About and Intro

A Fundamental Contradiction

When we seek the truth, the most fundamental certainty is our existence, or more specifically, the awareness that “I am.” This self-evident truth requires no external validation. It is immediate, solid, unchanging, and impervious to doubt.

Equally apparent is our experience of reality, shaped by space and time: “I am aware of my being, yet I exist within a realm where everything is in constant flux.” This contrast is striking: while our sense of being feels absolute and unchanging, the world around us is transient: a cycle of appearances and disappearances. From this dichotomy arises a profound question: “I know that I am, but what shapes the experiences I encounter?”

This question lies at the core of our anxieties about life’s unpredictability and, ultimately, the inevitability of death. For centuries, mythologies, religions, philosophies, and sciences have sought to answer it. Yet, their conclusions often conflict, leaving us grappling with contradictions and unresolved explanations.

The Rediscovery of an Ancient Path

Contemporary thought echoes these ancient dilemmas, yet something both ancient and new has begun to emerge. Informed, perhaps, by recent discoveries about space and time, a previously obscured path has been reopened; a perspective with profound implications that could reshape how we understand existence. But as with the Copernican revolution or the dawning of an axial age, it may take years, even decades, for these ideas to reach general awareness. For now, they remain the domain of a few specialists.

I am no expert; just an ordinary person. But years ago, I glimpsed this remarkable perspective and began to investigate. At first, it was overwhelming; I lacked the vocabulary and context to understand it. Yet, as I delved deeper, the concepts became clearer, even intuitive. Over time, I came to understand them. This writing is my attempt to share that understanding with others like me, in plain language, as I wish it had been explained to me.

A Word of Caution

The explanation ahead will not be simple; not because the ideas themselves are inherently complex, but because our habitual ways of thinking are. Unlearning deeply ingrained assumptions takes time. Even if you grasp the concepts I am about to share, fully processing the questions they raise may take years.

This may sound discouraging, and you might wonder if such an abstract pursuit is worth the effort. My suggestion: if your current understanding provides sufficient clarity and stability in your life, there may be no need to disrupt it. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

However, if your existing frameworks fall short, failing to provide the clarity or stability you seek, and you feel drawn to explore deeper truths, I encourage you to continue. While this path may bring moments of discomfort, the rewards it offers can be far greater than you imagine.

A Note on Terms and Sources

This discussion engages with ideas traditionally explored in philosophy, theology, and science. While each field employs its own specialized language, I have deliberately avoided such terminology for two reasons:

1. I lack the expertise to use it with precision.
2. My goal is to make these ideas accessible to readers unfamiliar with these disciplines.

Most of the ideas presented here are drawn from various sources and are not original to me. Citing every influence in full would make this work overly complex and unwieldy. Attempting to do so could invite accusations of misrepresentation, while omitting citations risks claims of plagiarism. To avoid both, and because I seek neither recognition nor blame for what is written here, I have chosen to remain anonymous.

If anything written here is true, it stands on its own merit. If anything is unclear or questionable, it reflects my own limited understanding. My intent is simply to share what appears to me in the clearest and most accessible manner possible.

Disclaimer

The ideas presented here originate primarily from the work of philosopher Emanuele Severino and others who continued exploring the truths he made known. However, it is important to clarify that Severino himself never claimed credit for these insights. He maintained that if they were merely his ideas, they would be worthless, as the Structure of Being is not the product of any individual’s thought but an undeniable, self-evident reality.

The same applies to me. Initially, I wrote about these matters with a constant look at Severino’s works, using AI to proofread and refine my texts. Over time, AI adapted to my style of writing, enhancing it while aligning it more closely with Severino’s thought. I gradually integrated AI more into the formulation of my approach to the Structure of Being, writing from different perspectives to make it clearer and addressing the questions that naturally arise.

That said, attributing the nature or features of the Structure of Being to me, to Severino, or to AI would be a mistake. This is why I have chosen to remain anonymous. To credit or blame any individual or tool for describing the Structure of Being would be like attributing the characteristics of a newly discovered land to the person who first spoke of it. Regardless of who describes it, articulates it well or poorly, the thing itself remains what it always was and “it is what it is.”

---

Transition to the Core Exploration

With this foundation established, we can now delve into how humanity has historically grappled with these profound questions, why they have remained so elusive, and what answers may be emerging in our time.

Since the discourse builds sequentially from one post to the next, I recommend reading them in order, especially the first three posts starting with this introduction, as they lay the groundwork for what follows.