Time, like everything other than the principle of pure allowance, is a manifestation of the condition dis-allowance, thus also a subject of and is subject to allowance.

By that logic, I would stop bullets by allowing myself to be hit instead of trying to do something about it. That on the other hand would mean that the only reason I'm hit it's the intent to harm counting as disallowance (of either person who shots or, more humorously, the bullet itself has such intent) since otherwise it should stop the moment I allow it to hit me.

The most basic function in binary logic is yes and no.

That's a state to be precise. Identity operator is pretty much redundant, in a circuit analogy it is represented pretty much by any cable/connector.

because for anything to be unconditional, it must by definition be absolutely allowing

The fundamental basics of causality, of reality, is binary logic.

These are extremely strong assumptions that should take precedence over your allowance principle since it can only exist in a world that permits binary logic. You can of course to say that you allow binary logic to exist, but the minimal case where that can happen is a world where exists only one value: allowance. They are either badly defined since they refer to one another in circular fashion, or one follows from the other and had to follow itself from a preexisting logic. And it had to be the mentioned minimal set of allowance-only world, since disallowance-only would not permit creating any other logic. At the same time, any higher-level logic (trinary etc) could only be a changed into it by restricting it to binary.

Sorry to be a rather disappointing conversant, but to me you are making some serious jumps and assumptions that don't really connect in my head. Brass tacks: I can't agree or discuss anything further because of the above holes in reasoning.