Informant38

We live through moments. But they're unbroken - the way the word breaks them into singular particles of time is false; the time we inhabit is a seamless unbroken continuity, from day to day, from birth to death.
It's an adolescent kind of exercise, to imagine your place in that continuity, the particular instant of now. Which is a thing that changes even as it's being described. This can confuse and distract anyone who thinks about it much.
But not thinking about it, I submit, allows a more dangerous confusion to persist.
That's the illusion that time consists only of the moment we inhabit, that all else - the past, and the future - is virtually fiction, even though the past is arguably more real even than the present, inasmuch as it's not subject to any modification at all.
What I'd like to bring to your attention is that the way we inhabit the moment, the instant, the evolving particle of time we call the present is not the same for each of us.
I'm calling this inhabiting "temporal bandwidth". I think somebody else already called it that and I'm just remembering it without remembering who it was or where but, be that as it may, for now that's what it is.
That temporal bandwidth is a measurable thing, though obviously not by us, at this time.
Some people live at the forward edge, in the sense of moving through time like a dog with its head out the window of a car, and others inhabit the back side of the contemporary instant, more like an old woman wrapped in shawls sitting in the last car of a train. Improvisation versus patient calculated response.
But, and this is the point, there's a greater and lesser aspect to the moment being inhabited as well, the side-to-side dimensions.
That's the bandwidth I mean.
I've come to believe that there are people capable of inhabiting their entire lives, all at once. That this gives them a kind of immortality, though clearly an incompete version. And just as there are people who speak and act, in the moments we share with them, in the present as we see it unfolding, who at the same time are being themselves entirely - old and young and in between - start to finish, there are people who have access to varying degrees of that same totality.
So that glimpses of the coming moments are made possible, not by a connection with "the future", like a camera sent to Mars, but by a connection with the future self.
I think this has always been the case, and I think it accounts for a lot of seemingly miraculous discoveries, and for what seems like fortuitous chance against overwhelming odds, and for the murk at the center of the evident power of a lot of occult events and agencies.
I also believe in the presence, in the universe through which we move, smaller than gnats in a meadow, of truly immortal beings, things with no inception and no terminal moments.
What I want to do here is distinguish between the seeming immortality of full-bandwidth temporal application, and the endless existence of something beyond our ability to imagine.
_

The physical connection between the so-called "generations" is something we've all been trained to see as entirely separated, though a little thought will show clearly the unbroken chain of physical presence that being is. There was a physical "thing" here all along. We're just the latest part of it, mushroom to the filament. This is another continuity that's been artificially, semantically, broken up.
And I think that that physical continuity, along with the temporal continuity, accounts for a lot of what we're trained to see as either mystical phenomenon or fabricated nonsense.
So a woman in the forest, receptive to not only herself but the flow of humanity to which she's physically connected, might recieve guidance, an echo from her own future self, and the future selves that are to her as she is to all those that came before her; that she might have things pointed out to her, things that rational dogma says were purely a result of trial and error, things that work, that benefit that larger being that she is within.
My premise is that that existed for all our history, that there's something else at work here to which it is anathema, something unhealthy and dark, that can't survive in co-operation with that light.
I'm not saying there are no mystical phenomenon, and I'm also not saying there isn't an awful lot of fabricated nonsense around. I'm arguing that it's not an all or nothing proposition. That too many people's lives make it impossible to accept a rational mechanical view of time and the physical universe in the flat two-dimensional version that's offered in the authorized versions of reality.
So they're seduced by the priesthood's version, the next, and seemingly only, step up from the colorless world-view of religion's alternative, science.
What I'm saying is that mysticism is, and should be, as natural and organically present in all our lives as water and air, that it's been eradicated, that we've been artificially separated from who and what we are, and how we got here.