Which way does an arrow fly? Forward?
Or does it merely abandon its positions?
There are no “positions” as such when the arrow is in flight – its technical position is indeterminate as it is in ‘flux.’ Direction is an arbitrary description in this context, and entirely contextual.
If its position is indeterminate, then we cannot say that it moves or not moves, nor can we talk about movement and being stationary, nor use the word ‘flux’ as a metaphor or alternative for them.
Would it be a particle or a wave? 
It’s hard and dangerous to shoot an arrow backward.
They’re tools, designed to be fired in a certain way and strike the target with the arrowhead, so there’s no problem assigning a directionality to them. “Which way does a slingshot fly?” may be more puzzling to those wishing to ponder such questions
Yyyyeeaaah, I’m thinking a 13th-century monk is not the first person I go to for physics lessons. 
Haven’t you been following your physics? If we can say that it moves, its position must be indeterminate.
I was wondering if I would be called out for using something so dated. Funny part is that I still agree with the assertion(s) I quoted. We are dealing with instruments of measurement. As far as we are concerned, they correspond to ‘reality’ insofar as they are seemingly useful and applicable concepts. That is to say, for example, that an “instant” in time only exists as something purely conceptual - a point of reference.
Right, “movement” denotes something dynamic. If you can determine the position of a thing, it is not ‘in movement.’ Even if one were to theorize that ‘flux’ can be broken down to “instants”, he would be tasked with making an “instant” both spatially and temporally definitive (a closer approximation than the modern, standardized definition at least). What is a “moment” technically?
True … in the sense that consciousness has no limits, has no boundaries, has no frontiers. There is no such thing as the seat of human consciousness at all. There is no such thing as a seat, located in any particular individual. What there is is thought.
Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. So, when the thought is not there, is it possible for you to experience anything or relate anything to a non-existing thing here?
Perhaps that question reflects the futility in the attempt to capture the ‘flow’ by the analyzation of constituent moments.
That was my intention. My contention is that such an attempt is “futile” because constituent moments do not comprise, nor adequately describe, the ‘flux’ of reality. They are conceptual points of reference that seem applicable to experience, for practical purposes, but not representative of reality.