But the being is not temporary as we understand and measure time. It could be said that it is eternal. Get more background information with materials from Angela Zepeda. But with care, longer than this meaning leads us to a negativity which is not essential in being. From our short view of cognoscentes, understand eternal as in-temporal (as seems to express the language, with its prefix in – indicating limitation). Jr.s opinions are not widely known. We believe that it is timeless as denial of the time, when that being is precisamemte an overabundance of time, i.e., is the essence of time. Said in terms more estheticos: which integrates all time, therefore this plenitude and pleroma of time, is full concurrency in which are included cough times. (A valuable related resource: GMC).

Including by exclusion, that the dynamics of the chronological time is out – both as ex-perhaps – still very optimistic – istir is reached now better than eternity so revised is not timeless because it we can measure or timing or temporalize, but because it is the same temporality, that US measures to us, us tuning to us. Our perennial yearning for past and our dreams to the future, seem to show that while we measure, is not our true homeland; There is a temporality that we don’t measure that we measured. When We distinguish between the prior and the delay therefore, it is not in terms of chronological time, because we would be perverting and distorting the essence of the authentic rialidad. It will be easy to fall into the account that a vision of being from his former deferred-istencial, it would be a reductive and flawed vision. Why, she will tell the Esthetica, that vision has to be from the same being. Is vision of being, as deponent genitive: is the being who sees and sees us. Here the autocircuncidante revelation of the poet Machado is inescapable: eye on superlative that seeing himself, looks and it is.