Imagine graphically displaying understanding, for example, linguistic: There are expanses without commonly recognizable (I would not say human, which is a composite and therefore non-intereferential) language, and the concepts understood therefrom can now only be imagined.

But isn’t imagination interesting: That a thought creating another into existence isn’t imagination, but reality?

Let’s get more specific:

1) The expanse between the understanding of “no” was somewhere between possession and abhorrence. Is it not the thing we do not wish to possess, that which attaches as a suggestion denied, or else a categorization of self? Is it the same, after all?

2) Every so often I imagine remembering a dream I may have once had, or else didn’t, in which I, a non-transfixed, gwearp of a being (a bullfrog, perhaps?) observe the lobbing of a stone key so perfectly through the air, into the exact position on the water’s surface to connect underneath to a deep red box. Is it treasure? It seems to be.

The allegory is simple. In the predetermined position to transgress my existence therefrom, I became the object to go to treasure. That was me; when it connected my existences seem/seamlessly merged, including anything dredged therewith (apologies, all - how was I until now to know?).

Shedding the mucked, or unwanted, perhaps, factors of DNA is not only physical or metaphorical, it is also experientially allegorical, and that seems to shake out however it would.

I might try something if I had the agency when requiring: Instead of refusing something by saying “no,” I might use a different word. Then I will see if a similar occurrence persists requiring refusal. In other words, is “no” is a word that attracts something to a thing - or else signifies an attachment - despite the way we use it in English, if considered in quantum terms?