It is logically impossible to know the past

[perplexity]

Do we have to understand the present to create our 'truth' of it?

Our past is the internal database that feeds the perception, so for the time being there is not much of a choice except to trust it, apart from the option of insanity.

The illusion that we call the external World is always present, not past, or as near at least as we know how to get to it.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

I think it is how we create our 'truth' by analyis of our present. Imagine not having any way of knowing our past or even ten minutes before, with a perminant now, would that effect our perception? And what of time, that strange forth dimention- it has peculiar properties, it must form in a 'line' (events in a...) otherwise it would seace to exist surly?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

I think it is how we create our 'truth' by analyis of our present. Imagine not having any way of knowing our past or even ten minutes before, with a perminant now, would that effect our perception?

What we call truth is about the interaction between our present awareness and that of somebody else. When both are tuned into the same wavelength of consciousness, the experience of that is what they call a truth.

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

And what of time, that strange forth dimention- it has peculiar properties, it must form in a 'line' (events in a...) otherwise it would seace to exist surly?

Time has at least two dimensions of its own: the second dimension is what we call free will, a choice of different directions at any given moment.

--- RH

[pilgrimshost]

So reality is actually when two people+ agree on a principle of their external world? And free will governs the rate of time or its direction?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

So reality is actually when two people+ agree on a principle of their external world?

Is that not exactly how it works when seen objectively, the very use of the word?

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

And free will governs the rate of time or its direction?

The extra dimension takes us to an infinite variety of different realities.

This again is the perfectly logical conclusion. If at any given moment there is a choice of two different ways to go, then there has to be two different realities to accommodate the choice. The choice is otherwsie pointless. A no option single reality infers absolute fatalism.

With regard to knowing the past one is then left to wonder which of an equally infinite variety to pick from.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

Excellent, now I understand.

[perplexity]

Thank you for the questions; you are well named, pilgrimshost.

Before attempting to answer them I'd had no idea that I knew so much about everything. It would never have been so clear to me.

--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

Its been a pleasure,perplexity,you have been a great source of knowledge,thank you for putting up with my constant proding at you brain . Its good to find someone who has the patience and interest to be able to ask the questions to.If only others would afford the same curtacy. CHEERS

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by perplexity

The illusion that we call the external World...

Do you have argument or proof that the external world is an illusion? Or are we to simply take your word on the matter? By argument or proof, I do not mean blind recitation or agreement with Eastern philosophy; I mean ponderable evidence upon which a rational assessment can be made.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

Do you have argument or proof that the external world is an illusion?

I had already provided a proof:

Big Spanish Castle

The proof is abundant. When different people observe the same object or event but describe it in significantly different terms, the logical conclusion has to be that their perception differs.

A perception different to what you would call the reality is what I call an illusion.

You might otherwise say that they see different realites, that they live in different Worlds, but the gist is the same.

Now can you please explain to me in any other way why this is so difficult for you to appreciate while it is obvious to me?

--- RH.