Perception of time

When you are young, a year seems like an eternity. As you get older, the years passes almost without notice. Except when something dramatic happens – like a near death car accident. Then time crawls and you feel like Neo in The Matrix.

The perception of time depends on the rate of change and your proximity to the change. If change happens fast in Syria, it will hardly impact your perception of time. If the change happens to your body, like in that car accident, your perception of time is greatly affected.

You can feel time slowing down by getting in gear and doing a lot. Create lots of results, and you will get more out of life. But you can do even better.

You can effectively “slow down” time by facilitate change within yourself. If you allow your viewpoints to change and develop rapidly, you will get back the notion that a year feels like an eternity.


52 thoughts on “Perception of time

  1. Yes, Geir, I do get this notion from much of my own experiences.

    We’re then going from mere ‘perception of’, to ‘Cause’ over time?

  2. It could be that time passes more slowly for kids because they are more in present time. And older folks are less in PT, so for them time seems to go by faster. This would be based on the idea that the more a person is in the Now, the less he or she is mocking up (creating) the passing moments of time. Being fully in the Now would make time stand still.

    1. And continually evolving one’s viewpoints and perspectives does indeed keep a person in the Here & Now. That is one HOW it is done.

      1. I had the same idea – assuming the person was in PT while evolving, as opposed to changing in an automatic, other-determined way. That would be the only hitch. πŸ˜‰

        1. As the OP says: “You can effectively β€œslow down” time by facilitate change within yourself.” – this would be a deliberate allowing oneself to change.

          1. I was looking at it the other way around: The more a person is in PT the more he is likely to change viewpoints because he would be seeing the situation as it is NOW instead of thinking it’s the same as was in the past (or instead of taking on the viewpoint someone or something else is dictating in PT).

            1. I think this might be circular. But in any case, I think it is far easier to advice the person to facilitate change within himself and actively seek to gain new knowledge and acquire new viewpoints than to be more in the present.

          2. Interesting hypotheses, these.

            If we are to take a good look at the Ol’ man’s thorough examination of this subject of “time”, I believe there is little left wanting.

            How about these beauts, then:

            (note the allowances he made for “considerations made and agreed upon, OR NOT” and “perceptions.”)

            ( without limitation/s of any kind)

            AXIOM 7.TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST. (The creationist, (author, artist, engineer, “rich” man LOL) and in fact, ANY life form, Dynamic, etc. operate on this primary assumption.)

            AXIOM 8. THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE. (Note, that this does NOT exclude the assumed ‘position’ of the “static”, or “viewpoint.”)

            (This statement is supportive of the fact that, if there is no ‘apparent’ change, then there is (to all intents and purposes) no ‘time.” (“TIME stood still.”) Note also, that speed, or rate of change, state, condition, etc, subjectively and objectively (highlighted in your OP) are also covered in this Axiom.)

            I have observed that these AXIOMS apply no less to the “physical” universe, than they do to the ‘mental’ personal universe of the individual. (static, viewpoint), Which thus apparently DO operate as “laws” which seem to govern “existence.” Investing time to thoroughly understand these (AXIOMS) obviates involving so much of the ‘figure, figure” that can bedevil the best of ‘minds’, imho. πŸ˜€

            These are just a sampling of those Scn fundamentals , which offer much clarity in arriving at “truth”, in existence. These AXIOMS, (for me, personally,) served up that much vaunted “FREEDOM”, that so many seem to struggle to attain..I was then left with two simple ‘options’, to existence (at will)

            — BE-ing out of “the game” in that state of “Serenity of Beingness”

            — Or, choose to partake ‘in life’, with my mocked up ‘package’, or interchanging with and/or assuming the viewpoints of others, OR oppose them, or mix ’em up, for ‘fun’ in the game/s, etc, etc. πŸ˜€

            — I reckon those “tools”, (Scn AXIOMS, Factors, Logics, etc,) do a pretty good job in providing you with the means to hack your way thru’ the mysteries of life, to ultimately arrive at a stable point of “understanding”, if that’s what you are seeking.

            — Worked (and still does) for me. πŸ™‚

            1. Cal, that is so awesome – what you got out of the Axioms!

              The other day, Milestonetwo had a blog post that consisted of a guy’s success story on some auditing he got which had to do with exteriorization. The auditor Ingrid Smith posted a comment and said that LRH should get a Nobel for the Int Rundown alone. That could be said of the Axioms too. πŸ˜‰

            2. Peace. Wouldn’t widespread understanding of things like reality, the mind and communication help bring that about?

            3. Peace? What does this have to do with making peace? Is there any factual results in the realm of peace creation on this planet that can be traced directly to LRH’s work?

            4. The answer is no, of course. But neither has “widespread understanding” of certain fundamentals of existence come about. Seriously, if people really understood physical universe reality, and how the mind works and how communication works, there would be a whole new perspective on life.

              Do you disagree with any of the Axioms?

            5. That’s not the point. There are specifics left after Alfred Nobel on how these prizes will be awarded, and LRH fulfills none of these requirements.

            6. Okay, got you. But I meant to imply that IF the understandings in the Axioms came about, meaning they were widely understood, it would bring about peace.

            7. So then you don’t agree that widespread understanding of the principles of existence would do anything for peace? What else could be at the bottom of our lack of peace if not understanding and thus agreement?

            8. I didn’t say that. I say this: There is not the slightest evidence that LRH’s axioms in any way shape or form has influenced let alone brought along any peace in the world. Quite to the contrary – strife and conflict seem abundant when it comes to Scientology – not only between the Scientology bubble and the outside world, but indeed within the ranks of Scientology itself – and by that I mean within the Church, between the Church and the various splinter groups and between splinter groups. Even within splinter groups there is plenty of un-peace. So no, I cannot see how the axioms – per actual evidence – does anything to bring about peace, or even tolerance amongst people. As for understanding the basics of existence and how that could corellate to bringing about peace, I think the jury is still out on that one. Mine certainly is, as I suspect people would want a game. And a game with conflict at that.

            9. First let me say that when I asked, “So then you don’t agree that widespread understanding of the principles of existence would do anything for peace?” I meant the principles that are laid out in the Axioms. I’m just curious – would you agree with that, as far as it goes? It looks like you might have started to answer this in your last sentence, but it got cut short…

              As for the rest of your post, I have no disagreement about what has fact occurred as regards the Church and you described it well, although I don’t know much about what goes on between the splinter groups and within them.

              On the subject of time, Marty wrote a blog post a couple years ago about “Time and Space” in relation to Scientology. Here’s a relevant portion of it:

              “L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology processes are exercises in restoring the ability to cease the automaticity of creation of time and space. Understood in this context, it is very easy to run processes, to run groups of them (grades/levels), or even the complete program (or Bridge), to their fullest potential gain. Not a lot of duress and dogma designed to instill unswerving devotion and surrender is required to bring about ability when that simple, if all-encompassing, framework is kept in mind. When viewed against this scientific/consciousness field of evolving, tested context Hubbard processes can become as natural and simple to deliver as driving an automobile.

              “I think the more a practitioner appreciates these facts, and our increasing objective (scientific) understandings and how they relate to consciousness, the more proficient, effective, and empowering his or her practice becomes.”

              The point I’m making is that LRH failed in achieving correct application of the materials, including application of the most basic principles, the Axioms – which themselves seem to me to be quite valid.

            10. I suspet there is a deep flaw in the axioms judging from the results we see from what happens when it is diligently studied and understood.
              They do seem valid. But the reults indicate otherwise. The proof of the pudding, etc.

            11. Well, dear Geir, I don’t think it’s the case that the Axioms have, to any significant extent, been “diligently studied and understood.” But my actual point was that LRH did not succeed in developing a tech that would ensure the Axioms get applied in a way that truly frees the pc. The Axioms are theory, but the tech is application.

              The reason I quoted that blog post of Marty’s is that he is one of the small percentage who have studied and understood the Axioms and, to me, he explained very well how auditing could be applied so as to free a person from (in line with your blog post) the automaticity of mocking up time and space – and thus would make true OTs, as described in this other excerpt:

              “Transcendent experiences, such as enlightenments, peak-experiences, even Scientology releases, are instances where the automaticity of creating time/space constructs are ceased – even if for the briefest of spans. At those moments we experience more of the true nature of the universe and its interconnectedness. Here is the realm where psi (psychic phenomena – or theta perceptics – such as clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, and telepathy) activities are observed and exercised…

              “…This ability can become unachievable in Scientology; much in the way it has in many other practices. There are a number of reasons for this. However, all of those factors can be recognized and understood to one degree or another as invitations or commands to build further time/space constructs, and to believe so implicitly in them that one – once again – puts the process on automatic. ”

              The above was basically what I meant when I said LRH should have ensured that the tech (in its application of the Axioms that underly it) would steer the pc in the direction of true freedom – rather than for it (the tech) to, even inadvertently, solidify the constructs of the physical universe and make it seem to be the ultimate reality, thus keeping the pc at that level of beingness and ability.

            12. If Marty is the yardstick for understanding the Axioms how does that correlate with his making of peace at every turn?

            13. You got a laugh out of me on that one. πŸ˜€

              I guess you are right that just understanding the Axioms, even if we grant that they do contain the fundamental truths of existence, wouldn’t bring about peace – at least not until our individual “lies”/ego have been handled along with having that knowledge.

              I like how Ken Wilbur points out that our various “intelligences” (in different areas of life) are not necessarily on the same level of achievement one to the other – and that neither do any of our intelligences necessarily correlate with our level of spiritual growth. Ironically, Marty is a big fan of Ken Wilbur and quotes him often – including in that blog post on “Time and Space.” Not that I’m not down on Marty, btw – I think he has good intentions in spite of his self-described “warrior” ways. πŸ™‚

            14. Well, if Marty is right, and I think he is, that the tech can potentially (although perhaps not practically, due to practical factors) produce spiritual freedom and Cause over time and space – then the underlying Axioms would indirectly be proven correct.

            15. Was it delivered in the way he suggests? He says:

              “…transcendent experiences are often far and few between for folks because they have so permanently implanted upon themselves – and begun to mistake for ultimate reality – the reality of the time and space constructs they create. But, the more frequent a practice makes their [transcendent] experience possible, the more chance we have of, as Ken Wilbur put it, converting temporary states more toward more permanent traits.”

              In other words, did you get from your auditing a more permanent trait (or state) of transcendence? Sincere question.

            16. Yes. But it’s not nearly enough to indicate one could go “all the way” – whatever that means. Apart from that, I would find it hard to write that meaning in a more convoluted and verbose and intricate manner (although I did try with this very sentence, albeit failed miserably in competing with the above)

            17. That’s funny – but he has been worse! It’s not too unusual for posters to admit that they couldn’t grasp the OP. And his comment replies to people are sometimes even more obscure! It’s probably a reflection of ego in some way – as with any of our foibles. I have to admit, though, that his style is more literate than the average reader can easily follow because of its complex grammar and uncommon vocabulary, which is probably the main reason people don’t get what he’s saying.

              Anyway, it may be true that auditing won’t take a person “all the way” to freedom from the constraints of the physical universe – but I think it could take them a lot further if it were practiced with the Axioms firmly in mind, especially those that concern the true nature of reality. I give credit to Marty for his insight on that, although he didn’t express it directly in terms of the Axioms.

              And I give you credit for bringing up the topic of time and discussing the Axioms with me, because it got me to think about all of this and get a better understanding. At least subjectively. πŸ˜€

            18. Possibly they would, Marildi. Then if Scientology contained an understanding of existence in the universe it should have at least helped LRH have some peace, shouldn’t it? But it didn’t.

              And to the degree that we get along over here, it is in spite of our Scientology knowledge, isn’t it?

            19. You are right, Chris. If LRH had followed the thought through as regards the Axioms, he would have had peace. However, as I said to Geir (which I’ll quote), “just understanding the Axioms, even if we grant that they do contain the fundamental truths of existence, wouldn’t bring about peace – at least not until our individual ‘lies’/ego have been handled along with having that knowledge.”

              LRH was obviously operating from the ego, and I think that was the source of his downfall – as it is with all of us, to one degree or another. I’ve been reading and listening to a few of the non-dual teachers, and I think they have something with their idea about the ego being the basic source of problems. Any time we feel resentful, jealous, fearful, insulted, vengeful, hateful, etc. it’s because of the ego motivation that makes us “need” it to be otherwise.

              Here’s the intriguing method of handling one’s ego that Lester Levenson teaches:

              “Get to the place where no one and no thing can disturb you. Every time you are disturbed, look for the ego motivation wherein you wanted it to be other than it was. On recognizing it say, ‘Oh, I see,’ and let go of your ego motivation of wanting it to be the way you want it to be. Every reaction or tendency is based on a selfish thing. We wanted it to be the way we wanted it to be. Keep dropping these reactive tendencies. Every time a reaction comes, look at it; see the selfish ego motivation and drop it. You’ll soon reach a place where there is no more and you’re there – all the way.”

              MInd you, it’s not that we should never take action on “disturbances” in the environment – but at the same time, we don’t ourselves need to be greatly “disturbed.” I’ve been trying this method out and it is really a kick! It works just like he says – although I haven’t got as far as the last sentence quite yet (lol).

              It seems to me now that the ego is the key “illusion” that traps us, rather than MEST. LRH missed how powerful the ego is over each of us – including himself. And Marty’s description of the way auditing can be erroneously conducted – i.e. in a way that it cements our agreement with MEST – would also apply to it cementing the fixed ideas that comprise the ego.

            20. Hi Me <3. Thanks for the validation. Good 'duplication' always precedes understanding, right? πŸ˜€

              Yes, indeedy, As you have noted, individuals here and there, certainly CAN get something outta those Axioms. One can also mis-duplicate them too, which is a great pity, imho, since one would then find it more difficult to as-is lies and misconceptions, which cause the persistence of fixed attitudes and other non optimum states of awareness.

              From an auditing point of view, I had made it my business to get thoroughly grounded in those Axioms, long BEFORE having much auditing.

              As you can then appreciate, 'understanding' certainly facilitates the auditing process, with the relevant Axiom acting as a miner's headlamp 'in' pc's 'head.' Thus easily indicating a 'lie', or false perception, which may otherwise have prevented as-isness, or at least delayed it with a considerable comm-lag.

              The point you made about the deserving of a Nobel prize, runs into a problem with credibility, as the value of the Axioms tend to remain quite subjective. I've honestly found very few Scns, who were able to discuss them intelligently, if at all.One exception, was "Nickname", whom we've only met on a few blogs. This guy, has also managed to take the subject of 'ethics' apart, put it back together and use it with such amazing understanding, that it blew me away completely.

              But back to the OP. These "Perceptions of time" imho, surrender beautifully to the subjective realty offered via the inspection 'tools', of the relevant Axioms. πŸ™‚

              (Bottom line, as I said earlier , this stuff only has value, IF 'understanding' is what you're seeking, me ❀ )

            21. I agree, me heart, Nickname is very good. But even he has shown (and a couple times admitted) having some confusions. And yes, it does seem to be the case that few Scientologists understand the Axioms. This is basically the point I wanted to make to Geir in the reply I just posted, which is that the materials haven’t been correctly applied – and that’s because, as you would say, they haven’t been du-pli-cat-ed. πŸ˜‰ See my reply to Geir and tell me what you think, me ❀ .

            22. Hey Calvin, When I understand that the Axioms, Qs, Factors, HCOBs, HCOPLs, books, lectures, etc., describe very well the construct of the context of Scientology, we are mostly home-free. Do you feel me brother? In this way, certainty within the “frame of reference” of Scientology can be generated, while the uncertainty comes about when allowing a comparison to other frames of reference.

            23. Well, Me <3. First up then — When do you sleep? LOL (I'm assuming you are still in CA?)

              Thanks for the input, re our friend Nickname. Whatever one thinks, I still see him as an amazing, gentle, articulate being, who is blessed with tenacity and insight which allows him to "evolve" to a higher level of understanding of philosophical and practical applications of theoretical methodologies. I see him as being quite intellectually liberated and certainly not intimidated or in any way swayed, in his ability to think and look "outside the box."

              Regarding your other questions, perhaps the answer/s are to be found by stepping into the shoes (viewpoints) of those from whom you would seek those answers?

              I can only speak for myself, according to my own observations.


              1) The consistent adherence to Axiom 28, IF real communication is to be accomplished

              2) The over-riding importance in observing the Axioms of Duplication, (subjectively AND objectively) in order to fulfill Axiom 28.

              3) Whenever we fail in 2) above, we of course veer away from the goal of Axiom 28. We thus wind up aberrating (wandering, deviating) from the purpose, of our erstwhile "communication."

              4) The items 1-3 above, seem to me almost mandatory, if one wishes to achieve "understanding" — across the board!

              — Pretty tall order — with the present level of "aberration", soaking up soooo much attention, which ever way one turns, — doncha think??? πŸ˜€

              — Maybe you now see why I simply refuse to get sucked into silly (aberrated) arguments and/or games, that others allow themselves to take too seriously! (Why on earth sweat the small stuff, if you prefer to focus on ENJOYING the balance of your life? πŸ˜€ )

              If (at the end of the day) someone is unwilling to "get it", then — SO WHAT? πŸ˜€

              BTW, I/m sure you are too well aware, that Geir has phrased this point quite emphatically, in a myriad of related postings, to date.

              To close off, Me <3, I'd like to pay homage to that great Mentor, Savior of Sanity, Requiter of Redemption, Sequester of Serfacs, Bastion of Balance, Annihilator of Aberration, — our old, trusted, confidant: — Du-pli-cation! πŸ˜€

            24. Yes, me heart, I am still in CA, but I am a real night owl some nights. πŸ˜‰

              Well, it sounds like you have read more of Nickname’s posts than I have. I actually haven’t participated in Mike’s blog too much, and not very recently. But when I’ve skimmed through the comments over there, Nickname is one of the few posters I bother to stop and read to see what he has to say. I haven’t seen him posting for a while. He may have come to a similar conclusion that you have come to, and me too as regards the general mentality over there.

              “To close off, Me <3, I'd like to pay homage to that great Mentor, Savior of Sanity, Requiter of Redemption, Sequester of Serfacs, Bastion of Balance, Annihilator of Aberration, β€” our old, trusted, confidant: β€” Du-pli-cation! πŸ˜€ "

              Creatively stated! Me ❀ πŸ™‚

  3. Getting back to your OP, Geir. As your assumption of being capable of effectively creating/extending time, via accelerating one’s action output, bears out in practice, one needs to ask to what extent this rapidity of action/thought processing/ accomplishment may be increased? — Without incurring adverse physical consequences? Be it all for the somewhat meager profit of a savings of a percentage of time saved? For what ultimate purpose, may I ask? Loafing time, perhaps? πŸ˜€

    1. I see as I truly open myself to change – as when I allow my views to more fluidly evolve, I gain more time to do stuff in life – even to loaf πŸ™‚

      1. Actually I like your descriptive word, “fluidly” πŸ™‚ Therein, is a glaringly obvious analogy to another great master, unfortunately no longer(?) with us!

        The incredible Bruce Lee, who, to a great extent, mirrored your OP in practice.

        His most profound advice shared with those who would emulate him?

        — “Be like WATER, my friend!” πŸ™‚

  4. Regarding perception of time: My mother told me when I was just a lad that time moved slowly when in our youth, accelerating as we age because of the commensurate proportions to our overall lifespan. That made sense to me a dozen years before i would hear of Scientology. It still seems a pretty good idea today.

    1. Mom was spot on, wasn’t she, bro’? πŸ™‚

      Getting back to your reply: “Hey Calvin, When I understand..” — Yes, I DO feel you, Chris. And for the same reasons too.

      One little ‘tool’, I mocked up some time ago, was a “Shoeniverse”. πŸ˜€ .– Simply a creative attempt to actualize and use that well traveled maxim of ‘walking a mile in the other man’s shoes.’ — as a component in ‘racing’s toolbox’ πŸ˜‰

      The logic here, simply being that if any of these tools can bring about a subjective understanding — then great! If they can further extend that understanding for someone else — then even better! πŸ™‚

      Dunno if you’ve come across that auditing e/p summed up by the Ol’ man?
      — “Understanding washes away everything.” — You know, the endless figure,figure,figure???? etc, just fades away…. That real for you, bro’?

      I admit though, that the early, unrelenting figure, figure over those Axioms, drove me to an all out assault to clear up those suckers! — Once and for all!
      It took me MONTHS, using all the bits of demo-kit, 2 dictionaries, diagrams, and nearly all the spare time I could muster, yet it paid off — handsomely.
      I finally could duplicate them, and thus FINALLY understand.! (Axioms resolved!)

      — That’s all there was/is to it actually. And I don’t expect anyone else to be as determined as I, to establish whether these (axioms) were ‘true’, or not.

      Hell man..we either get them.. or we don’t, Chris! Who the f– cares, anyway? πŸ˜€

  5. Marildi (Me ❀ ). Just a look in on our friend, Nick. (if you are 'up to it!' )

    Over at Lana's place. (early postings by Nick)

    —- "Individual Ethics."

    —- "Admin Scales and Ethics"

    BTW, the level of misduplication, antagonism, and restim he evidently 'triggered', show pretty clearly how dramatizations, can follow clearly discernible MU's. πŸ™‚

    I guess that tired ol' maxim of "never going past a word you do not understand", seems to bug even the 'holier than thou's' of the so-called "elite"

    Worth a chuckle or two via the "seriousness" of it all. πŸ˜€

Have your say

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

You are commenting using your 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