A Time for everything
Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
JLSpinner wrote: One thing I do to lessen the curse is to use alarms. I don't wear my watch anymore or check my phone for the time. I set alarms for when I need to change my focus. This way I can focus on what I am doing and not how long I can do it.
I like that idea.
This may be semi-related...or not...I'll let others decide...but time in relation to what we are doing seems to only apply to the extent we apply it. For example, go for a run. If we set out to run for 30 minutes, how far will we go; whereas, if we set out to run 4 miles, how long will that take us? Which would produce the better results, and can you compare those two runs as equal assessments of your ability to run? Both instances incorporate a measurement of time, but we are applying it differently. So while time is important to the results of each run, the extent to which we assign its importance differs. Which is more important to us, running further than 4 miles in 30 minutes, or running our 4 miles in a faster or slower time at all...and how would the two interact?
Very good points and the reason spinners scenario really doesn't work well. If we don't take into account both aspects of time how can we pace ourselves or set milestones? If we has short term goals there is no pacing and if we set long-term goals there is no way to mark progress to completing the goal. So we can easily end up either burning ourselves out on a pace we should not maintain or lagging and failing to complete the goal. So in the example of the run we must decide on how far in how much time both as factors in our goal, not just how far or how much time.
Though...to tie this back to the initial post on the thread...which speaks more directly to our construct of reality? The time it takes us to run a set distance, or the distance we run in a set amount of time? How can we reasonably set goals and milestones and expect to achieve them consistently without subjecting ourselves to unknown conditions?
A few years ago I registered for the Turkey Trot, 5 mile run, on Thanksgiving Day in Austin, TX. I started the run with the goal of completing it in 40 minutes. I had run quite a bit, with distances varying from 1 to 9 miles, and generally grew to understand the effects of spatial awareness, exertion, and my sensation of effort and fatigue's effect on my running pace, and how they related to distance and time.
I ran the Turkey Trot without a wristwatch, intentionally looked away from the time-clocks set at each mile-marker, and just ran the 5 miles at a pace I felt most suited to achieve my goal. I looked up at an actual reference for the first time in the entire event, and watched the clock tick over to 40:00.00 exactly as my last stride crossed the finish line. How did I do that without being aware of, influenced by, or dependent upon an intimate knowledge of actual time?
To take the question one step further...how does our sense of time and reality correspond to our inner "biological" clock? Are we just so conditioned and slaved to the clock that we have developed a psychosomatic understanding of the passage of measured time? When I put effort into it, I can set a desired "wake up time" in my head...focus on it as I fall asleep...and without fail, awake at that exact time without needing to set an alarm clock or anything of the like.
But if time is just a measure of change/process, then I'd say perception of time is a measure of focus on cognition - being more focus less experience of time, less focus more experience of time. Therefore perhaps the experience of unused mental energy. Just my superficial thoughts on it.