What integral to us is that to us, world must be composed as itself with our consensus around the way to be the world as aspect or modus ponens(the way must be the regulation to make its concept possible). To its necessity, as if Wittgenstein if we regard it as language and its limitation, otherwise as well as Heidegger did, if we regard it as ek－sisten(as what we could escape from ourselves as if God views), anyway any recognition is at the same concsiousness. Because any method to think of world, it means so subjective self binding.

To us, the most integral issue is at least the kind of cognition to our as human essence, what we should call world, and what we should call myself, or ourselves, these at the matter of fact our definitive expediency in our daily life.
Calling something specific definitive meaning or concept could be regarded as word, language activity to us. 

At this debate, if we are supposed to question about now, now means our mind making very specific consciousness. Anytime to us, as long as we have certain consciousness only now exists, e.f. for me, I was born at Mito city, Ibaraki prefecture in Japan at 29th. September at 1959, then at least to me, US neurophysiologists Eric Lenneberg（1921―1975) had his theory that critical period of learning language for human-being is on limitation is based on from 12years old to 13years old, then in terms of now's presence as in the physical sense, now to me has (Because now I am 61years old, then)61years and about 4months as past data, but if Lenneberg's critical period of learning language is taken into account at this debating stage, to me, substentially meant now has at past date, at least half century as 50years old. 
(By the way, ordinary mammals has no now concept, then just physiolosically they recognize all moving and changing externally made to them, then they have no time cognitive concsiousness. To its phenomenal truth, my friend philosopher Ippei Taniguchi(1989-)
interpreted that generally mamals are never recognizing now at time system, because they have no cognitive discernment between memory and habit. If his theory was quoted here, we have definitely time system as date switching, then we intepret essence of now, because now is anytime so, but to us, just now is only at this now, and yesterday's morning, we all had just now only at that time.)

In other words, now as cognitive conceptual understanding means that our commnicative tools as language and its concept and words given to each one word each meaning distinctively discerned to any other language, e.g. to now, time, past, future, or so.

Let us give this debate back to originally our holding orbit. 
Now means anytime at the order which we can easily have consensus to any other partner of mutual communication, if I said now this time to you, now is just now, then anytime now is just one, but if our own (to me, as myself in my lifetime) now could be counted, at least that time must be more than 50years, of course, just using habit to call it now must have had been acquired to me at younger than 12,  or 13 years old to me, but if we regard time system's understanding, about at my 12, or 13 years old period to my life was my learning term to get time system understood.

Another great philosopher and mathematician, Burtland Russel and before his discovery Zermelo❄discovered their own theory of set theory, that must be at this context of our debate applicable to any now at our own life, namely to me, my past now has quantity in 
so far 61years and about 4 months, just data reffered number, of course to my consiousness, essentially another interpretation. But at least in termd of phyisically interpreted numerical value means so.
Mathematicians regard set theory, with just comceptual words' mkeaning  interpretation, then if we are noticed to horses at plain with one ranch, we can easily at that rance count all horses number. In other words,  set theory principly means accountable the same conceptually cognitive one words' indicating object(or materialistic substance) ordinarily, but it means simultaneously as we can count these horses, it means either that we can agree the usage of a word as horse, in other words, we can understand and have certain consensus to call them horce as one object, then we can question these totalized sum of staying in that ranch. 

Thus, necessarily se thory 's elements of a set could be applicalbe  to us, e.g. to me, how many  I have been counting now, but if it was questioned so roughly, nobody could never answer, then at least in terms of date of callender, at least to me, if one now as element was set at one minute, my nows at my lifetime could be accounted  at least about at today's regard, and this time could be supposed at Jan. 29th last minute, as Feb. 1st the first minute 0:00, just 468240 times, I'be been holding, that result could be outputted.

Upper exampled interpretation is just set theory's recognitive method. And it means that each element must be our recognizable and cognitive understanding and agreement. 

And at this debate, here we together think of, the very important fact is, if we suppose each now, or take it into account of our time system, it means that time has two meaning, one is just observing only all beings' changing, moving, shifting and switching, to these aspects, just one indicator never to commit any beings' doing as the perfect stranger to all  beings, and another is that serially current made time must have each now as long as we are alive, then,  there we can have initial setting with three different dimensioned elements, these are with one, each now as possiblly accountable, and these all nows as one set, which means to my lifetime 61years and 4months, today is Jan. 29th, then precisely 3months and 29days,  just 468240, and to these all we can totalize them all as one set, that is another as second element, and the last as third is out own mind's presence, it means just the object in question to be capable to count any now and recognize all countable nows' set as one set as definitive cognition. 

In other words, at least in temrs of philosophy, the last mentioned three elemental cognitively mainly integral consciousness must be regarded to us, in these contexts of questioning.

Here, we can be readied for go onto the next stage at debating in terms of philosophical approach to mathematical recognition. What makes me to grapple with that kind of approach must becaused from originally our cognitive method must rely on only dualism and that usage and habitual or covnentional way of thinking to us must have had outputted and resulted to one decisive critical lack, that is dualism means just division to affirmation and nagation. Mathematics has + and −,  ０means byproduct with them, then essentially it could never mean third dimensioned concept. Then substantially the first concept at dualism means at this example, time and next second concept is each now, and their I just want to suppose and suggest is our mind's presence, here we for the first time, three dimensional each distinct triplism's element could be prepared.

By the way, at methematics, the last one is perfectly omitted as the premise of elucidation, then we essentially and substantially have very critical gap between numarical value by itself displaying and really what we are facing at this new corona virus pandmic crisis with economical crisis, because we are at very critical jeopadizied situation, however, stock price by itself could never be harmed so much, then we all are facing very serious situation of economical difference and really probable survival condition among this index indicating contradictorily evidencing no solution to actual medicine and damaged ones' treatment, then just I want to suggest the reformation to mathematics' conventional dualism's fundamental strucural defects.

Then in terms of conclusion's fundamental strucutre could be like next.
Originally conventionally our using dualism must depend on only one affirmation and one perefect denial as nagation to first one, as −just functiones +. However it we insert them another indicator as the third somewhat, it must mean at least no affiramtion nor no nagation, it just means sometimes reconciliation, or consiliation, otherwise, concession as if war armistice or so could be done, in other words, if we guide the third very integral indicator to dualism, that must mean and work or function these neutral concept as completely accomplished income and another as lost indicator of revenue as expenditure turned to loss, but we all are human presence, the we are never managed only by these numerical index, then to them I suggest the third indicator as mind, thereby if we embody it so completely and suffciently, that job mission necessarily needs mathematics' reformation. That must mean somewhat as our mind, as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle accompanying  viewer's view, in other word, at a term of philosophy, mind, otherwise at a term of Zein unt Zait by Hideggar, it could be corresponded to  ek－sisten.
For embodying these processes, we need again the diaglm of next.

〇　〇
　〇

Necessarily lower tier means our mind as Hiddeger's ek－sisten, and upper tier as row is just original + and − and 0. Generally mathemetics have only upper tier as row, but to it, lower tier as anytime the sole row, mono presence as mind should be guided, namely that trial is my suggestion to ordinary dualism's notinal idea and its usage with outputting either very obstructive reality at real medicine and lives for ordinary citizens, or economics in gap, you know.

Next, chance at debating these, I'll suggest another very useful conceptual theory, to embody it, I need some moratorium to research and inspect, so far, then after some terms would pass, let us resume togehter again!
(to be continued)

Jan. 29, 30th. 2021

❄