Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein taught us about how space and time are not two entirely different things but are, together, one. However, most people just do not get what that means, psychologically and fundamentally, including a lot of supposedly smart scientists. Years ago, when i was much younger, i used to hang around the quantum physicist Professor David Bohm, whom Einstein fondly called his “spiritual son.” Bohm was a famous scientist in his own right and when we discussed things, i was already well aware of the implications of spacetime and what that meant psychologically and on a larger scale.
Space and time are not two separate entities; together they are one. If you look at nature and people merely with psychological separation, with psychological space, as most people do, that very separation helps to support and produce an abstracted, psychological “I” or “me.” If you perceived without such (learned) separation, the “I” or “me” need not exist (which would be fundamentally way more accurate). If you say, “I will be trying to be ‘good’ so that I can eventually get to heaven,” you are supposing that you are something separate from time (in time)… rather than the actuality of being what time is. Your brain consists of matter (which often functions to react as thoughts), and matter is space, spacetime. Of course, we have to use time (in the physical world) to get to work on time or to be at a specified meeting on time. To use time to get somewhere psychologically or spiritually, however, is largely fallacious. Wishing to advance over time spiritually presupposes that you are “in time” and are not what “time is.” Mentally manufacturing a separation between you and time (except for certain time-oriented physical things, like the ones mentioned… and for using our crude, unfortunate language system) is often a process of wasting energy and is inviting great deception. Both the aforementioned psychological space separation and the psychological time separation are illusory; together, both help to create the fallacious and selfishly separate ego. (One cannot be in communion with the timeless if one is a series of fragments of time that erroneously presuppose that they are “in time” advancing spiritually.)
Eternal and orderly phenomena can exist (in humans) without the ego (i.e., without any psychological center). As we have often suggested, the central ego is essentially fallacious and illusory. Habitually looking from (and “as”) it is an illusion; it is a fallacy that most people habitually cling to. Like a man who thinks that he sees vast water in a desert — you know that age-old mirage — and insists on fishing in it non-stop, stay completely with the ego if you wish.
When discussing things in public with people, we can still politely use the word “I,” while (all the while) being fully aware of its fallacious and deceiving attributes; it is one of the misfortunes of living in a society with a barbaric system of language. Professor Bohm diligently worked on helping develop a more accurate and scientifically evolved system of language, which he called the Rheomode. Later in life, Bohm learned of the Native American Blackfoot language, and also of other members of this Native American language family, all of which are very strongly verb-based and do not divide the world into solid categories (i.e., nouns) but, instead, describe in terms of processes and related movements. Link to short Professor David Bohm Video.
Green Treehopper … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
Tom's Nature-up-close Photography and Mindfulness Blog 
Beautiful post
Very glad you see the significance of it, Mitali! 🙂
Thanks for the insightful words and video.
So glad that you saw something in it, Eilene! 🙂
Interesting (always) to read your discourses … this puts “we’re all one” under a “macro lens” of sorts! Great photo, too.
Very appreciative of your comments, Jazz! 🙂 It’s sad how the current ‘world view’ is full of mere fragmentation and indifference.
Thanks for the video, Tom. Bohm’s image of humans being part of the earth is relevant to today.
You are welcome, Michael. 🙂 Bohm could go very deep. This video was Bohm at a very rudimentary level. I sure miss talking with the guy.
You inspired me to watch several interviews with Dr. Bohm. I cannot claim that I fully understand every interview, but there were moments that made my heart beat a lot faster, that made me want to better understand. Thank you for the challenge.
Great to read, Susan. 🙂 You may also wish to Google videos of some of Bohm’s discussions with J. Krishnamurti at Brockwood or at Ojai. It was at Brockwood and at Ojai where i had wonderful one on one discussions with Bohm.
I will do it.
Awesome, Susan! 🙂
Beautiful photo and thanks for always helping me understand this topic that has fascinated me over the years.🙂 Thanks for sharing the video (plan to watch a few more) and always enjoy a post and video that has me making notes in my journal.🙂
Thanks very much, CI! 🙂 Read, please, what was written to Susan, above. I miss those awesome discussions with Bohm; it was a magical time (for both of us) in those serious depths. … or should one say, “as both of us.” 🙂
Hugs to Fuzzy-O.
Thank you for your insight Tom. As to the Treehopper, he almost looks like a cartoon character with a flat-looking body and no facial features. Look at the different green colors – amazing.
Yes, Linda, many of the Treehoppers, i feel, have evolved to look like a leaf, like an extension of the tree or bush that they are on… so, hence the greenness and flatness and lack of facial features. They are difficult to spot in all of the bushy greenery of the woods. Additionally, this clever one included, they have a propensity to sneakily slide to the opposite side of a branch from where you are; that makes them even more difficult to spot! Elusive little elves, they are! 🙂
Love the treehopper’s attitude!
Thank you, Donna! 🙂