If you must call me, then call me that, but I am neither certain nor definite of its consequence[s]. When I did look in the mirror I did see my eyes, nose–things I have. Whereas when I look outside at, say, that guy Serena is going out with I see what I don’t have (e.g. fame, fortune, ftc.). Before I could refine this contrast into a dialectic-divide that’s separating us from them, my brother stopped by: you could have seen that you don’t have cash-money in addition to having eyes when you looked at your mirror and, and you also saw that (given that you couldn’t bring yourself to say the name of that guy dating Serena) you have something [called jealousy] when you looked at what you seem to be calling outside; only to leave. Yes, watching him leave (looking outside not inside)–I saw in [his] motion a path (not of [this or that] body)–a before and an after which latter on reincarnated as time, which just like many things of its kind (color, god, sky) doesn’t submit to [exhaustive] inter-modal verification the way you can cross-check length (vision against touch). On a tangential note, I wonder if there is a god of time (holding BEFORE and AFTER in his two hands in a way that would make you think he might throw any, either, and all of them at you any moment now); I remember hearing about the sky one. We can also see the body–the bodily configuration, completely oblivious to time–in motion. What shall we call these two identified sightings of motion? Since I enjoy name-calling so much, we propose calling temporal path and bodily configuration names of motion (Conceptual Mathematics, pp. 323-4, 329).