Present things must have change, really change and nature persistence.

Though it could be absorbed into nothing some another thing.

Absent thing must be nothing but what we(d made at recollecting mind.

Now's consciousness to us must be made at memory, without it, neither future prospect could be.

Probably only nothing could not attend any relatively regarded relevance.

Nothing could have no relation, that nature must be perfection.
Nevertheless, that nothing could have two versions.

One is never present thing, and another is somewhat never able to be, as presence, substantially.

But latter means either nonsense, or empty, these things could be present in terms of our mind's picturable necessity.
But these could never be done at our life without our regard to it in mind, that must be ustionable nature.
Though perfectly necessary fantasy must be kind of paradox, and only at this regard of us, it could have own identity. Then, it'd never be actual reality's presence, at least that'd never be prefection, nevertheless, in the term of that awareness of us in necessity, that must be substantially present in terms of our conceptual understanding.

Nevertheless, as long as we could have sonstantly enigmatic mind, after all, any perfect solutuon could have not be done to us, everlastingly, and that could not be so pessilistic matter to us, necessarily.

After all, any satidfaction of us around presence and nothing could never have compeletion in solution. Because as long as we(ve been present, eventually we'd never have perfection at knowing nothing.
Because knowing thing must be possible only at being present, then deductively nothing thing could be impossible at least at understanding so well. Because knowing and son well or not so well or so must be at extent of presence as one of being's modus ponens, then with these serially necessary logical procedure, only nothing could be transcendent or the nature attending matter, but synchronically it'd never be perfection neither, necessarily, at being transcendent.

Because only being transcendent must never mean just perfection. That could be so trustworthy but simultaneously not so absolutely credible.
Though, necessarily, we'd never conclude that it is not real nor fantasy neither simultaneously.

(to be continued)

Dec. 1st.   2021