STRANGELOOP (under Einstein and Time): I too wrestled with these issues. That was until I stumbled across a web-site that changed my whole way of thinking about time and our relation to it. I strongly urge anybody interested in this topic to familiarize themselves with the truly profound writings of Michael Hoffman found at his web-site: www.egodeath.com Don't let the domain name fool you - this guy knows his stuff!-Thank you again for joining us. It's difficult to know where to begin, since the article ranges across the origins of religion, free will, the nature of time, and many other subjects we've been discussing. I occasionally found his language and reasoning difficult to follow, but since he's clearly influenced you, perhaps you'll correct any misunderstandings.-His statement that "the essence and origin of religion is the use of visionary plants" is made with authority, but how the heck does he know? The fact that he's able to trace the use of hallucinogenic drugs back through history carries no more weight than the claim that religion originated as an attempt by early man to explain natural phenomena, or that God revealed himself to Man of His own free will. I can't prove that religious myths and stories haven't originated from drug-induced hallucinations, but I'm not making any claims, whereas Mr Hoffman is.-Nor do I see why he should assume that transcendental states of mind will result from drug-taking ... we all know drugs can lead to anything but enlightenment ... or that people can't achieve the same union with a higher power WITHOUT his visionary plants. He argues that people should not be deprived access to these means of reaching a "higher order state", and that democracy's task should be to work out "how they can be healthily integrated into mainstream culture". It's one thing to prevent the health, social, psychological and financial devastation caused by the drug culture, but quite another to try and legalize it on the grounds that some drugs will help people to kill their ego and commune with God. I hand it to Mr Hoffman for his originality, but not for his priorities.-If I've understood him correctly, the idea that we're in control of ourselves is an illusion, and we need to recognize the fact that all our thoughts and words are put there by a higher power (God). He talks of our "dependent puppet-like status". In that case, our "egoic" state which he wants us to abandon has been created by God, and only if God decides we should abandon it can we do so. The chosen race, he says, are those people who "are timelessly pre-determined but only some are destined to realize this." It's the old problem with predestination. If God decides everything, what's the point in Mr Hoffman preaching and us listening? We can only emulate the Puritans and look for signs that we may be the lucky ones.-I would certainly agree that "the self exists as a mental construct" and our lives are "subjectively experienced". And one can argue ... though he doesn't say so explicitly ... that egotism lies at the root of many of our ills, both individually and generally. It also lies at the root of many of our greatest pleasures and achievements. The idea of improving the self by conquering the self figures largely in Buddhist philosophy, though I don't recall reading any recommendation that this be done through visionary plants. (Matt is our resident Buddhist, and will enlighten us on this.) I have very mixed feelings about whether I want to lose my "illusion" of self-control, and I don't know what evidence he has that my thoughts are not mine. Our discussions on free will have tended to focus on influences such as heredity, environment, education, accident ... all of which are beyond our control but nevertheless determine our behaviour. Even if I believed in God, I would like more evidence of Mr Hoffman's thesis, bearing in mind the efforts of the mainstream religions to make us choose the "right" path for ourselves, rather than to believe God is using us as puppets.
 
As for time, he says it's no longer "perceived as a flow, but as a frozen expanse and positional relationship of stationary, distinct and separate time-slices." He also talks of mental constructs as being "laid out along the time axis." If there's another world over which God presides, it may well be that everything is different, but in the world we know ... the only one we know ... I would equate his time-slices with a succession of present moments that become past. If you are convinced that time is not "real", I would ask you please to answer the questions I put to Matt in my post of 14 February at 17.23.-I hope you won't find my comments offensive. They're not meant to be. On this forum, we generally examine ideas critically, in the hope of encouraging rational discussion. In this case, as I've said, I can't even be sure that I've understood all the arguments, so please take my remarks in a constructive spirit, and put me right if you think I've gone wrong! Thank you again.