Santa Monica, California, USA
Hi all, and thanks for not throwing this line of discussion out the window, and thanks, Rebel for bring this back to Regina, my country cousin!
None of the notions I've put forward are unique to me. They are my simplified representations of long, long lines of not necessarily western insight. I'm not proselytizing, I'm just looking at stuff.
So, having a go at comments:
Rebel: "How about "make new friends, but keep the old"?
Essorant: Your example is way off, but your conclusion is dead on!
Stephen, my sincere and contentuous friend:
"What is the future but the not-yet-occuring present? It is semantics."
Here's another way to look at it: What is the future but the not yet to have occurred? If it hasn't occured yet, how does it exist except within the framework of your universal view, shared by many, not by all? Not semantics, fundamentally different train of thought.
"The fact that the present differs from one moment to the next demands your recognition of the past and future."
Not at all. The present does not differ from one moment to the next. It is always and immutably the present. (Sometimes I crack myself up at my pretentiousness. I'm not pontificating, Stephen, just postulating!)
"If you can answer what happened yesterday (and if you do so in your everyday type conversations) then I'm sure what you are saying has more to do with a kind of detached philosophy than everyday life."
How does this differ from the detachment of a Christian philosophy, which I truly respect? As you don't think of this as "detachment," I don't think other approaches to the present are detached, either.
"It doesn't logically follow that the past has no bearing on the future simply because someone may make the same mistake twice. After all, they may also not, out of rememberance, make the same mistake twice."
This is illogical, Setphen. It is the same as saying "If cows flew once, they just might fly again."
"I'll also point out that you're referring to the subjectivity of introspection, not the objectivity of the past determining the future."
Nope, I'm not. I'm questioning whether past and present even exist outside the now.
"The fact that you had a wedding determines your relationship with your wife today."
Nope, it doesn't, except for the fact that the legal act of marriage involves certain legal consequences. Does it have anything to do with the nature of our relationship beyond that? Nah. Can law determine the nature of a relationship beyond it's social confines? Maybe that's semantics...
"The fact that you were born from your parents determines who you are genetically today."
Dead on, though I'm not sure of what this has to do with the nature of time.
"You cannot separate past from present, it flows into it, deterministically."
Of course you can. The mere fact that you can make a distinction between past and present is indicative of their seperability.
"Um, do you plan, or ever have regrets or nostalgia? If so, then your philosophy of time at least seems to lack pragmatic confirmation."
Of course I do all of the above. The fact that almost everyone does seems to have no effect on the nature of time at all.
Love y'all. Stay in the moment, Jim