The Order of Time - Info : Methodical Preliminary Excercises

'With something being contradicted
it is not proven that it is untrue,
just as not being debated
would prove that someting is true.'

To figure out the truth about the facts that make up our reality, we must first determine how to proceed. In ancient India, this method is called Nyâya. According to the Sanskrit dictionary, nyâya means method, standard, rule, axiom, plan, right manner, justice, logical argument, or inference. Our planned approach yields an image of reality and a standard way of operating in the right manner, so as to arrive at the proper inference. This logic, called nyâyika, consists of five parts:

1 General thesis.
2 Doubt.
3 Counterargument.
4 Conclusion.
5 Summary.

Of course, we could call on the philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) and his similar method, as well as the philosophers Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). We could also consult Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) for an analysis and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) to help us realize ourselves. However, this would be like building one house with many master builders. After all, there is also the philosopher W. v. Ockham(1285-1349), who, with his well-known "razor" argument, asks why we would use different elements when one would suffice. To prevent subsequent master builders from tumbling over one another in the construction of our filognostic mansion, we will limit ourselves to the Vedic vision in relation to Descartes for the first half of Part I, since he specifically has the method as his subject. However, we will ultimately have to abandon him as well, since he was not familiar with the non-Western tradition prior to his time nor the empirical science that came after him, despite his diligence.Rationality is beautiful and good. Reason is essential. The method is important, but, as he states himself, it is also vital to be comprehensive in the end. The general thesis is that India, as the oldest known culture, provides a philosophical foundation to address the problems of modern man and develop a syncretic approach to science, spirituality, and religion. Contrary to Descartes, the Vedic sages demonstrate respect for scientific facts, such as the existence of a galaxy amidst other galaxies, and provide clear descriptions of problems that we recognize as modern. It is important to work toward a coherent paradigm that can properly cover the entirety of our reality, do justice to matters of the spirit and gross matter, and accommodate everything and everyone, so that each person's full identity is respected.

As the preface points out, we must link our love of knowledge to a certain order of time if we want to live with it. Therefore, we will also involve a physicist like Albert Einstein (1879-1955), as he was the figurehead of modern intelligence and promoted the concept of relative time. Let's start with him to demonstrate the method. According to his theory of relativity, the speed of light (c) is a constant in the dynamic universe of time and matter. According to Einstein and many others who claim to understand him, time is always different and depends on the frame of reference. His theory implies that the absolute value of time computations is illusory and that we, politically, therefore can regulate, settle, and control time however we like. Newton (1643-1727) was wrong about his absolute idea of natural time as a measure of our material existence. That would be a position all too deterministic. So be it, but the problem is that we end up with a couple of conflicting ideas if we give Einstein the advantage of doubt in determining what is absolute. Firstly it is so that we might not understand Einstein quite right. Time and space are according to his theory not exactly the same, viz. they do not entirely team up. According his theory there is a difference between the time indicated by an atomic clock that in an airplane flew around the world and the time of a similar atomic clock that was kept in its place. This was tried, and one indeed found a very minute difference between the atomic clocks the way the theory predicted, even though this experiment from 1972 according to some was thus unsatisfactorily conducted that factually no definitive conclusion should have been attached to it (see A.G. Kelly: Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?). Is Einstein therefore correct in saying that the time of a certain place must be taken relative? If so, does this minute difference, which astronauts would also have to consider when returning home, justify the difference in time and space between standard time and the time indicated by sundials? At the beginning of the 21st century, that difference in China amounts to about three hours. In western China, this has led to civil disobedience, with peasants adamantly ignoring the state's imposition when they regulate their daily business with a clock set to local time. When Einstein thinks he has found an exception to the Newtonian link of time and space, does that not factually imply that the connection is thereby confirmed? Doesn't folk wisdom still defend the idea that the exception confirms the rule? Then why should we reject Isaac Newton, who had a devout, religious, and classical respect for the natural measures of time as they are for normal people and planets?

The situation is even worse with Einstein's theory, which is fundamental to our modern, relativistic mindset and our aversion to personal absolutes. Recently, in the summer of 2005, the theory of the Italian physicist Maurizio Consoli was questioned due to experimental findings in an experiment performed by the German physicist Stephan Schiller in Düsseldorf on the speed of light. According to Consoli, who interpreted the data with greater scrutiny and detachment, the speed of light would not be uniform in all directions. Thus, it would be directional, and there would be a certain order of light, a framework, in the universe. A paradigmatic clash of this sort has happened before. In 1933, a researcher named D.C. Miller claimed that Michaelson and Morly, the physicists who initiated the idea of a constant light speed in 1887, had made mistakes when working with averaged values for the rotational speed of the Earth. Before him, Ernst Mach (1838-1916) concluded that there was no definitive proof of the existence of the so-called "ether" as a fixed frame of reference for variable light speed in a vacuum. According to Miller, the measurements of light speed differed relative to the position of the Earth. Nevertheless, the Earth would move at a speed of eight kilometers per second through a medium similar to the ether. All scientists before Einstein believed that the ether was the medium through which light vibrated its waves. After Miller, Yuri M. Galaev, among others, conducted many more tests with the M&M experiment, yielding varying results. In 2005, scientists discovered the same type of deviations while conducting the M.&M.-experiment. However, they could not accept their own findings because they could not believe that Einstein's theory, which states that such findings cannot be right, would be incorrect. Therefore, they attributed the deviations to systematic error. From a human point of view, this is understandable since the consequences for our currently dominant way of thinking about time and space are difficult to grasp.

"...the failure of the world's physicists to find such a (satisfactory) theory, after many years of intensive research," says Dirac, "leads me to think that the aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future".
Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933
Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

Regarding the speed of light, which seems to have dethroned time as an absolute measure, there is another remarkable issue to consider. Light exists that travels three hundred times faster! Since the end of the twentieth century, scientists have thought nothing of it. How can that be? According to Einstein in 1905, nothing could travel faster than the absolute speed of light. However, since the mid-1990s, light has been capable of traveling 1.7 times faster through a special fiber optic cable and even 300 times faster when driven through a gas cloud. The solution to this riddle has existed since 1910: the speed of light limit only applies to coded light, not light itself. In 2003, physicist Daniel Gauthier confirmed this remedy for saving Einstein's theory of relativity by stating that, according to his findings, the speed limit of light is indeed true for coded light carrying information but not for uncoded light. Thus, the speed of light is an apparent or conditional constant, not an absolute one. Depending on the medium and type of light, light may travel infinitely fast. Thus, Einstein's formula, which is based on a speed limit or absolute constant in outer space, may actually be incorrect. In normal circumstances on Earth, the speed of light seems constant. However, in special circumstances involving other conduits and/or fields, it appears that we are dealing with a theory of constants rather than a theory capable of declaring time relative. Einstein himself preferred the formulation "a theory of invariants." It's no surprise that virtually no one understands Einstein, save for a couple of zealous scientific fanatics. From the perspective of our modern options, he does not quite compute.

The proof is piling up. In an article titled The Speed of Gravity & What the Experiments Say (Physics Letters A 250:1-11, 1998), physicist Tom Van Flandern states, "Recognition of a faster-than-light propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau." The effect of gravity propagates many times faster than light. This is also incommensurate with Einstein's theory.
Another matter of dispute among physicists, concerning the speed of light, is the deviance in the fine-structural or nuclear constant, akin to the speed of light, found in 2002 by the internationally acclaimed physicist, author, and broadcaster Paul C. W. Davies in Australia. This deviance would prove that the speed of light has gradually decreased during our cosmic ontogenesis. João Magueijo also states in Faster Than the Speed of Light (2003) that if light had been faster in the beginning, that would offer a better explanation for the facts of the currently maintained theory and the research data. However, the magazine Nature responded to his inquiry by stating that, although he had found an explanation for some cosmological matters, he still had no comprehensive solution and thus had to be turned down. Are Einstein and his followers not also searching for the "Theory of Everything"? Do we have to accept him then?
It seems that, having arrived at this point, we are ready for the psychologist who studies the phenomenon of rationalization and repression in relation to systems of thought. We are thinking of the analogy of analytical psychologist Carl Jung (1875-1961), who, like Consoli in his relationship with Einstein's constants, called Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) - the original psychoanalyst, father of the science, and notably a friend of Einstein - a complete neurotic. Let's be honest: Is relativism really effective in ensuring the progress of humanity toward peace and justice? The atomic bomb and nuclear power plants, which effectively convert mass into energy, do not seem to be succeeding. Perhaps we must reconsider our "Father of Time" and accept that Einstein may not have been correct in every way. Science consists of trial and error; that is the power of its progress.

There is plenty of doubt with the existing relativistic paradigm. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that. In 2005, a lay discussion could be followed on the Dutch science forum wetenschapsforum.nl between enthusiasts interested in physics arguing about the particle of light. Their guesswork makes it clear how difficult it is to understand all of Einstein's theory's peculiar conclusions. Light would also be measurable in photons. A light particle with a base mass of zero, when moving, would be a package of energy that has mass. However, if such a package of energy moves at the speed of light, according to the theory, the particle would have infinite kinetic energy and experience a gravitational effect toward a black hole, such as the center of the galaxy. This, by the way, is also one of the implications of Düsseldorf. To maintain Einstein's theory, the particle of light cannot have mass, even though it has energy. According to Einstein, energy and mass are equivalent to the speed of light, according to the formula E = mc². This would imply that there is energy that cannot be mass, which would mean that the formula is wrong. The Dutch pop group Doe Maar sang, "E=mc²...before the bomb drops," at the end of their song with that name. That is what laypeople think about it and even sing about it in Holland.

And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions and he asked them what they thought the cosmos was composed of. But they replied:
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.

"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."

"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius,"alongside of water and air and earth and fire ?"

"There is the ether", the other replied,"which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made, for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."

Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas answered:

"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"

"Yes," the other said, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it engenders all living things."

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana,
Philostratus, 220AD.

However, it can also be stated philosophically. In the Vedic literature, in the Rigveda, verse 1.50 the philosopher Sayana writes: "Thus it is remembered: You, O Sun, traverse 2,202 yojanas in half a nimes'a." According to S.B. 3.11:3-10, a yojana of 31 km closely describes the speed of light, which is approximately 300,000 km/s (see Wikipedia). However, upon closer examination of the Vedic reference in the same Bhâgavatam of Vyâsa, it is revealed that the yojana in verse 5.25:1 also represents a measure equivalent to a light year on the scale of the galaxy. In the Purâna, the Milky Way is referred to as the s'is'umâra, or "dolphin." In other words, according to a coordinated Vedic vision, the speed of light is variable depending on the frame of reference. For the philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE), two forms of time were sufficient to describe the cosmos: the linear and cyclic movement of the universe. This sufficed to describe a finite universe divided into two realms: the unchanging, unique celestial sphere of the ether, which leads to the cyclical reality of creation - perfect - and the realm of earthly matter, characterized by linearity and imperfection. René Descartes picked up on this division of space and the element of ether. According to him, there is no such thing as empty space or a real vacuum. Rather, there is a universe full of interaction. Consequently, there would never be a constant speed of light, but rather a speed limited by the medium through which it moves. Consequently, we observe light impulses traveling three hundred times faster through a gas cloud. In the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1875, the physicist J.C. Maxwell , in respect to his philosophical predecessor, initially described the problematic and mysterious medium of the ether as follows: "Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the æther, there can be no doubt that interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body., which is certainly the largest and probably the most uniform of which we have any knowledge." This substance, present in space, is the primal state of matter from which the stars and planets formed. It is always present as their basis, a complete whole of potential space-time, and the potency of the ether. It is the effect of a coherent force field, which was noticed by Aristotle in western philosophy. The ether is the formative basis for all that exists. Einstein in the 1922 Britannica edition defended the notion of a relativistic four-dimensional space-time - the normal "Euclidean" space linked to the dimension of time - resulting in a non-Euclidean curvature of space. However, Einstein could not ascribe an absolute value to the simultaneity of occurrences because he could not acknowledge such an ethereal, absolute, and momentous drive. Carl Jung, for example, calls this drive "synchronicity." Thus, due to the relativity of the medium, we do not really know exactly what we are dealing with concerning the speed of light. The results of the measurements diverge; that much is certain.
Even Einstein who, facing the constancy of light speed, was credited with disproving the existence of the ether, later devised a new theory based on a different concept of the ether (see Ludwik Kostro: Einstein and the Ether). In 1920, he stated the following about the ether: 'There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials", and next concluded with: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.' (lecture, University of Leyden). General relativity thus implies the existence of an ether. However, Einstein disagreed with the absolute concept of time associated with the ether as described by Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928). Before Einstein, Lorentz had said, "One cannot deny the bearer of these properties [the ether] a certain substantiality. If so, one may modestly call the time measured by clocks fixed in this medium true time and consider simultaneity a primary concept." The ether is actually just empty space, which we normally know as a limited gravitational force field, such as that of the Sun ("curved space"), the Milky Way ("ethereal space" or "the Force"), or the special, unlimited, and, according to Hubble's so-called redshift of the light spectrum, endlessly expanding intergalactic space ("spacetime," or the original space or ether - without the time differentiation of linear versus cyclic time - of undifferentiated matter just after the Big Bang; in Sanskrit, according to the oldest traditions, called pradhâna). Thus, there are different types of relativistic ether and space. The three main forms of ether, which differ by locality, are known in the Vedas as the three forms of Vishnu: Kāranodakas'âyī Vishnu, Garbhodakas'âyī Vishnu, and Kshirodakas'âyī Vishnu. With this, our primary thesis that derives from the Vedic concept of order has been confirmed. Before this, Empedocles (490–430 BCE) said, "By the aether, the aether divine ," but the truth of this element being essential to the concept of the soul was already acknowledged in Sanskrit culture. Now, enough about this.

Considering the community of physicists who were in denial about the relativistic ether as Einstein later stated it, it can be concluded that there is a lot of neglect of Einstein's theory among natural physicists, even using his name to defend their denial. Einstein evolved as a good, self-critical scientist should, and thus, we can accept him in the end, filognostically, knowing the error as a challenge for self-improvement. He did not succeed in formulating a "theory of everything" and had to contend with internal inconsistencies, as did we after him. The inability to detect deviations in the speed of light thus may also be caused by the earth's movement through the 'ether's energy stream'. According to Descartes, the element of the ether would lead to energy vortices, which, like something floating down a river, would not result in relative motion between the ether and the Earth. Therefore, there would be no effect on the measured speed of light. This position is defended by people on the fringe of science who are often portrayed as pseudoscientists: Nikola Tesla (1856–1943), Viktor Schauberger (1885–1958), Wilhelm Reich (1897–1959), and John John E.W. Keely (1827–1898). The latter one wrote in 1893: 'There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are one. Force is liberated matter. Matter is force in bondage'.

These scientists tried to demonstrate that ethereal energy, or "orgone energy," as Reich explained to Einstein, is very real, even though it is invisible (see also J. Medeo). Considering the modernity of quantum physics, which also speaks in terms of indeterminate energy, we may ask ourselves what factually real science would be. There is a paradigmatic struggle, but only time will tell what is true. Error can be terrifying (E = m.(T)error²). Science and politics, like religion and the state, are only separated by principle, not in reality. We are warned about error in science and matters of the ego, especially in mathematics, which can stem from possibly incorrect assumptions, such as the non-existence of the ether or imaginary constants. In the nineties, for example, there was a news item about astronomers who thought they had discovered planets around a star. They later did, but at that time, the deviation in their parallax measurements was wholly attributable to their failure to consider the equation of time, which results from the earth's oblique axis and noncircular orbit around the sun. Thus, they embarrassed themselves with a false alarm of significant results.
The basic idea behind this doubt is that the mathematical angle is a reductionist way of reasoning, in which one can never be certain of one's subject. since information was lost in the reduction. In an equation, the term "A" is not necessarily the same as "A" elsewhere in the same equation or in a different equation. This is also a matter of relativity and lawfulness. When A is not equal to A, the illusion of order suggested by mathematics ends. As psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) states: "One will have to accept the complexity of the universe and admit that not everything can be known or reduced to a formula."

Whether Einstein is correct or not, and whether the doubt and experimentation are justified, one thing is certain: time, as the controlling factor linked to place in what we call space-time, must be relatively dependent., the same way the speed of light depends on the medium through which it travels. This constitutes a second argument against the politicized relativistic justification of time zones, in which time is separated from place. In other words, using Einstein to reject the absoluteness of time, then declaring that time depends on the frame of observation or place, and then using the same relativistic argument to arrange time zones that break with dependency on place is, more than anything else, an exercise in fearful, neurotic, and compulsive behavior to escape Father Time. Lorentz must have been right with his local, true time clocks directed at the ether, which we at this site respect, and not Einstein with his exception resulting from the denial of the ether. One could argue that time is absolutely relative and that there is a law of time stating that time and everything related to it must always be different because of the element of movement inherent to it. However, simply manipulating time endlessly as a dependent variable must certainly be regarded as a form of denial concerning the fact that everything, including matter, is subject to time as an independent variable - an agent that, apart from being creative and maintaining, is also evidently destructive.

If we take the criticism seriously, the Einsteinian fallacy seems to be confusing speed with change. Speed is not an absolute value like the three sacred basic elements of physics: space, time, and matter. Space-time, which manifests matter, offers these three elements, which, as the physical trinity of God, define each other and cannot be reduced to something else. Philosopher D. Hume (1711-1776) calls them extension, motion, and solidity in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Vyâsadeva calls them akâs'a, prakriti, and kâla. They constitute each other's condition of existence in creation; one cannot think of one without the others. Time is the life and movement of matter in space. Space is the distance of time, the phenomenon of gravity. between material objects. Matter is the electromagnetic effect of the influence of time on the potency of expanding space; time, which from being linear, by the law of reaction became cyclic and thus, in opposition, transformed gravity, the primal potency, into solid matter (be it not complete, as evidenced by the inability to find the so-called invisible "dark matter," which, according to S.B. 5.20: 38, covers three-quarters of our creation).The entire creation is a permutation of the concepts of time, space, and matter. For example, energy is an electromagnetic phenomenon of spaced-out matter. This matter began as hot, energetic plasma, then condensed into gas and vapor. Next, it became fluid, and finally, it solidified into matter. Light is the least dense and fastest form of matter. In the Vedas, it is called "the glance" of the Lord (S.B. 2.1: 31)), and Genesis says that there was light in the darkness. Space is a gravitational phenomenon that sets limits to matter, such as stars and planets in curved space - the ether that our radios cover - or the Milky Way in ethereal space that we can see with the naked eye in the celestial sky. With a telescope, we can see the cosmic time ball of expanding galaxies grouped together in the primal realm of time and space. There, one does not find actual matter, but rather the energetic potency for it. Time is also known in three dimensions, just like space and matter. There is the linear movement of the primal substance, which we find in the expansion of the cosmos; the movement of matter, which spins around mutually attracted in a galaxy; and the movement of the "timeless" but living soul through space-time, which constitutes the negation of matter. False identification with the inauthentic person forms an ego. Space, the relative phenomenon of gravitation, is the ether. Matter is the electromagnetic manifestation. Time is the life of it all. This is the physical basis of a perceivable, complete whole for all our arguments.

"Thus he then classified living creatures into genera and species, and divided them in every way until he came to their elements, which he called the five shapes and bodies, aether, fire, water, earth and air."

Xenocrates on the life of Plato

As for Einstein's erroneous supposition, the speed changes as everything else does when subject to time. That is the law of time: change is absolute, not what changes. Change stays change, even though it changes. Space or ether stay space or ether, even though they are situated elsewhere. In the end, matter also turns out to be absolute as an electromagnetic phenomenon of energetic contraction. Without this phenomenon, the first two carry no meaning, even when it is as thin as light. Something that appears to be invariable and constant, such as a quasar, is an illusion. It once came into existence and, according to the law of time, will cease to exist at some point, so it does not exist absolutely. Therefore, even though we accept Einstein's commitment to the relativistic ether, he cannot lead a responsible philosophical plea for a certain order of time. We must build on the absoluteness of time and change, which exist as the eternal life of all matter in space.

The reasoning is methodical and consistent. The counterargument to the idea that time is absolute is that declaring time to be relative and dependent does not exclude the possibility of its absolute reality as an independent variable. Or, as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) would say in a dualistic manner, time itself, unknown in its full glory, is not factually dependent on your existence to exist, according to the French philosopher Henri Bergson(1859-1941). Time itself, as you experience it, is essentially uncontrollable, despite all politically and pragmatically inspired manipulations, as discussed by the existentialist Martin Heidegge (1889-1976). Time, when lived and controlled, implies, as Hegel knew, the realization of estrangement when one must abide without the scientific virtues of validity and reliability. This is evident in the modern arbitrariness of standard time since the French Revolution and its failed time reform. In conclusion, time is an absolute of change and a determinant of the ether as a form of God, as the oldest culture of India has axiomatically defended. Our general thesis is that the self-determined conditioning order is naturally relative and possibly of a good or bad quality, which we can discuss.

Summarizing the general thesis of filognosy then amounts to time as an independent godhead, force or order, that since the days of yore, the way we know it from India, is present as a, for the creation, maintenance and destruction, all-determining factor in our lives. The antithesis of relativism concerns the pragmatical need for a knowable, existentially livable, controlled time, we have to consider as being relative. Facing the two positions of the natural absolute of time and the cultural relative maintained thereto, we thus arrive at the insight that we are dealing with a paradigmatic matter which compares to the classical difference between geocentric and heliocentric thought. First we thought that we according Ptolemaeus (87-150), with God and Jesus on earth, were the center of the universe, and then we thought, since the bravery of Galileo Galilei (1564 -1642) who to the ideas of Copernicus (1473 - 1543) contested geocentric Rome, that the sun was the center of the universe, and thus found our new era of scientific enlightenment. With the progress of astronomy we next discovered our place in the galaxy, and now, being tired of the politically divided and quarreling - but still predominantly - heliocentric oriented sciences with their compensatory relativism, it seems that with us taking seriously the differences of the light speed that in inconclusive experimenting were found in the absence of a conclusive paradigm, we, together with the sun indeed are moving through a medium called the ether. May the Force be with us, for we have arrived at galactocentric thinking - the new paradigm of the 21st century. This paradigm defines us as beings moved by an all-powerful force that controls the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and the rest of the stars. This force moves us in a galactic whirl about the black hole at the center - the mountain Meru of Vishnu and Brahmâ - the eye of the universal storm created by the holy and absolute Force. This Force is the Absolute of Galactic Cakra (cyclic) Time, and it is known as the ether - the first effect of creation (Brahma Sutra Adh2.P3: 1-7). Sage Vyâsa describes the evolution of the ether as follows: "From identification with the darkness of matter and transformation to that mode, the first element of ether developed with its subtle form and quality of sound, indicative of both the seen and the seer" (S.B. 2.5: 25). In S.B. 11.15: 19, he states that the Lord is the personification of the ether. In S.B. 3.5: 32, he states that the ether is the symbolic representation of the Supersoul, God's localized form, who is impersonally known as Time. Regarding the concept of time, he states in S.B. 3.26.34, "As for its action and characteristics the ether is described as the element internally and externally giving room to the living beings and as the field of activities of the vital air [prâna], the senses and the mind.." According to Vyâsa, the ether refers to the "timeless" self of consciousness and the time-bound reality of the outside world. Therefore, also in consideration of the spiritual department, there isa relative ether.

'For a truly joyful and auspicious human work to flourish, man must have the capacity to climb from the depths of his attachment at home up to the ether. Ether here stands for the high flight of the high heavens, the open real of the spirit.'
Martin Heidegger, 'Treatise on human thought'

With this paradigmatic shift, we are faced with the counterargument that the order of time can now be discussed in terms of its paradigmatic qualities and effects. Just as geocentric thinking was proven to be inferior to heliocentric thought, heliocentric thinking may now be inferior to the galactocentric paradigm in revealing knowledge. In this and the following sections, we will explore our filognosy concerning the order of time and the ether. This new paradigm considers the circular movement of the stars, Earth, and Sun through the basic element of the Vedic culture, of kha or akas'a, which represents the force field of the galaxy, primal space-time, and local order. This force field may result in variations in light speed found in different experiments. Around 1920, Einstein said that he had made a somewhat radical judgment in 1905 about this phenomenon. When, with scientific experimentation, we sum up and comprehend the entire problem of modern man, we will have succeeded in our methodical purpose and arrived at a new paradigm for the twenty-first century. This paradigm resets world culture to its classical values and cures postmodern man of his bewilderment.

'Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof.'
A. Einstein in 'Grundgedanken und Methoden
der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt'

See also: references

2- The Order of Time: structure of the content

If we want to discuss the qualities and effects of the order of time methodically, stated in the preface, we must pay attention to science, as well as spirituality and religion, out of a love for knowledge and syncretism. Syncretic thinking is the essence of the concept of gnosis and teaches us classical Christian spirituality. The online encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org) states that, according to the authority of Gilles Quispel (1916), a renowned Dutch researcher of classical and Christian gnosticism, gnosis is considered the "third component of Western culture," alongside reason and belief. Along with Greek philosophy and Christianity, gnosis, which we have known since the second century in a Christian sense, has also contributed considerably to Western European culture. In his Theological-Political Treatise, B. de Spinoza (1632-1677) states, "Reason rules the domain of truth and wisdom; theology rules the domain of piety and obedience." He rejects the idea of a mutual obligation between the two, but we filognostics defend the notion that reason and belief are mutually obligatory. In gnosis, the bridge between science, which methodically uncovers truth, and religion, which strives for piety, is formed by the interplay of analysis and spirituality. Science determines which facts and paradigms are important, while religion, through the political representation of the populace, enforces obedience. By linking the concept of Gnosis to Vedic culture, we will present a worldview that reconciles all cultures without becoming compromised by any particular Gnostic tradition. A gnostic person is typically described as someone who seeks an intimate relationship with God through self-knowledge or self-awareness. A filognostic person is someone who loves this from the point of view of Vedic truth. Contrary to the Western classical view of gnosis, filognosy is not secret. On the Vedic ground of the succession in a so-called paramparâ, however, a personal transfer of love for knowledge is considered conducive and advised. It is also important to maintain confidentiality and discretion concerning the science of the person. Filognosy is not polemic or anticlerical; it is based on scientific facts and the Vedic tenet that human recollection and the ability to acquire and process knowledge are always limited, so scriptural authority is necessary. Contrary to classical gnosis, there is no propensity for anarchy. Rather, there is a certain degree of docility concerning a specific person of spiritual authority: the philosopher of philosophers, Vyâsadeva (c. 3200 BCE). In the West, he is sometimes denounced as anonymous because his name represents a collection of sages, each of whom assembled the Vedic verses in turn. Although he unifies the entire field of philosophy and religion, the evidence to deny his name is inconclusive. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence of the so-called Aryan invasion of India, which would place the source of Vedic civilization closer to us. On the contrary, it is the Vedic civilization that spread to the West. However, regarding Vedic culture, we work with critical docility.Rather than simply adopting that Far Eastern culture uncritically, we should incorporate it into our lives in a simple and unambiguous way, guided by certain principles, without losing sight of ourselves as Christians, Muslims, or people of other faiths and worldviews. For some, this may take on a very traditional Hindu character; for others, it may be more of a pleasant and inspiring philosophical exercise; and for still others, it may enrich their spiritual or political life. The intention is that none of our talents or ways of uniting science, spiritual life, and multicultural faith should be lost by recognizing Vedic science as a source of inspiration and the root of human civilization. The doctrinal effort of the philognostic worldview, as outlined on this site, involves, in part, combating all possible forms of distortion—or false unification of the ego—whether this involves the distortion of class consciousness, political consciousness, religious consciousness, or the more scientific forms of arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and alienation. By the, with this postmodern restart, of gnosticism therein having envisioned a constructive spiritual reconciliation of science and religion, there for each of the three holy subjects of science, spirituality and religion mentioned - which respectively deal with the facts, the principles and the respect for the person - is a duality which thus at this site results in a division of six sections. These six sections correspond to the darshanas - or six classical schools of thought - practiced in India, which exist to combat the human tendency to distort the soul’s sense of self - and thus also a certain order of time in relation to the ether. The Nyâya, representing the logical approach in India, was translated into the methodological and structural philosophical considerations of this section; the Vais'eshika, representing the more atheistic Indian philosophy of unity, was translated into the figures and terms of sober natural science; the Sânkhya, representing analytical philosophy, was translated into an analytical section focused on art; the yoga of attaining absorption was translated into the spirituality of developing a certain capacity for abstraction; the Mimâmsâ of the culture of rituals was translated into personal and religious reflections, and the vedânta culture of commentaries was translated into a spirit of political reform. These perspectives have the following in common: 1) a continuing self, 2) a workload, 3) liberation through service, and 4) a culture of reference. The identity and integrity of filognosy are thus described in terms of six aspects, much as the empiricist D. Hume (1711–1776) classified knowledge in his own way (see further the definition).

As stated in the preface, this linear presentation, which is required for a book, implies a causal relationship that must be put into perspective. In reality, one thing does not strictly follow from another. This is why the interface on the site’s index page has a more intuitive layout. Reasoning from beginning to end, a book and a website create a perfect illusion of causality based on a classical layout. This illusion is not so much incorrect as it is an exclusive way of speaking. There are multiple equally valid lines of reasoning using the same elements. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the f

ather of positivism, reasoned precisely the opposite of the filognosy described above, which resembles Søren Kierkegaard's (1813-1855) more. Kierkegaard's filognosy goes from the aesthetic to the ethical to the religious. According to Comte, one progresses from theology to the metaphysical stage of principles and the concept of "nature" to the positive stage of factual reality, which knows no origin or purpose. However, the law of life and time has more causal directions than the lines of Comte and Kierkegaard. As we indicated in the preface, the end of one cycle of knowledge makes way for a new beginning and the way back: reasoning from the end to the beginning constitutes an order found in intuitive arbitrariness and an argument that dissipates from a nucleus, like a tree structure. These are equally valid forms of progressing in causal reasoning. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) distinguished four types of causality in his Physics: substance, as in "the bronze precedes the bronze statue"; form, as in "the form of a horse is essential to all horses and the cause that we name them thus"; doer, as in "the artist constitutes the cause of his creation"; and norm, as in "I stroll for my health, and that is the cause of my strolling."
In Vedic logic, we find all four of these forms of causality embodied in the purusha as the soul—the essence of the person as the principle of creation, which precedes the ego in creation as its substance—in the avatâra, the god who took on human form and thereby liberated, in kâla as the doer who moves, created, and conditioned all things, and in dharma, the norm of the necessity of God’s justice, which is the cause of piety and the pious person of knowledge. Likewise, from a filognostic perspective, it is not simply stated that (normatively) only religion - or dharma - leads to the knowledge of the spiritual person, since, conversely, the purusha - or the (original) person of knowledge - is itself the cause of this, according to the illusion of (substantive) causality that we here maintain in a linear fashion. Likewise, the avatâra is ever-present as a tree of knowledge from which (formatively) - as seen on the site’s index-page - all philosophy, spirituality, and religion sprout. with Him as the trunk and core; and there is also the impersonal aspect of spirituality in relation to the temporal factor kâla, which, as applied in the standalone articles on this site, constitutes the (constructive) cause of intuitive learning. A striking example of reasoning backwards, in this case more symbolically, to what would be the beginning for others, is offered by the Renaissance painter, inventor, and scientist Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519). As a principle combining aesthetic and intellectual motives in an inventive way, he habitually wrote and read books, sentences, and words backwards. This did not, of course, cover the double sense of the ambiguity of the four causal lines of reasoning. Another example can be seen in movies that begin with the denouement and use flashbacks and double plots. These movies are sometimes cut in a way that resembles the experience of someone with a deficient short-term memory, who does not know the order of time anymore, as in Christopher Nolan's 2000 movie Memento.

Contents of part I: the factual

The first of the three basic dualities of filognosy concerns the rational method versus the empirical science, to cope with the facts of life. One speaks of methodical science: first one makes up one's mind and next one engages in an empirically responsible fashion. In this department the agnostic element is stronger than the gnostic one. With reason and the experiential data we herein gradually arrive at the basic attitude and structure facilitating a, more to the principles directed, spiritual life and a society more conscious of the person. The agnostic basic attitude of being open and neutral to, or else staying skeptic, as in modernity is defended by the biologists T. H. Huxley (1825 -1895), Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), can, in her servitude being just as commendable as the other visions, more or less be considered a precondition to arrive at essential, filognostical, knowledge or knowledge of the complete whole. It was also Plato (428-347 B.C.) who, as one of the first greek philosophers, by mouth of Socrates (470-399 B.C.) in allegiance to this principle of science in his discourse The Defense of Socrates, managed to state that he was only sure not to know. It was that honesty that resulted for Socrates, as an early Christ of philosophy, in a cup of poison, because he, spoiling the young with it, thus demonstrated that the power of rule, in spite of their pretenses, actually also did not know, and thus was less wise than he who did know this.

Contents of section 1a: the method.

The method first of all consists of the charter, which is described on the previous page. There, we become acquainted with the principles of systematic proceeding: doubt, division, complexity, and completeness.

Based on our general thesis that we can perfectly depart from the Vedic concept of order, we then divide this site. These last paragraphs are part of the division, and the elements will later be subjected to the method. With this method, we must draw up a plan of action to investigate all possible aspects of our problem in order to responsibly sustain life with the ether. After clarifying this, we must also introduce the dialectical approach.

The dialectical nature of the game of questions and answers is not just a fundamental principle of the philosophy we know from Socrates and Plato; it is also a fundamental Vedic principle of questioning and answering in relation to spiritual authority. In the Bhagavad Gita (10: 32), Vyasa, by the words of Lord Krishna, states that for him, it is all about identifying with the dialectics of all argumentation. In short, he believes that a person should be properly respected with a Socratic game of questions and answers. The entire Bhâgavata Purâna, the Hindu equivalent of the Bible, also called the S'rîmâd Bhâgavatam (hereafter S.B.), consists of a frame story presented dialectically. The message here is less monologue and more conversation. In a presentation of a site that, in response to a general call for knowledge, tends to monologues and discourses, we present some correspondence that was written in response to the internet presentation of this knowledge, whether self-initiated or not, such as an email-exchange. The knowledge on this site also exists in response to what was presented on the internet. For this reason, sometimes more popular themes, such as those seen in cinema or politics, prevail over more academically demanding themes.

Next is a page that clearly answers the most obvious questions about the order of time as a social interaction game. This game allows us to respect others in their different life stages (see the GameWiki for more information). There is also a page on the site with job openings where different volunteer opportunities are offered to serve filognosy.

As a direct result of these classical dialectics, this first section of the site must offer a social definition. What good is all the knowledge brought together here if we cannot use it to find our fellow man in the first place? For this reason, there is a separate page dedicated to our thoughts on what it means to be social beings.

In general terms, the cultural content of The Order of Time is summarized in this introduction and the others to the different sections. Each section is summarized on a page containing six dialogues, which highlight the most important issues to remember. To quickly orient oneself to the subject matter, it is best to begin with this "'level one" by reading these pieces first, and then studying the separate articles. The introductions have a more general character and, as preparation for the specific studies per chapter, offer broader references to present-day and historical societal views and people. The site itself was intuitively built up from the different sections, as if chiseled out, and can thus be read one step at a time, like gently sitting down in a hot tub.