I started this incantation but have not finished it completely. I lost my way on it and will search for a better way to explain it.
I can see the distortion by comparing the following two statements and then reflecting on their actual differences in light of how I perceive their differences.
- I can imagine jumping, but I am not jumping right now. My jumping does not exist until I jump.
- I can imagine Nanda Devi, but I am not in Nanda Devi right now. Nanda Devi exists whether I go there or not.
In example 1, I assume that jumping is something I can do, but I am not doing. The place I would jump to exists, but my jumping and being there right now is only imaginary.
In example 2, I assume that Nanda Devi is a place I can go, but I have not gone yet. The place Nanda Devi exists, but my going and being there is imaginary.
What is the difference between these two hypotheticals?
One is an act, and the other is a place. One is a description of the act, and the other is the description of the place. Jumping is an act. And Nanda Devi is a place.
Actually, both are actions and places. Let’s compare.
An act is a performance that changes my spatial position.
- In example 1, I coordinate my body movements (i.e., an act) to jump into the air.
- In example 2, I coordinate my body movements (i.e., an act) to arrive at Nanda Devi.
A place is a unique location.
- In example 1, upon arriving in the air, my physical location has changed (i.e., a place).
- In example 2, upon arriving at Nanda Devi, my physical location has changed (i.e., a place).
So, these two statements break down in the following way:
- In example 1:
- I imagine an act of moving to a place different from my current place.
- I am not presently performing this act.
- My act does not exist until I perform it.
- The place my act would move me to does exist whether I perform the act or not.
- In example 2:
- I imagine a place different from my current place, that would require me to act.
- I am not presently in this place.
- This place exists whether I act or not.
Although the shift between my present position and position after jumping, and my present position and position after arriving at Nanda Devi are different in quantity and distance, they are both shifts. They are both “places” to the extent that they occupy a unique physical location that is different from the one I occupy when I am imagining them. And to get to these places, both require movement. Jumping is a place I “go to” by moving my body. Nanda Devi is also a place I “go to” by moving my body.
The difference is that in the first example I focus on the act of jumping, not the place I jump to. While in the second example I focus on the place I move to rather than the act of moving.
So while the language I use is different for both, they are actually the same thing. This brings up the question: if these are the same, then why do I imagine that:
- I am not at the place I would jump to, only imagining it. My jumping is therefore imaginary and does not exist independent of me.
- I am not at Nanda Devi, only imagining being there. But Nanda Devi exists independent of me.
Why is one a potential, but the other is a certainty, a fact, an enduring thing that exists without my imagining it?
I can see Nanda Devi, but I cannot see your jumping.
This exposes the fundamental paradox in my model of existence.
My jumping is only imaginary…
…
5/22/23 – This doesn’t work for this reason:
“Jumping” refers to my own movements.
Nanda Devi’s existence refers to the independent existence of another place.
These are actually not the same thing.
- Can I jump? Yes. Am I jumping now? No.
- Can I travel to Nanda Devi? Yes. Am I traveling to Nanda Devi now? No.
- Does the place where I jump to exist? Yes. Am I jumping there now? No. But does that place I can jump to still exist? Yes.
- Does the place Nanda Devi where I travel to exist? Yes? Am I traveling there now? No. But does it still exist? Yes.
I am working through a better examination of this same problem and will publish it shortly.