Chapter 2 Facts and proof   2.1 Honesty Entirely against the tradition of scientific research I'd like to dilate first on the method of handling facts and proof. Actually I should commence with posing the problem: 'This is what I'm up to', and then: 'thus are the facts, thus is the research and so we have the conclusion'. My first creed concerns honesty. I do not want to force myself nor others with a fast and streamlined exemplary line of reasoning. I do accept the model but for the sake of the readability and my own personal health I'd first like to touch upon some other problems. I to that want to retain my liberality of reasoning. The scientific method I'd like to dress up a little, fill up a bit, give a natural appearance. Too much has the person been lost in modern science. And I'm concerned with getting the person on top again; not just for myself, but also for anyone else. The basic idea of revulsion about others in the sense of J.P. Sartre is that of emptiness to the idea of 'God is dead'. But God is just as dead as your own love. One of the problems is that too much energy is wasted with the impersonal method. The impersonal is more of a state of emergency for people and a mankind ashamed of itself, estranged from itself. We've just the other day made a start celebrating it as a high principle of politeness and propriety, but it is the glossing over of failure, the being daunted by problems, an unwanted form of bashfulness. So let's first talk about my own shame. I've got to keep close to myself, my own soul. I may not expect from any reader that he'd able to follow what I'm saying if I'm not disclosing a thing about myself. Sure you want to know who you're dealing with. Who wants to be led by the nose? So, who am I and what do I actually want? Normally one doesn't talk about it that easily. Quickly it is 'literature' and runs it into a fantasy of an estranged, nonexistent ego-person. That here is unacceptable to me. I do not intend to write literature. I intend to inform in a more personal manner, to enrich in an internal dialogue.   2.2 Confessions First of all I write of course out of a sense of duty, not just for fun. The law on top of that prescribes us to strive for economic self-reliance. It seems to be less honorable to go begging; but as a monk one can be very happy with it. I regard spiritual discipline as something fundamental, but not as something to disappear from the world with. It's o.k. if one doesn't want to be directed by the world, but it is not o.k. to leave the world to its own devices, happiness that way is false. God must be love, that we agreed upon. So is spiritual discipline seen as something time-bound by me, as a period of preparing oneself to stand one's ground, defend one's case in the world. Whether one dares to address the deaf crowd as a priest or whether one as a housewife is as audacious to educate children or enter politics. A simple fact is that it is so that in my life I discovered that I had nothing to say, being faced with the drainage of my energy in follies, desires, building up property and other worldly matters placed under the heading of attachment. In my life this has become a key. Sometimes I really hate it that it is so, but through the years I learned to accept that the noble knight eventually has to wait a long time before he has found his real me, his lady of the castle or ego. Not until that time has arrived, takes the fighting another form, becomes defensive and the servant of honor, offspring, family, nation etc. At this point you might wonder in what category you'd place me. Will I constitute some form of danger, would I threaten vested interests? Preach? Win you over? Some may think apprehensively: 'All is sex' and 'I only want my own sex'. I assert: 'sex is private' and 'sex is a lesson'. Thus do I live to the sanctity of the transformation. Whether I'll beget children out of love or have pupils out of spirituality, I'll always strive for building up, supporting and promoting the spirit of the good will. I'm explicit in my creed, but also private. I'm not advertising it to anyone. I do believe in the pious community, in God and the Lord, but do not want to give you names. That's my secret and it is no one's concern to whom I direct my footsteps. Maybe disappointing, but I can't confess more than being a human being. I work to build a healthy position within the human society, to promote a personal sense of divinity and do strive to know a Lord and be a Lord. Respect is everything for me, but I have to preserve my critical functions. It is in the transformation of sexual energy that my spirit awakens. Do I neglect this, do I forget this, than I do not meditate, I do not pray, I do not think, but do ruminate - unless I'm in love of course - and do I flee. The traditional dogma that sex is there only for begetting children is a good lead to me. I also write this book for my father and my teachers whom I do not want to have contrary. I'm grateful for their tolerance and mercy but I'm also glad when I may identify and forget my outer reality. I have to be tolerant and merciful myself. I still remember the day I started to think. It was halfway the seventies - I was born in 1954 - and found myself in the middle of my studies in psychology. I lived together with a female artist, didn't want to marry her, for who was I, and led a worldly life with her. I went out a lot and so now and then we had a party. Love was simply love and my spirituality consisted of my ambition to be of service with the science of psychology. Because I was of little discrimination I suffered. I regularly ran into trouble with my self-respect and had fights. Not all-devouring or too vehemently, but it was always about values. I even used a medicine: marihuana. So now and then as an aspirin against the pain of life. I never took any pride in it and never cultivated it. The day it dawned to me that one can be dulled for a long time of it, sometimes for days, I looked for other solutions. I read a book of Rudolf Steiner. It was titled: 'How to achieve consciousness of higher realms'. It did not deal so much with the values, that we were fighting about, it spoke of spiritual realities, levels of consciousness and meditation. I tried to meditate and after some time that worked. It was a miracle. A nice calm came over me. And not just that. I also was inspired. I started to think actively. I kept a little diary with short stories on who I was , on being the witness etc. I read more of those books, that after some time were sharply contrasting with my study books neatly stacked in my bookcase. And thus it all began. I discovered that there were psychologists and psychologists, that psychologists often highlight certain aspects of spirituality and turned them into complete personality theories and a therapy. Freud, Perls, Maslow, but also Skinner and Ellis. In fact found myself confounded, since everyone claimed a world of his own. It's quite normal, but my girlfriend couldn't accept that each month I enthused over yet another approach. These are the facts and proofs of the personal experience that founded my method. Self-knowledge is the supreme good and for me it became, as a child of the sixties, time to reflect on things I thought were lamentable, things I regretted, what would be sin. It all began quite peculiar. I still remember I had serious breakdowns in tears listening to a record of a german life-singer named Alexandra. It also occurred to me that my girlfriend was quite demanding and little cooperative. Never marry an artist they say. And with her? Living together to a large extend equates with being married. The family knows, the friends know, it only misses the formal signature of an initiation, is officially without the grace of the community of believers or at least the normal populace. My attitude with Christianity was that of a neuter. Nice people, but why such a fuzz about a man like Jesus? Often I was chastised at home if I dared to speak the truth. Thus far I understood Him and often I detested my own learned reticence. I was raised catholic and my father had been an intern with the Jesuits for quite a couple of years. Later on I discovered that I maybe owed my morally motivated individuality to that. The apple does drop far from the tree. My father was also a silent man. I was sexually educated with a little booklet and the statement that It before all had to be love. Well, that I wanted to believe! Loosing my shock of hair, I'm half bold these days, I never contracted a venereal disease, except for a mild infection once and scabies because someone else without me knowing it had slept in my bed. I'm telling this all free from hesitation because that was normal in the days of the sexual revolution. Presently I'd keep to the virtue. Of that I'm certain. Just the risk of aids alone... Nature came up with a solution of her own gain.   2.3 Axioms I am 100% heterosexual and do believe in one God with many manifestations. One of those manifestations is the objective reality of time. I found out that the realization process in relation to the reality of time is not possible without the realization of the counterpart: the eternal with everything to it. I was not only fascinated by the guru's, I even participated in sessions Ouija and such. Einstein defended that man is a space-time worm squirming through many dimensions or worlds. Though that's a bit far-fetched as far as I'm concerned, cannot be denied that without the female counterpart of God, mother nature, the manifestation of the natural masculine God with His creative potency is quite useless. Time is in my vision a feminine aspect of God (see footnote). A dependent variable subject to the activity of the life-force, nature itself. In my search for the scientific truth of Time is my identification with the omnipotency of the male God the independent variable. I thus see the world not as causal, but more as a womb in which life depends on the action of the male aspect. To be clear: I don't want to be sexist. A woman can very well be masculine, just as a man can be feminine. The feminine of Time shows, just like a normal woman, a high degree of independence and manhood has to accept that. The masculine, primary, causality of God is axiomatic for the philosophy of time I want to expound. It typifies the power illusion of men, identified with the creative potency and the control or power, to say that time is masculine and manipulative. That is behaviorism, one of the many -isms belonging to pathology. Learning theory is fine but the delusion of control of the behaviorist and other -ists is a psychopathic mistake. The delusion of control is directly connected to the fear existing about machines in general and clocks especially. Samuel Butler, a 19th century writer and utopist wrote a book about it called 'Erewhon'. Artificial Intelligence is nothing but a program for calculations with the will of the programmer. We mustn't fear the machines, the programmer is the threat. Science has to learn to carefully listen to nature, to heartily attend to mother nature. The divinity of mother nature is the authority to which the divinity of the male potency has to surrender. Or differently stated: the male characteristics 0f dealing with time must be considered a mistake, as a counter-natural evolutionary weakness, that disturbs our relationship with the feminine in general and mother nature especially to such a degree that the survival of mankind has become the issue. In summary we can say the following. We saw time as a dependent, manipulatable variable with a feminine character. The experiential fact constitutes the essence of the soul that we have to hold against the consciousness of time. Thus it's about arriving at self-knowledge, selfremembrance in order to realize the time. Time as a field of action. Thus we start with the assumption of the causal of the lifeprinciple, creative and divine. The causal we call masculine. All the feminine is so excused more or less. The method consists of retrieving the true nature of time by directing us at the soul and thus expose the wrongly identified masculinity, the in the time attached and effeminated masculinity, that obscures and removes the distinction.   2.4 Action Thus have we, making a start with our philosophy of time, arrived at a first station. A novel element we need is that of action. A philosophy, a realization process, a spiritual exercise would actualize in the world and accomplish something. Peace is a noble purpose, but the endproduct of a struggle for the truth. The criterion for a scientific theory is its applicability. That is what we call the naturalistic demand. We can only excuse ourselves for having used so many words if they naturally apply, if they directly relate to the objective reality. First of all no l'art pour l'art, no vanity affair. The purpose of intelligent action is to arrive at the proper behavior, to create the right conditions. The applicability in the ensuing practice, delivers the proof of the correctness of the theory. When I set a clock to the true of time and thus have such a stable notion of the reality of time that I'm inspired and have the patience to compose a musical piece or, that I am that strengthened in my awareness of the natural harmony, has then in that case been proven that the paradigm would be correct? Now take a look at the following piece of music. fig. 1     It is a short fantasy in F major in the style of the Baroque. I composed it just the other minute for the piano. I'm hardly capable of playing the piano, but do know how to seek out all the notes. I know it is a good piece of music, vital and spirited, dynamic and harmonic. Not a single note falls outside the key. It breathes the natural playfulness music should have. Words are not needed anymore, there is only action, love, something has been accomplished. The mind did stop and the natural order springs to life. This is the proof that ultimately counts. In this case it is a musicological piece of evidence. It is a piece of evidence more valid to me than the outcome of a questionnaire of a scientific nature. In the end it is I who has to be a more content human being. Thus one could ask monks in a monastery what they think of following the true of time or measure psychological variables with people living to the rhythm of the true of time. Point is that the factor of time and rhythm is but one of the many factors capable of contributing to the complete of health. It is not unthinkable that people with the energy won of a more natural rhythm immediately develop new compensations, compensating the awareness of inferiority that is realized with a strengthened function of conscience, so that the endresult of the measuring is nil. One would have to measure the normal shift of patterns of life and then interpret such things as sleeping longer, making love more, smoke more or talk more, to have less fights etc. Professor Hofstee from Groningen has explained in his little book on 'Psychologische Uitspraken over Personen' (Psychological Statements about People') that because of the 'talking back' of persons tested, the responding to the test-situation, scientific proof especially in the science of psychology is of relative value. In fact is all one can do the measuring of the effect of one's own attention and arrives one thus at the corroboration of ones own suppositions, to the confirmation of ones own presumptions. It is the natural selfconfirmation of each paradigm or model of thought, selfhypnosis, egotrip or form of timeconsciousness. Also e.g. in quantum mechanics is one struggling with this. One nice example: a few days ago was read in the news: "In England have researchers realized to have a direct peek into the brain to see how they operated. From their findings with their subjects who had to read out words and thought about them, turned it out to be so that the function of memory was found in three places in the brain". What the research proved was that the experiment proves itself as the activity of the memory of three centers of the brain. Not at all has been proven that that memory also works that way outside of the experimental situation. To solve this problem we will have to accept the cartesian prime of reason ('I think therefore I am') and commence with navigating on logical proofs. With the help of formal logic will one tangibly have to raise the needed methodic doubt over either the maintaining or the rejection of an outdated clock and a superseded, or differently as permissible considered, time politic. Only when to this doubt a certain consensus has developed can further action be undertaken. The struggle this book deals with is that of clarifying the so-called definition of the problem, the precursor of all scientific research. Foolishness of course doesn't want to hear of any problem. The conscious human being though is looking for selfjustification and is alert. I am preferably someone of the latter kind and present the story of my own life to support the proof delivered. The truth is one and complete. When based on this conclusions can be drawn and predictions can be made which, from a correct historical perspective, make a better world more likely, may a new of a renewed model of thought or paradigm to classical standards, so is meant, be tested in reality.   2.5 Ontology There is another point to be made before we embark upon our investigation of facts and logical proofs. I may be celebrating the goodness and take interest in in bringing harmony to the human consciousness of time, there are also many that foster the passion and developed a preference for rebellion and chaos. The modern world can be described as a playground for the wild beast in man. Imagine what might happen when one creates order. True love is vulnerable and takes a certain interest in staying cloaked. When state and church suddenly lock their hands could that bring about the fall of the last of the monarchies for instance. It is about the idea: does virtue want to stand up for it or at least want to dominate for itself, or do we pave everyone the way and rule with repression? Vice takes interest in chaos: there is always a reason for anger and there is always a justification for transgression in sin. One of the understatements of the culture of passion is: man is bad by nature. For those who want it to be so it is so, for those who do not want it that way we all have a divine spark of goodness within, not just we, but also the animals and plants. I want to demonstrate that the male cultural idea of time, especially in the 20th century, has perverted and is also responsible for our fear to chose and take a position. The consciousness of time, the rhythm of nature, is something fundamental. With our beating heart are we nothing but rhythm, our mind, our well-being, is subject to it. However subtle, a small deviation, a small error of thought can have grave consequences when we deal with fundamental matters. As far as I am concerned is it never toot much trouble to respect the needed fundamental truths appropriately and unequivocally answer the classical ontological question of being or not being in this matter. The greatest obstacle in our case is formed by the indifference that defends that entertaining summertime, timezones and the mean of time, wouldn't harm and be of no serious consequence for our well-being. I to the contrary would like to pose that it religiously is a sin, scientifically is an aberration and socially-psychologically constitutes a disaster. Whatever one proves or defends with arguments, what is decisive is whether or not we want to be of any sincere effort to respect the natural reality and give up on our sin, our aberration and our psychological drama. As for myself I dare say that the age of reason gave me the insight in this matter. In stead of protesting against the collective imposition of summertime could I, in the old days, also have objected to the introduction of a new type of clock because of which making interlocal telephone-calls and watching television proves a timedifference and delivers a new t.v.-guide. Though one very quickly learns to reckon with such things, would I just from my rigidity and false conservatism have faced away and maintained my protest against the fact that "modern industry would have conjured up a new trick to entice us with something new". Why be difficult if it can be easy? Why endlessly debate if there is success with less subtle methods? Reasoning like this we have crashed many times before. I still have the fresh memory of the sexual revolution. By now it may be clear that living closer to nature, a subject for which we have separate state departments these days, is simply a thing of effort. It is something like replacing all plastic containers with paper bags, butter containers and garbage cans (the milk bottles are back again), from which our garbage would be more environmental. Back to the old days, that never again, says everyone bluntly as easy, without for the time wishing that modern technology would be there at last and demand respect. The question thus is how. Just collecting glass in the central container won't do. For centuries we were very well able to manage with sundials only, candleholders and oil lamps; what next? To the honor of electricity and such we wouldn't throw everything overboard, would we? Without losing that modern love we can live a more natural life though. The complete of the neurotic compulsion for material factuality, scientific proofs and luxury constitutes an excuse to wipe all too easy under the carpet the ecological truth of the classical natural order and the perverted proneness to lie. Not to speak against facts and scientific proofs, but everything can be abused. Ad infinitum one may present proofs and facts for the sake of whatever thesis one likes. Facts can be manipulated and scientific fraud and selfdeceit are no fiction either. Communism conquered half the world with half the truth and the other half of the world is there for the other half of the truth. So again: in our case, we maintain that the personal experiential fact of the the steady practice of the respect for the true of time - and culture thereof - is proof for its correctness. So after 'I think therefore I am', we get 'I am for I do stay'.   2.6 Steps True is what works, practice is the proof. When I meditate and experience the time as it is and I am happy with it, then what would be the objection? Though my mother is the daughter of a clockmaker and my father is a psychologist, when this way going against the grain of the civil arrangement of time would be an aberration, it wouldn't last. That I had proven myself already in 1987 trying out the arabic system in Holland. Indian philosophy says: what is not true is not durable and what is durable is of the eternal, that is the conclusion of the sages who studied this (Bhagavad Gîtâ, 2: 16). To better the world I have accepted the viewpoint to begin with myself. What remains is the step to take towards the others. This writing is the third step. The second step was the report to professor Vroon also very meritoriously presenting facts on the subject of time. This report albeit reaching my fellow man, the friends, science and the government, was not sufficient though to raise a broad societal discussion. Time consciousness is selfhypnosis. Systems confirm themselves and expel strange elements by nature. What thus far has been accomplished was some polite respect and a little consideration. More than an intimate audience and some sympathy was not the case. Humanity the way I experience it has not risen above this level. God may know how long that may take. One says the first impression is the best. Before I took step one and was thoroughly convinced of the relative value of scientific proof in human affairs, I conducted a little pilot-study among my friends and acquaintances. I rang about twenty people, among whom also professor Michon, the internationally renown time-researcher of the cognitivist school, and asked them for the time of one week to set one clock in their home to the true of time. After one week I again rang them and scored a questionnaire on how they had experienced that. Half of the people were indifferent about it. Some even were disturbed by the idea (2 p.p.). The other half was more or less enthused and admitted in positive terms to have been inspired. As a group they were the people with a modal income to below modal with professions in the sphere of social care and a little higher of age on the average. My father formed a peculiar exception to them. I didn't count my own score, since the results were enough a confirmation of my own person! These facts raised with me the impression that the selfhypnosis of the existing timesystem has the strongest cognitive consonance (Festinger) among the younger, ambitious and successful managers of commercial corporations, the scientific community and politics. Right those occupations and responsibilities that were of crucial importance to set a new approach in motion. So that was problem nr.. 1. Problem nr.. 2 introduced itself shortly thereafter with the first step of the writing. With problem nr.. 1 I noticed that I ran into opposition with two old college-buddies who refused to cooperate in the investigation. We live now turned away from one another and in this matter of honor I really don't feel the need to cross over from my part. It happened to be two people in the scientific sphere. From Prof. Michon and my father I could understand the skepticism, but with them I had difficulty to accept it. In my personal relations I thus saw as good as the entirety of my scientific support drop away and had to find consolation with the more spiritually oriented in philosophy and theology. Apparently has rationalization an especially destructive effect on the progressive mind. From the old days in the seventies I knew that the student-movement leftish rationalizing nevertheless knew to take a progressive stance. The conclusion that one-sidedness in general was the stumblingblock seemed justified. And this turned out even more clearly discovering problem nr.. 2. I wrote, scientifically being discouraged, a long letter to the alternative ecological magazine Onkruid here in Holland. It was the first time that I tried to put something on paper about my ideas and experiences in respect of the true of time. It was my first step to a broader audience. That step failed. I received a letter back with the declaration that the magazine was not interested in opinion. Well, if someone had an opinion in life, it was certainly they of Onkruid . But no way, one likes to keep the reigns under control in the form of interviews and articles of employees. It was another closed system thus. So I could not only count on the unwillingness from the side of the government and such. I could also count on the indifference of the so-called alternatives and progressive people. As said, with the spiritually oriented ones I did not find this problem, but then again is with them the time of no importance anymore anyhow. My methodic choice for honesty commands to confess this all and much more. I know now, writing this, not whether this will ever be published and reach anyone [there was no internet at the time in 1991]. It is mostly me who directs my stories to the dustbin. Complete garbagebags went out of the door that way. Writings are just like partners: with more than one at a time, one has more problems than is good for ones health. Gray hair I do not have as yet, though from aggravation and experience I did lose some of my coiffure. My method of dealing with facts and proofs is primarily directed at maintaining my soul and felicity, my intelligence, continence and health. My happiness I'm prepared to sacrifice temporarily for the good cause, but that's as far as I go. This is my advise to all.   2.7 Factual purpose To conclude this chapter I want to enumerate the essential facts concerning the phenomenon of time. There are crudely spoken three types of time. These are clocktime, the true of time and psychological time, as from now abbreviated with the symbols of Tc, Tt and Tp. In later chapters I shall try to clarify to what extend the experience of psychological time or the psychological experience of time (actually this entire book) is a product of the negative relation between the natural, true of time and the time of clocks. Or, differently stated, I'm going to try to bring down the seat that the science of psychology is taking. My own seat, my own ego. Righteous as I am I'll try to render myself superfluous and write the last psychology book. Mathematically the formula looks like this: Tp = Tt - Tc Clock time Tc can be divided in three fields of trouble, viz. summertime, zonetime, and mean time. Mean time is also called local time. Summertime one could call seasonal time and zonetime generalized time. The entire problem of time can be summarized in the definition: Tc, clocktime is the seasonalized, generalized and averaged true of time. It is somewhat like the difference between cow's milk and coffee creamer. The true of time, also called solar time is the same as the time indicated by a classical sundial at the time of the culmination of the sun in the south, by which the true noon of twelve is indicated. Scientifically there are two main definitions of time. The first is from Isaac Newton, who described the time as dynamic, as defined by the relative movements of heavenly bodies. The second definition is of Maxwell and is named electromagnetical time and defined to the phase of an electric impulse. This definition closely follows what is called atomic time, the time determined by the vibration of a crystal. It is this second definition, that can also be considered the definition of rigid time, that constitutes the modern consciousness of time. One might speak of an historical split in the consciousness of time: we haven't succeeded yet to respect the dynamic of time with the help of the electromagnetic of time. This respecting one also calls the validation or fully gauging of a scientific instrument. Or one could say: modern timeconsciousness is scientifically not integrated. The idea of reliability, regularity, is separated from the idea of validity or correctness, in our case relative to the dynamic rhythm of nature, and even opposes it with psychological mechanisms. With that has the purpose of this study been formulated: to put an end to the destructive operation of psychological mechanisms by means of validating the clock, or the integration or harmonization of the consciousness of time. Needles to say that with the attainment of this purpose not all destructive effects of psychological mechanisms in general will be covered. A new clock is no way the panacea against all suffering of course, it is but the respect for a fundamental truth, the truth of the classical natural order. Another fact is the natural link between time and space. In modern physics this is called timespace. As known is this a threedimensional reality. Just as the space can the time be considered three-dimensional, viz. the solar of time to the longitude, the length of day to the latitude and the time needed for a free fall to the altitude. Each point in spacetime can thus be expressed in terms of time. Timing and localizing are thus synonyms and the same time or the simultaneity for objects differing in the place they occupy in space is thus fictional, if not a linguistical then certainly a natural science fallacy. The correct designation for the phenomenon is: the sharing of a moment, or the momentaneous, that comprises momentum in general and the idea of a specific so-called historical timespirit (epistème; Foucault). Fighting the illusion of simultaneity, raised by the modern politics of time, is dovetailed with fighting pathology like paranoia, neurotical suffering and psychoses or else the sociopathologies as could be observed in the twentieth century among leaders and civilians - though the problem of the the deficient ticker seems to have started with Napoleon. Or was it Martin Luther, or Machiavelli? Fortunately proved Einstein right in his description of the exceptions to the synonymity of place and time.   Footnote 3-07-2003: In 2.3 I here present time as feminine, while before there was mention of a male idea of father time. I here try to clarify that the masculine in the sense of manipulative is wrong. The time itself is actually thus masculine, but it needs a more feminine approach; the affair as seen from the feminine in the sense of being led by the actual father of time whom one cannot see. Thus the visible of time of moving things and the culture of time must be considered feminine and the original force, the natural time behind it all as masculine, as the original Mover, the Father,     Back to the Ego-pages     Production: The Order of Time        © Aadhar 1992 Enschede      no publication inj whatever form elsewhere,      dowloading and printing only for personal purposes.      ISBN 90-70986-96-5        .