and thus, when we come back to the moment, and taste the variable texture of time, are we not left with sense impressions that lead to a tendency of a conclusion of inevitability, of inability to modify state? does it not proceed automatically, naturally? is there will?
surely, though, a great wind can rewrite history, but let it not be said that such means history is not set, for though time mightn’t, metatime might.
still, a weaker frame may shake the terms, but still might a modular time be, for is there not advantage in reducible memes of perception of change, of time?
still, wonky though might a modular system be, perhaps inclination be that success is within, for perception, the frame seen through, is always reflexive, twisty, strange loopy.
regardless, twisty natures have always seemed to imply worthiness of deeper consideration, regardless of initial annoyance and frustration at the “barrier”.
for, although twistiness, self-reflexivity, deep recursion, seem to create stumble, so does all, for is not question that it seems to break convention, to harbor frustration, process ceasage, not eternally, but without higher-level thought that can pierce the wisps into reifying?
regardless, the twistiness of all seems to perhaps relate to the twistiness of reifying models of time
that is, a great much can break the reliance on fruitfulness, if instead of “fruitfulness” defined as “aptness of immediate applicability”, it instead refers to “broader eventual aptness through explorations of the space between spaces”.
and thus is seen _any_ pushing toward understanding is nciamu (no coincidences in a mathematical universe), for knowledge is gained through that pushing through dip, and energy is used, and thus space is carved for new thought.