On Consciousness and the Bi-Directionality of Time

Originally posted by ApolloDionysis I never used an example with a train in it. I did talk about relativity and moving at the speed of light however, I will assume this is what you are referring to.

Well, Sir, this is just what I 'thought'.

You said that you had read the "reality" thread. It was in that thread that I presented my thought experiment about the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' being on the moving train and the "observing consciousness" being in the train station.

It is theory, as nothing can be proven a hundred percent, there is always a possibility of either right or wrong, or even something entirely different.

"Right" and "wrong" have nothing to do with it, Sir. There is no "true" path of the falling ball. It is perceived as a straight line by the people on the train and as a curved line by the person in the train station. It depends upon the frame of reference. This is like what I am talking about here. Either you see something from the frame of reference of the consciousness of the 'thinker', or you see something from the frame of reference of the "observing consciousness". I cannot argue you into seeing what I see. Nor can you 'argue' me into seeing what you see. I have already seen what you see. Now I also see from another perspective.

It is like disagreeing over whether a particular woman, a particular piece of music, or a particular piece of artwork is beautiful or not. It cannot be argued; it cannot be proven. It is either seen or it is not seen.

So the overcoming of dualistic nature renders this observing consciousness exempt from dualistic logic then. I will refer back to my previous statement that this observational knowledge is only accessible from dualistic logic, other wise, how would you know, or be able to understand this idea?

Well, of course. This is what the consciousness of the 'thinker' must say. It has dropped the ball 10,000 times on the moving train and has always observed that path as being a straight line. It can only assume that the person in the train station perceives it precisely the same way.

Before you understood or came across this idea you thought in this way, and those who have come up with this idea have only done so by using dualistic logic. It is not 'outside' of the thinker in this way, as this is the only way for human being to access this dimension of consciousness.

The 'thinker' deludes itself into the belief that it is the only dimension of consciousness; that it is the 'thinker' which falls in love, the 'thinker' which appreciates music and art and reads poetry, the 'thinker' that plays sports.

So what you are saying is that there is a unified consciousness that exists beyond 'self' and bodily-grounded consciousness. It exists as the "knowledge that it observes", but how does this occur? Are you saying that pure awareness is a way of accessing this consciousness, for example Zazen? Becoming the knowledge that is observed? These are just clarifying questions.

No such thing as any "pure awareness". Any purported "pure awareness" is like the "true" path of the falling ball. That is, any "pure awareness" must self-reflect in order to merely be aware of its existence. And, in that self-reflection, there is the origin of duality which creates the "self"/"not self".

If I understand correctly, then time is not bi-directional, this is simply dualistic logic which you refute. Instead it exists all at once within this observational consciousness.

Yes. All at once. But merely saying that does not 'go anywhere'. The assertion of bi-directionality conveys more information.

The 'movement' of self-reflection is bi-directional in terms of time. So is the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'. In other words time goes both forwards and backwards at each of these instances. But, after that, it is asserted that time can ONLY go in a forward direction. That is for the purpose of preserving the temporal continuity of the spatiality of the consciousness of the "self".

Are you saying that invention, creativity and the like is somehow inspired by this observational consciousness? A moment of satori, if you will, allows for all sources of creativity and inspiration?

It is the source of information. Yes. That information is coming backwards from the future.

Also, qualia is the 'subjective' experience of phenomena. It is ineffable, but the most familiar characteristic of a 'thinking' being. I do not think it is meant to obfuscate, simply a term to describe bodily-grounded conscious beings quality of experiences.

No matter how many times I read this, I cannot remember it. It is like a tool which I recognize but I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it is supposed to be used for. It is utterly useless to me.

Furthermore, take one specific example here: the "thought experiment" which was at the foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity. Now, was that "thought experiment" 'thought' by the consciousness of the 'thinker'?

The answer, surprisingly to the 'thinker', is "no".

There is no logic to that "thought experiment" at all. It is something which is visualized and intuited. Either a person sees that or does not see that. Any mathematics having to do with all of these kinds of things--the Lorentz transformation, etc.--consist of thoughts of the 'thinker'.

But intuition is something like ESP and telepathy and pre-cognition.

It is evidence of information and a dimension of consciousness beyond the consciousness of both the "self" and the 'thinker'.

Thus, any legitimate TOE (Theory of Everything) must be able to explain, also, the consciousness from which it originated.


Michael Cecil

Originally posted by ApolloDionysis If the future is changing the present at this moment, and once humanity realizes your theory is 'true', then this period wouldn't be demonic, or perverse.

This, of course, is a separate issue from the issue of consciousness.

The fact of the matter is that there are people, especially in the various medias, directly involved in the censorship and suppression of any 'anomalous' information about consciousness which in any way seriously threatens the 'absolute truths' vomitted out by the consciousness of the 'thinker'; whether those 'thinkers' be theologians or "scientists of consciousness". This is why this civilization is in the state that it is in; because of those who control the information flow about consciousness and other issues (especially in theology).

The direct consequence of that censorship is that, without such information being made known, there is a delay in the change of consciousness; and that delay has resulted in an increase in violence and suffering and the loss of human life.

This is not a friendly behavior.

And it will get much, much worse until the Truth is finally made known.

Michael Cecil

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Thank you for the clarification, I understand what you are trying to convey now. I appreciate the thoughtful explanation to my questions. I hope this conversation has helped others understand the message you originally posted about.

I am fascinated to read more, besides what you have posted, are there any other sites or articles on which I can read more about this?

Thank you

post script:

...Yes. All at once. But merely saying that does not 'go anywhere'. The assertion of bi-directionality conveys more information.

The 'movement' of self-reflection is bi-directional in terms of time. So is the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker'. In other words time goes both forwards and backwards at each of these instances. But, after that, it is asserted that time can ONLY go in a forward direction. That is for the purpose of preserving the temporal continuity of the spatiality of the consciousness of the "self"...

...There is no logic to that "thought experiment" at all. It is something which is visualized and intuited. Either a person sees that or does not see that. Any mathematics having to do with all of these kinds of things--the Lorentz transformation, etc.--consist of thoughts of the 'thinker'.

But intuition is something like ESP and telepathy and pre-cognition...

Thus, any legitimate TOE (Theory of Everything) must be able to explain, also, the consciousness from which it originated.

Agreed.

reply to post by ApolloDionysis

Sir,

With regards to the subject of consciousness, most of my recent writings can be found under my profile.

I deal with some of the theological/Prophetic aspects of this issue in threads I published under the "Predictions and Prophecies" forum; and other religious issues in threads I published under the "Conspiracies in Religions" forum; both going back about 4 months or so.

For a link to my website describing the larger-scale implications of these things, I suggest you read the note "Open Letter to Assange: Release the Prophecy of August, 1979" under the "General Conspiracies" forum from about 2 or 3 weeks ago.

Michael Cecil