Einstein’s Special Relativity being one - Now being necessarily subjective, rather than a fundamental, objective, absolute moment.
Sean, hi. As James explained, the specious present has one foot in ‘objective time’ (clock time, duration) and the other in ‘subjective time’ (the human perception of time, now). Krishnamurti’s psychological time has both feet in the ‘subjective time’ category, it is concerned with the thought/feeling of time, not with clock time or duration.
If I didn’t explain that well, let me know and I’ll try again. 
Hi James! I’ve been thinking of Krishnamurti’s psychological time as the “becoming gap” between what-is and what-should-be. Is that nontrivially different from “the distance created by the psychological construct of observer and observed?”
May I quote you the next time I’m late for an appointment?
Yes - but of course when speaking of the ‘now’ (as opposed to the ‘specious present’) fundamental physical theory matters; and whether Relativity constitutes such a fundamental theory (in the light of quantum physics) is an open question.
For instance, David Bohm’s physical theory presents the character of the actual present (the ‘now’, as opposed to the ‘specious present’) in terms of the immediate or non-dual relationship of consciousness to (what he calls) the ‘implicate order’. The implicate order here means a non-fragmented movement or flow (of fundamental energy) from which physical time and space (or space-time) is unfolded as a secondary (or explicate) level of order.
So, from this perspective, the relativity of space-time is a characteristic of a certain level of explication of the physical order, but not a characteristic of its fundamental (or implicate) nature.
This makes room, as it were, for the observed phenomenon of non-local action, which contravenes classical Einsteinian Relativity. From a Bohmian perspective, this non-local action is not an action ‘between’ two separate discrete entities (even though this is how it appears at the explicate level of (macro) physical observation); but rather it is unitary action at the level of implicate movement, which shows up (or unfolds) as a simultaneous action of separate and discrete entities at the explicate order of Einsteinian time-space.
2 Likes
His understanding is mostly intellectual. But there is some actuality = empathy for the confusion of the other person. That’s why it’s a ‘guilty pleasure.’ So he does have a problem, but it’s minor and easily ignorable.
(To what extent) Do we need to feel our pain rather than just seeing and understanding it?
Thanks for that very clear explanation Nobody.
Yes, that sounds right. The time between the ‘what is’ and what ‘should be’ (the time of psychological becoming) is the same as the distance created between the observer and the observed. It is the interval created by memory and thought.
In relationship this might be the distance created by my image of someone, which separates me from who or what they objectively are. The image creates a screen or a delay, which interferes with my direct observation of - my relationship with - them.
Hello James. Thanks for the explanation. We often say that the only thing we can do is experiment with the choiceless observation of the movement of thought. As far as I can see, this is the only way to find out if what K was saying is true.
1 Like
I don’t say “that the only thing we can do is experiment with choiceless observation of the movement of thought” because I can’t experiment without choosing to.
Does deciding to experiment rule out the possibility of choiceless observation? I mean, you can’t decide that the breeze will come into the room but you can leave the window open.
3 Likes
What does it mean to “leave the window open”?
Hi Dan. In the context of my reply to Inquiry, I meant that one can make a decision about something (to leave the window open or to experiment with choiceless awareness) but that what comes next is not something that can be decided (the breeze coming in or choiceless awareness taking place).
Concepts? There are no concepts.
And when you start there, where will it go? Or will it just stay in intellectual understanding?
Also to me, ‘leaving the window open ‘ is the intellectual understanding or certainty that the self must ‘die’, dissolve, if ‘freedom ‘ is to be realized…and ‘the breeze’ is the process of that dissolution which can’t be invited.
1 Like
I meant concepts such as up, down, the observer is the observed etc…
I suppose it could go anywhere - to some emotional place, to some action. What barriers are there actually between this moment and the next? Are you implying that intellectual understanding is a barrier to psychological freedom?
I suppose the best we can hope for is an intellectual understanding that any effort from self, reinforces the self.
1 Like
I can’t choose to experiment with choiceless awareness if I have no experiential knowledge of it, and if I did, it wouldn’t be anything new or different. I can, however, do as you say and leave the window open, which I take to mean be more open minded.
I want to know what choiceless awareness is, if it’s possible to experience it.
I reckon we have at least some idea of what attention is.
During a quiet moment, is attention there when we look for it? What happens if we stay with it? Does this take effort? Why does it stop?
What can I know about complete attention and choiceless awareness if I, choosing, can’t be present when attention is complete and awareness is choiceless?
is attention there when we look for it? What happens if we stay with it?
“We”, the choosers, can only acknowledge what we choose to find.
What happens if we stay with it?
I don’t think it’s possible to be choicelessly aware of choosing until the mind loses confidence in itself.