So there are 2 types of time equations for individuals. Which one you use makes you a fundamentally different person.
The first one is the linear time equation with an inherent cause and effect attached to it and with no control or power to influence the present because the present is a consequence of the past which cannot be changed. This time equation has a strong element of social environment attached to it, because it is the social environment that induces it in the first place. In this equation time is unidirectional and serial and doesn’t jump. The past makes the present and the present makes the future. It is a straight linear deterministic equation which gives little hope for a better, more fulfilled life. It is to be found embraced by more religiously inclined, fatalistic, depressed, low self-esteem, less inquisitive people.
The second type is the jumping time equation. The past (through memories) makes the future (desires, purpose). The future drags the present (actions) along and forward with it. This time equation seems much more suited to me. The now is not an inevitable consequence anymore. The now is a time for decision making and for action. Interesting about this second time equation is that the past makes the future. It doesn’t happen just like that. It needs another ingredient, a catalyst if you want. This is called imagination. An active imagination, is necessary so that good past experiences are converted into desires. An active personality and a reasonably high self-esteem also contribute to creating our future. Interestingly, all these ingredients are spent and generated in the process. It is a positive feedback loop that moves along in time. It’s like a wave of positive energy.
How is it possible that two individuals with such fundamentally different time equations to inhabit the same existential, spiritual space? My contention is that it’s impossible. That means that such two individuals certainly find themselves in different points, with different coordinates, of a common all-encompassing space. Now we all know that the same thing looks different from different perspectives. And when you put it like that, the right and wrong the good and bad doesn’t make sense anymore unless you attach the other bit of data, the perspective. In real life we have an instinct, it has become an instinct, to operate both a cause and effect day to day (almost automated) thinking. We also have an instinct for using good bad and right or wrong without stating the perspective. The perspective is somehow deduced from the context. In this case the perspective is the background (education, moral profile, time equation, etc) of the person that makes the judgement.