Everyone keeps belaboring a point which cannot be reconciled. Dudes and dudettes...If you cannot remember a life before YOU were born, then you will not remember a life after YOU die. So stop wondering about it, because the only YOU there is is the YOU in the present moment. No more, no less. That's it. That is all there is. We can couch it in theater such as... But it does not belie the point that there is nothing outside this present moment. Remember when you went to sleep. See? You just got caught in a reality trap in thinking about it. There is no memory without presence in the now.
Well, while you claim to live in a moment in time, you cannot remember the You, living in eternity, which seems to have gone to sleep and forgotten about its Self along with how it went to sleep. Meanwhile, that Self is thinking the same thing, that outside of it's present moment, nothing else exists, and at best, was a bad dream. Which moment is more real to you? The Self's immortal moment, or your egos changing moments, out of which you claim to select one as "now" to prove your existence. Well i don't think that's how time works, but it is how the ego works.
Time is a man-made construct. It is why there can never be Grand Unification. Time simply does not exist. Yes, that is how the ego works. I do not know for how many days you have been alive, and aware in your daily life to conduct this simple experiment, but nothing like the now to start it. I've been doing it for years and years. ------------------------------------- I dare you to fall asleep tonight and remember doing it without waking up in the morning. When you wake up in the morning, try to remember when you fell asleep. I bet you cannot do it. When you wake up, you may remember the last experience you had when you were falling asleep, but that is because you woke up in the morning to remember it. See this girl? If she does not wake up tomorrow, she will not know the music she played. The people who still are awake after hearing it will remember it, but the girl will not.
Maybe the black holes are the answer, where no energy can escape. Remember, it's not just the speed of light shit, it's all energy. That includes spiritual energy. That cannot go faster than C either. Could God survive a black hole? Irrelevant, because there is no universal deity.
True enough, time does not exist, but only from the point of view of the True Self which exists in a timeless environs called "eternity". However, time is a construct, within the domain of imagination, a product of a supra-ego, not so much at the level of a man-ego, although there is some link between the supra-ego and all the man-egos. An ego is a false self, or sense of self, just as if when we identify with some self that observes random scenes in a dream, and sometimes participates. That self knows nothing of the Self that went to sleep, or how it went to sleep, or what sleep even is. Time could be better explained as a series of static images, a lot like a frame on the film of a movie. It is not necessarily moving, and technically, the past is as accessible (able to be experienced) as much as the future. What narrows our focus down to one of the images, and then the next image, as if one follows another, is deeply rooted in mental space carved out by egos. I would suggest that the feeling of guilt narrows down our focus from one image to the next, where the change from image to image evokes a sense of time. In other words, i don't think it is valuable to focus on one of the images as proof of existence. It mostly proves we believe things that prevent us from seeing all the images at the same time, and from seeing those as actually non-existent.
No really. A moment in the past or the future is as currently accessible as the moment in 2022 you are calling "now", as if those other moments aren't as equally happening, for whichever ego is observing/participating in them.
Here is a conservative voice opining on what a couple of lefties were saying about being a woman recently: The conservative points out that the lefties have not, themselves, defined what a woman is. I'm not entirely leftie on this, and view Cenk as insane himself, but i do have to raise an eyebrow when Marjorie Taylor Green reveals that she's a ribber. A ribber is someone who says a woman is what is made from Adam's rib. I've got to wonder if those ancient Jews were ribbing us when they proposed the rib thesis: Ribbing: The act of harassing someone playfully or maliciously (especially by ridicule); provoking someone with persistent annoyances. Technically, the proposition of made-from-a-man's-rib still doesn't define what a woman is. It only implies that if you were made by the god-of-this-world (Yaweh?, Allah?), then you are a glorious being. But you can look around at everything the maker has made and see that not all that is made is exactly glorious, even though it may be clever. Synonyms of ribbing include: teasing, razzing, kidding, badinage, banter, chaff, raillery, taunt, laughter, tantalization and roasting. So yah, you've got to wonder if those old Jews were scoffing at anyone who would actually believe the narratives they were making into mainstream media by writing things down (a very expensive, very rare process), and having their writings read every Saturday from a pulpit (ancient equivalent of mainstream media). Its funnier than a funny bone, that both male and female are formed, in the womb, from the very same "genital tubercle", which affirms a general equality. By asserting the male was made first, the old Jews were implying that male status was primary, possibly even closer to the god-of-this-world. On the other hand, it may also imply that everything in this world is a sacrifice. The first male had to sacrifice something to be different from a female. Likewise, females have to sacrifice something to be unique from males. The most obvious sacrifice is that males have to sacrifice a vagina and a womb to get a penis, and women have to sacrifice a penis to get a vagina and a womb. There are other sacrifices, of course. Maybe the old Jews sacrificed straight forward language, employing euphemisms instead (for mainstream consumption), to speak of the sacrifice of the penis, in order to be a woman. My point, is, to be a male or female, you have to sacrifice Christ.
No, the male Jews had to sacrifice the foreskin of their penis during the bris. That's it. It's a physical thingy. You can ask me how I know, but you'd know the answer I would give you. It was not for God's glory, but for man's.
The sacrifice of that thingy does not make the difference between male and female. Instead, it make you a member (no pun intended) of a tribe-centric faith club. The normal cost to get into the club is $100,000, but if you don't have that, you can just pay with a foreskin. Kidding of course, but the rib thing, the foreskin thing, point to the mentality that you have to pay for things of value. So, men pay for women. It's a cultural thing. According to the story, the first woman didn't sacrifice anything to be made existent. So it's like a club, where woman are admitted for free, but men pay. In theory you're paying for privilege's within the club which give you special access to women. But yah, to be a male member of that club, you theoretically sacrifice male membership in other cultural faith clubs.