getting past the future

DF wrote:

That article titled “repentance on what should not be…” is very interesting and seems very accurate. My question to you though is why do you always compare the present “what should not be” to the past “what was?” It seems to me the agonizing is no different when we talk about the present “what should not be” because I value or have goals for a future of “what could be”


By the time anyone makes an interpretation of something, the interpretation is referencing something that may no longer be- even a split second may have passed. People use the word “is” with very rather little attention to it.
“My husband is cheating on me” is not a reference to the present moment (probably), but a recent past, right?
Further, people take their interpretation of the past and then project it in to the future, so that “my country is betraying me” is not just an interpretation of the past events, but a lasting spell that they worship with their attention.”
What “is” becomes a cornerstone of the person’a identity and role. However, what “is” may be just a familiar interpretation projected in to the future.
Remember that “the past” and “the future” and so on are fundamentally just categories in language. So, given that agonizing is a “process” that takes time, it is literally taking a past conceptual framework and perpetuating it. The only time that anything ever happens, including our use of language about past or future, is now.

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: