It occurred to me, after I posted the last post on Janus, that I needed to follow that up with a concrete example of what I’m talking about, in regards to transparency and opacity and the hair that separates them in respect of time and timelessness, and this in regards to some of the contemporary conundrums about time that physics wrestles with.
To do that, I have to refer back to a much older post in The Chrysalis where I commented on the dissolution of the Eternal Now into temporal, atom-sized fragments called “moments” — frozen moments of “Now” — that presently bedevils much physics.
Contemporary convention thinking on time is the subject of a CBC radio broadcast entitled “Living on Oxford Time” and the notion that “Now” doesn’t really exist. “All that is solid melts into air”, and even “Now”, after past and future, dissolves into fractions and fragments. There are only discrete “moments” — infinite in number — with their own discrete “Now”, but no “Universal Present” or Eternal Now. This is, I submit, quantifying consciousness carried away with itself and dissolving itself into atoms, although you’ll have to listen to the broadcast to understand what I mean by that.
The conundrum is, that this dissolution of “Now” into infinite discrete, frozen moments of Now (nows in the plural) flies in the face of a contradiction represented by quantum non-locality or what is also called “transluminal effect” which suggests just the opposite — that every “point” in the universe, every “part” of the cosmos” is in immediate contact or communion with every other “point” or “part”, suggesting that, at some very fundamental level of reality, distance and duration are quite irrelevant, suggesting rather Rumi’s remark that “everything is in the middle of its happening” in a “Now”, and that there is, indeed, a Universal Presence contrary to the speculations. That Universal Presence or Eternal Now is also Indra’s Net.
Quite obviously, if “now” is a “property” of every moment considered as a point in spacetime, then “now” is a universal property of the whole. In effect, but unmentioned here, is that the three physicists interviewed at Oxford are describing what is otherwise called “the akashic record”. The universe forgets nothing. What is called “akashic field” is Eternal Now, and if it were not so, recent speculations about “time travel” being, indeed, a possibility would not be possible at all. It’s only because nothing is ever lost, but is always and everywhere embraced as a “Universal Presence” that “time travel” is even considered a possibility.
And this is exactly what Blake means by “Eternity is in love with the productions of time”. That’s what is described in his walk through Hell as he narrated it in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell — what is called “the akashic field” or “akashic library”, and is described, in hermetic code, in one of Blake’s “memorable fancies”
I was in a Printing house in Hell & saw the method in which knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation.
In the first chamber was a Dragon-Man, clearing away the rubbish from a cave’s mouth; within, a number of Dragons were hollowing the cave.
In the second chamber was a Viper folding round the rock & the cave, and others adorning it with gold silver and precious stones.
In the third chamber was an Eagle with wings and feathers of air: he caused the inside of the cave to be infinite, around were numbers of Eagle like men, who built palaces in the immense cliffs.
In the fourth chamber were Lions of flaming fire raging around & melting the metals into living fluids.
In the fifth chamber were Unnam’d forms, which cast the metals into the expanse.
There they were reciev’d by Men who occupied the sixth chamber, and took the forms of books & were arranged in libraries.
These are symbolic forms, for certain energies, that bring to mind…. what, but the image of Aeon as discussed in the previous post? These forms also appear in alchemy.
It’s all in the middle of its happening.
There’s a rough analogy from the realm of computer programming and operations that might be pertinent here. At any moment there are dozens of programmes running as “threads” in your computer, all sharing the same CPU. The main thread is whatever you are doing with your computer at the moment, but other threads are performing different functions often in and as their own “virtual machine” and quite isolated from other threads running in their own memory space. You can see the different threads running on your computer by popping up the Task Manager. None of those separate threads or virtual machines know that the others exist at all.
So, these “now moments” or “points” named by the Oxford professors are better thought of as “strings” — String Theory. And this is exactly how Castaneda and his don Juan describe their vision of “energy as it flows in the universe” — infinite threads or strings or “fibres” of energy that are, in effect, separate worlds, and perception can be aligned with those strings or threads in order to perceive another world through what is called “the assemblage point”. The possible worlds available to perception are infinite, they follow their own “time-lines”, as it were, but nonetheless all co-exist simultaneously.
This is, admittedly, speculative, but makes much more sense than “now points” or infinte “now moments” — an idea that seems suggested by the still or frozen single frames of a movie, which have no meaning in themselves except in relation to all the other frames of the film. Sure, each frame may represent a “moment” with its own “now” when viewed singularly or from the “point-of-view”, but it’s knowing that each frame belongs in a bigger picture — the overview, in effect — that that particular still or frame acquires its meaning. Or perhaps these good professors are thinking of “now moments” like pixels, each discrete, each comparable to a “moment”, but none of which have any meaning in their isolation except in the relation to the whole. A universe that is merely a sum total of infinite now moments or atoms, which is the work of the “Emissary”, is not a whole at all. They seem to be comparing the things of time as if they were identical to the things of space — soluble into atoms or subatomic particles.
And yet, as Rumi says, the cure for the disease is in the disease. It’s this very quality of “now” that belies these fragments of time. Now is presence, and every “now” is only a kind of holographic echo of Presence or of Eternal Now, existing as, they say, sub specie aeternitatis. Never adequately understood, it means, in essence “Eternity is in love with the productions of time” or “holographic universe” or “the universe in a grain of sand” or “as above, so below”.
It’s worth listening to “Living on Oxford Time” just to marvel at how “Urizenic Man” or McGilchrist’s “Emissary” can get things right in such a very wrong way, mainly, it seems, because it can’t or won’t admit the paradoxical into its thinking or its models. Yet, if anything, the relationship between Master and Emissary is a paradoxical one, just as the relationship between the timeless and time, or Now and Moment, is a paradoxical one, an just as “Eternity in the hour” is a paradoxical one.