Everything does not attach to Everything.

The differences in sight and the catching of a glance in diagonal, the Gutenberg diagonal and the capability in focus and organization of field. The limits of the ideas of focus, the mythological perception that our eyes narrow in on parts of our environment actually means that other parts are then out of focus or blurred. The ways created by lenses and the capability in the human brain to try overcompensating for the bifocal polar regions inability to narrow down the input information beyond hexagons for a curtailing assumption in quadrants of sight or linearity in distinction of frame. Eyes cast aside mean the same for each pair, each part of the same sequential movement and accommodation of environment in the mythology of stillness or infinity. Temperature and movement as determinants of time beyond assumptions of eternity or infinity depend upon imaginary space and discern in accordance with the accomidations to infinitum that assume stillness and silence as well. This universe of constant change, motion, sound and temperature indicate that infinity is imaginary (at most), and therefore also, that everything does not attach to everything. (And certainly not with already applicable meaning). To line up with parts of inspiration and inward creation, to have happenstance in meaning and cause according to expression or derivatives of recombinative assumptive sight in variants of visions from assumed imaginary space and the connectivity in apriory. Freedom of association, especially of the things that must have captivated us or attention, that must have been of notice or note to us based on postural reflexes, or what the assumed cause and value of the connection could or would be. The conventions and inventions of interactions and the environment’s coercion of imaginary event in conveying meaning to happenstance and causation/continuer. Caused or continued, only an assumption of conglomerated endings would confer the idea of everything being continued (infinitum) and/or of everything having “cause” or purpose. How could coincident be recorded accurately by time or resemblance in instancing of moments of particularities in isolation?! Happenstance and coincident maybe aren’t a “cause” for the measure of time. Accuracy in the record of imaginary event and the differentiation of self from imagined interactive parts of the environment, from every single little connection that meant part of self on a shelf. Actual accident or coincident, when assimilated in meaning or attachment to event, leave mythological record of simultaneity of event and coincident of happenstance. Actual information in the mythology of time and the records of supposed similarity making the record of actual coincident and imaginary more difficult in expectancy limits and inaccurate risk assessments based on pendulums and the expectation of event to prometheate eventuality and the ease in timing for inaccurate record of similarity and assimilation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.