As the nature of (that which is) necessarily includes mystery and ambiguity (i.e: it moves toward completion by our participation with it), assertions are deceptive in that they pretend to a completion that denies both the ambiguity and the transformations participation invokes.

This is the nature of ‘free will’, and partly points at the origins of Religion. For why should their »always be some kind of space or dimensionality that is transformed by our participation in it? It’s as if we were gods… or divine beings… always capable of transforming ‘that which is’ by transforming our relationship with its developmental potentials… some of which are, by nature, not yet fully formed or expressed.

Thus it is that ‘realty’ is incomplete, and assertions about it that do not somehow include this in their anatomy… however reliable they may seem in some context we invented to highlight this quality… are, themselves… innately incomplete.

And this, too, is an assertion.