Imaginary Coincidence?

The want for accurate record of imaginary space, the separations between imaginary and coincidence and the ability to record actual coincidence. Perspectives of sense and the recombinative patterns of rhetorical space, the want for accuracy in the record of accident and coincident dependent upon personal experience and sense made with personal reason: with meanings easily applied and inescapable. A coincidence beyond easily misconstrued meaning and personal account doesn’t exist: to say you observe something is a matter of perspective. Even the exact same event happening twice would be a matter of physiological constructs of data and the possibilities in recombinative use, chance and the possibilities in happenstance and collective meaning. If enough people were to agree on any incident, that is the power of coincident and the incident itself. What perspectives could possibly separate us from the fact that we see according to perspective? Odds that the tree in my mind would match perfectly to anyone else’s, even knowing it was a pine evergreen, how many different angles of perspective to never be accounted for? (Mach KLM ABCabc) How many automatically rein supreme? The atmospheres of possibilities in projection, in someone else having seen the same thing, in radiative concentrations of skills set slightly above chance at their very most flagrant and accurate, of the possibilities in the claimant nature of mysticism when it comes to actual accident and coincident: enough people to believe in something is all a belief really takes, and if enough are convinced of likely enough coincidences, the truth will be very difficult to garner. The actuality of coincidence doesn’t need named and claimed, imagining similar instances of movement and pretending it has anything to do with thought isn’t accurate or helpful either. Zener cards of defenseless mystics fighting chance for that which gets slightly above it, guessing games of similar instancing and fabricating coincidence to misconstrue the reality of happenstance, of actual coincidence far beyond base similarity or claimant mystical meaning attached to any small wonder or necessary enchantment. The ambiguity of validity multiplexing in a multiverse: if tried hard enough, anything could fit for long enough to make sense and recombine. Any instance could become any other when taken out of context. Outside situation, rhetoric is very flexible and malleable, easy to manipulate: could use any alternative reference to seem part of or apart from, could misconstrue any amount of data. Separations of imagination from coincidence, the want for accurate record of imaginary space, the idea that a coincidence could be free of imagining its connections, actually isolated in value: happenstance of personal indicatives and applicative understanding, coincident in the imagining of it, in the agreance of intensity or meaning in accidents attached to one another. Real coincident depends upon meaning and others additive indicatives of intention and the record: to isolate a coincidence apart from meaning seems more like an accident, and even those usually don’t escape some form of mystic claiming or another. For actual accident and actual coincident to have accurate record, there must be record beyond human sense or perception…a record of knowledge beyond human consumption or perspective could be accurate in record of actual imaginary even and actual coincidence which often becomes a mental event. our own accuracies continually show the lack in record and continually claimant misuse in mystics and the like, a want to record actual mental event and actual coincidence is nothing new, a want to be free of others inaccurate record of such things and the need for accuracy ends in this deadening place once in a while: there is no record accurate enough for imagination and coincidence. There are plenty of records of imaginary space, this being one of them, that don’t pertain to the significance vetted and betted on by claimant mystics and their wealthy cohorts. That also doesn’t depend upon being called a record of imaginary event, and is only what it is: a time and place proving for moments that a stillness within can become a formed stillness without, that all this motion and commotion internally can be balanced to a stoic portrait of thought for moments of intensity and need.