Re: Jumping off
- Hi Diana --
I enjoyed what you said below.
What you say rings true -- except for this:
The gap is imagined.
Time never catches "what is" -- and
the interpretations made from a perspective
in time are necessarily distorted.
So, there is no way to measure how long the
gap is between "what is" and the reaction
by memory/thought/perception/registry of sensation.
Time is an invention of perception.
The gap could be judged at .5 seconds, or
as a hundred years, or as ten aeons.
I like very much what you said about
the succession of "I"'s -- yes, that is so.
But, there being no way to cross the imagined
gap -- there is no lengthening of the gap,
as you described.
There is only ending of any sense that the
I's have it.
They don't, never could, never did, never will.
In other words, there is no way for I to cross
the gap, nor to be a being who is "in the gap"
or "lengthening the gap."
One can't get to the other side.
The attempt to get there, or to live in the gap,
Upon that collapse, one *is* on the other side --
has always been on the other side -- there
has never been anything which could get
across the gap that never existed ...
But "time" casts a spell, because it is
intrinsic to perception, memory, thought,
and registration of sensation ...
> It occurred to me yesterday that the 0.5 second gap betweenreception
> of stimulus and (cognitive) perception thereof is the vital key 'tofull
> life, the universe and everything.' <g>
> Gene has spoken re perception being an out-going force. We shape
> reality by our perception of it.
> The stimuli are continuous, yet our reaction/perception occurs a
> 1/2 second later. In that 1/2 second is all the eternity necessarynoticed,
> to apply the force of our conditioning, examined or unexamined.
> Actually always just behind reality, lagging.
> There are a blindingly rapid succession of "I's" evoked,
> the "repetitive reconstitution" Dan refers to, in my estimation.
> I-I-I-I-I and so on.
> Perchance, meditation begins to see the gap, the "-". When
> perhaps it 'extends': I--I--I--I. Perhaps, one comes to preferthe
> gap to the incessant internal chatter and imposition ofthat's
> Additionally, neurons are ever-busy explaining hormones. But
> probably a digression here now.to
> Just that it seemed to me exciting that the observable gap between
> reception and perception could be extrapolated to so many metaphors
> encountered in spiritual literature, notably the mysterious place
> between in breath and expiration.
> And notably, at this instant, i can't think of any more metaphors
> which it applies.
> Dang insights! How they fly by.