You need to turn at a certain angle to things to be overwhelmed by the strange obviousness of the fact that what appears is precisely the invisible, that what is in time is precisely the timeless. Appearance is glaringly incomplete since what it appears to can never appear - and must precede it in every order but that of precedence itself. That what appears can appear to what never appears means that they are of the same nature, the appearance being within what it appears to (where else could it be?); it is simply the appearing mode of the non-appearing. In the same way only what is timeless can experience time, time which ceaselessly unfolds can only do so within the heart of timelessness, only timelessness could notice time; so that time is the temporal mode of the timeless. The nature of the self is to know and it can only know by being what it knows; it can only know itself that is the very meaning of that strange word-token: self, hence otherness is the mode by which the self knows (itself), and the ego, the knowing self in appearance is the complement, the optic mechanism of this knowing, apparently extended in time.