Oddly, I conceptualize "time" in exactly the reverse order than that given in your above description, dear brother in Christ. I.e., I take your description to propose: (1) reality first; (2) as produced by timing in irreversible flow; and (3) then, in last place, along hobbles the very idea of "time" as somehow the product of reality and "timing."
It seems to me "timing" only seems to trump "time in essence" [in your meaning: eternity??? timelessness???] because human beings are so tied to their physical experience that they cannot see that neither "time" nor "timing" is ultimately physical. Phenomenal, for sure; but physical — not.
That is not to say that time cannot be measured. The measurable aspect of time is necessarily an indispensable part of any scientific investigation of reality. And yet even the scientists — especially the physicists — nowadays have been heard to complain that presently-constituted human notions of "time" may be wholly inadequate to the full explication of reality.
How can there be a notion of "timing" without reference to a more fundamental notion of "time" itself? "Timing" would seem to imply the prior existence of a criterion that is not itself subject to "timing."
Just some more maunderings, stray thoughts....
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
True but I'm talking about timing not time.. Timing may not be measurable.. When talking of time you must get into much IF'n.. If'n this or that.. Eternity and infinity are hard to get your mind around.. But one thing seems possible to me.. If eternity future is possible then eternity past must also be possible.. Eternity seems to trump time.. On the otherhand when talking about time.. then what is NOW?..
Now.... could be several things depending what time seems to be..
Is Now persistent even obstinate timing?..