Change does not happen from a subject. It happens through the field. The subject is not a source. It is a node. A turn in the field. It does not subsume change. It is change. The apparent stability of the subject is just a slow turn. Not a fixed point. Not a source. Just a pattern.
And yes, I did print it out, but I didn’t get that far because there was so many basic things that he subscibes to that I disagree with.
I’ll write up what I can when I have time.
Or will the field write it?
Now you’re just being childish.
Never stop playing.
The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
Why are you gettin all “forgetting the love of the game” on me? Did you go pro?
Naw.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Nevermind, nothing to see here, movealong…
I can’t movealong faster than a greased Scotsman.
These are only theories, which, as always, are all overridden by what is actually True and Real.
Hahahahahahaha fuck.
Incorrect reply.
Anyone who hasn’t read the reading linked in the original post, or here, kindly KeepTFOut. 
Here are the notes I scribbled all over my printed version (I added a few regarding the use of the word essential on 459 versus the additional use of the word ultimate on 463, and linked back on 473 to the previous statement that the timeless does not change on 460)—next is an outline.
@niallm please make time.
It assumes sequence on all levels, I can’t get my head around it.
I printed out your scribbles.
Will you please try to make an outline after you read it & the scribbles that go with it?
That is my next step.
This dude understands dialectical synthesis, so you have to read it with that in mind.
I do now I’ve looked up dialectical synthesis on wikipedia. I can’t parse the language he uses, Ichthus, and it’s about holding several conflicting ideas simultaneously, and my noggin is not good at that.
You scribbles look interesting, but scary, you might as well be decoding the rosetta stone.
Maybe when I reach level 2 or something.
You can’t really take the future for granted. You kinda can in some ways, but there is a lot of multidimensional causation going on at many different levels, predicting the future for any longer duration is impossible when dynamic systems like weather are considered. The past is either:
a) Past which is being kept alive (e.g. books, digital recording, a heritage building)
b) Past which is not past, but still a living expression in the immediate moment (e.g. a fossil, a ruin, a strata), but which tells a story concerning its origins.
So past is really part of now. It doesn’t matter how may snapshots we take, there is no back to go to.
So, with that in mind, time is zero-dimensional, I just can’t see time as a linear representation. I don’t see how I could be convinced of that any more.
edit—we humans have become good at recording history ever since we drew things on cave walls. It’s no wonder we think time is a line, but it really isn’t.
You said multidimensional and zero dimensional in the same reply. You must not have meant both in the same sense.
