I f we have the reality around "past" as what we can easily go back to past and any our past attending own error, failure could be invalidated and anything could be reformed, how can we have our daily own recollection as our own survival mind's function ordered by our own brain?

Because what we have recollective idea around dealing with daily routine necessity must have reason or indispensable necessity around our past in doing and already done as truth which is equivalent with what we could never change what we'd already done.

In other words, because we could never go back to any past, for our own introspective mind abiding improving necessary any action could have been and when we have that actual introspection, we physiologically and mentally need recollect our what we had done by ourselves so objectively, thus we really substantially have recollecting idea and that mind's realizably regenerating function in our own brain.That "own" means so much, philosophically, because each one's body, action are all independent, though recollecting mind's brain ordering mental and physiological functional and psychological mind's working must have been set as our biological significance around Darwin's "Natural Selection".

In other words, if our all are never spontaneously moving nor acting, we'd have never been given recollective capably equipped physiological faculty.

Additionally, what whole realities could have been given to us must have been reasoned as time systematic own mechanism is substantially schemed at not "two way running as from past to present as future's premise and from present to past as past premise but only former. And that premise's absolutely fixed condition makes us "RECOLLECTIVE MIND'S OWN SIGNIFICANCE".

Upper those all conditioned our world(as physics and that mechanical realities abiding own Natural Selection abiding our seen) ABSOLUTE CONDITIONED REALITIES must cause us have own consciousness "Einlichkeit" as caused from Hideggar's "Zein unt Zeit" and through it, first we at feedback from now to past in recollective mind, first Hegel's interpretation around "an sich"  to Sartre's one around "tre en soi" and second Hegel's interpretation "fur sich" to Sartre's one around "pour soi" as feedforward.

Actually, if we have no time as the running from past through present to future, one way finite running, but two ways it, in other words, we must have ONLY "AN SICH", ONLY "TRE EN SOI" consciousness, because if time as the running from past through present to future is attended to our mind, we must have time gap which could be spent at considerable perceptive mindm, first we must have EITHER "POUR SOI" consciousness too. Because when we have recollective mind, we must regard 'ourselves' 'it' as time gapped to past at present in mind.

That gap means "time's nature" at present, recollecting past so objectively, because genuinely pure "AN SICH or TRE EN SOI" as this debate context, but first either with "FUR SICH or POUR SOI", we could define past and through the absolutely demanded condition, first we could have our own recollecting, as having recollection.

(Irregularly continued)

Feb. 21st.    2023