In contrast to actual time.
RICHARD: No, I am saying that it is conventional time – time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) – which has no existence in actuality; time itself (eternity), just like space (infinity), most certainly exists.
There is a vast stillness here.
RICHARD: What I am saying, in the e-mail you are referring to, is that time itself (as in durationless time/ eternal time/ beginningless and endless time) – as contrasted to time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) – does not move/ flow but that it is objects in (infinite) space which do.
[Editor’s Note: time itself, as is readily apparent in the actual world, is the arena (so to speak) in which events occur/in which matter permutates].
I am aware that my words are being hijacked, as it were, by an identity – and thus turned into concepts – forever locked-out of time and accordingly draw a distinction between what the word ‘time’ refers to in the real world (a flow or a movement of the arena, so to speak, in which events occur) and what is actually happening (it is never not this moment) as a prompt for direct experience (there is a vast stillness here).
Put succinctly: the moment (this moment) in which event ‘A’ happens is the exact same moment (this moment) in which event ‘B’ happens … it is only the events which change/move/flow and not the moment itself (eternity).
Have you never noticed it is never not this moment?