Copernicus overcame the overvaluation of visual evidence (of the visual over vision), but then accepted it again, as Einstein accepted his own work and then partly denied it; but one more step would lead us to «the lesser is less than the greater is greater», and one more to recognize an “«outside» not only in the beyond but also in the hereafter; this demands a physical theory not of multiple universes but «of two great parts of the universe»; in it, the human being and the earth are restored as the center of the world, as would be any concentration or logic between ««the lesser is less than the greater is greater» and «the greater is greater than the lesser is less»»; the center of the world would now be like the neck between the two horizontal blisters of the hourglass.
One must separate the symbol from its radiation—it will go further but it is not the limited and symbolic logic that created it. Otherwise one remains a new rich of the spirit.
It is valuable to keep things separate and at the same time recognize the conformal relationship between them; thus, «what nature separated on its own» is related in a Dionysian dance that produces transcendence, exponential growth and compound interest.
As the intellect makes the origin just, sleeping and dreaming make the watchman fair and death just life.
The apparent reason of why this or that happens to you is an effect and not the original cause; this effect is the consequence of the crossroads of reason and your reason (reason + your reason), and it happens long before-deep down, without us realizing it.
«The best only once» at a time, a day, a year or a month, and more once in a lifetime than once a year: this has already happened and that is why not knowing about it leads to tragedy.
Effort is an inferior occasion that we treat so comprehensively that it does not accord with the diameter of its own nature, otherwise its treatment would vitalize us, since they are small «sleepings and dreamings» that are there in favor of the whole and our general satisfaction. 
Subtle compulsions allow us to completely dominate small spheres that bring hardness to the whole of our life; this is what we do, for example, when we conceptualize, or when we focus on some detail; the fundamental in achieving this consists in the occasion, in the closure of a matter, in making the particular for the general. 
Gratitude is a reflection full of possibilities.
When you have doubts, it is the external world that provides what you lack, so that you can level up in gratitude with the exposure of your life. 
With some minor corrections:
Perhaps truth is always «equivocal», and it is a criterion of truth that everything that surrounds it agrees with it, speaks of it, as it happens with a symbol.
And perhaps we have to separate «the equivocal» from «the mistake», and propose the hypothesis that the only error is one of direction, "of inversion of values", and that the «equivocal» is in reality, once separated from the direction, a criterion of truth.
Perhaps our originality is conformal to the origin of the world, and this inversion of direction, this having to develop from the inside out and not like reality as a whole from the outside in (seen from our perspective) is already living according to the origin of the world, and not living from the inside out would produce in us a delay.
In this respect religious expectation, «the taste for amulets, the hope that something from outside you will save you, as Georg Jünger would say, would be a retardation, a waiting in vain», since that which we expect from outside in religious expectation has already arrived, it is only that we participate in it in our own way, from «our» logic and origin, from the inside out.
Perhaps truth is always «equivocal», and it is a criterion of truth that everything that surrounds it agrees with it, speaks of it, as it happens with a symbol.
And perhaps we have to separate »the equivocal» from »the mistake», and propose the hypothesis that the only error is one of direction, "of inversion of values", and that the "equivocal" is in reality, once separated from the direction, a criterion of truth.
Perhaps our originality is conformal to the origin of the world, and this inversion of direction, this having to develop from the inside out and not like reality as a whole from the outside in (seen from our perspective) is already living according to the origin of the world, and not living from the inside out would produce in us a delay.
In this respect religious expectation, "the taste for amulets, the hope that something from outside you will save you, as Georg Jünger would say, would be a retardation, a waiting in vain", since that which we expect from outside in religious expectation has already arrived, it is only that we participate in it in our own way, "from our logic and origin", from the inside out.
"Perhaps, for example, the reason for the delay is to heighten anticipation. Much like in a show, a touch of suspense, could actually enhance the eagerness to witness the event. This way, when it does begin, it will be greeted with even greater enthusiasm." ?
—- 
Technique (and technology) is the worst of the best, close to the point of occasion, at the crossroads, where the best is exhibited.
A good ChatGPT version:
"Technique, being the worst of the best, stands at the threshold of critical decisions, at the crossroads where the essential is revealed. At this juncture, what prevails is the authenticity and inherent freedom in each interaction."
An argument cannot use the origin as a specific justification, since in the titanic and original everything is justified; the specific justification has to do with the surface, the game, the goal and the occasion.
Energy, capital and before that the ether, are all fictions that when treated as real, by a matter of inversion of values, make the impossible possible out of indifference.
By taking original risks you get further than by taking imitative ones; even contrary to appearances the original dangers are less risky and are the ones that truly ensure a future for humanity. 
hehe, what ?
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you haven't grasped yet what I said and you are being (without realizing it) a bit superficial at the moment...
Thnx!
I should clarify that what you quote is not what I said.
More to the Point: for things to work completely, participation is necessary, without participation there is a part that is always missing; in this sense it seems to me that Nostr is a valuable experiment, it allows you to implicitly attribute the origin of a maxim, and allows you to spend less time thanking with words and more time thanking with participation, use, practice; nothing against words, but it seems to me a very interesting experiment to see what happens if one is not «explicitly thanking» for every calorie one ingests, what kind of cultural organism can develop in this way.
I am in favor of recognizing how deep our common originality is and how necessary it is to recognize it in its depth so that we can all grow in power without self-destructing.
I am completely against plagiarism.