In 1. what I tried to interpret is done on next diagram. 

If we are sanely cognitive one as the one who are not insanely as unless we are insane at being mad, we can admit now present thing and now yet existing thing as now absent at being cognitively ascertained, nevertheless, we can recollect, that matter ordinarily must be what at to our past, present , but now yet existing because it could have been disappeared or diffused into nothing as phenomenally given reality. 

Though if we are interpreting yet existing now none thing could be N (N), and (at Past Present) could be N (P. P), next equation must be composed.

N (N) ＝ N (P. P), 

though on the contrary, now present, but at past none thing could be, if our own memory could be M, and what we can recollect thing "Only" in memory could be (R. M)

｛ N (P) ≠ P (N) ｝ ＝　¬ (R. M),

And, upper equation signifies with, if now first appearing thing could be (N. A)

(N. A) ≠ (R. M),

Though, necessarily, Appearance signifies with some "Gap made between Now and Past".

If upper "〜" could be G, 

G ＝｛(N. A) ≠ (R. M)｝or, ｛(N. P) ≠ (R. A)｝,

And additionally. Those equation must be nothing but Logical, necessarily, Perception as in general we regard Phenomenological term must be either Logical extent term. And its equation has no Contradiction in gap in general thought between "Analytical philosophy and Phenemenology".

(Irregularly continued)

Dec. 3rd.    2023