Very basically, we could submit next rough principle we can assume in relatively credible interpreting for comprehending our daily notice around basic sustenance of life survival to any reality's assault.

That is like next.

Theorem;

❇️ TIME is ABSOLUTE "SUBJECTIVITY".

❇️ SPACE is ABSOLUTE "OBJECTIVITY".

What makes us convinced is derived from next.

Time is what we could never confirm the appearance through visualized data. Because ordinarily except animated images, any photograph and that applicable data are ineffective for evidencing TIME'S RUNNING.

And space can be witnessed through our relatively correct visually confirmable data around observed object. E.g. the two materials could be admitted at measuring sizable cognitive judgement.

Time by itself in direct evidencing is not so perfectly done lile spatially extent relative relevance.

That must be caused from nature world's very basic difference between time and space.

Taking all those upper subjective mentionings, we can articulate like next.

❇️ To some extent, everlastingly, as long as we can confirm former described Theorem, ANYTIME WE CAN CONFIRM ※ ONLY "NOW".

(None the less, we'd know ever present as "PAST", though, essentially, past's presence in knowing time makes us SUBJECTIVITY around taking into account.

Nevertheless, at least toward FACING SPATIALLY "NOW" COGNITIVE e.g. really developed LANDSCAPE, we can have any relatively almost consistent appearance, e.g. anytime seen Mt. Fuji prepares Mt.Hakone or T anzawa from capitol Tokyo.

These serially logically articulated appearance is never consisting in almost NO TIME CONSTANTLY ABIDING FLUCTUATION.

Otherwise, we can articulate,

❇️ ※  What we'd confirm is ONLY "NOW"

  

That is not only photograph fixation to each moment and with our really confirming through our own eyes.

However, necessarily if we apply BERGSON's PURE SUSTENANCE as time's nature, that approach could have contradiction, some intellectual disputant must claim so.

None the less, to that criticism, we'd be able to criticize that BERGSON's PURE SUSTENANCE is just INTROSPECTIVE MIND abiding TIME'S COGNITION.

Because we can redress that theory in some appropriate redefinition.

BEQGSON's PURE SUSTENANCE is just OBTAINED through OUR OWN DAILY MIND'S ATTENDING OWN "RECOLLECTIVE TOTALLED CONSCIOUSNESS as "TIME ABIDING ABSOLUTE RUNNING IN NO CEASING".

In other words, BERGERON's own TIME's "PURE SUSTENANCE" must mean ONLY INTROSPECTIVE RECOLLECTIVE MIND OUTPUTTING COGNITION. But, ordinarily we usually have our own locomotion, high classified status given ones could sense sustainable own time's running in seriate order and ordinary majority employees can have only cut sequence at being provided only each shredded time running in transfer and switching platform, bus terminal and bus stop, otherwise relatively close to one specified VIP using car as airplane with airports.

In other words, WE COULD NEVER HAVE ONLY TIME'S RUNNING abiding "PURE SUSTENANCE". Though necessarily, what we usually have as OUR ORDINARY COGNITION must never IDENTICAL with BERGSON'S "PURE SUSTENANCE".

Because what Bergson tried to articulate was just his farfetched reasoning for convincing his those days own academic circle abiding professional acadmicians.

Anyway, TIME COGNITION is just INTROSPECTIVELY ABSTRACT in own RECOLLECTIVE MIND.

Meanwhile, SPACE COGNITION is just PRESENT COGNITIVE in relatively serially just "PURE SUSTENANCE" in keeping "SUSTAINABLE "NOW" ".

(Irregularly continued)

Nov. 24, 25th.   2022

Appendix; What makes me convinced that TIME abidng MIND is SUBJECTIVE is caused from that we generally have recollection around past, that date, term in opting in mind, any opted extent and date's oldness and recentness is just so personally subjective and arbitrarily. Against it, now our conceivable to presented landscape by anybody staying at the adjacent point is commonly shared n arbitrarily at least common notice. Though, spatially presence COGNITION means merely OBJECTIVE. We could articulate so.