Is "that" a fact?!

Fact(s) has a compound nature which cannot be expressed (re-played) as each (if we can indeed refer to them as “each” or “it” as a group or singularity) progresses within a multidimensional manifold of facts- and are only in immediate appearance propelled-by-their-own continuum. By my (spiral-) reasoning Fact is such an entangled reticulation outward and inward, somewhat like the meristems of the arbiform that we might visualize stretching into infinitesimal pasts and future events. Why, therefore, do I attempt to isolate "it", consider "it" separate and unto itself, calling it “A” Fact. The word “A” however does not suffice.

The natural elements, too, then are only stable or unstable because ”we” have expectations determined by the speed at which we move in relation to all surrounding facts. We are fixed this way between objects and events, and further are biased toward the object which we can define as unchanging and thus taint what we call elements by dividing them into categories of stable or reactive. Our own perspective however may itself be untrustworthy. Perhaps the so-called unstable elements are bound to a greater eventuality to which we are forbidden cognitive access by our very own slowness as it were. And the elements as facts regardless our characterization of them are always co-mingling and regardless our insistence they stay put by our “standards” they are all compatible in every sense since together they make up the world in its entirety. The idea of an element by itself is somewhat ludicrous, then; and, too, that any past “species” of living “thing” (presumed to be a once visably squirming fact) trapped within any supposed time period by stratification, “it” can not be isolated from the fact of its current state. Words, that is, do not isolate a fact. And therefore we have but come full circle only to find ourselves standing upon quick(er) sand.

The so-called natural world has such an spiral logic in its appearance if we are open to it. Sadly we are biased against this concept. Meaning must not make us dizzy. That is, we are not fond of having to turn around, look here and there at length, least of all crane our necks- but would rather toss up our hands in defeat if denied the path ahead. Should the way to understanding reverse itself or kick us in the behind we are suddenly in denial or are offended by what we have yet to grasp the meaning of: what in fact is going on?! What grand parenthetical statement is chthonic enough or shall suffice for us now on the surface of truth to replace the word “A”? Or, will we ever be satisfied with just being shown a simple caption-less picture?