The Deceptive Memory
Reinarto Hadipriono - 31.12.2002 11:00
There is no “past,” “present” or “future”! What is really happening is that we are constantly undergoing “a change of condition.” Apparently we are “being deceived” by those “impressions of the previous conditions” that have remained imprinted as our memories.
Second edition
“The Deceptive Memory”
[“The Deceptive Nature of Memory”]
Surely it is everybody’s
belief that the past had once existed. It naturally is everybody’s
belief too that the childhood period that we had once gone through did
exist. It sounds as if we are passing our time sequentially, which
consequently makes it sound natural for us to refer to time that has passed
as “the past” and time that will come as “the future.” As it turns out,
there is a lot of confusion about this. Indeed, there
is one big difference between past and future though: We know
about the past, but we don't know about the future. It is all these
uncertainties about the issue that has eventually given rise to a number of
questions.
Is it true that at the present
what we always “experience” is actually the past condition of our
surroundings? Is it true that Man constantly “finds himself to be in the
present” throughout his lifetime? Is it possible that the assumption that
there is a “past” and a “future” is but a mere result of the human
ability to recall those memories on the previous condition imprinted in
his brain? Could it be
that there’s something about it that we have simply overlooked?
The writer
believes that there are quite a considerable number of scientists who have a
similar feeling about the issue and have accordingly been discussing it.
Even Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying, “Time does not exist. The
only ‘time’ that exists is an eternal moment of Now.” While the writer does
agree with him in a number of aspects, in this paper, however, we shall be
discussing the subject from a different angle.
The Concept of Time
To answer these questions, it is
indispensable that we trace the origin of the concept of time. In
ancient times all people were able to say was that when the sun rose above
them or when there was brightness then that would mean daytime; on the other
hand, when darkness befell them, then that would mean night. Later, when
they became more advanced, for the sake of accuracy in communicating
meanings and by means a device which they themselves invented, brightness or
day was divided into 12, and so was darkness or night. In conformity with
the further improvements they achieved in communications, they then divided
the hour into sixty minutes, and the minute into sixty seconds. It was since
then that we have come to know such terms as hours, minutes and seconds, and
even one-hundredth of a second. From the revolution of the moon around the
earth and the earth around the sun we have such things as months and years.
Apart from that, new “meanings” were added to it that since then the hours
that have passed have always been known as “the past,” the hours we are in
right now as “the present,” and the hours to come as “the future.” Our
growth from being an infant to becoming an adult further confirms that we
have always been undergoing a condition in terms of time, which leads us to
acknowledge that such things as the “past,” “present,” and “future” do
exist. Yet, it is the very meaning added to the scale of the clock that has
brought about a problem of its own kind.
What Do We Mean by “To
Experience”?
Considering the fact that we are
consistently experiencing movements or changes of condition from time
to time, it is perhaps worthwhile for us to spend some time discussing what
we mean by “to experience” here. A sure and easy way to get a clearer
explanation about the meaning of the word is, of course, by looking up in a
dictionary. In the Random House Webster’s dictionary, for instance,
experience as a verb, is defined as to live through or undergo.
The Collins Concise Dictionary Plus defines it as to be moved by or
feel, and the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines it as
to feel. In fact, there are as many definitions of the word as there are
people who think about it.
But let’s now examine the
limitations of the existing definitions. “To experience” in general involves
two things: the condition of our external environment and that of our
bodies. Because we have the five senses, we are certainly able to receive
the various external stimuli, which are then instantly passed on to the
brain such that we become aware of the presence of something coming from
outside of our bodies. The phrase “to experience” is generally associated
with our senses, particularly our sense of sight. As it turns out, not all
external matter is felt by our senses. There are things that we are just
unable to monitor, such as the electromagnetic waves, certain kinds of rays,
magnetic fields, and certain pitches of sounds, etc. Apart from these,
failures to feel the presence of external matter can also be attributed to
certain functional disorders or abnormalities of the receiving end. Now,
what if our bodies receive external stimuli in a manner as described above:
Could we still say that we have actually been experiencing something,
despite the fact that we did not feel it? Are we entitled to say that we
have just experienced an operation, despite the fact that we did not feel it
because we have been anesthetized? What about those lepers, whose affected
parts of their bodies are just unable to feel anything at all, because their
nerves have become dysfunctional? Now, what if we are unable to recall
certain memories stored in our brains due to amnesia or other causes? Are we
justified to say that we have never experienced such and such a thing? So
blurry is the meaning of “to experience” that to establish an accurate
definition of the phrase could really be a demanding job.
The phrase “to experience” in
this article denotes a state wherein our bodies come into contact with
anything external to our bodies; or a state wherein we are dealing with
issues that occur within our bodies themselves; or a state wherein we are
dealing with issues from within our brains, regardless of whether we feel it
or not, whether we are aware of it or not, and whether we are able to recall
it or not.
The Anomalies
1. We always experience the
past condition of our surroundings
When we look up at the sky,
especially at night, the stars we see in the sky are in their past
condition—the lights radiated by these objects need time to reach our eyes.
The stars that we see at this very moment could be in their condition of one
year ago, or ten years ago, or perhaps even millions of years ago. In fact,
it is also possible that among these numerous celestial bodies that we see
as tangible objects, some may have either utterly changed, or moved else
where, or completely diminished. Similarly, all those things around us need
time to get to our eyes and further to our brain. An object a meter away
from us needs 1/300,000,000 of a second to get to our eyes. Thus, we can say
that this object that we see is in its condition of 1/300,000,000 of a
second ago. This holds true not only for those external conditions
transmitted by light but also for those transmitted by the air. When, for
instance, a gun two miles away from us is fired, it will only be about
eight seconds later that we will hear the gunshot—not to mention the time
that the impression of the sound takes to reach the brain, which must
certainly be also taken into account no matter how short it can be.
Similarly is the case with the feelings captured by the skin, the various
compounds tasted by the tongue, or the various molecules that enter our
nostrils—all these take time to reach the brain, don’t they? Viewed in the
sense of experience as defined above, it could, therefore, be said that we
are always belated in our knowledge of the external conditions, though this
could be only as short as 1/3.000.000.000 of a second. However since
different people have different body condition, the rate of this
belatedness rightly varies from person to person. Other factors that are
also determinative of this rate of belatedness are our locality and the
medium being used in the delivery of the external stimuli. As such, whatever
our definition of the word “experience” is, we can still say for certain
that at present human beings are always experiencing “the past of everything
around them.” It is as if we were experiencing/undergoing different periods
of time, or a number of past and present, simultaneously.
Apparently, compared with the other senses, our eyes are the ones that play
a greater role here. This means that what we see around us at present is not
the present state of things, which makes it reasonable for us to say that
those things around us are but mere illusions. Thus, no matter how the
dictionaries may define the word “experience,” one thing remains true: That
at the present all we see around us is the “past condition” of things. If
according to the physicist these are just common natural phenomena, where
then does this term “to experience” fit in? Why are we able to see the
“past” of the various celestial objects and also of our surroundings? Could
it be that the word “past” has all this time been misinterpreted and
misused? Anyway, let’s just leave this for a while and carry on to another
issue.
2. Man feels that he always
exists at “the present” throughout his lifetime
It is said that because we are
here as a form of “existence,” we ourselves must, therefore, be able to feel
our very existence. Is it not a fact that even at this very moment we feel
that we exist? This is what we precisely mean when we say that we have “the
feeling of existence.” Please note that the “feeling of existence” discussed
here is by no means the same as those feelings produced by our senses or
emotional feelings. To illustrate the point, let’s take a look at one simple
movement that we normally make in our daily life. Let’s say that at this
very moment our arms are at rest, hanging down by our sides. Now, the
instant we raise our arms, what could possibly be said of them would be that
seconds ago they were hanging down by our sides. Why is it that in
either situation, arms up or arms down, our feeling of existence
seems to tell us that we are consistently at the “present”? You can try
this, if you like, and then take some time to ponder! Perhaps, because the
time span between arms down and arms up is extremely short you may come to
think that there’s nothing unusual about it and can readily accept such an
explanation. The same thing holds true even for movements that require a
longer time span, perhaps an hour or a day, or a year: You will always feel
that your existence is consistently at the “present.”
It is only because we are
constantly experiencing different conditions, and due to the fact that our
external and internal conditions keep changing that we feel as if our
existence is being subject to the alternate periods of “time.” We are being
carried by the rotation of the earth—now facing the sun that we have day,
then turning our faces away from the sun that we have night, yet still
feeling that “we are always at the present.” Since our childhood we have
always felt that we “consistently exist” at the “present.” Even with the
entry of external substances into our bodies which turns us into adults, we
keep feeling that we consistently exist at the present (relate this with the
feeling of existence elaborated below). To say that childhood
is a condition of “the past” would, therefore, seem to be contradictory to
the existing “feeling of existence.”
It is ironic indeed that while
on the one hand we are “always belated in our knowledge of the actual
condition of our surroundings,” on the other hand we feel or realize that we
“consistently exist at the present.” It sounds as if we are now being faced
with a bigger question mark on the use of the word “past.” This, of course,
is an issue that is inseparable from the “assumptions” Man has of his
surroundings.
Concerning “the Past”
Is it possible that we have all
this time had a mistaken assumption of our surroundings? Let’s take a look
at another issue which could possibly lead us to some conclusive judgment.
When we try to recall our past, the death of someone a year ago, and events
a few hours back, are these not just a present attempt to
retrieve the things stored as a memory? When we throw a ball from points A
to B, for instance, we tend to say that the ball was at point A. Does this
not mean that at the time the ball was at point A, the rays reflected by the
ball left an impression or are recorded in our brain, which we try to
retrace at the present? Even a photograph of the past is no
indication of the presence of the past, because what is considered the past,
which is immortalized by the photograph, is a mere assumption we make at the
present. Physically speaking, the photograph itself is in its present
condition, though it may have by now been discolored, or faded. We feel that
we have “a past” only because the past condition leaves a trace in
our brains.
The “Future”
Is it true that what Man calls
the “future” is but a mere result of his ability to recall the memories on
the previous condition that is imprinted in his brain? It is common
knowledge that all of us, particularly those who live within the equatorial
regions, experience day and night alternately every day. The fact that after
the morning comes the afternoon, and then comes the night, after which we
have the morning again and so on, has eventually caused the sequential
change of conditions to be strongly recorded as memories. This, further,
makes it very easy for us to recall at any time the presence of the
“sequenced conditions.” The fact that we have quite often kept saying such
words as “later,” “after that,” “tomorrow,” is proof enough that those
conditions are so well preserved in our brains that we find it very easy to
recall them. Thus, it is very natural if we insist that such things like
“the future” or “tomorrow” do exist. As such, it could thus be said that all
those plans for tomorrow are but just an imagination added to
the outcome of the recollection of “the presence of tomorrow.” If, for
instance, we say that we are going to New York City tomorrow, what actually
occurs is that an imagination is being created at present of our going there
tomorrow. This is so because our idea that there is “a tomorrow” has already
been recorded in our brain, and we can recall it. However, since conditions
keep changing and we continue to exist, we inevitably pass the night
condition. During the time we are in our night condition, we tend to
condition ourselves for our sleeping condition. Eventually, we arrive at our
morning condition, that is, the time set for us to leave for New York. This
is something that we experience daily in our life. Nevertheless, because we
have the ability to recall the custom of having a tomorrow, we can at
that time imagine what we expect to ensue the next day. Obviously, all these
have been made possible because we are able to recall the memories that had
once been stored in our brain, or we have been able to condition our selves
into a position where we can relate our thoughts with the memories stored in
our brain. In sum it could then be said that all those talks about “the
past” and “the future” have been made possible only because “previous
conditions” have left traces in our brain, which at the time of their
“recollection” has enabled us to feel all “the past” that we had once gone
through, and all “the future” following it.
Denying all the premises
proposed above would not only imply that we are experiencing two
different times simultaneously, i.e. the past and the present,
but also contradict with our own feeling of existence that we are
constantly living in the present.
Note:
Now that we have come so far, we may begin to have our doubts about the
appropriateness of the use of the word “time.” Nevertheless, due to
language constraints we will, in our discussions here, keep using the
various adverbs of time.
Regarding “Condition”
Let’s now try to reflect on what
we mean by “condition” here. If, for instance, someone happens to ask you to
describe the condition of a certain object, what he expects to hear from you
is usually everything you know about the object as a whole. In your
description, you may then have to include such things as its properties; its
relationship with other objects, its age; its quality; its weight, its
volume, its origin, its legitimacy to the society; etc. Similarly, when
someone asks you to describe the condition of a certain area, what he needs
from you is everything you know about the area as a whole. Whenever we talk
about a “certain condition” of a city, what we normally have in mind here is
the “local condition.” The fact, however, is that no matter how small an
area is, there constantly occurs a situation of mutual influence between the
area and the universe as a whole. That the lights from the various stars and
also from our sun have reached the area is one proof of such an influence.
Under no circumstances could one localize the condition of something, except
for such reasons as to ease understanding in communication. There is just no
way by which we could split up the open space or the sky up there just for
the sake of completely localizing conditions. It is only because of the
visionary partition created by Man in his brain to localize conditions that
we are prevented from perceiving things in its more holistic sense.
It is, in fact, due to the
changes of conditions that the contents of the universe seem to be
“moving” which though at variant speeds, are yet in one common condition of
the universe. Thus, any change of condition that we may be undergoing is
concurrently a change of condition of the universe as a whole.
One might ask, “Why is it that
we have been putting a stronger emphasis on ‘condition’ than on ‘movement’?”
The writer has intentionally avoided the use of the term “movement” due to
its relativity—what is it that moves, towards what, in which direction, at
what speed, in what kind of environment, etc. “Condition” is a more
comprehensive term in that it covers all external environment, including the
whole contents of the universe.
Because Man’s brain has been
accordingly conditioned, the various impressions, particularly those of
light, can thus adhere to it. The memory is then stored and can be even
recalled; consequently, he assumes all these to be “the past.” Have you ever
tried to imagine what it would be like if you were unable to recall all the
memories stored in your brain? Clearly, you would still be able to
see all the changes taking place in the universe, but you wouldn’t be able
to recall what it was that you had just been through. It is as if you were
seeing things undergoing a series of change, but without having the
slightest recollection of any of the conditions prior to the latest change.
You would not be able to remember your family members, not even yourself.
You would not be able to express yourself in words, not even in your mind,
because all these require the ability to recall things. After all these
discussions we should by now have already understood the reason why we know
about the past, and why we don’t know about the future.
We are all fully aware that in
our childhood we had had a variety of experiences. The question now is,
“Where have all these childhood experiences of ours, which had in fact been
recorded as memories in our brains, gone?” Verily, a larger part of our
childhood body condition has remained preserved, together with all our
childhood memories, in our adult bodies. Similarly, a larger part of our
adult body condition has remained preserved in our aged bodies. Thus, at the
time a person recalls all his childhood kite-flying experiences, for
instance, he seems to feel the childhood period that he had once had and all
the things he had once experienced. Now, if you still find it difficult to
comprehend where your childhood body has gone then, let’s just take a
balloon as an analogy. Let’s say, to inflate the balloon to a particular
size you need five seconds. Now, inflate it for another ten seconds to make
it bigger, and inflate it again for another twenty seconds to make it even
bigger. The question now is where has the balloon at its smallest size gone?
Certainly, the answer is: The matter of the balloon, which was then at it’s
smallest, is still inside the balloon, which by now is at its biggest.
Naturally, the word “seconds” used for the balloon has to be replaced with
the word “years” when it comes to talking about the growth of
Man. Though the balloon exemplified above may not be a perfect comparison
for man with all his life process, yet the fact that the addition of
external matter has caused the balloon to expand is reason enough for us to
say that it is quite similar to man in that man too grows bigger and heavier
with the entry of external matter into his body. What we are trying to
imply by our experiment with the balloon above is that even with our bodies
growing to such conditions as they are at the present, we are still
preserving a larger part of that matter of our childhood bodies. What we
mean here is the atoms not the configuration or the composition of the
matter itself. If during its inflation, whereby it becomes bigger and bigger
by the second, the balloon still exists at the present, the same
thing holds true for the human body following its years of growth; Man
always feels himself to be consistently at the present. (Relate this with
“the feeling of existence” below.)
Here’s a bit of the writer’s
experience in his attempt to contemplate time.
Out of my confusion about this
issue of time, I had once brought up to myself a question which, though
“very common” as it may sound, has yet kept nagging me for years. “A few
days ago I was in city X, and at present I am here. Where then is the ‘I’,
who a few days ago was in city X?” I asked myself. Now, if I were to say
that the “I” here at present is the same person as the “I” there a few days
back and who is now experiencing “the present,” would this not mean that the
“I” is still the same person who has always been at the present,
though “in a different condition”?
If I were to claim it to be an
action of my past, would I then be able to prove my being in that city? If
you happened to be me, you would perhaps say, “Why not? Isn’t the photo that
we took together proof enough? Isn’t the document that you signed proof
enough?” As already discussed above, what we assume to be a proof is
but mere traces left in our brains, which we conceive as marks of our
past actions. Obviously “human assumption” plays an important role here.
What seems to complicate matters
is the fact that apart from having to face those changes of external
conditions, we are also faced with the changes within our selves. During the
night we find ourselves in a sleeping condition, while during the day we
find ourselves in a variety of physical and mental states. Illnesses,
emotions, the various brainwork, etc. cause us to be intensely influenced by
all these changes. Further, the ability of Man to move from one place to
another also adds to the complexities. In the long term, we experience a
physical growth, becoming an adult and growing bigger, which makes us come
to feel as if we are moving from one period of time to another period of
time. What seems to make matters worse is the fact that the various units of
time (with the addition of the meanings of the past, the present, and the
future) have, since long ago, been accepted as part of our culture.
Let’s take some time to imagine
the earth being completely still, no longer rotating on its axis, that we
are constantly having daytime. If we now imagine that we are all alone in
the stillness of the desert, we will perhaps be able to better feel that
there is no such thing as time and that we are consistently being at the
present. This experiment may perhaps be easier for us to digest the various
ideas that we have discussed above.
The Feeling of Existence
The repeated mention made above
about “man feeling his very existence to be always at the present
throughout his lifetime” makes it necessary for us to make some mention of
the rational underlying the use of the term “feeling of existence.” While we
do admit that every one of us must feel it himself, yet for
clarity’s sake, we still find it necessary to forward our views on what it
is that makes us feel our existence, or have the “feeling of
existence.” In logical terms, this is an apparently rational concept,
because the very fact that Man has come into being is by itself an assurance
of his ability to feel his own presence.
What’s more, as far as the
feeling of existence is concerned, there is no denial that we humans are
simply inseparable from the other parts of this universe. This, certainly,
gives us warrant to say that Man does evolve from the various matter
existent in the universe. Since the evolutionists dare say that all living
creatures, including human beings, developed evolutionarily, they should
also have the courage to admit that the feelings of existence
present in all human beings must have originated from what nature has in it.
Man is a combination of the various matter to be found in the
universe, a combination to which he gives a particular meaning, just
the way he gives the various objects, plants, animals their respective
meanings by the way the various matter is combined. Despite the fact
that the human molecules differ from any other molecules to be found in the
universe, inside his body, however, all the matter that form the various
atoms such as electrons, neutrons, protons, etc. is no different at all from
any other matter that exists in the universe, Man grows bigger because of
the entry of external matter into his body. The question now is, how it is
that Man can constantly feel his own presence, or feel that he does
exist? If he has this feeling of existence, then the matter from
which he is made up must certainly have their feelings of existence,
too. Let us discuss something else briefly, just as a simple illustration.
If we hit a marble against another marble of approximately the same weight,
each of them will bounce back because they “feel each other’s
presence.” Could such a reaction have occurred, if each had not felt the
presence of the other?
“To be able to feel the presence
of the other, each of them should be able to feel its own existence. If it
could not feel its own existence, how could it feel the presence of the
other?”
Does this not mean that,
logically speaking, even objects have their “feelings of existence”?
Here, it is obvious that objects not only feel the existence of
others but they also feel their own presence. As Man is made
up of the different matter of the world, each having its own feeling of
existence, naturally the feeling of existence that he has is the combination
of the feelings of existence of the different matter. Since the matter
continues to remain existent, Man, being a product of their combination,
must certainly continue to feel his very existence. Nonetheless, “the
feeling of existence” in Man is obviously not at all the same as the
“feelings of existence” of the various matter of which he is made. Given the
fact that the feeling of existence of Man is a combination of the “feelings
of existence of matter”—particularly the matter that forms his five senses,
nerves, and brain—Man must certainly have more complex feeling of his
existence than the matter has of theirs. This is reasonable, because apart
from the combined “feelings of existence” of the matter inside the body,
there is also the life process. In a dead person, all of his physical
body is a combined “feelings of existence” of his body forming matter. On
the other hand, in a Man who is in a comatose state or unconsciousness, or
under total anesthesia, while the combined feelings of existence of his
body-forming matter are still there in a life process, these
feelings, unlike those of a conscious Man, are void of the cooperation of
the senses, nerves and brain. For healthy people not only do they have the
“feeling of existence” but they are also “aware of their existence,” because
they have brains. However for the sake of simplicity we will still use the
word “feeling of existence” referring to human beings.
It is because of our “existence”
that we feel that we exist or have the “feeling of existence,” which has
further led us to feel that we are constantly undergoing “the present.” This
assumption that there is the “present” is also confirmed by the assumption
that we have the “future” and the “past” resulting from our memory.
The Time Span of “the
Present”
In the light of all this, Albert
Einstein’s words, as once quoted, that “Time does not exist. The only
‘time’ that exists is an eternal moment of Now,” are indeed a lot of help to
us in that it serves to generate our understanding of the contents of this
article. Let’s now take a brief look at these things that we commonly refer
to as “now” and “the present.”
However by frequently expressing
the phrase, “the present,” one may appear to admit that the three sequences
of time do exist. Do we have an accurate definition of “the present”?
Actually, how long is the time span that we call now or the
present? If we are to say “five seconds,” this definitely means that the
time prior to the beginning of the first second must be the past? Such is
the case, how many seconds then is the “now” or “present”?
Is it one second, 0.1
second, 1/100,000,000 of a second, or close to 0 second? Considering the
fact that no matter how short a time span is people can always split it into
“the past” and “the present,” one can thus deduce that 0 second, being the
point at which no more division could be made, would be the most accurate
figure. In other words, at this point, terms such as “the past” and “the
present,” as normally used by people, should no longer hold.
Apparently, as far as time is
concerned, there are only two choices left for us in our acceptation of the
term “the present”: either to accept it as being eternal or to simply accept
it as being non-existent. Admittedly, we have so far failed to
appropriately determine the “span of time” of what we really mean by “the
present.” What’s more. we have so far also been habitually associating “the
present” with “the past” and “the future,” despite the fact that whatever
change we are experiencing is actually a mere change of condition. To put it
another way, our very existence is one that is constantly undergoing a
variety of changes without ever knowing time, whether this be a
change of the condition of the past, the present, or the future.
This perhaps explain why
it is just difficult for us to avoid using such adverbs of time as the past,
the present, and the future, all of which have become standard terms in the
human language.
Now that we have come this far,
what is your opinion of “time”? Firstly, we are at present experiencing the
past condition of things. Secondly, we feel our existence to be always at
the present. Finally, we have failed to appropriately determine the “span of
time” of what we mean by “the present.” Could it be that such incongruities
are but a mere result of the simplicity of the concept of time as initially
introduced by the ancient humans with all their limitations? If we are to
argue that this Man-made time is just an attempt to “draw a division”
between the changing conditions, as they relate to the rotation of the
earth, why then has this meaning of “time” become so complicated?
What about Man, who can in no
way achieve such eternity as the universe? One thing for certain is that the
contents of the universe, be they objects, plants, animals, or even human
beings, are all made up of the same materials, i.e. the sub-atomic
particles. It is only because of their particular combinations of matter
that they are given different names. When we die, however, all those
body-forming matter will either decompose or be reduced to ashes (as in
cremation), and eventually transform themselves into other kinds of matter
or energy and scatter all over the universe. Thus, even though the
combined body-forming matter that constitutes the human body is not at
all eternal, yet individually the matter itself is essentially eternal.
Under no circumstances will this matter disappear from the universe
(“law” of mass and energy conservation). Instead, it will continue to exist,
though in a different condition, while transforming itself into various
“combinations of matter” in this universe. It is on such a premise that we
have come to conclude that the universe does not in any sense move from time
to time; rather, it changes itself from one condition to another. No attempt
is, however, made here to discuss the various “supplements” such as soul,
spirit, life, etc., which the various religions have provided man with.
“Time,” which is considerably
associated with movement, speed, acceleration, changes, etc, has become part
of our daily life. Various apparatuses for measuring time can now be seen on
the wall of every house, and the wrists of people and, in fact, in almost
all electronic equipment. Time has become a topic of our daily conversation,
seemingly becoming an integral part of our life. Now that we have come thus
far in our discussion, it would perhaps be worthwhile for us to question the
legitimacy of the word “time” and all what it stands for. It is perhaps
worth noting here that the consequences of any misconception of such a
phenomenon as discussed above could be far-reaching. Apart from the
above-mentioned issues, new theories could possibly emerge from this
misconception, which in the long run would lead us further astray to the
extent that we find it difficult to imagine and accept the presence of an
eternal entity. By removing the shackles of “time” from our selves, we
may find it easier to accept that the whole universe is constantly
undergoing a holistic change of condition and continues to remain
existent in eternity. This does not depend on whether we believe the
Universe to be a separate independent entity, or whether we believe it to be
a creation of God, or just a part of the “Creator.”
Conclusion
Finally, after a thorough
reflection of all the above issues we may conclude that the emergence of
such anomalies concerning time is apparently a result of Man’s attempt to
divide time into periods. It is all because of our “existence” that we are
led to feel that we have “the present.” On the other hand, however, for as
long as we have the ability to condition our selves by recalling the traces
of all the memories stored in our brains from the “previous condition,” we
will consequently be led into thinking that “the past” does exist. The
changing condition that we go through everyday, such as morning, afternoon,
and night (having been recorded as memory), we thus assume that we will
inevitably undergo similar changes every day. This reasonably explains why
we have always believed that “the future” is there for us to undergo.
Apparently we are “being deceived” by those “impression of the previous
conditions” that have remained imprinted as our memories.
Man has never had and will never
have to undergo “the past,” “the present” and “the future.” What is really
happening is that we are constantly undergoing “a change of condition.” As
such, all that Man experiences are “a condition of the past,” “a condition
of the present,” and “a condition of the future” with all the meanings they
convey.
The positive impacts on
humankind
It is quite natural that man
should create the various units of measurement for everything that exists in
this universe for the purpose of communicating with his self and with each
other. Thus, the change of condition of our surroundings he also divides
into the different units of time. The problem, however, is that a number of
anomalies begin to show up as a result of the attachment of “additional
meanings to time”
That the adoption of “time” with
“all the meanings” it conveys has become part of the human culture for more
than two thousand years makes it no easy task for us to attempt to change
it. However, by being aware of its defects, we are at least helping
ourselves to avoid going further astray from the real condition. Besides, by
being aware of these mistakes of ours we would likely be geared towards a
more realistic, critical, universal and holistic realm of thought. Such an
awareness, it is expected, would bring about a positive impact in that it
could result in the achievement of a “common perspective” as concerns our
selves and this universe. An added impact could be that peace on the
earth and unity among humankind would be further assured.
By Reinarto Hadipriono
……………………………………………… Copyright © 2002
 Reinarto@Hadipriono.com
www.deceptivememory.com
Bio:
 http://www.the-absolute-enormous-unity.com/02-about_the_writer.htm
 E-Mail: Reinarto@Hadipriono.com  Website: http://www.deceptivememory.com
|
