Essence

there's something interdimensional about adding depth to perception. It's like adding the layers between what is blatant about reality and what allows us to investigate something that is already known to some extent - that is whatever is known about something that calls us to keep looking into itself. Like an unfolding question that pulls us further into what tells us about itself in more definition. But there is always what is clear and precise already that makes us question our own ability to know. What is known needs precision to explain itself? That is the essence of teaching. There's a two-dimensional understanding but that's just what is clear and seen as foundational. All knowledge is impressions that have made themselves understood as to how things go. What simply is. And why what simply will be. Ad Infinitum. It is what it is. And it becomes what we predict it to be sometimes. There is uncertainty. it is that uncertainty that begs a question. This moment is where it is birthed as something in itself. What can we know to know what will become later? What can we know now? We must know something about now to know anything about later. But what do we know for certain? Do we know it? If we truly know it now then we must know something later. For certain. What is known now is only confirmed by later. Or in the past it is something reliable and reoccuring. That is the essence of science.