change is inconvenient? depends.
It sounds to me as though the question is whether a disregard for time would be damaging to the individual attempting to break away from the matrix, in which case it would only be damaging if the individual had not fully prepared themself for their own decision. If the question is, in fact, whether it would be damaging to the matrix itself in the eyes of others who percieve it, the answer would be entirely based on how many other individuals depend upon a shared reality with the person who has accepted this disregard for time and their own matrix. Using your logical model, this linear structure is, as you said, a web.
Since we are dealing with a consciousness instead of a physical manifestation, if we can accept that there is indeed a collective unconscious that joins these, there is great potiential for chain reaction — and what I would rather call a “breakdown” in the matrix than a destructive element.
From what we have collectively observed, this hasn’t happened, or at least not on a very noticeable scale.
That in itself brings me to the crux of it, because though observation is a physical thing, what we see has a very large impact on our general interpretation and perception. And this is where the observable breakdown begins. People are interdependant, and when we see what happens to the percieved reality of someone who gives up their reliance on “time”, it alerts us to that possibility - so if we can’t handle it, it becomes destructive to our personal matrix. That is a direct effect.
I define the accepted “reality” as the place where our perceptions overlap. So: in order for it to be destructive to this overall impression, it would have to directly affect enough individuals to break a large number of “sections of the web.”
So in short, if the question is to the destruction of the individual’s matrix, the answer is obviously yes, because that is the whole point of the person’s letting go of that dependency - but only compared to what the individual is used to, and so it is ONLY “damage” if the individual is still percieving in the same sense enough to categorize their reality as “damaged” in a bad way. So really, if the person enters into this with the intent of shifting this reality for themselves, it is not damaging to their own matrix! It is merely a shift — meaning that it is only “damaging” to those who rely on that particular individual’s matrix remaining static.
If the question is to the destruction of the shared matrix, which we percieve as the blanket “reality”, then the answer seems to be yes only in the case of a large-scale reaction of direct effect, and then again, only to those who rely on this blanket reality remaining static.
So after all this lengthy babble (which I’m only leaving here so you can see how I got to this point), I think the answer is in the definition of the word “damaging.” To those who can accept the change (which I should hope the initiator of a personal change like that would be able to), it is merely a shift. To those who consider it detrimental, it is indeed a destructive effect.
It is indeed only damaging to those who rely on the matrix in question maintaining a fixed state.
(I must note, “damage” is implied in this entry to be a Bad Thing. This may not always be true, and it may not be how he meant it. I used it this way to emphasize the difference between “damage” and “alteration” to a thing.)
