Thanks for the link to John Gray's talk. As always when I read or listen to him, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with everything he says. On the other hand, I wonder if I have wasted my time since I already agree with everything he says.
His strictures on Herbert Spencer are particularly justified. I have always been amazed that such apparently intelligent men as Spencer, Teilhard de Chardin, George Bernard Shaw, and Henri Bergson should have imagined that evolution has a "goal". No one who understood even the bare outlines of what Darwin wrote and said could possibly think that. Obviously, biological evolution is completely without purpose - and teleology is the "original sin" of Darwinian biology. Even great scientists often offend against that principle, talking about how the liver "is designed" to do such and such, or the genes "want to perpetuate themselves". They don't, any more than a fire "wants" to spread. The amazing and fascinating fact of Darwinian biology is that everything we think and feel, as well as everything we say and do, is driven by our genes interacting with the environment. Talk of "soul" or "mind", just as much as of "purpose" or "free will", is metaphorical and hence potentially misleading.
As for the difference between the ability of science to "learn" and that of politics, etc., it is easily explained. Scientists aim - inasmuch as they share a common goal - to advance knowledge, to solve problems, and to understand the world. (Some of them also want to do good). Whereas politicians aim to advance themselves, and to become rich, famous, and powerful.
The short way of putting it is that scientists pursue truth and seek to drive out error, whereas politicians seek to spread deception and drive out truth. Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said of politicians (attributed but unsourced according to Wikipedia), "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". He really did say, in a speech to the Illinois Legislature in 1837, "Politicians [are] a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest men".
In stark contrast, Richard Feynman - who I hope needs no introduction - said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that". https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
So whereas each generation of politicians and businessmen seeks wealth and power, often stooping to wholesale deceit as a means, honest scientists strive to be ruthlessly straight with themselves and others. Quite the opposite.
I am replying to your post in detail- because it raises some very interesting questions. Many thanks for your thoughts - which should benefit all who read them.
"As always when I read or listen to him, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with everything he says. On the other hand, I wonder if I have wasted my time since I already agree with everything he says."
LOL. I know the feeling!
"His strictures on Herbert Spencer are particularly justified. I have always been amazed that such apparently intelligent men as Spencer, Teilhard de Chardin, George Bernard Shaw, and Henri Bergson should have imagined that evolution has a "goal"."
The fact that people use the world "goal" -- and also "design" in this way implies the extent to which we are conditioned ontologically to see events in a certain way. That's why we invented an all-knowing Judeo Christian God -- a super-parent in the sky. You will notice that I also use "goal" and "design" in such a way when I write - while agreeing (mostly) with Gray.
" The amazing and fascinating fact of Darwinian biology is that everything we think and feel, as well as everything we say and do, is driven by our genes interacting with the environment. Talk of "soul" or "mind", just as much as of "purpose" or "free will", is metaphorical and hence potentially misleading."
Language is a tool. It is useful but as misleading as it is elucidative, I think, I think you are right about genes interacting with the environment, or rather genetic factors, both RNA and DNA, hence the recent prominence of "epigenetics? You will notice that I pay a LOT of attention to these things in my "Special Articles".
"As for the difference between the ability of science to "learn" and that of politics, etc., it is easily explained. Scientists aim - inasmuch as they share a common goal - to advance knowledge, to solve problems, and to understand the world. (Some of them also want to do good). Whereas politicians aim to advance themselves, and to become rich, famous, and powerful."
Hence, my theories on political psychopathy , "ponerology" etc in the Special Articles. And the theories of Andrzej Łobaczewsk.
"In stark contrast, Richard Feynman - who I hope needs no introduction - said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. "
I spent most of my life fooling myself - so I get this. I mention Feynman in my upcoming Special Article as an example of a "gifted" thinker. Feynman had a tested IQ of 125--which demonstrates the difference between testable IQ and creative thought. "Testable"? LOL. My brother's IQ scores varied between 80 and 140 depending on his mood. I should mention that while I skipped most of my lectures in college (more than 70%!) I never skipped a class in Theoretical Physics, which I loved!
"So whereas each generation of politicians and businessmen seeks wealth and power, often stooping to wholesale deceit as a means, honest scientists strive to be ruthlessly straight with themselves and others. Quite the opposite.
"And now that the scientists are starting to look at both fixation and genetic diversity, it is only a matter of time before they start comparing their observations to the available time scale and correctly conclude that the evolution by natural selection for the genetic distance between two observed genetic sequences is mathematically impossible. As the scientific documentation improves, it will inevitably become absolutely undeniable that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures could not have survived evolution’s long haul because no evolution by natural selection took place at all.
Just remember that you first heard about MITTENS here… Because you’re obviously not going to read about the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the converged science journals anytime soon.
In the eight years since Dr Huang and his team first presented their ‘out of East Asia’ theory at an international academic conference in 2016, he has been unable to find an academic journal outside of China that is willing to publish the theory. ‘We tried to submit the paper to many journals and were rejected, so we gave up,’ Huang said. ‘Any intellectual who wants to overturn popular opinion will experience the same difficulties,’ he opined. ‘But it’s fine as long as what you’re promoting is true and you don’t care how long it takes [to be accepted].’"
Well, although for me the new year doesn't start until spring equinox, I'm more than happy to play along with the Gregorian calendar mumbo-jumbo for a moment or two in order to wish you all the very best for 2025 Julian. Thank you for all your superb analysis!! I don't always agree, but I do always appreciate!
Also, thank you for keeping us updated on news of your feline family!! I'm always keen to know how you're all doing. Hope the boys are getting the hang of their new domestic arrangements! 🙀😺
Count Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics about a century ago, proposed something he called "time-binding" as the principal difference between human beings and other animals. Through speech, and especially writing, humans can preserve complex information for thousands of years, whereas even chimps can at best hand down simple traditions through example.
The theory of time-binding is grandiose: humans have an immense advantage because each generation has the "intellectual capital" of thousands of preceding generations to draw on. Fine - but that presents a very ugly problem: how are we to separate, so to speak, the wheat from the chaff? Which parts of ancient Chinese, Egyptian, or Chaldean knowledge are really true and potentially useful in the 21st century? And who is to spend how much of their lives sorting through it all? Are we to insist on always consulting the original primary source, or can we settle for digests prepared possibly centuries later? (E. M. Forster has an excellent passage on this in "The Machine Stops").
Much more fundamentally, how much reliance should we ever place on the written word - or words of any kind? Colin Wilson relates the story of the Duke of Ch’i and his wheelwright “in the Chuang Tzu book”.
“It tells how the wheelwright saw the Duke reading, and called to ask him what the book was about. ‘The words of sages’, the Duke explained. ‘The lees and scum of bygone men,’ the wheelwright said; and when the irritated Duke asked him what the devil he meant by this, the wheelwright told him: ‘There is an art in wheel-making that I cannot explain even to my son. It cannot be put into words. That is why I cannot let him take over my work, and I am still making wheels myself at seventy. It must have been the same with the sages: all that was worth handing on died with them. The rest they put into their books. That is why I said you are reading the lees and scum of dead men’”.
The problem with time-binding is memetic shift. Information is handed down as Dawkins pointed out — in the same way the genes are passed on. But DNA never reproduces perfectly and there is always genetic shift and also epigenetic interactions involving the environment and NCmiRNA, affecting gene expression, So “meme expression” depends on complex factors. The information passed down is reinterpreted subject to events—which can be helpful — or not — as we see now in the US.
IF scientists took the time to understand the human brain we would not be in the mess we are.
I always look at education with regard to humans.
IF you are a child brought up in Arkansas (a son) you maybe dragged out hunting with Father and his merry men. Dogs 'tree' a bear. Then the macho men shoot it in the tree. Are there some children who see this as WICKED? I am sure there are many kids who HATE this.
In the school room the teacher asks: What did you do on Saturday?Sunday?
DO the kids dare to go against the MACHO farther. I think not.
The 'little woman' who cooks all the meals for her husband and progeny does not know SHE is the one person who could change things in her family.
Little Billy hates killing.
Billy runs away thinking he can COPE with the world ..........but he cannot
He ends up on the street/taking drugs to ease his mind.
I spent a lot of time in the Canada's northern communities. People hunt all the time. The First Nations people I lived with do not hunt for sport-- they look down on it - although they guide sport hunters in some places and operate lodges for them - since they need the money. Naturally, they try to protect diversity. Basic philosophy, eat what you kill. Honor nature.
They do not, here in France, respect diversity. They are horrible people and there is a huge Hunter Lobby which never changes, despite the killing of people .
As an Autistic and possibly also as an enlightened non-person I have understood and see time as a virtual reality, in short...:
Time does not exist.
It is a construction of words and concepts in the social communication of the social mammal 'Man' & 'Woman'.
It is used as a means in the duty and the control of that duty to Social contribution of the group.
It IS language that determines time. Or WAS it language? Or maybe it WIL BE determined by language?
In Language concepts there are reports from the past of your good and bad deeds and your promises or capacities (CV) and in the future there are obligations that are expected of you.
Without time no Social event so...
In Reality Time does not exist.
Or there is only ONE time: NOW.
And that is ETERNAL, started in the Big Bang and still exists.
Thank you Sander. I like this poem - especially in Spanish— where the feeling is partially expressed in the sound of the words.
Your thoughts on time should resonate with all of us who are in one way of another “autistic”. From an early age, my sense of time would sometimes either disappear or alter dramatically. I would have moments of “no-time” where seconds were centuries. Then other moments where time accelerated. Eight years old and suddenly 80? I am sure you are familiar with such things. Certain drugs like LSD and other hallucinogens produce similar effects I tend to think therefore that time is in the brain and since our brains are “different”, we experience time differently.
In the hippy-time i had 2 x a half year that i took Acid (LSD) in the weekends (some trips with 1000 gamma), mostly Saturday's because i had a job as programmer with IBM and didn't want to lose it because of being High, or having weird reactions during work-hours.
Those 2 periodes were separated by many months in which i was clean (i did smoke hash, but not heavy)
I still remember some trips and parts of trips in details. The main conclusions i made afterward were that it had mysterious but HUGE significance and that i still had to find out why...
When i was about 50, around the new Millennium, i decided to stop working as a Free Lancer in the Complex world of Computers and Networks, in that time around Internet in Large Corporations and Governmental area's.
It had been like riding a Tiger. I could not just stop and get off. I think that is a Chinese proverb ?
- 騎虎難下 - "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
I got a normal Job as main Information and Communications Architect (Technical) with the Dutch Railways. And i started going deeper in the 'Enlightenment' process. with some results, if you can name it so.
Now i came to 'understand' my experiences in the Acid-time... My trips were without words and time. They were pure experiences without the disturbances by thinking in words. It had escaped my word thinking process. I could hear voices and could react on what was spoken in an automatic way, but my frontal lobe functions were mainly gone. I now recognise it as having been mostly in hyperfocus. Also known as 'Flow'.
So i recognise what you conclude, as: since time cannot exist outside of the process that is working with words, it in itself does not exist.
So like the poem says: It is not time that passes by, it is me (the EGO word process) that is passing by in the Eternal 'One Eye' 'Me'. You can called it GOD, but that word has too many meanings, so i use it not often.
Now that I think about it, I kinda like "philocopher". Is that something like "philogopher", Burrowing into knowledge. On the other hand, "copher" is another version of "coffer" -- y' know a box full of money. There is method in madness.
Thanks for the link to John Gray's talk. As always when I read or listen to him, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with everything he says. On the other hand, I wonder if I have wasted my time since I already agree with everything he says.
His strictures on Herbert Spencer are particularly justified. I have always been amazed that such apparently intelligent men as Spencer, Teilhard de Chardin, George Bernard Shaw, and Henri Bergson should have imagined that evolution has a "goal". No one who understood even the bare outlines of what Darwin wrote and said could possibly think that. Obviously, biological evolution is completely without purpose - and teleology is the "original sin" of Darwinian biology. Even great scientists often offend against that principle, talking about how the liver "is designed" to do such and such, or the genes "want to perpetuate themselves". They don't, any more than a fire "wants" to spread. The amazing and fascinating fact of Darwinian biology is that everything we think and feel, as well as everything we say and do, is driven by our genes interacting with the environment. Talk of "soul" or "mind", just as much as of "purpose" or "free will", is metaphorical and hence potentially misleading.
As for the difference between the ability of science to "learn" and that of politics, etc., it is easily explained. Scientists aim - inasmuch as they share a common goal - to advance knowledge, to solve problems, and to understand the world. (Some of them also want to do good). Whereas politicians aim to advance themselves, and to become rich, famous, and powerful.
The short way of putting it is that scientists pursue truth and seek to drive out error, whereas politicians seek to spread deception and drive out truth. Abraham Lincoln is believed to have said of politicians (attributed but unsourced according to Wikipedia), "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". He really did say, in a speech to the Illinois Legislature in 1837, "Politicians [are] a set of men who have interests aside from the interests of the people and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest men".
In stark contrast, Richard Feynman - who I hope needs no introduction - said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that". https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
So whereas each generation of politicians and businessmen seeks wealth and power, often stooping to wholesale deceit as a means, honest scientists strive to be ruthlessly straight with themselves and others. Quite the opposite.
Nota bene: I did say "honest" scientists.
I am replying to your post in detail- because it raises some very interesting questions. Many thanks for your thoughts - which should benefit all who read them.
"As always when I read or listen to him, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with everything he says. On the other hand, I wonder if I have wasted my time since I already agree with everything he says."
LOL. I know the feeling!
"His strictures on Herbert Spencer are particularly justified. I have always been amazed that such apparently intelligent men as Spencer, Teilhard de Chardin, George Bernard Shaw, and Henri Bergson should have imagined that evolution has a "goal"."
The fact that people use the world "goal" -- and also "design" in this way implies the extent to which we are conditioned ontologically to see events in a certain way. That's why we invented an all-knowing Judeo Christian God -- a super-parent in the sky. You will notice that I also use "goal" and "design" in such a way when I write - while agreeing (mostly) with Gray.
" The amazing and fascinating fact of Darwinian biology is that everything we think and feel, as well as everything we say and do, is driven by our genes interacting with the environment. Talk of "soul" or "mind", just as much as of "purpose" or "free will", is metaphorical and hence potentially misleading."
Language is a tool. It is useful but as misleading as it is elucidative, I think, I think you are right about genes interacting with the environment, or rather genetic factors, both RNA and DNA, hence the recent prominence of "epigenetics? You will notice that I pay a LOT of attention to these things in my "Special Articles".
"As for the difference between the ability of science to "learn" and that of politics, etc., it is easily explained. Scientists aim - inasmuch as they share a common goal - to advance knowledge, to solve problems, and to understand the world. (Some of them also want to do good). Whereas politicians aim to advance themselves, and to become rich, famous, and powerful."
Hence, my theories on political psychopathy , "ponerology" etc in the Special Articles. And the theories of Andrzej Łobaczewsk.
"In stark contrast, Richard Feynman - who I hope needs no introduction - said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. "
I spent most of my life fooling myself - so I get this. I mention Feynman in my upcoming Special Article as an example of a "gifted" thinker. Feynman had a tested IQ of 125--which demonstrates the difference between testable IQ and creative thought. "Testable"? LOL. My brother's IQ scores varied between 80 and 140 depending on his mood. I should mention that while I skipped most of my lectures in college (more than 70%!) I never skipped a class in Theoretical Physics, which I loved!
"So whereas each generation of politicians and businessmen seeks wealth and power, often stooping to wholesale deceit as a means, honest scientists strive to be ruthlessly straight with themselves and others. Quite the opposite.
Nota bene: I did say "honest" scientists."
How true!
Coincidentally - and just today - about that Darwin thing - https://voxday.net/2024/12/31/the-collapse-of-the-conventional-evolutionary-model/
"And now that the scientists are starting to look at both fixation and genetic diversity, it is only a matter of time before they start comparing their observations to the available time scale and correctly conclude that the evolution by natural selection for the genetic distance between two observed genetic sequences is mathematically impossible. As the scientific documentation improves, it will inevitably become absolutely undeniable that dramatic mutations in more complex creatures could not have survived evolution’s long haul because no evolution by natural selection took place at all.
Just remember that you first heard about MITTENS here… Because you’re obviously not going to read about the Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection in the converged science journals anytime soon.
In the eight years since Dr Huang and his team first presented their ‘out of East Asia’ theory at an international academic conference in 2016, he has been unable to find an academic journal outside of China that is willing to publish the theory. ‘We tried to submit the paper to many journals and were rejected, so we gave up,’ Huang said. ‘Any intellectual who wants to overturn popular opinion will experience the same difficulties,’ he opined. ‘But it’s fine as long as what you’re promoting is true and you don’t care how long it takes [to be accepted].’"
Well, although for me the new year doesn't start until spring equinox, I'm more than happy to play along with the Gregorian calendar mumbo-jumbo for a moment or two in order to wish you all the very best for 2025 Julian. Thank you for all your superb analysis!! I don't always agree, but I do always appreciate!
Also, thank you for keeping us updated on news of your feline family!! I'm always keen to know how you're all doing. Hope the boys are getting the hang of their new domestic arrangements! 🙀😺
Happy new year, dear Julian. With love. 🙏💚🪷
The “Georgian” calendar. Who’s George. Why not “Julian” . :)
Not Georgian, Gregorian. But now that you mention it, a neo-Julian calendar could be interesting - and even helpful if it gets the time right! 🤔🤯😄
Lots of love, dude. ❤️😁🌞
"An hour ago was a year ago—2024".
That's weird - here in Basingstoke it's still 2024!
Thats OK. In nearby London, it’s always 1945.
Count Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics about a century ago, proposed something he called "time-binding" as the principal difference between human beings and other animals. Through speech, and especially writing, humans can preserve complex information for thousands of years, whereas even chimps can at best hand down simple traditions through example.
The theory of time-binding is grandiose: humans have an immense advantage because each generation has the "intellectual capital" of thousands of preceding generations to draw on. Fine - but that presents a very ugly problem: how are we to separate, so to speak, the wheat from the chaff? Which parts of ancient Chinese, Egyptian, or Chaldean knowledge are really true and potentially useful in the 21st century? And who is to spend how much of their lives sorting through it all? Are we to insist on always consulting the original primary source, or can we settle for digests prepared possibly centuries later? (E. M. Forster has an excellent passage on this in "The Machine Stops").
Much more fundamentally, how much reliance should we ever place on the written word - or words of any kind? Colin Wilson relates the story of the Duke of Ch’i and his wheelwright “in the Chuang Tzu book”.
“It tells how the wheelwright saw the Duke reading, and called to ask him what the book was about. ‘The words of sages’, the Duke explained. ‘The lees and scum of bygone men,’ the wheelwright said; and when the irritated Duke asked him what the devil he meant by this, the wheelwright told him: ‘There is an art in wheel-making that I cannot explain even to my son. It cannot be put into words. That is why I cannot let him take over my work, and I am still making wheels myself at seventy. It must have been the same with the sages: all that was worth handing on died with them. The rest they put into their books. That is why I said you are reading the lees and scum of dead men’”.
- Colin Wilson, “The Outsider”, page 223
The problem with time-binding is memetic shift. Information is handed down as Dawkins pointed out — in the same way the genes are passed on. But DNA never reproduces perfectly and there is always genetic shift and also epigenetic interactions involving the environment and NCmiRNA, affecting gene expression, So “meme expression” depends on complex factors. The information passed down is reinterpreted subject to events—which can be helpful — or not — as we see now in the US.
IF scientists took the time to understand the human brain we would not be in the mess we are.
I always look at education with regard to humans.
IF you are a child brought up in Arkansas (a son) you maybe dragged out hunting with Father and his merry men. Dogs 'tree' a bear. Then the macho men shoot it in the tree. Are there some children who see this as WICKED? I am sure there are many kids who HATE this.
In the school room the teacher asks: What did you do on Saturday?Sunday?
DO the kids dare to go against the MACHO farther. I think not.
The 'little woman' who cooks all the meals for her husband and progeny does not know SHE is the one person who could change things in her family.
Little Billy hates killing.
Billy runs away thinking he can COPE with the world ..........but he cannot
He ends up on the street/taking drugs to ease his mind.
I spent a lot of time in the Canada's northern communities. People hunt all the time. The First Nations people I lived with do not hunt for sport-- they look down on it - although they guide sport hunters in some places and operate lodges for them - since they need the money. Naturally, they try to protect diversity. Basic philosophy, eat what you kill. Honor nature.
They do not, here in France, respect diversity. They are horrible people and there is a huge Hunter Lobby which never changes, despite the killing of people .
It's disgusting.
Nice one...
About time...
I have a Spanish Poem.
By Luis de Góngora y Argote (1 juli 1561, 23 mei 1627)
Engelse vertaling:
-
If I want to know from the stars,
Time, where are you?
I see that you go with them,
but you don’t return with them.
Where do you imprint your footprints
Since I can’t find them along your orbit?
But, o, how deceived I am,
that you fly, run and roll;
you are, Time, the one who stays,
and I’m the one who’s passing by.
-
Spaans:
-
Si quiero por las estrellas saber,
tiempo, donde estás,
miro que con ellas vas,
pero no vuelves con ellas.
¿Adonde imprimes tus huellas
que con tu curso no doy?
Mas, ay, qué engañado estoy,
que vuelas, corres y ruedas;
tú eres, tiempo, el que te quedas,
y yo soy el que me voy.
-
I like the Dutch Translation (Source unknown)->https://www.occupyschagen.nl/Div/Tijd.jpg
-
As an Autistic and possibly also as an enlightened non-person I have understood and see time as a virtual reality, in short...:
Time does not exist.
It is a construction of words and concepts in the social communication of the social mammal 'Man' & 'Woman'.
It is used as a means in the duty and the control of that duty to Social contribution of the group.
It IS language that determines time. Or WAS it language? Or maybe it WIL BE determined by language?
In Language concepts there are reports from the past of your good and bad deeds and your promises or capacities (CV) and in the future there are obligations that are expected of you.
Without time no Social event so...
In Reality Time does not exist.
Or there is only ONE time: NOW.
And that is ETERNAL, started in the Big Bang and still exists.
Sander.
Thank you Sander. I like this poem - especially in Spanish— where the feeling is partially expressed in the sound of the words.
Your thoughts on time should resonate with all of us who are in one way of another “autistic”. From an early age, my sense of time would sometimes either disappear or alter dramatically. I would have moments of “no-time” where seconds were centuries. Then other moments where time accelerated. Eight years old and suddenly 80? I am sure you are familiar with such things. Certain drugs like LSD and other hallucinogens produce similar effects I tend to think therefore that time is in the brain and since our brains are “different”, we experience time differently.
Thank you.
Now you mentioned it...
In the hippy-time i had 2 x a half year that i took Acid (LSD) in the weekends (some trips with 1000 gamma), mostly Saturday's because i had a job as programmer with IBM and didn't want to lose it because of being High, or having weird reactions during work-hours.
Those 2 periodes were separated by many months in which i was clean (i did smoke hash, but not heavy)
I still remember some trips and parts of trips in details. The main conclusions i made afterward were that it had mysterious but HUGE significance and that i still had to find out why...
When i was about 50, around the new Millennium, i decided to stop working as a Free Lancer in the Complex world of Computers and Networks, in that time around Internet in Large Corporations and Governmental area's.
It had been like riding a Tiger. I could not just stop and get off. I think that is a Chinese proverb ?
- 騎虎難下 - "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount."
I got a normal Job as main Information and Communications Architect (Technical) with the Dutch Railways. And i started going deeper in the 'Enlightenment' process. with some results, if you can name it so.
Now i came to 'understand' my experiences in the Acid-time... My trips were without words and time. They were pure experiences without the disturbances by thinking in words. It had escaped my word thinking process. I could hear voices and could react on what was spoken in an automatic way, but my frontal lobe functions were mainly gone. I now recognise it as having been mostly in hyperfocus. Also known as 'Flow'.
So i recognise what you conclude, as: since time cannot exist outside of the process that is working with words, it in itself does not exist.
So like the poem says: It is not time that passes by, it is me (the EGO word process) that is passing by in the Eternal 'One Eye' 'Me'. You can called it GOD, but that word has too many meanings, so i use it not often.
Sander
What does "philocopher" mean?
LOL. I fixed that ....along with some other errors about five minutes after posting. Sorry.
A typo now corrected! ahahah
WHAT?
Now that I think about it, I kinda like "philocopher". Is that something like "philogopher", Burrowing into knowledge. On the other hand, "copher" is another version of "coffer" -- y' know a box full of money. There is method in madness.