Is the hard problem of 'consciousness' a confusion? Or an attempt to point at something elusive? 'Why is there something? Why is there anything?' Is this a search for answers ? Or something else, something that dimly grasps that it's not really a question ?

What is this thrust against the limits of language? Even granting that it's 'useless,' is it therefore meaningless? Does 'pure witness' aim at the thereness of the situation? For some it's stupid and empty. For others (Wittgenstein perhaps at one time) it's profound, important.

The experience that we need in order to understand logic is not that something or other is the state of things, but that something is: that, however, is not experience.

It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.

When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words.
The riddle does not exist.

If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.

To say 'I wonder at such and such being the case' has only sense if I can imagine it not to be the case. In this sense one can wonder at the existence of, say, a house when one sees it and has not visited it for a long time and has imagined that it had been pulled down in the meantime. But it is nonsense to say that I wonder at the existence of the world, because I cannot imagine it not existing. I could of course wonder at the world round me being as it is. If for instance I had this experience while looking into the blue sky, I could wonder at the sky being blue as opposed to the case when it's clouded. But that's not what I mean. I am wondering at the sky being whatever it is. One might be tempted to say that what I am wondering at is a tautology, namely at the sky being blue or not blue. But then it's just nonsense to say that one is wondering at a tautology.

... what the solipsist means is quite correct; only it cannot be said, but makes itself manifest.

I am my world. — Witt

http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/WittCant.html#(4)%20the%20special%20mystical%20feeling%20%60that%20the%20world

But we share this world with others. We can leave marks on some shared space. Christopher McCandless could write down happiness is only real when shared before he died, and this message waited in some kind of 'physical' stuff unwitnessed before eventually reappearing in the 'microcosm' of its discover. Many are willing to put color on the side of the subject (as not 'really' there in the world), but where do we draw the line? Notions of elementary particles might also be thought of in terms of mediation added by the subject. The situation reminds me of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6bius_strip

The idea is that thinking about things properly makes an end to aimless, useless thinking. — baker

Agreed.

...we have the capacity to judge and come to conclusions based on available evidence and consequences, which are not absolute and are subject to modification based on subsequent evidence and experience...
— Ciceronianus

I just thought this was too obvious to be worth mentioning. — jas0n

It should be obvious, but I doubt it is. So, I think it should be emphasized, lest we fall into the Never-Never Land of relativism or mere speculation and obfuscation.

How would I know? — Tom Storm

I assume that people are goal-driven, purpose-driven beings, and that therefore, they know why they do things, esp. when those things require concerted effort and resources. The way "taking on greater philosophical nuances and self-reflection" and "enlarging one's perspectives" require concerted effort and resources.
I assume, you, too, are goal-driven, purpose-driven as well.

Whys, as any child soon learns ends up in an infinite regression of answers followed by more whys.
/.../
It's whys all the way down.

Only for a child. The wise person knows how to think properly, thinks properly, and thus makes an end to aimless, useless thinking.

I assume that people are goal-driven, purpose-driven beings, and that therefore, they know why they do things, esp. when those things require concerted effort and resources — baker

I don't assume that. I see people make what they might call goals but these aims or 'ornaments' are often deflections and distractions from more significant needs - to be liked, to be in control... whatever.

Only for a child. The wise person knows how to think properly, thinks properly, and thus makes an end to aimless, useless thinking. — baker

Nice. How do you define think properly?