The plate below speaks to this. Observation maybe on the inherent principals embedded with myth, seems interesting, if held in context of what the emotive truth would have implied. Having given meaning to "lightness in the heart of things."
Maybe new light shed on Einstein's relevance to gravity held in perspective of length of time past with a pretty girl.
Subjective as this may be, it shows some relation to the "time variable recognitions" held in perspective, while looking at the nature of the sphere of earth seen in a new light.
The feather, because of its name, "shut", was a symbol of Shu. Shu was the Egyptian god of the air and the father of the earth (Geb) and the sky (Nut). Shu was often shown wearing a feather in his hair. Occasionally Geb was shown dressed in feathers, a representation of the air which covers him.
Usually, the feather was a symbol of Ma'at, the goddess of truth and order. The goddess was always shown wearing an ostrich feather in her hair. The feather by itself was her emblem.
In art, the feather was shown in scenes of the Hall of Ma'at. This hall is where the deceased was judged for his worthiness to enter the afterlife. The seat of the deceased's soul, his heart, was weighed on a balance against the feather of Ma'at. If the heart was free from the impurities of sin, and therefore lighter than the feather, then the dead person could enter the eternal afterlife. Other gods in the judgement hall who were part of the tribunal overseeing the weighing of the heart were also pictured holding a feather.
A mechanism would have been needed to see such a development in the definitions of those ephemeral qualities. Could have "hidden" within the "emotive content" our subjective life experience. Why do we remember?
The understanding that such reactionary states allotted to experience, would have seen less of the material attachment held to the emotive content necessary? So for measuring our truthfulness to ourselves, rests in our assignment of what purity, and quality of life assigned to our undertaking of this life expressed in thought.
Taking such a stance on the idea of what came before and what came after would then take us to the question of relevance? Why is it necessary outside of these two points of existence, to have them included now.
How well then our understanding, that if such a "emotive quality to truth" had been assigned, then the draw to matter defined states of experience, might not be as strong. Awareness. Thus we will have unleashed the ephemeral quality of mind?
So it ventures forth from the confines of the home, in which it lives. Deals, in the abstract nature. Would we have abandon such a merger of emotive and intellectual qualities risen into a higher recognition necessary. What is the value of that truth personally?
It shed light on a personal experience in nature, with which all experience is remembered?