Okay, that’s your bottom line. Mine revolves more around the assumption that, as with many here, you have no real interest in bringing your “technical philosophy” down out of the clouds. You’re just more comfortable with “analyses” that I construe to be largely intellectual contraptions. You present us with assessment after assessment after assessment embedded squarely within the parameters of what I call “general descriptions”.
Arguments, in other words, in which the reasoning is tautological, circular, internal. These words are said to be true because those words define and defend them.
They have almost nothing to do with the lives that we live!
Or, perhaps, like others here, you are more discomfited by the argument that focuses in on the seeming futility of ever pinning any of this down. Why? Because none of us come even close to having access to an understanding of what lies behind existence itself.
So, what then becomes of more importance [in my view] are psychological needs being met in convincing yourself that there are answers and that your own are the best place to start.
And you can always find those in the philosophy community who share your conviction that the answers are there. Only most will assure you that the answers are theirs and not yours.
Unless of course there was never any possibility that you could or would contribute to this exchange in any way other than as you were compelled to by the laws of matter.
You can always fall back on that, right?