Thank you. Same!

It continues as a baseless claim until someone can provide some reason to see it as something more. — Millard J Melnyk

Yes I recognize that "we", especially philosophy as a discipline, require [a] reason(s) in order to establish a proposition as a truth.

For phiolosophy and science, Reason (tye process/tool) provides such reason(s). Isn't reason just a cause for belief? At some point some entity must be the arbiter of when such reason(s) may safely transport the thinker to the settlement called knowledge or truth. Is Reason itself that arbiter? Does Reason function in the Universe independently of human thinkers? Etc etc. Is it a case of convention? If the elite majority agrees that there is adequate reason to settle, we all settle?

Im not providing the proof. Perhaps I will need to master the tools, at which time I can provide the basis for convincing others. Perhaps someone who has mastered the tools might pick up on these "intuitions" and provide the basis. For now, though they are presented as propositions, they are actually questions.

The primary point from this side of the fence remains. With respect to any question or claim, any truth accepted by any or all, has arrived at that acceptance because belief has been triggered. Whether belief was triggered by something conventionally accepted as legitimate (reason, culture, etc) or not (fantasy, blind faith), it remains belief at the beginning/end.


By "no one born into 'history'" I mean that fictional line when Homo Sapiens presumably crossed over from sensing the world by its animal nature, to one governed/dominated/saturated by representational structures.

Note, you are genuinely right about the baselessness of my seeming "conclusions." But this too illustrates the process of mind. A thought is presented as a candidate for acceptance, a counter thought follows, and by a trial of thoughts, a qualified adversarial process, truths are settled upon. They are never uncovered. If you and I settle this for e.g., and were certain we have uncovered a truth, in two hundred years, or tomorrow, we might become unsettled by yet another counter thought, reigniting the process.

I wonder if we're using the same term to talk about two different things? — Millard J Melnyk

You are correct. I'm not referring to belief in its strictly conventional use, as in one believes in x or that y will occur. It's the same word with the same definition, applying--you are right--as the first/last* epitemic mechanism. *last step of the process of manifesting knowledge/first step before knowledge manifests.

But...

the parallel between authority and belief isn't coincidental — Millard J Melnyk

...ultimately are you not also? It is the same with this immediately preceding statement with which I agree.

Authority, clearly a construction, plays a role in that same epistemic process. Like reason, logic, desire, various emotions, authority can be the construct which contributes to or even triggers belief (again that final mechanism necessary for truth settlement).

I guess what I'm trying to say re "ultimately are you not also [dealing with belief as the epistemic mechanism]" is that when we are inclined (as critical thinkers irrespective of the vocation) to dismiss belief in arriving at so called truths, as though belief were a choice or a cop out, we ought to recognize that even the truths we arrive at through authority or Reason etc, are finally or first triggered by belief. Even when that mechanism is undetectable (as in 1+1
= 2).

In the world of codependence, — Millard J Melnyk

Yes. For sure. (And sorry for the but) But none one born into history lives outside of that world. If we believe (ha!) the claims of Zen etc that one can silence the dialectical process and allow the being (sitting in Zazen) to sense a world [truth] before/beyond the process requiring belief, it is inevitably temporary and the sitting being finds themselves returning to the codependent world and relying upon belief.
Mind is codependency, hence you and I needing to reflect upon one another, our beliefs. We don't even really care who's ultimately so called correct. It is the codependency which is inevitable because we are humans born into a world where human history is input into our bodies like programming taking over the regulating of our experiences. And belief is an aspect of said programming

So we are always approximating something we don’t know, that is hidden from us. — Punshhh

Yes

by ‘transcendent ego’, you mean an equivalent to the soul? — Punshhh

I'm taking it, that that's what those who pursue the phenomenological reduction are after--something like the soul.

But I'm suggesting that the transcendental ego is not that "thing" like a soul. That the phenomenological reduction falls short of the mark. That thing like a soul is beyond even the transcendental ego, the latter which is just the last trace of ego beyond the Subject perceiving itself as an object perceiving, i.e. as an "ego." That the thing like a soul is entirely egoless, unconcerned with perceiver/perceived/perception. That in that respect, the thing is only the "perceiving."

Or, belief may be irrational, but it is inevitable, built-in to mind's process of manifesting to the body (real consciousness) and world (nature and the species)

There is no way that the effort to determine the truth P about the thing could alienate P. I think you're trying to say something else. — Millard J Melnyk

Very possible. I acknowledge and apologize for my laziness and shortcomings, plus appreciate the value in presenting the thoughts logically.

The truth doesn't need a shell to protect it, but — Millard J Melnyk

You're right we aren't on the same page, and yet there is value. ... The shell is not to protect the truth. The shell emerged out of a biological process in a very sophisticated "engine" and consequently displaces the truth. It is neither malignant nor benign. It's what it is, human mind, displacing consciousness with representations etc. belief being a mechanism in that process. Humans want to access truth (kernel). But because this drive is displaced by a thinking, desiring mind they unavoidable take the route of knowing (the shell) truth. But because knowing is alienated from the truth (because the former is a construction/process and the latter is real) knowing can only bridge the gap by that final leap of faith: believing. No matter how simple clear and manifest the dialectic, like the one that nears its end with 1+1=2, to accept 2, is a belief. One believes in the legitimacy of the process, if you prefer.

"Rational" and "irrational" are characterizations of constructions, not constructions themselves. — Millard J Melnyk

And was this kind of characterization, "characterization" itself, not a construction? And if not, did it pre-exist human mind/history? Who or what put it here? Is it built into Nature? The universe? Do you see it appearing anywhere outside of mind/history? We must be careful we are referring to real and actual displays of rational/irrational and not just our constructed, super imposed characterizations.

It could be true, it could be false, but if I've done nothing to find out which, I can't regard it as truth. — Millard J Melnyk

The effort to find out if a thing is true or not already alienates the thing from its truth, displacing it with constructions. My statements here, no less. But its in mind's Nature to construct. It cant be helped. When the mind ceases constructing triggers out of representations, that's when the body [returns(it never left) to] Truth. It finally ceases becoming something out of empty nothing, and [just] is-ing (being). When I "regard" it as true or false, I am doing that. Looking at it through the image (code) which triggers the body's pleasant feeling which allows tge code: truth to manifest. At this moment, it is not a discovery of Truth, only a belief.

Exactly. And the "settlement" is a settling of relationship between a reference (the idea in question) to its referent (the reality it stands as the truth about). — Millard J Melnyk

Yes, but to be clear, there is an unbridgeable gap between the reference and the referent ( the latter, qua Real). In human mind/history, that gap is artificially bridged by the mechanism (no less a reference) "belief."

agree that "belief" is commonly used similarly to how you use it here, but I'm convinced that it's sloppy use of the term driven by habit instead of the result of clear understanding of what the idea of "belief" entails. — Millard J Melnyk

To be clear, I'm with our regarding the illusory effect of belief. Ultimately belief doesn't "entail" because it is a settlement, a cork put into a bottle, or a dam to stop the flow of "ideas". It's gotta end somehow (before it recycles) so reason, or upbringing, mythology, desire etc lead the dialectic to end here. "Now, because if x then y, I believe you " What? Poor us, conceited apes.

Check out what I said about lack of belief in children in my latest response to Ludwig V at — Millard J Melnyk

Yes, the analogy to the brain as hardware which re-wires itself, so that its programming is based not just on external input, but on internal activity. But to be clear, there rewiring is the real being adapting to the program displacing its factory setting. The factory setting is not tabula rasa. There are drives, sensations, feelings, images. But man, does the programming change things. And we think (because thinking is part of the programing, not the hardware) the real being is the programing, belief being a mechanism in the software that allows us to accept that, or any conclusion the prog4aming dreams up.

A belief is not the kernel — Millard J Melnyk

Yes! A belief is only reflecting what "it/its user" dreams up about the kernel. The kernel (the Real) cannot be accessed by belief; it can only be accessed by being [the kernel etc. re any object, including the Real that "I" refers to]

To arrive at a belief about those primal senses/experiences -- "about" signals relationship between TWO things, not one, a reference and a referent -- we must do something with them — Millard J Melnyk

Yes! Being nature access the truth, not referring to it, no matter how functional the references are. And they are. We've manifested Mozart and the Eiffel tower with our references and belief. But to access the kernel, be the kernel, or, as you suggest, crack open the shell and eat it

Now why, if all belief is irrational, would I have a belief that knowledge/truth settlements start as belief? — Millard J Melnyk

Knowledge and so called truth are constructions.
rational and irrational are too.

A so called "truth" is a settlement which mind arrives at following a dialectical process which takes place partially "unconsciously" i.e. before manifestation to aware-ing, and partially consciously, I.e. manifesting to aware-ing.

At the latter "stage" a "truth" is settled upon when that dialectical process reaches the point where the aware-ing body is triggered to [having] a certain real and natural feeling. There, the body, feeling appropriately, triggers the mind to [temporarily--because the cycle continues] stop the dialectic and manifest the "result" as "truth". That settlement or acceptance is never absolutely conclusive but rather, it is that mechanism, triggering the end of the struggle by way of a [settled] feeling, which we think of as belief. Sometimes the feeling and corresponding settlement are vague and subtle, sometimes, for example if based on a "solid" reasoning (also constructed) or an imprinting (input in childhood) the settlement is triggered by 'strong" feelings. But they are never actually absolutely verifiable Truth/Reality. Always constructed code, out of a process in mind, triggering as a conditioned response, a certain feeling in the real body aware-ing.

A truth for human minds is never an absolute truth, always a settlement started by (or ended by, depending upon where in time we are observing it) belief.

Premises:
[1] Epistemically, belief and thought are identical.
[2] Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,” implying a degree of veracity the idea lacks.
[3] This implication produces unwarranted confidence.
[4] Insisting on an idea’s truth beyond the limits of its epistemic warrant is irrational.

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational. — Millard J Melnyk

I completely agree. That includes your belief that [admittedly hijacked and reworded liberally as] all knowledge/truth settlements start as belief. And, that includes my confidence that your belief is an expression of knowlege/truth.

The conclusion being that people cannot force enlightenment, which I agree with — Punshhh

I agree with you, that you cannot force "enlightenment." However, I would vary from what seems to be implied in your suggestion that one must be ripe for enlightenment, or find institutions that facilitate it. These would involve the ego, an agent actively seeking/desiring enlightenment.

My suggestion is that enlightenment is an awakening to the fictional nature of that agent. The so called transcendental ego, remains, nevertheless, the ego. Enlightenment neither involves, nor happens to that agent. The ego, mind, and human history have displace the human's natural being. Enlightenment is a shedding of that displacement. It is an emancipation from the fictional narratives restructuring reality for humans.

According to Kierkegaard, the only true preacher is the one who lives faith in silence. — Astorre

This is likely the case. I am persuaded by both your arguments and SK's.

I know you addressed love. But perhaps the "resolution" comes from seeing the preacher as willing to sacrifice his/her faith for the salvation of others.

If we go with the concept (faith) to its ultimate conclusion, faith will transform the individual so that the individual is no longer interested in its own ego. It will liberate the individual from the bondage of individuality.

In that state, just as there bhodisattva in Mahayana Buddhism will forsake/defer his/her Nirvana, return to the world of name and form, until all sentient beings are freed, the preacher in the Abrahamic tradition will make the movement from faith, back to the world (also of name and form), thereby "nullifying" or "contradicting" faith in favor of saving others.

Throw in some whereas(es) and a few "now be it, therefore(s) and it's perfect. Present it to your students in the fine print and remind them they must read the fine print.

As with mind, these pure ideas are only contingent, re: theory-specific, logical starting points, a way to deny to speculation its inevitable descent into self-contradiction. — Mww

Yes, I agree. Likely, we can't help but to speculate; the starting point of all constructions. And yet, like you suggest: end of the day, they never stop being constructions.

Understood. That would require reason to pre-exist and transcend mind, and to either do same re body, or to somehow be built into body. I think reason is also a process of representations

Would you consider Mind being a/the process you just described, and "mind" being an example of that representational, binary/dialectical based, process?

Here’s a relatively safer introduction to this Hypothesis.

What do you believe Mind is?

If it’s a spirit, any entity separate from the body and from energy/matter, then you better show where that entity is because otherwise, you’re a religion.

If you think mind is a function of the brain, then ok, end of the day, discard the function. Focus on the brain, the only reality (along with/as the body).

Not to mention, what’s happening to us is, not only don’t we discard the function, our bodies [are triggered to produce the feelings associated with] believe we are the function. But we aren’t. We’re the bodies.

What does "aware" mean that bacteria and archae are aware of drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc.? — Patterner

In varying degrees depending upon levels of sophistication of the biological infrastructure. Branches reach for sunlight, protozoa "find" food. We startle at a lound bang. All conditioned responses requiring an aware-ing of some degree.

Admittedly, a scientist would be qualified to reply. I'm hypothesizing. Others far more learned in the required fields can provide the corrections. Its nothing special. Mind/History moves by that dialectic.

This is not something that can be resolved by any amount of discussion. Go, and find out. Not in a thread or a book, but in yourself, is the answer. — unenlightened

Agreed.

But the "trigger" Mind/History "provides" for us to go and find out, is the discussion.

By analogy, that's why a common idea in Zen, for example, is to burn all the sutras/kill the Buddha after enlightenment.

but to a mystic, the practice they follow isn’t necessarily so. — Punshhh

Agreed. The practice. Not the preceding, corresponding or after thoughts

What about the idea I have of humans as organisms/species? Is it too unreal? — javi2541997

Yes, it too is unreal. It is functional, but unreal.

which might mean that it is actually non-real, right? — javi2541997

Only our "idea of" is unreal, "we" as in humans organisms/species are real.

How can I be myself without consciousness? — javi2541997

You already are [yourself] and you already are consciousness. The minute you "step out" (metaphorically) of consciousness to gaze at the images in your head which for humans have evolved into an entire narrative system---that is, if you are born into History, incessantly---you become [the fictional you of representation; the subject, ego, including the so called transcendental ego]

Yes, but this takes one out of philosophy (thinking) — Punshhh

Then so be it. To access reality one must be taken out of thinking.

When it comes to metaphysics:

Philosophy is a useful tool for understanding the system of representations of truth; a system we rely upon for its function. But it cannot access real truth. Accordingly, all of its fruits are relative and subject to change. There are no first principles, no categories, no a priori governing principles outside of the system of representation which philosophy is restricted to.

But Mysticism cannot be a useful tool for accessing real truth, because "mysticism," belongs no less to the system of representation which philosophy is relegated to.

So how do we access real truth? Not by representations (knowing), but only by being.

I agree with your point but it appears in its presentation to have missed the fact that it agrees with mine.

there are well established schools and methods to do this. — Punshhh

Yes there are schools of philosophy. But, as you say, they are necessarily restricted to thinking. How, therefore, can they ever arrive at pure "am" without thinking [and, therefore]?

What do you mean by "real"? — javi2541997

"Real" is the aware-ing organism, aware of its drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc. Shared by all living organisms in varying degrees

The "unreal" is human consciousness or "mind," representations displacing the real aware-ing with desires, emotions, perception, ideas, etc.

how can we distinguish? — javi2541997

We don't distinguish. Hence, the metaphysical/epistemological problem.

The latter, we access by knowledge, and it displaces the former, always there, but not accessed by knowledge. Rather, accessed by being.

It is only knowing which wants and distinguishes.
Being, just is.

I’ll make the following hypothesis: The reason we wouldn’t willingly lobotomize ourselves or else place ourselves into a perpetual “experience machine” (were the latter possible) for the sake of obtaining optimal pleasure or happiness has a lot to do with our inherent nature – even if we’re not consciously aware of it – specifically, an inherent nature where we (or at least a majority of us) value reality, thereby that which is in fact actual, and conformity to such, thereby truth, above all else. — javra

I would hypothesize that it's, rather, because of our attachment to the Narrative we've built, and the "I" which takes center stage; both of which are illusions we are strongly but fallaciously attached to.

It's also stupid to think mind and nature are separate when mind is part of nature, it doesn't exist outside of it. — Darkneos

I assume you would hold that rocketships, skyscrapers, leprechauns and unicorns are part of nature?

Nature doesn't give a damn last I checked. — Darkneos

If Mind is part of Nature, it does.
But I agree, Nature doesn't give a damn, a damn and the giving of it belongs to Mind.

I told you that meaning making is the only reason you can type such things and have them understood. — Darkneos

That's my point. Meaning making is the only reason...etc. Meaning is made, not pre-existent. Fabricated, not discovered or disclosed.

The chemicals are just fine as they are. Only for Meaning makers are the questions begged. And ultimately, both questions and answers are illusions.

You never really draw complete thoughts out. — Darkneos

It's questions all the way down. Especially in a forum like this. I'm neither energetic nor presumptuous enough to provide what would be required to close a thought. Do you think there are thoughts completed anywhere? I don't.

do the fact finder(s) (judge/jury) see the testimonies? Although also subject to bias and prejudice, an important way to judge credibility is seeing and hearing the body testifying.

Maybe it’s only because we have Mind which constructs and projects fictions, that we think there's some truth to our complaint that/if it's all just chemicals. If you think about it, Mind has, in its make-believe, the audacity to criticize Nature.

Yah, it's all just chemicals. We breathe, we see, hear, smell, taste, touch, feel, and bond because of these chemicals. The rest is just talk.

Yes we would function but at a very primitive level and our ability to communicate and invent would be non-existent … — kindred

Yes. But not like plants. Like animals. Stimulus and response. There's nothing necessarily "bad." It might even be bliss. Maybe our infatuation with communicating and inventing (Mind, not consciousness) is classical Narcissus: in love with our own reflections (representations); an illusion, the cause of enjoyment, but also suffering. Maybe bliss stops at natural stimulus response based pleasure and pain.

doesn't god show his perspective in holy books. — QuirkyZen

I don't believe so. No disrespect to anyone who does.

You might ask, "then how do you even talk about 'God' [in this way]?"

I don't think Scriptures or any other form of Narrative manifesting outward of History is the source of [our knowledge of God]. I think so called revelation is History's response to the real source, our nature/Nature. Revelation is just as constructed, and therefore susceptible to human error as the concepts, love, mercy, God and eternity.

For me, God is (for lack of better) felt order sensed by/as the Body. And from that History constructs our [fallable] narratives.

Right, from our perspective. If what we call loving and merciful is eternally true, God's either not that, or not there.

But, who's to say from the perspective of God or what we think of as the eternal (both of which, by the way, are just as susceptible to human error as love and mercy; if any of these even exist eternally--outside of our constructions)

Maybe it's our thoughts which cloud our senses with ideas, making them susceptible to doubt. And as for the contents of our thoughts, they're made up of signifying images, operating as a system with belief as a built in mechanism.

So we doubt our senses except when belief is triggered. Philosophy as a machine in that system, necessarily suspends belief while it examines the structures of the thoughts.

how can deterministic processes lead to the realization of options. — MoK

Maybe the "options" are illusion.

The determinism in neural processes seem obvious to us since science has constructed that Narrative and it is conventional; i.e., that synapses are triggered by xyz, and there is no moment of an agent choosing to take a certain path.

But the same could go for the so-called Mind, where the illusion of option exists. Even in a decision seeming so free as which road to take at a fork, was ultimately the last domino to fall in a series of autonomously structured triggers. To oversimplify, a thought emerges, "the heart is on the left,"--like I said, over simplified--all the way to "ini mini miny moe", structures and structures signifiers of constructed meaning snap like dominoes until you move. The positive feeling in the body that is triggered by the "settlement," or what we think of as "belief", we also call a choice.

For each individual mind the result is different, but not owing to a free agent making a choice out of options, but by the conditioned process of signifier structuring at each specific locus in History where these triggers are built. Some might not think of the left as superior but the right because it is the hand that's raised. All of these pieces of data stored at various loci in History act in accordance with a highly evolved system of conditioning. If not, find the moment of choice that did not involve a thought, image, language, a final trigger which is silent. That could just be that feeling in the body, designed to end the dialectic; also a conditioned response. And if you deliberately "choose" to defy the triggers, and go the opposite, it was just those antithetical triggers that got you there, triggered by something daring you to defy it, releasing a positive feeling because your locus is conditioned by History that way. And so on.

Ultimately that suggests, if so called decisions are autonomous movements of stimulus and conditioned response, the self has no free will. But actually further, there is no self. Body is an organic process, Mind is a process functioning with images.

It is not oblivion if no one is there.

If the human body, like all other bodies in nature, decomposes and disintegrates into the soil, then no body is there.

That leaves Mind (maybe the body was organically conscious, aware of its sensations, feelings and drives, and that disintegrates with the organs). Mind is the reason we go forward into imaginary time dreaming of an afterlife.

So the question is really, what is Mind? If it's a soul or spirit--there is no evidence of that outside of Minds own constructions--then why oblivion? We construct complex Narratives to suggest it will go on constructing.

But how? As long as there is the organic infrastructure and energy, Mind constructs. How does it continue when the Body is gone?

I think it's not eternal oblivion, because the Mind too just stops.

For the body it's the eternal presence: Nature. There never is an individual experiencer of any Narrative.

For Mind, it's History. That’s what Mind is even while in the living: just the progression of Narrative we evolved to construct, and we do it as a species. So, any individual contribution remains forever in the afterlife of History. Oblivion is irrelevant because the Subject of the body's Narrative was never there, not the experiencer. "I" was just a tool, just stood in for the body, projected as the experiencer in the Narrative. In reality, the Narrative triggered feelings, constructed meaning for sensations, and triggered actions in the body; the only real thing. The body was the experiencer of stories; and it returns from where it always is: Nature
And the stories have made their contributionsto The Story; and like this sentence, there they remain.

If we can only see two sides of an idea, how do we know they unite at a highet level? — Gregory

We don't "know," we settle (or, knowledge is settlement); and, they don't unite at a "highest" level, they unite at the [temporary] ["most"] functional level (or highest is functional)

just care about philosophy that helps me live well mostly, call it pragmatism. Stuff like "how do we know anything" is noise to me. — Darkneos

If you understand that "what is irony" is a construction, as is everything which flows out of it, constructions of meaning; and that, the real "you" lies somewhere outside of that cave of shadows, in the feelings, sensations and drives of the body; while you will never escape pleasure and pain, you might escape attachment and suffering.

I don't like using up space with long unsolicited explanations, and the statement just made requires long explanations, so I guess I'm unclear. On the upside, I hope my unclear statements might trigger pursuit by others into tunnels they may not have considered, and I learn a lot about tunnels from their responses.

Uhhh...ok... — Darkneos

I meant both sincerely. Thanks for the interesting take. Sorry if I was frustratingly unclear. But for me, all good. How could I really know? So obviously I've grown a little from this. I'm ready to move on.

I don't think I've left you hanging, right?

Thank you/Sorry.

why even post that or reply to me to begin with? — Darkneos

To cut to the chase, I/we can't help it. It's autonomous.

Philosophy isn't a feeling so much as a system or method. — Darkneos

think it does make sense but some people like to insist otherwise, so far no one has been able to show you can't define it. — Darkneos

If you take the position that Irony (for example) has a definition, why not stop at the dictionary definition?

The exploration further, call it philosophy, is a desire to build meaning. That desire is rooted in a positive feeling. We may not perceive that root feeling on the surface, so overcrowded with layers of constructions, but at the root is an unnable positive feeling. That is what I said was the first movement in philosophy.

Of course it's [grown into] a system etc. But everything beyond whatever that positive feeling is--the feeling both our bodies are after by, for lack, "discovery"--is making-up meaning.

In the end some of us produce functional new paths, some don't, but we're all making meaning to attach to organic feelings. So ultimately we're confounding any path to that once real feeling, with making sense.

I'm not sure what you mean. — Darkneos

We do not focus on the truth we already know. "Irony" like most things surfacing through minds as culture or history, is not a definite singular thing. It represents first an organic feeling best left not displaced by signifiers. But inevitably minds come up with "irony" [for the feeling triggered when facts reveal themselves to be fictions and vice versa]. And its definition is already impossible because it is not the unnamable feeling, but the construction for it in code. But because it is constructed we give to it also constructed meanings. If conventionally accepted within a range of functional applications of that signifier, then we settle upon that as "definition." Fair enough. A reasonably necessarily dialectic for "irony" to function as code.

But then philosophy (also first an unamable feeling, stretched by Mind into [a] near infinite structure of signifiers, requiring extra lengthy narratives to arrive at the feeling [akin to discovery]) comes along and takes the dialectic beyond the reasonable conventional one designed to give the Signifier some signifieds, the construction of meaning [out of feeling]; but to a place which is clearly more fictional, a game claiming to be uncovering the core of truth.

What does it mean to say "everything is ironic", or "relative?" We claim to be making sense of it, but, ironically we're
confounding it further.

EDIT: not sure how tge erasure got there, but who knows? Maybe they were meant to be.

if it’s just a bit about our attempts to make sense of things — Darkneos

Ironically, we might just end up confounding things.