# Temporal Passage in the Unchanging World  ## Metadata - Author: [[read]] - Full Title: Temporal Passage in the Unchanging World - Category: #books - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Document Tags: [[refereeing]] - Summary: This paper argues that even in meditation, where time seems to stop, people still experience a basic sense of time passing called the "enduring now." This means that the feeling of time moving comes from a constant renewal of awareness in the present moment. So, time's passage is a simple but important part of both normal and meditative experiences. ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > However, there are some cases where the experience of time appears to be totally altered. Meditation is an example. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsn6f124zbhtrz3qzgpmwcg)) - Note: This could be clearer. It's not as if every single time people meditate, experience of time is altered > subtle underlying sense of temporal passage ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsn7w8w9k3tvrm1m069teq6)) > Meditators claim that they have an altered sense of time during meditation ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsnpjat5p6zccv8swm9pw33)) - Note: again, much too general. sloppy > Introduction ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzspc1rttj5r71b457hr7dgx)) - Note: i feel like it should be made clearer that a lot of this set up is taken directly from Frischhut > Meditators claim that they have an altered sense of time during meditation ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsnspn0vn65jke9qpkakvxa)) > When other temporal features disappear, does any kind of minimal feature remain? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsp49ffwp7mz91xxrng6qeg)) - Note: vague > This is puzzling because meditators report that they are aware of wakefulness but are not aware of any temporal features. In other words, meditators are aware that their awareness is continuing on whilst being aware of timelessness. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsp6z23q8zda5yaat71wawm)) - Note: again, i worry that this is not very carefully phrased. experiencing an absence (timelessness) is not the same as an absence of experience (not aware of temporal features). > minimal temporal feature ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsp9vqmz8h3bvetdd4fzkvq)) - Note: has a definition been given of what a minimal temporal feature is? > When describing timelessness, it can be said that the meditators do not experience ‘nowness’, order, succession, duration, or temporal passage. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzspjpbakm72xr0x130m4why)) - Note: the passive form makes this quite vague. And I also think that what it means, or what Frischhut suggests it means, to be in a state without these features should be presented with a bit more care. > I claim that, in order for a meditator to experience a minimal temporal feature during meditation, they need to represent an enduring now. In other words, for us to experience time in a minimal sense, all that we need is a representation of an enduring now. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzspwhjpb4wa1vpy82qjfp96)) > In addition to this claim, the Enduring Now Interpretation claims that the phenomenology of meditation involves a minimal sense of temporal passage ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzspwshn1fmb4efpedqdggsf)) > As explained earlier, Frischhut takes experienced duration in meditation to be the extended present (the NOW). This is puzzling because it is unclear in what way the present can be extended. Frischhut (2024) says that: ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzspze22vs1hkpn2b6sp27y7)) > This is because, if there are no chains of present moments and the NOW fills out the entire duration of meditation, the NOW should not be analogous to an enduring object that is wholly located at one temporal location at different times, which changes its temporal location successively; or it should not be analogous to a perduring object that is like an extended worm, filling out spatiotemporal region by having temporal parts (i.e. it does not fill out an entire duration by having one part). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsqfvgwrnzybbdbdqmy2t5p)) - Note: I don't understand this sentence at all. there are too many negatives > Frischhut claims that meditators experience duration without succession whereas I argue that the experience meditators undergo must be momentary and successive – i.e. it must involve a constant, continuous updating of the location of the ‘now’. Yet, I argue that the constant, continuous updating of location of the ‘now’ does not give rise to the impression of discontinuity in meditators’ phenomenal experience, and it is due to the appearance of an enduring now. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsqqftwaqnvbjhnk44se5kh)) > By pre-reflective, I mean the meditators’ attempt to stay focused at each time is prior to reflection. They do not effortfully attempt to stay focused, but it is rather an effortless activity for them. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsqs5cx5ejyhqavmb49ke6q)) - Note: ?? why should i believe this? > When meditators continuously attempt to stay focused, they can choose to be in different states such as staying focused, dozing off, or being distracted at each time. They are thus unconsciously faced with the choice of staying focused, dozing off, or being distracted at each moment of the ‘now’. Accordingly, at every moment, the meditators must renew their awareness of the ‘now’ whilst staying focused. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsqwa6e8kvrxe4kqxf4c2kw)) - Note: not very clear explanation > It may be easier to answer this question by diverting our discussion to time consciousness, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsqyrnwcjb6mffpt0banfdf)) - Note: Not clear. Haven't we been talking about time consciousness. A reader who is not deep in the literature is going to be confused > secious ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsr27wkywaypdh4y5ekswpz)) - Note: spelling > In this case, there is not much change happening to his perception, but he can still have a sense of time passing while constantly wondering what time it is. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsr4f2q7j3p807jmzgpbmp4)) - Note: ?? > If I understand him correctly, he claims that, so long as there is still a change in one’s thoughts, and one has ‘an ever-changing sense of how long one had been in sensory deprivation’, there seems to be a form of change in the cognitive/mental. Being able to feel how long they have been in such a state causes the sense of time’s passing because there are still changes in the mental realm. This ‘ever-changing sense’ provides us with the sense of passage of time. Although this seems plausible, I further claim that there can be a sense of time passing even when there is no experience of change at all. In other words, so long as there is a stream of consciousness, one can experience the flow-like nature of consciousness. James invites us to think of this possibility as follows: ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsrh8rgvqc661z76w9n76e6)) - Note: young directly addresses this idea. it seems weird not to mention it. > The renewal of awareness, as discussed earlier, is a continuous attempt by the meditator to stay focused at each moment. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsrkstt57etemtv1gb8yvsf)) > The cycle of mind-wandering and refocus is a natural course of meditation, and experienced meditators are said to have better control over these states and can maintain focus effortlessly. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsrmdvw0da69wqzz868gbty)) - Note: again this just seems sloppy. "are said" who says? > Dor-Ziderman et al. (2013) shows that the continuous neural activity remains even though self-related processing activity is diminished ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsrpx4a92f7hebmezjsmmet)) - Note: really not clear > What does it mean for the now to be enduring? I take the ‘nowness’ as a primitive property of time which is instantiated at multiple times. ‘Nowness’ here does not mean that there is in fact a privileged present that changes its temporal location in the world. The moving ‘now’ here is just the representation in our mind. Whether there is a corresponding moving present in reality is another question, which cannot be handled here. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jzsrrzpcs19xf69nznm0d8va)) - Note: but this is the main claim of the paper! you can't support it by saying you "take" nowness as x,y,z if this is where your whole claim is resting.