Be Here Now(ish)
One of the `esoteric takeaways’ of the 1960’s and 70’s was the `tree-hugging’ phrase - “Be Here Now”. And, frankly, ultimately, it had a lot of `meanings’ - from the non-attachment of Zen, to a `re-connecting’ with the environment and spirituality, to a `self-centering’ - awareness and meditation connotation - and even more. It was a `hip’ thing to say (or - to say that you were `doing’).
(This would actually be `not-doing’ to those `into’ Carlos Castaneda.)
Anyway, that phrase BHN entered my mind again the other week and this post has been brain bubbling since then - so - let’s see how my mind treats this today. And, as you might expect - my mind generally has been mauling over the whole Phenomenology aspect of the phrase first - both in relation to `science’ and my so called Phillips Phenomenology. (see my categories (labels) on this page for much more about PP)
The first `science’ thing that comes into my mind - is - of course, the shear impossibility to BE HERE NOW - as `all nows’ pass and have NO duration; and our actual `here’ is moving at an incredible rate of motion. All while being the pinpoint of the time-cone - with that exact balance of the actualized past `picking’ the next actualized space (the now) of the `future’.
Indeed, if we just consider THE REAL SPACE - that one (humans) occupied as matter — the `space’ that `was you’ - an instant ago ———- has truly `moved’ hugely.
Do you know the reason?
Well, we are `traveling’ on a planet that is `rotating’; we are `traveling’ on a planet that is moving in rotation around a star; and we are `traveling’ as part of that stars rotation around OUR galaxy; and we are `traveling’ as part of the Milky Way’s `movement’ in a particular direction that all local galaxies are moving in. EVERY SECOND. Every Moment. (Indeed, I once added all this movement up and it is a large portion of 1% of the speed of light - every instant. The `here’ of `our last instant’ is `miles’ from the actual location of the `here’ of `this, our current instant’.)
So, that should put to rest in your mind that what we perceive as a permanent local space - is ONLY so - because it (every object within) ALSO is moving at the same rate. We are matter spiraling thru space points - and have NO claim to a HERE in the human mind sense of the term. Indeed, only the `counting’ of the here’s of our space/matter - provides us with a `now’ or more precisely, a here-now, at all.
And, before I even get to the `now(ish)’ - lets look at how human consciousness might fit into the words of this BHN phrase.
Certainly, the best connection of human consciousness lies in its own `beingness’.Beingness of the actualized past; beingness of the unactualized past; beingness of the actualized future (now); beingness of the `unactualized’ (referred to as the) future.
A beingness of `our space’ (body/matter) - a beingnessof `our minds’ (sense-knowingness of actualized memory, sense-knowingness of actualized now, sense-knowingness of actualized fantasy) - but most of all - a Beingness of Determinism via self-knowingness.
Indeed, we ARE, - our being IS, - because we KNOW the determinism we experience of space-time-and our consciousness - as only a BEING with a Ontological Knowingness can. BEINGS with ontological knowingness determine the `what is not able to not be’. That is, at least concerning their own perception structures of other SPACES (the not able to be) and other TIMES (the able to not be) - internally or externally.
(But spaces ARE NOTHING (not able to be) without duration (time - able to not be(ness) and time IS NOTHING without space to be (time needs to give a space it’s able to not be(ness) to MAKE - the determined Not Able To Not Be ————— that we call reality.
Finally, lets talk about what science has told humans about their consciousness of `our external senses of now’. First and foremost, research indicates that humans `see’ about 100 or so `frames’ of our external reality each second - YET - our consciousness picks about 8-12 of these and `molds them’ into a flowing reality for perception purposes. (Not only that - reality itself - turns on and turns off - trillions of times in that frame of reference.) I won’t even mention that what we `see’ in our brain is upside-down and the whole process needs to be righted for our senses.
But, even more important than that - at least to me - is that EVERYTHING we see —- all objects ——- are objects from the PAST — as the light that bounces off objects - which allows us to sense them - has taken (time)(or a counted space) to reach our retina. Time which MAKES that datum a PAST, a determined past that is UN-alterable as to its location or time of its data being sent by the light bounce.
So, if EVERYTHING outside of us is FROM the past (to us) and is Now(ish) —- isn’t the best a human can do is - Be Here Nowish?
This is one of the fundamentals regarding my own personal cosmology that there is no now, and that space\time is more of a continuum but not as a set continuum. Physicists are beginning to explore there latest measurements of the material spectrum of the universe and have theories regarding a post selective process where “corrections” are made on a retroactive basis.This has a thread to PD Ouspensky’s ruminations and in a vague sense Gurdjieff himself who both placed emphasis on who the past and our relations with it are part of the “mix” if you will. This did not “compute” in my own formulations until this concept of now was banished from my orientation to what we call reality. In retrospect, it’s obvious, but on a tangent track so much of our intellect is set to planetary rotation as well as our biology as a circular image that is also linear. Where in my mind as well as some others, it is closer to a spiral as we see in the material end of things. If you add space time to an image of a orbital rotation it is a spiral and not a “closed loop” It is interesting how much of what we affirm comes from the senses..as an orientation, and not the mind.
Comment by Bruce Duensing — July 24, 2010 @ 10:50 am
Bruce, First and foremost - welcome. I almost don\’t know where to begin as your whole post was so stimulating to my mind that I want to try to get this sequence of words right. ———— I guess the first thing to say is that it doesn\’t surprise me that you have your own personal cosmology - indeed - IF it is anything like the phenomenology I\’ve built on just 3 or so definitions (with `extensions\’/mirrorings to probably each phrase) I can\’t wait to hear more of it. And as you and I know - neither of us would claim to know `the answer\’ - but - if your interest is as strong as I know it is from your blog about Phenomenology - I think we both are onto part of the `direction of correct thoughjt\’ on the matter. Concerning `now\’. ———— I came as close above as I can in describing what the common idea of `now\’ is in my cosmology. That said, there are many ways to describe things when one tackles phenomenology (Husserl reads and Sartre reads for example). It\’s one reason why I like the phenomenology ideas that `came to me\’ in 1973-1976 which form my so-called Phillips Phenomenology. As I wrote above - ALL OTHER THINGS (SPACES) in our `local perception zone\’ are `set\’ `determined\’ and in the Past (due to the space/time needed for the light bounce)– which BRINGS the only location for a NOW to one location — the absolute `edge\’ of the most inner `you\’ of your matter (body-space)- BUT - as you and Julian Barbour say - their is no `time\’ (or now). And, as you know, I described above, like you, how the `selection\’ our individual minds must go thru to `produce\’ of `picture of our senses\’ - means that `our perceptural reality indeed doesn\’t have a `presense really\’ in the NOW. (Something that MAY only be true while we are `living\’ - leaving open the discussion as to whether a spirit might indeed poccess some `REAL\’ NOWNESS (real not-able-to-be `ness). Indeed, could that be why the `temporary beings\’ - ghosts, bigfoots, gremlins, etc - occasionally able to `have a presense\’ that we can `grasp\’ as part of the 100 frames a second which we choose 10%. Indeed, we most likely discard perceptions that `do not fit\’ with our immediate `expectations\’). That said, I think my PP does offer a possible `distinction\’ of that in a sense - indeed, a BIG distinction. Because, I\’m saying (I think?) that the `NOT-ABLE-TO-NOT-BE\’ — that which is `determined\’ (things become determined by the `setting\’ of lights bounce)IS INDEED A `NOW\’ - in every sense of the word that we normally consider the Now to be. However, as you mention - THAT NOW - has NO duration. That is not a contradiction. Not-able-to-not-be\’s can ONLY occur once. The Now. (not only that - the `definiton\’ of `now\’ ONLY applies to YOU). Of course, since all other objects are INDEED from your past. ——————–(That is not to say that we don\’t assume that they have their `own now\’. Unless our reality is indeed - some sort of software program. (I took on that `old idea\’ on THS - but can\’t put my finger on it.) The `corrections\’ you refer to - in Barbour\’s words would be —- best matching, least intrinsic difference (that is how he says the physics actualizes the spaces - and remember - he (and I will explain how I too and you - feel like their might be ONLY spaces (with no duration to them) ——— is how the `matter\’ of subatomic levels seems to progress (on the straightest path none the less). And, for the PP - the above IS — the not-able-to-not-be — that provides the sensations. Concerning Gurdijeff and Ouspensky — I\’m going to get my good buddy J.S. Flower to join our discussion here in a post or two I hope. HE is THE MAN I know most `into\’ the cosmology aspect of their teachings-words. ——— My focus on Ouspensky and G. was more `awareness\’/consciousness oriented. Indeed, I only give slight thumbs up to most of the `cosmology\’ aspects of words from The Fourth Way. (By the way, J.S.Flower and I also attended a few meetings of `the work\’ group in Ohio.Trippy.) Next, your `spiral\’ is indeed, dead on. That has to be the way OUR ACTUAL space IS. Finally, and only touching on your point - `the affirmation of senses as an orientation - and not the mind\’ —- Bruce - I don\’t even want to type these words — BUT — I am starting to think that it (our outer perception) is all from our `learning what every object is\’ - which happens as a child. Literally - every object. And, since all objects have an agreed upon `description\’ — even if the descripton is even more basic that the object itself — a learning if that is the term - for the spaceness of things. That we eventually BELIEVE in. And, THAT belief - is what sets up the `perception sturcture\’ of our own ontology. I have to wonder - is anyone even still reading? LOL. thanks for your comment. R.P.
Comment by Rick — July 24, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
I guess the time has come… this a.m. before reading the above I opened a book and read these words:”… human beings as organisms perform a stupendous maneuver of perception which, unfortunately, creates a misconception, a false front; they take the influx of sheer energy in the universe at large and turn it into sensory data, which they interpret according to a strict system of interpretation that sorcerers call the human form. This magical act of interpreting pure energy gives rise to the misconception, the peculiar conviction of human beings that their interpretation system is all that exists.”
So yes our collective agreed upon perceptual/descriptions do in fact set the boundaries of our awareness.
The question I would like to pose is: What is our collective peripheral vision as a culture? What is your own peripheral vision? Does that vision extend beyond the “naked eye”? Who determines the extent of that vision?
Back in the day when first trying to comes to grips with Be Here Now, a little word play took place in my mind and I switched the words around and found that Now Here when put together becomes NOWHERE the BE is the supportive field and it sure seems to be unified!
As far as me being “The Man” I appreciate the accolade but really thought of the word paltry in comparison to others, yet upon looking up paltry in my old 1972 dictionary I came across the word palladian:1. of or pertaining to the goddess Pallas 2. pertaining to wisdom, knowledge, or study. In that regard HRP did in fact expose me to “learning beyond” what was being offered as higher education in the structured institution. For that I am beyond thankful…
Comment by jsflower — July 25, 2010 @ 11:15 am
It made me rethink the big bang theory as well as a beginning middle and end theory that leaves out the variegation’s of space\time as sort of an obvious disclaimer. Terrence McKenna’s metaphor of the UFO phenomenon as an “onion” seems apt.
I read childhood development theories, which are really placed into a global context in Rodney Collins very under appreciated work, which was very influential to me, as a student of Ouspensky, he wrote “The Theory of Celestial Influence” posthumously. A terrific book.
There are many tantalizing but ultimately unprovable personal anomalies that appear to indicate I was part of that motley bunch that fled the Revolution with G, but frankly, this, of course, means very little to me as it is an abstraction and a distraction at the same time. The ego as a defense mechanism is such a dangerous snake. I recently had a extra dimensional dream which I have not written about that was very blunt inasmuch as the message was I do not know what I am tampering with by rearranging the furniture. End of message. I suppose it was a warning, one from myself? My intuition says yes but my intellect says no and that is simply the way it is these days. The more I dig around, the more I distrust my own intellect, and the more I trust my intuition, which counter-intuitive at the level upon which I write. I have been thinking about Mac Tonnies a lot lately and how he bent the rules of fiction and science which was a sort of humanist commentary on our existential age. Have you noticed the entrainment of the wave of computer generated realities with natural disasters, which seems to be occurring? There seems to a major disturbance in the information field like a persistent leak under a basement where the hydraulic pressure of some other “influence” is building. My lost friend we discussed ( who shall remain nameless here) had an uncanny knack for predicting “waves” of this sort of thing, all of which I have no idea what they represent although I sense a post selective process as I wrote about in a vague sort of way in the post you mention, as if a rip is about to tear across our dreams, not in a emotional sense but in a very odd manner. Please folks, no apocalypse inferred. A great post of yours ignited this thread!
Comment by Bruce Duensing — July 25, 2010 @ 11:48 am
I have waited a long time to have this three way exchange of ideas - thanks to you both.
J.S. - or, should I call you Strother? (LOL) - First, of course you opened a book to heavy words that nearly exactly fits the subject at hand - what else is new. That said, it is very close - as you know - to my thoughts on the whole matter. That said - I do want to respond with my slightly different take on the book words. ———– My real feelings are getting closer to what I said to Bruce above. — When we are an infant and child - I think we slowly build up a `flowing’ understanding of our surroundings of objects - IE: what they are, do they move, what are they for, will it be in the same place tomorrow - and that slow build-up which generally comes from our parents and just our presense in the world - allows us to manuveur about the world outside of our space-body and to provide the `real and reel’ of our experience. As humans, (as opposed to animals that are walking and independent sometimes in moments after birth) - I think we are given, obviously, much more time to understand our surroundings and mind and body. Eventually, as we become human as a child - our ontology becomes to understand the common consensus we are presented with - forming our view of the world and the learning of how our actions are TIED to those `outside objects’. Indeed, I feel our perceived `freewill’ is related to how we understand that we can `do things with other objects’.
Now, here’s my BUT to the book stuff you related - I don’t think that our human form is `misinterpreting’ what we see. The objects of our reality are in my opinion `really there’. Now, that said, I do believe we are tied into a human form or understanding what we see or can see. And, that that human form can have many early influences that may allow it to `see’ things not of the common consensus. At least possibly. I intend to re-read this stuff from Lujan Mathus soon as his words seemed very close to how we might `arrange’ time for our understanding.
Next you ask: The question I would like to pose is: What is our collective peripheral vision as a culture? — (Bruce, J.S. has incredible, NO - AMAZING peripheral vision - that partly could be a result of his mind being folded by being a professional Juggler) My guess-answer J.S. is that no `collective’ peripheral vision exists - as I feel all perception sturctures are also tied to the individual - that said, I could be wrong and the Noosphere perhaps extends into perception also.
Next you ask: What is your own peripheral vision? Does that vision extend beyond the “naked eye”? Who determines the extent of that vision? —- I feel my own PV is `normalish’ — that obviously there is data beyond the `naked eye’ - that I will concede may be affected by our expectations in our own `perception structure’ - and that the `who’ who determines it - is 95% me and 5% `the collective’ (or some such ratio) - or 9,999 - 1.
Finally, yes, as always - GREAT WORDPLAY on be here now. Expect nothing less from you. and Lastly, — thanks for your backpat on sending your mind in a particular direction - I appreciate that you are happy for that and not mad. And, THE MAN is a compliment. Your own extensions of the inner into the outer need more print on the internet.
Now, —– Bruce — of course, thanks for your articulate and heavy response. I am hoping that you will continue this with some of my follow up comments and my questions about your words.
`It made me rethink the big bang theory as well as a beginning middle and end theory that leaves out the variegation’s of space\time as sort of an obvious disclaimer. Terrence McKenna’s metaphor of the UFO phenomenon as an “onion” seems apt.’ —– Working in reverse - Terrence McKenna is one of J.S.’s favorites and one I give some significant credence to. I will relent to the idea that that phenomenology we are under is so - seemingly obvious - that discounting the variegation’s of the time cone is done nearly all including those into the paranormal. That said, the way my mind works - with my three definitions that `fit’ the sensations - I really feel it IS that basic and we work up from there.———- And, like the big bang theory (of which I love Guth and once even corresponded with him) I think it is the `defintions’ of space and time via phenomenology that would underlie the physics. —– Next points by you my mind responds to.
`There are many tantalizing but ultimately unprovable personal anomalies that appear to indicate I was part of that motley bunch that fled the Revolution with G, but frankly, this, of course, means very little to me as it is an abstraction and a distraction at the same time.’ ———— Please elaborate about the unprovable personal anomalies.
I recently had a extra dimensional dream which I have not written about that was very blunt inasmuch as the message was I do not know what I am tampering with by rearranging the furniture. End of message. I suppose it was a warning, one from myself? My intuition says yes but my intellect says no and that is simply the way it is these days.’ —- J.S. has dimensional dreams on occasion that he relates to me - often ending in very profound statements. And, as you may know, I was able to use Castaneda’s techniques in the 70’s and occasionally since to absolutely experience Controlled Lucid Dreaming - which I consider one of the strangest perceptual states I’ve ever experienced.
`Have you noticed the entrainment of the wave of computer generated realities with natural disasters, which seems to be occurring? There seems to a major disturbance in the information field like a persistent leak under a basement where the hydraulic pressure of some other “influence” is building. ‘ ———— No, tell me more. Interesting.
And, thank you sir for your backpat too.
I swear - would could get another `head or two’ for this discussion and rival anything available (I know J.S. has another buddy who he calls my doppelganger - I bet you do Bruce too - and heck, we could invite bloggers like D.B. Donlon, Eric Stitt, Micheal Presscot, and perhaps a couple of others — investigators/powerplayers like Lon Strickler, Patrick Hughye, Rick Stokes and a few others you guys can think of)on the internet.
Don’t put it past me to start a blog with the three of us and others previously mentioned which is NOTHING but our comments about our own ideas. A chance to put G.’s - C level influences more available to others and to ourselves.
Finally, I look forward to each of your follow-up’s.
Rick (HRP)
Comment by Rick — July 26, 2010 @ 9:07 am
Hi Guys,
My take on this concept of our collective sentience as a transducer, or a limiting biological nexus does not necessarily equate to a zero sum situation as far as the “solidity” of objectified reality. What I perceive is not so much it is or it isn’t but rather, from one point of view it is and from another it isn’t. If so this infers a lot of relationships that are subtle, to say the least beyond our sensory range.
I have to tell you both about something that happened last night. As for some background, my wife is a pragmatist, a “realist” etc who is a wonderful balance to myself. She asked is if I wanted to sit outside for a bit, so we did. The sky was full of heat lightning. What was bizarre and she “witnessed” as well was what sounded like a very low flying 747, only a tone lower that however seemed stationary and came from no particular direction. Then this sound went up several tones slowly over a course of ten seconds or so, while not “moving” Then it went back down the scale for another ten seconds, again not moving, it seemed everywhere and nowhere. We looked at each other with a ?. “That was no jet” she said. I laughed and said, “Well for once, it’s not just me..”
Rick I think your idea is brilliant..count on me to join.
As far as my peripheral vision of the future, I think it is here but we don’t recognize an emerging pattern among ourselves,which resemble clues that are personal and yet they are not. Call them trans-personal and I don’t mean this in a philosophic mode, although it enters realm this realm as well as in many others more attuned to sensory anomalies. For now, I will leave it at that rather than getting long winded.
Best to you both.
Comment by Bruce Duensing — July 26, 2010 @ 10:03 am