Exists / does not exist = the wrong approach to many fundamental matters and questions. Recognizing this does not necessarily supply a better approach immediately, but at least orients us toward the explorations from which some may emerge. As it is not clear what consciousness ‘is’, the categories into which it is usually subsumed are subpositions of its possible status, which »cannot be ‘exists/does not exist’ because it is the origin of the faculties involved in forming questions or determining class membership in cognitive terms.

It is possible that ‘is apparent/not apparent’ is a useful transformation of the question, but to »what is it apparent? Or a parent? More simply, common approaches and responses to some questions involve category errors that place a superposition (from which all other subpositions must emerge) into their own subclasses of phenomena.

Once this error is made, the possibilities of insight collapse, because »orders of dependence must be recognized and maintained» if we are to remain capable of intelligent inquiry and exploration.

There are many features of our minds, relationships and contexts which neither exist nor do not exist; and a vast myriad of these represent possibilities in relation as consciousness, rather than ‘objectively verifiable’ phenomena.