purposes of creation.

Dunamis · July 11, 2005, 1:06am

Nick,

I know you’re an “expert” on cosmology, but…

…God’s voluntary devolution into time and space or what we call “creation”

What exactly did God base his “voluntary” decision on?

Dunamis

Nick_A · July 11, 2005, 2:12am

Dunamis

No, I’m not an expert in cosmology. I’m perfectly willing to admit that there are those I know of who completely dwarf my understanding both past and present.

It is not fashionable knowledge so is relatively unknown but explains the nature of being and the universe in a comprehensible logical manner.

I can only feel the essence of this idea superficially and it is beyond language I know of since these ideas are beyond time and space.

However, I’ll try and explain my understanding in a sort of picturesque way.

God is All and no-thing. Before creation, every-thing existed as potential in this high vibratory rate explained in the “vibration” thread. However, from the effects of “time” and in this case it means capacity for repetition, what I can only describe as the “volume” of everything gradually lessened.

The solution to this problem is creation itself where potential actualizes itself and gradually devolves into every-thing or the gradual lawful sequence of fractionings of a higher whole. The interactions of these fractionings forever evolving and devolving on and between cosmological levels, due to the established mechanics of creation, assure that the capacity for every-thing and God’s wholeness will be maintained. The effects of “time” are continually neutralized by the energy being produced by the eternal transformation of substances within creation making creation the first perpetual motion machine.

Dunamis · July 11, 2005, 2:55am

Nick,

It is not fashionable knowledge so is relatively unknown but explains the nature of being and the universe in a comprehensible logical manner.

What exactly are your sources of this â€œrelatively unknownâ€ study? Do you realize that about 90% of what you say regarding â€œcosmologyâ€ seems to come out of Plotinus and 3rd to 6th century Neo-Platonism?

God is All and no-thing. Before creation, every-thing existed as potential in this high vibratory rate explained in the “vibration” thread. However, from the effects of “time” and in this case it means capacity for repetition, what I can only describe as the “volume” of everything gradually lessened.

Why would this be described as a â€œvoluntaryâ€ act? Nothing in this description describes an voluntary event.

Dunamis

Nick_A · July 11, 2005, 8:23pm

Dunamis

I agree that neo-Platonism contains a lot of cosmological ideas. Plato also was well aware of demiurgic influences and universal laws such as described in his Timaeus. The Timaeus describes the nature of the three forces of the trinity on the lower cosmological level of the earth:

classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

And the same argument applies to the universal nature which receives all bodies-that must be always called the same; for, while receiving all things, she never departs at all from her own nature, and never in any way, or at any time, assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; she is the natural recipient of all impressions, and is stirred and informed by them, and appears different from time to time by reason of them. But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in wonderful and inexplicable manner, which we will hereafter investigate. For the present we have only to conceive of three natures: first, that which is in process of generation; secondly, that in which the generation takes place; and thirdly, that of which the thing generated is a resemblance. And we may liken the receiving principle to a mother, and the source or spring to a father, and the intermediate nature to a child; and may remark further, that if the model is to take every variety of form, then the matter in which the model is fashioned will not be duly prepared, unless it is formless, and free from the impress of any of these shapes which it is hereafter to receive from without. For if the matter were like any of the supervening forms, then whenever any opposite or entirely different nature was stamped upon its surface, it would take the impression badly, because it would intrude its own shape. Wherefore, that which is to receive all forms should have no form; as in making perfumes they first contrive that the liquid substance which is to receive the scent shall be as inodorous as possible; or as those who wish to impress figures on soft substances do not allow any previous impression to remain, but begin by making the surface as even and smooth as possible. In the same way that which is to receive perpetually and through its whole extent the resemblances of all

This is a fine description of organic life on earth. The three natures explain things impossible when limiting oneself to yin and yang. This third nature reconciles the yin and yang as the “intermediate nature” which is what we see as life and the fractioning of a higher whole. Taking this one step further as I’ve learned cosmology, this higher-lower-middle relationship extends in being according to the Law of Octaves as described by Pythagoras from the lower vibrational levels in steps up into the realms we cannot perceive. So an intermediate middle can simultaneously be also a the first and second nature depending on which organization of the three natures is being referred to. Everything is connected in this way. The number 3 for example not only exists as a middle between 2 and 4 but also as the first nature between 3 and 1 and the second nature between 3 and 5.

These ideas go way back at least as far as ancient Egypt. Consider the nature of this “Art” depicting the “vertical man”.

ancient-egypt.de/html/the_ve … n_art.html

Ascent to consciousness with a â€œpersonal Iâ€ and descent to the material world

The vertical therefore also represents the individual I of man. During ancient Egyptian history, this personal I slowly took the place of the group-I. In the beginning, inspiration from the spiritual world was the defining feature of consciousness in ancient Egypt. Later, the imaginative consciousness and then early forms of reflective thinking became developed.

The carriers of initiated consciousness - including the creators of Egyptian art - were the forerunners promoting this development also in art.

The representation of man in ancient Egypt surely still mirrored the state of the old inspired consciousness. Additionally, it however provided the perspective of developing the personal I, of perception through the outer body senses and of reflective thinking.

This germinating subjective consciousness of a personal I was essentially a day-time consciousness which was equated with Re - i.e. the name of the sungod in the middle of the day. This is represented by a movement oriented upwards.

This direction is complemented by the downward movement of man, outgoing from the (connection with the) spiritual world to the (inhabiting of the) earth as a necessary pre-requisite of an individual development of his own free will. It is a necessary side effect of evolution that man temporarily breaks loose from the cosmic unity and â€œdescendsâ€ in the variety of all.

As you can see the nature of the universal and human condition has always been known. It is hard to hold which is why I say it is little known. It is why I take what you read described as “acornology” seriously. Appreciating the evolution of the level of the intermediate nature (middle) from the level of the husk to the level of the kernel is man’s potential

By voluntary I meant the result of free will though I see how it is unclear especially since it was a necessity. I guess it wasn’t the best choice of words.