ζητεῖτε, Matthew 6:33 and Aspect/Aktionsart

(1) From The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (p. 15):

"ζητεῖτε (#2426) pres. imp. act. to seek. Pres. calls for a constant attitude. Imp. followed by the fut. forms the apodosis in a Semitic cond. cl. (Beyer, 252-55)."

(2) From Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 499):

"In general, we can say that aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features. Thus, the present tense views the action from within, without respect to beginning or end (aspect), while some uses of the present tense can be iterative, historical, futuristic, etc. (all of these belong to Aktionsart and are meanings of the verb affected by other features of the language). This is the same kind of distinction we have called ontological vs. phenomenological (terms that can be applied to ANY morpho-syntactic category, not just the verb tense)."

Also, from GGBB, p. 2:

"Along the same lines, a careful distinction needs to be made between the unaffected or ontological meaning of the construction and the affected or phenomenological meaning. By 'unaffected' is meant the meaning of the construction in a vacuum--apart from contextual, lexical, or other grammatical intrusions. By 'affected' is meant the meaning of the construction in its environment--i.e., 'real life' instances."

(3) After discussing the present imperatives in Mt. 7:7 and the aorist in 1 Jn. 5:21, Moises Silva writes:

"In conclusion, we may say that an interpreter is unwise to emphasize an idea that allegedly comes from the use of a tense (or some other subtle grammatical distinction) unless the context as a whole clearly sets forth that idea. Whether the use of the tense contributes to that idea or whether it is the idea that contributes to the use of the tense is perhaps debatable, but no interpretation is worth considering unless it has strong contextual support. If it doesn't, then the use of the grammatical detail becomes irrelevant; if it does, then the grammar is at best a pointer to, not the basis of, the correct interpretation" (See Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, pp. 262-263 edited by Moises Silva).