Love and Time
Category: Life
Category: Life
There are two factors of the universe that peoples views on them tell you a lot about the character. One is Love, the other is Time.
Some people view love as a soulful connection of the mind and body that is insurpassable by exterior stimuli. These are the people who will get hurt a lot in casual relationships, but at every corner they look for that One person who makes their lives complete. They tend to be very reserved, possibly shy or even paranoid, but if they keep looking they will acheive a state of personal happiness.
Some people view love as a very physical feeling; based on lusts and compatibilities. They don't look for much more in their partner than a presence and sexual contentment. These people are not to be slandered, though invariably they do. It is, for them, all they require from a partner, and don't look for anything more. If two people of this nature settle together, they will never need anything else.
There are others who are a little like the Physicals, but who are attracted to attributes as well as the physical features. Most teenagers go through a faze of this, where they are attracted to what someone can DO, and not who they ARE. This is, to my knowledge, not love, though quite often it will resolve itself into a steady relationship of either type. Someone who finds themself admiring someone in a sense that they beleive is love needs to focus on what they actually want from a relationship, and whether the other reciprocates.
In case you were wondering, I myself, since my recent break-up, have temporarily forsworn the whole issue altogether.
Time is seen as a harder question to answer by many people, but in effect it is a very easy concept to analyse.
There are two major theories, and my personal theory. The first theory is that there is not such thing as past and future; only a memory of A past, and the anticipation of A future. Therefore all that exists is the present, and all that matters is living in the present. People who believe this theory tend to be the kind to live in the moment, from merely fun-loving to completely reckless. Fidelity and commitment are difficult notions for a follower of this theory, and they have trouble planning ahead, yet their ability to think on their feet is unsurpassed by the followers of the second notion.
The second is, of course, the theory that as the present is immeasurable, it therefore does not exist, but merely as a way of seperating the past from the future. These people are stoic and occasionally ruthless observers of the lessons of the past and their application in the future. If a Present is more likely to start a bar brawl, a Past/Future is more likely to start a war. They always prepare for the future, and the planning stages are as important in a project as the execution.
The third is my own view that the world only exists to be perceived, therefore perception is the world in it's entirety. We PERCEIVE the passage of time, but what does this mean to the only true factor of the universe, the Mind? Everything else is reality, as we percieve it, but it is as impossible to perceive the Mind as it is to look at the back of your own eyballs. Therefore niether past, present of future exist as a truth, and how we see time is dependent on how we see anything. People who agree with my vew of the world tend to go slightly insane, because it offers the untimate freedom, and they either become psychotically depressed, of they become like me; way too difficult to understand by the followers of the other two theories.
Who are you?
Ben's Reply
Hey Tunky. I think I'll reply to this with a quote from the infamous astrophysicist John Wheeler:
Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once.
Sure time is part of perception; I remember having a discussion with you about the influence of our metabolism on our perception of the passage of time, but it plays a much greater part in the make-up of our physical world than just on our minds. After all, when you start to break down how the mind works itself, and even how it perceives events around itself, a time factor is necessary.
Think about it: if time were just a purely perceived notion to allow us to live in this world, then your mind has to exist outside time. If this were so, firstly: your thought processes would have to travel faster than the speed of light, which according to Einstein's General Thoery of Relativity, is impossible (look it up, not going to go into detail here.)
Secondly, this also means that ALL events. past and future, have 'already happened', that is to say, you've already experienced the future, but you haven't gotten there in your mind yet.
Thirdly, different people would not necessarily expereince time at the same rate, which although we discussed is could be possible for differing metabolisms, also means the someone coud experience disjointed time sequences; like watching the movie 'Memento' as your life.
Finally, if you intelligence and personality is built up from past experiences, for time to be a construct as you assume it to be in your third view, then no intelligent being could possibly exist, as how would this perception of time passing occur?
If you were to ask me this question I would place myself closest to the first camp. I personally believe that time is indeed continuous and immeasurable, and in fact the speed of which could even change region to region. But the important thing is that the Past has occured, whether you believe it to have or not, and the Future will occur, again whether you present or not. We live in a world with 3 physical dimensions, and time allows information to travel through them.
Finally, if time were purely a construct of the mind that could be ignored, causality fails. Remember, I couldn't have written this reply until after you wrote your question. So if my perception of time did not correlate with yours then I could have written this reply BEFORE you wrote the question. What's more interesting, is that if we had a conversation about it in another context, I could have a discussion about my reply before you wrote the statement.
So the perception of time 'roughly' correlates with all communable people: this makes sense as information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
One final note: I agree with you on that perception of the world around us is paramount, and that the truth is immeasurable (considering I'm pretty sure I said it first :) ). I've also said that on the face of truth the past, present and future are irrelevent, because they will all happen no matter what. But, until someone contradicts my with a valid argument, I think there is something we can say about truth. In the immortal words of Douglas Adams:
'Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again...'
These tautological statements point out that although Truth is immeasurable, 'events' in the universe still require execution. In other words, time is still inextricably linked.
(ps. Granted Adams finishes that quote with 'It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.' This is only relevent with the particular book's focus on time travel :) )
Some people view love as a soulful connection of the mind and body that is insurpassable by exterior stimuli. These are the people who will get hurt a lot in casual relationships, but at every corner they look for that One person who makes their lives complete. They tend to be very reserved, possibly shy or even paranoid, but if they keep looking they will acheive a state of personal happiness.
Some people view love as a very physical feeling; based on lusts and compatibilities. They don't look for much more in their partner than a presence and sexual contentment. These people are not to be slandered, though invariably they do. It is, for them, all they require from a partner, and don't look for anything more. If two people of this nature settle together, they will never need anything else.
There are others who are a little like the Physicals, but who are attracted to attributes as well as the physical features. Most teenagers go through a faze of this, where they are attracted to what someone can DO, and not who they ARE. This is, to my knowledge, not love, though quite often it will resolve itself into a steady relationship of either type. Someone who finds themself admiring someone in a sense that they beleive is love needs to focus on what they actually want from a relationship, and whether the other reciprocates.
In case you were wondering, I myself, since my recent break-up, have temporarily forsworn the whole issue altogether.
Time is seen as a harder question to answer by many people, but in effect it is a very easy concept to analyse.
There are two major theories, and my personal theory. The first theory is that there is not such thing as past and future; only a memory of A past, and the anticipation of A future. Therefore all that exists is the present, and all that matters is living in the present. People who believe this theory tend to be the kind to live in the moment, from merely fun-loving to completely reckless. Fidelity and commitment are difficult notions for a follower of this theory, and they have trouble planning ahead, yet their ability to think on their feet is unsurpassed by the followers of the second notion.
The second is, of course, the theory that as the present is immeasurable, it therefore does not exist, but merely as a way of seperating the past from the future. These people are stoic and occasionally ruthless observers of the lessons of the past and their application in the future. If a Present is more likely to start a bar brawl, a Past/Future is more likely to start a war. They always prepare for the future, and the planning stages are as important in a project as the execution.
The third is my own view that the world only exists to be perceived, therefore perception is the world in it's entirety. We PERCEIVE the passage of time, but what does this mean to the only true factor of the universe, the Mind? Everything else is reality, as we percieve it, but it is as impossible to perceive the Mind as it is to look at the back of your own eyballs. Therefore niether past, present of future exist as a truth, and how we see time is dependent on how we see anything. People who agree with my vew of the world tend to go slightly insane, because it offers the untimate freedom, and they either become psychotically depressed, of they become like me; way too difficult to understand by the followers of the other two theories.
Who are you?
Ben's Reply
Hey Tunky. I think I'll reply to this with a quote from the infamous astrophysicist John Wheeler:
Time is nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once.
Sure time is part of perception; I remember having a discussion with you about the influence of our metabolism on our perception of the passage of time, but it plays a much greater part in the make-up of our physical world than just on our minds. After all, when you start to break down how the mind works itself, and even how it perceives events around itself, a time factor is necessary.
Think about it: if time were just a purely perceived notion to allow us to live in this world, then your mind has to exist outside time. If this were so, firstly: your thought processes would have to travel faster than the speed of light, which according to Einstein's General Thoery of Relativity, is impossible (look it up, not going to go into detail here.)
Secondly, this also means that ALL events. past and future, have 'already happened', that is to say, you've already experienced the future, but you haven't gotten there in your mind yet.
Thirdly, different people would not necessarily expereince time at the same rate, which although we discussed is could be possible for differing metabolisms, also means the someone coud experience disjointed time sequences; like watching the movie 'Memento' as your life.
Finally, if you intelligence and personality is built up from past experiences, for time to be a construct as you assume it to be in your third view, then no intelligent being could possibly exist, as how would this perception of time passing occur?
If you were to ask me this question I would place myself closest to the first camp. I personally believe that time is indeed continuous and immeasurable, and in fact the speed of which could even change region to region. But the important thing is that the Past has occured, whether you believe it to have or not, and the Future will occur, again whether you present or not. We live in a world with 3 physical dimensions, and time allows information to travel through them.
Finally, if time were purely a construct of the mind that could be ignored, causality fails. Remember, I couldn't have written this reply until after you wrote your question. So if my perception of time did not correlate with yours then I could have written this reply BEFORE you wrote the question. What's more interesting, is that if we had a conversation about it in another context, I could have a discussion about my reply before you wrote the statement.
So the perception of time 'roughly' correlates with all communable people: this makes sense as information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
One final note: I agree with you on that perception of the world around us is paramount, and that the truth is immeasurable (considering I'm pretty sure I said it first :) ). I've also said that on the face of truth the past, present and future are irrelevent, because they will all happen no matter what. But, until someone contradicts my with a valid argument, I think there is something we can say about truth. In the immortal words of Douglas Adams:
'Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again...'
These tautological statements point out that although Truth is immeasurable, 'events' in the universe still require execution. In other words, time is still inextricably linked.
(ps. Granted Adams finishes that quote with 'It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though.' This is only relevent with the particular book's focus on time travel :) )
No comments:
Post a Comment