In our own doing something at some serially continuous time running, we at each moment are attending consciousness around heading for the future in feeling and knowing one seriate and sustainable time running.

But simultaneously, toward one specific time point for us as the very significantly introspective, we anytime have a mind or idea that any accumulated time is not so conscious, though, necessarily, to us, around some very personally integral past thing must make us lose any time running after that thing's happening.

In the view, to us, since the moment until any now, no volume of time must be cognitive.

Though, that cognition is equivalent with 0. And that immediately regenerated past happening thing is equivalent with 1.

In other words, what does never change as an idea, stance and conviction is just absolute mere, the sole independent matter, event, content, memory or so is nothing but 1.

That is absolute 1 as irreplaceable and never forgotten otherwise, permanently remained some identity even it is memory or so.

In these interpretative contexts, time's disturbance means absolute 0.

Around these interpretative procedural combination is so metaphysical nature reasonable 1and 0, or 0 and 1.

In other words, in its cognition, １means fixed value. And 0 means that value's time running attending invalidating's invalidation.

Though, necessarily, these serially interpreted analysis of time abiding 1 and 0 means logical extent term's significance or definitive identity.

Let's equate these logical terms' relevance.

1 and ０in time abiding interpreting is arbitrarily recognizable fact and acknowledgement of spiritually not only time system reliant but carnally concrete cognition invalidating spiritually metaphysical value dependent cognition must tempt our mind to set another 1and 0 in one suppositive and proposed equation.

First, at recalling, recollecting one so very integral watershed accompanying past thing must be 1.

To that, time volume at already passed running length is another 1as 1'.

Though, necessarily, to all these processes, next equation is defined.

1: 1'

And, if that fixed value 1 could be used so effectively, 

￢1' ＝ 1

Though, necessarily, and never converted one past thing could be ￢(0)

1(￢1') ＝ 1(0 ≠ ￢(0))

Though, deductively, we'd articulate like next.

1'＝ ￢(1＝1'),

rather, next is more convincing.

1 ＝  0( 1')

(Irregularly to be continued)

July. 1st 2022