a conundrum as a philosophy

In the broadest terms, a debate over what things are, either on the surface or deeply is the process of creation, of duality, ever marred by confusion. Being doesn't get through life without such turmoil. Yet, there are never any truly problematic endeavors, as the ends move fluidly through the means and the body is an epidemic among any sort of perceived solid independent examination of stuff out there...

This site, the features of examinations proposed, are not particularly useful to believers of stuff as independent identities. It seems utterly impossible to use words at all, without the intricate interplay of more words. That same conflicted conundrum is also, the object of identity, the descriptor, and the solidity of it's edges.

We can describe experience in detail, talk about subtleties of movement, of feeling, of being, yet the words fall flat for most, if not the vast majority of readers when it comes to understanding our existence. That's likely due to the lack of box in which can hold all possible experiences and interpretations. It can get profoundly more complex and confounding the deeper the examination goes. Down the rabbit hole, so to speak.

Spending decades reading and writing about stuff, not only philosophically focused, but object and subject focused (science, biology, mechanics and abstracted realities like matrixes and dimensions), the interpretation remains consistent from when I was a child, all of experience is dual. Even in the barest minimum description to the most complex, is unified duality all the way.

The conundrum is the truth that can only persist through the witnessed experience of fallacy. We learn because we can experience both it and it's opposition. We learn more on how not to act, so we can act accordingly. This is us, the universal us. There is no other.