Not so much poking fun, because it seems too popular.

>i have a bit of trouble with the term "relationship." after all, as a term, it organically developed to describe connections between things thought to have objective existence. i realize this is a bucket-o-crabs problem

Therein lies the rub, eh? I am going to take a crack at the root of that in my next essay. What is relationship? Do you have to say that things either objectively exist, or it's turtles all the way down? That's the issue to me. I realize that everything we say is loaded, but maybe if we catch ourselves saying something similar enough, we might reveal something useful, or maybe something even more confounding. :) But, I still have a bit of road in my headlights. The next couple of essays will be backtracking for me. After that, maybe a cliff.

>i don't really want to alter the trajectory of your journey -- i'd much rather go along and see where it leads.

No worries, but thanks, me too!

>but i personally approach this matter by attacking individuality, rather than existence...

I believe there is truth there. If everything relates, what is individuality? But then, what does this whole relate to? Can something be defined by its within, and have no without? I think the notions of flux and permanence are actually where consistency might be found. What if there is no without, but only a never-ending, ever-diminishing of the within? What if the within (that we deem to exist) is such, when it is fully understood, that the notion of a without is nonsensical?

>excited to see where this thread goes! must continue, among other ways, over cocktails. Thanks, and yes!