Human nature

What exactly constitutes our *human* "true" nature? 😕

I mean, people talk about being "in tune with their nature" all the time. But what actually makes up the specific blueprint of being human? The real dilemma is that we possess both reason and self-awareness. Are those two things part of our "nature," or is "nature" just a shorthand for our primal, animalistic side? If you believe that logic and consciousness are core to human nature, then what kind of reasoning or awareness is considered "natural"—and which versions are "distorted" or "unnatural"? On the flip side, if by "human nature" we only mean the traits we share with primates, how do reason and self-awareness relate to that animalistic foundation? Is it even possible to find harmony between our intellect and our instincts, or are they fundamentally destined to clash?

People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

If the design of man is examined, we see he’s really just a patchwork of every creature, environment, and moment that came before him. Everything beneath his brow is basically a biological machine built from animal instincts and elemental rhythms. We are a mix of horses and crocodiles, honey bees and swans, sardines and raw planetary forces—a blend of redwoods and palms, the Amazon, the Pacific, solar fire, Everest, Weather of water and Air , All The usual stars, and those ancient ocean mammals drifting away from Earth. Below the eyes, there isn't much that's truly "new." We are simply the sum total of everything that preceded us and everything we have ever learned.

...and so we stand here, suspended between the ground and the sky... using our abstract ideas to carve out that specific sense of freedom. It's the one thing that sets us apart from all the other inhabitants—our fellow travelers born from the same stardust—on this spinning rock in a strange Universe where we constantly try to interpret, create, dream, and hunt for answers to "why"... and just like that, time slips through our fingers...

...I love to think that Ortega was onto something when they said “Man has no nature; what he has is history." Personally, I’d call it his-story... at the end of the day, that’s where my little slice of freedom lies... believing that we don't have a fixed nature, but rather just our own unique stories to tell...

dustyskipper3 said:People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

But what exactly constitutes a "rational" action once you've identified those "laws" of nature?

I mean, what is the point of aligning our behavior with these laws? Personally, I find breaking them much more interesting. Take flight, for example—we don't have wings, so instead, we build airplanes and take to the sky. 😬

Why should a human—a free being—subjugate their reason and will to certain "laws"? That is, assuming they even have the ability to deny them in the first place. But if they can't, can we truly call them "autonomous"?

dustyskipper3 said:People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

🤷 Well, yes, those are all very good questions.

lonegardener said:What exactly constitutes our *human* "true" nature? 😕

I mean, people talk about being "in tune with their nature" all the time. But what actually makes up the specific blueprint of being human? The real dilemma is that we possess both reason and self-awareness. Are those two things part of our "nature," or is "nature" just a shorthand for our primal, animalistic side? If you believe that logic and consciousness are core to human nature, then what kind of reasoning or awareness is considered "natural"—and which versions are "distorted" or "unnatural"? On the flip side, if by "human nature" we only mean the traits we share with primates, how do reason and self-awareness relate to that animalistic foundation? Is it even possible to find harmony between our intellect and our instincts, or are they fundamentally destined to clash?

To me, when I talk about "true human nature," I’m referring to what the Christian faith describes when it says "God created man in His own image." Or, to put it more simply, the soul is a person's actual, fundamental nature. Based on that—on that specific energy, since the soul is essentially an energy from the Source—a human being is one and the with all other living things on Earth, with Earth itself, and even with everything existing beyond the reaches of Earth.

When reason and self-awareness align with the soul, a person achieves a sense of harmony with themselves and the entire universe, effectively fulfilling the very purpose of their existence through lived experience.
But when reason and the ego—which are just categories tied to this material reality—take precedence over a person's spiritual nature, they lose touch with that primordial spark... and they start perceiving the material world as their only reality, which is nothing more than an illusion, like shadows dancing on a wall, no matter how real those shadows might seem to them.

lonegardener said:But what exactly constitutes a "rational" action once you've identified those "laws" of nature?

I mean, what is the point of aligning our behavior with these laws? Personally, I find breaking them much more interesting. Take flight, for example—we don't have wings, so instead, we build airplanes and take to the sky. 😬

Why should a human—a free being—subjugate their reason and will to certain "laws"? That is, assuming they even have the ability to deny them in the first place. But if they can't, can we truly call them "autonomous"?

🤷 Well, yes, those are all very good questions.

I suppose, of course, I just mean that a person should be above being driven solely by blind instincts. Though, I guess that's also a possibility. Whether they choose to resist the laws of nature, respect them, or just do whatever they want with them... well, I suppose that's up to their own will. 😉

rustymaker5 said:To me, when I talk about "true human nature," I’m referring to what the Christian faith describes when it says "God created man in His own image." Or, to put it more simply, the soul is a person's actual, fundamental nature. Based on that—on that specific energy, since the soul is essentially an energy from the Source—a human being is one and the with all other living things on Earth, with Earth itself, and even with everything existing beyond the reaches of Earth.

When reason and self-awareness align with the soul, a person achieves a sense of harmony with themselves and the entire universe, effectively fulfilling the very purpose of their existence through lived experience.
But when reason and the ego—which are just categories tied to this material reality—take precedence over a person's spiritual nature, they lose touch with that primordial spark... and they start perceiving the material world as their only reality, which is nothing more than an illusion, like shadows dancing on a wall, no matter how real those shadows might seem to them.

Yes, I suppose it seems to me that self-awareness can really only exist if it is non-material in nature, like the soul. Consciousness that isn't self-aware might dwell within the material world, but true self-awareness is realized only when it acknowledges its own non-materiality—its spirit—which allows for spiritual growth. Otherwise, it just reduces down to the intellect and the ego, both of which vanish along with the body. If one views the material world as the only reality, then self-awareness is, I guess, like a bird pecking at the very branch it is sitting on.

Why the obsession with inventing things like the soul or some "immaterial" essence? It feels like this constant distrust of our one physical body—this need to belittle it by chasing "higher states of consciousness" that inevitably end up trying to control or micromanage the flesh. Why keep stirring up this conflict between an imaginary spirit and reality, especially when we give the spirit all the credit...

Is the mind actually superior to instinct? Personally, I feel alive through my senses, not my thoughts. It’s like what they tell soldiers before a fight: your eyes might deceive you with shadows and illusions, but pain is your real ally. If it hurts, you know you're still in the game...

Aren't consciousness and self-awareness just extensions of the physical? Like everything else that evolved later, they seem to be trying to dominate the much older, primal stuff...

goldenpuma84 said:Why the obsession with inventing things like the soul or some "immaterial" essence? It feels like this constant distrust of our one physical body—this need to belittle it by chasing "higher states of consciousness" that inevitably end up trying to control or micromanage the flesh. Why keep stirring up this conflict between an imaginary spirit and reality, especially when we give the spirit all the credit...

Is the mind actually superior to instinct? Personally, I feel alive through my senses, not my thoughts. It’s like what they tell soldiers before a fight: your eyes might deceive you with shadows and illusions, but pain is your real ally. If it hurts, you know you're still in the game...

Aren't consciousness and self-awareness just extensions of the physical? Like everything else that evolved later, they seem to be trying to dominate the much older, primal stuff...

But isn't instinct and raw feeling actually part of spirituality, or if you prefer, the immaterial side of things? So I'm honestly not sure what point you're actually trying to make here...
And as for consciousness and self-awareness, aren't those just the bridges connecting the spiritual and material sides of being human? The problem seems to be that people only see that when they're busy ignoring one half of the equation—specifically the spiritual side, of course...

rustymaker5 said:But isn't instinct and raw feeling actually part of spirituality, or if you prefer, the immaterial side of things? So I'm honestly not sure what point you're actually trying to make here...
And as for consciousness and self-awareness, aren't those just the bridges connecting the spiritual and material sides of being human? The problem seems to be that people only see that when they're busy ignoring one half of the equation—specifically the spiritual side, of course...

What I'm saying is that instinct and gut feelings aren't spiritual or supernatural... they're physical.

Consciousness and self-awareness are just products of the body trying to survive in a chaotic environment, mostly because the unconscious wasn't enough on its own.

I'm not against the "spiritual" side of being human—not at all. It's just that for millennia, people have treated it as this primary thing that somehow overrides the physical, acting like the body is something dirty or unworthy that keeps us from the truth...

Maybe "human nature" is a myth.
The whole idea of "human nature" implies we’re some finished product. But look at us: we’re the only species constantly obsessed with fixing our own incompleteness. It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it leaves us feeling totally isolated in a world where every other creature seems perfectly content being what they are. On the other, it gives us this god-like sense of freedom—this ability to actually shape who we become.
Even physically, we’re outliers. We’re basically just meat-eaters with zero natural advantages. Our brains are massive energy hogs, an evolutionary waste of resources that somehow stripped away all our biological limiters. Now, the only thing holding our development back is physical space.

Mark Torres14 said:Maybe "human nature" is a myth.
The whole idea of "human nature" implies we’re some finished product. But look at us: we’re the only species constantly obsessed with fixing our own incompleteness. It’s a double-edged sword. On one hand, it leaves us feeling totally isolated in a world where every other creature seems perfectly content being what they are. On the other, it gives us this god-like sense of freedom—this ability to actually shape who we become.
Even physically, we’re outliers. We’re basically just meat-eaters with zero natural advantages. Our brains are massive energy hogs, an evolutionary waste of resources that somehow stripped away all our biological limiters. Now, the only thing holding our development back is physical space.

I’m fairly certain there is no fixed "human nature," unless you're talking about religious doctrines that try to paint a specific picture of us... and even those are just human constructs, prone to shifting with the wind. Isn't it enough to look at the leap from early hunter-gatherers to modern Americans? That's evolution in action. Nothing is fixed. There isn't some grand, capitalized concept of destiny waiting for us—especially not those fairy tales cooked up for social engineering, which is really just a fancy way of saying "controlling the masses." For now, the only constants are that we work, we die, and in the meantime, we just keep doing whatever it is we do...

.. Dan... this looks pretty interesting.. does it lead to any specific conclusions.. regarding the future.. perhaps..? Or.. could we expand on this somehow.. just so I can get a better sense of it..?

Sweetheart, I really dig your first post 👍(even if you do know how to crack me up sometimes)...you're actually pretty sharp—I could spot your rhetoric anywhere. "Buddy," I don't mean anything by it... just offering you a double espresso on me (and damn, my bad for forgetting to add the coffee emojis...)

redtinker36 said:.. Dan... this looks pretty interesting.. does it lead to any specific conclusions.. regarding the future.. perhaps..? Or.. could we expand on this somehow.. just so I can get a better sense of it..?

Here’s my take. At the core of human nature—that one thing that separates us from animals we constantly feel the need to bond with or compare ourselves to (I haven't heard anyone in an American conversation comparing themselves to an oak tree lately)—is supposedly the mind. It's that capacity for rational perception of the world and oneself, acting as both a part of the world and something somehow detached from it through the act of perceiving. When I strip everything else away—my desires, my vices, my passions—and face my own limitations, nothing feels as certain as the possibility that it's all just an illusion. All this material gathered by the senses might just be a trick... but hey, I think, therefore I am. It's like the ability to think, even though it's biologically hardwired, isn't something you actually learn. You have to start with individual pieces (like Legos, or a pigeon, or even just myself as a thinking entity) before you can truly grasp the concept of thought itself.

But honestly, reading some modern thinkers—take Karl Loewith, for example, who deconstructs the history of Western thought—it doesn't feel like the mind is what provides the final answer to "Do I exist?" More than the mind, which usually gets caught up in the daily grind and sensory inputs that we know can lie to us, it's my own body that tells me I'm alive.

When I'm hating or kissing, when I'm starving, when I'm cheating, when I'm jealous, or when I have a toothache... that's when I know I'm real. Why do we even need a mind to tell us that, to rescue us from that terrifying void of ignorance and give us the ultimate answer: yes, I exist! You can go ahead and manufacture souls and minds, self-consciousness and collective consciousness, slice them into a hundred different pieces and assign them specific tasks—but meanwhile, our fundamental reality, this one crappy, mortal body, gets forgotten. And even when people do remember it, it's treated as secondary, something dirty that constantly needs to be corrected and steered toward God knows what "metaphysical" substances.

goldenpuma84 said:Here’s my take. At the core of human nature—that one thing that separates us from animals we constantly feel the need to bond with or compare ourselves to (I haven't heard anyone in an American conversation comparing themselves to an oak tree lately)—is supposedly the mind. It's that capacity for rational perception of the world and oneself, acting as both a part of the world and something somehow detached from it through the act of perceiving. When I strip everything else away—my desires, my vices, my passions—and face my own limitations, nothing feels as certain as the possibility that it's all just an illusion. All this material gathered by the senses might just be a trick... but hey, I think, therefore I am. It's like the ability to think, even though it's biologically hardwired, isn't something you actually learn. You have to start with individual pieces (like Legos, or a pigeon, or even just myself as a thinking entity) before you can truly grasp the concept of thought itself.

But honestly, reading some modern thinkers—take Karl Loewith, for example, who deconstructs the history of Western thought—it doesn't feel like the mind is what provides the final answer to "Do I exist?" More than the mind, which usually gets caught up in the daily grind and sensory inputs that we know can lie to us, it's my own body that tells me I'm alive.

When I'm hating or kissing, when I'm starving, when I'm cheating, when I'm jealous, or when I have a toothache... that's when I know I'm real. Why do we even need a mind to tell us that, to rescue us from that terrifying void of ignorance and give us the ultimate answer: yes, I exist! You can go ahead and manufacture souls and minds, self-consciousness and collective consciousness, slice them into a hundred different pieces and assign them specific tasks—but meanwhile, our fundamental reality, this one crappy, mortal body, gets forgotten. And even when people do remember it, it's treated as secondary, something dirty that constantly needs to be corrected and steered toward God knows what "metaphysical" substances.

What you wrote above is actually a byproduct of that "something else," rather than a product of the physical body itself. To put it plainly, your realization isn't just a result of hating, loving, being hungry, or being jealous; it stems directly from that very essence you're asking about.

Or more simply: you're sawing off the branch you're sitting on. The best way to answer this would be to look at what triggered you to start overthinking this in the first place instead of just... living. Especially since, once you reach a certain point, you shouldn't even need an intellect to tell you that you're here.

Personally, though, the raw fact that I am alive feels pretty irrelevant to me. (Well, maybe not 100%, otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this). I don't really care about "life" in some grand, artistic sense. I'm alive today; I might not be tomorrow. So, why does the fact that I'm alive *today* matter so much? It seems to me the only reason is basic survival instinct. But I don't see any logical reason to put that survival instinct on a pedestal. 🤷

Brenda Cook4 said:If the design of man is examined, we see he’s really just a patchwork of every creature, environment, and moment that came before him. Everything beneath his brow is basically a biological machine built from animal instincts and elemental rhythms. We are a mix of horses and crocodiles, honey bees and swans, sardines and raw planetary forces—a blend of redwoods and palms, the Amazon, the Pacific, solar fire, Everest, Weather of water and Air , All The usual stars, and those ancient ocean mammals drifting away from Earth. Below the eyes, there isn't much that's truly "new." We are simply the sum total of everything that preceded us and everything we have ever learned.

...and so we stand here, suspended between the ground and the sky... using our abstract ideas to carve out that specific sense of freedom. It's the one thing that sets us apart from all the other inhabitants—our fellow travelers born from the same stardust—on this spinning rock in a strange Universe where we constantly try to interpret, create, dream, and hunt for answers to "why"... and just like that, time slips through our fingers...

...I love to think that Ortega was onto something when they said “Man has no nature; what he has is history." Personally, I’d call it his-story... at the end of the day, that’s where my little slice of freedom lies... believing that we don't have a fixed nature, but rather just our own unique stories to tell...

I don't quite get this part.
When I look at other people's "thoughts," or see the footprint someone else left behind, I start wondering where I fit into all this. What am I in this massive landscape? Am I even more than a rounding error? ...The big names—think Edison, Warhol, or Jackson—they aren't the ones holding the spotlight; it's nature itself, or rather, the collective consciousness of the natural world. Nature is the celebrity here, and we all just contribute to its legacy by existing. And honestly, what I'm saying isn't even really mine... it feels like a fragment of the very nature that shaped me, influencing me constantly. It's why the past bleeds into the future, and the future is already baked into the past. Everything is just one long, continuous present.

The river keeps flowing, a steady stream; what does my tiny drop even mean in the scheme? (D.C.)

Brenda Cook4 said:If the design of man is examined, we see he’s really just a patchwork of every creature, environment, and moment that came before him. Everything beneath his brow is basically a biological machine built from animal instincts and elemental rhythms. We are a mix of horses and crocodiles, honey bees and swans, sardines and raw planetary forces—a blend of redwoods and palms, the Amazon, the Pacific, solar fire, Everest, Weather of water and Air , All The usual stars, and those ancient ocean mammals drifting away from Earth. Below the eyes, there isn't much that's truly "new." We are simply the sum total of everything that preceded us and everything we have ever learned.

...and so we stand here, suspended between the ground and the sky... using our abstract ideas to carve out that specific sense of freedom. It's the one thing that sets us apart from all the other inhabitants—our fellow travelers born from the same stardust—on this spinning rock in a strange Universe where we constantly try to interpret, create, dream, and hunt for answers to "why"... and just like that, time slips through our fingers...

...I love to think that Ortega was onto something when they said “Man has no nature; what he has is history." Personally, I’d call it his-story... at the end of the day, that’s where my little slice of freedom lies... believing that we don't have a fixed nature, but rather just our own unique stories to tell...

I feel like we're living out the lives of those who came before us. If you focus on the individual, life seems pretty pointless... but if you view life as one giant, breathing organism, then suddenly it makes sense...

.. I think I follow.. and I'm inclined to agree quite a bit..

.. For me, the body is far more vital.. the brain is secondary, really..
(.. the brain just processes sensations and maps out responses.. and it seems to establish these definitive patterns pretty early on—just so it doesn't have to overthink everything constantly..)

.. Well.. I suspect older generations didn't use the word "mind" the way you do.. it was used more in this sense: thought, mind, consciousness.. (.. somewhat akin to how people in the East use "Om"..)
.. And even regarding the body, it feels a bit more complex.. if we want to prioritize it, we need to imbue it with a bit more life..

.. But.. honestly.. I'm not against the spiritual component either—not if it’s proven to be such a clear part of the human experience.. I wonder, though.. could it become even clearer? But.. that's a different conversation entirely..

.. Regardless, yes.. the body is the foundation we need to build upon..

Thomas Carter80 said:I don't quite get this part.
When I look at other people's "thoughts," or see the footprint someone else left behind, I start wondering where I fit into all this. What am I in this massive landscape? Am I even more than a rounding error? ...The big names—think Edison, Warhol, or Jackson—they aren't the ones holding the spotlight; it's nature itself, or rather, the collective consciousness of the natural world. Nature is the celebrity here, and we all just contribute to its legacy by existing. And honestly, what I'm saying isn't even really mine... it feels like a fragment of the very nature that shaped me, influencing me constantly. It's why the past bleeds into the future, and the future is already baked into the past. Everything is just one long, continuous present.

The river keeps flowing, a steady stream; what does my tiny drop even mean in the scheme? (D.C.)

I feel like we're living out the lives of those who came before us. If you focus on the individual, life seems pretty pointless... but if you view life as one giant, breathing organism, then suddenly it makes sense...

I wasn't talking about the historical weight of existence... I was talking about the lack of a fixed blueprint. Aside from the fact that we are rational, two-legged animals—which is our basic setting—nothing is set in stone. There isn't some pre-written "human nature" we're forced to follow. We create ourselves. We forge our own answers based on the hand we're dealt and how we interact with the world around us. We write our own stories. As Ortega puts it: 'The stone is given its existence; it need not fight for being what it is--a stone in the field. Man has to be himself in spite of unfavorable circumstances; that means he has to make his own existence at every single moment. He is given the abstract possibility of existing, but not the reality. This he has to conquer hour after hour. Man must earn his life, not only economically but metaphysically.'

Sure, there might be another perspective out there—some distant horizon or a different angle where everything takes on a whole new dimension of meaning. But from where I'm standing, within my own existence, I can only speculate. My own life constantly seeks answers, though it usually just ends up creating more complications, layering new questions on top of old ones, always dancing just out of reach of a final answer. It’s all incredibly dizzying.

redtinker36 said:.. I think I follow.. and I'm inclined to agree quite a bit..

.. For me, the body is far more vital.. the brain is secondary, really..
(.. the brain just processes sensations and maps out responses.. and it seems to establish these definitive patterns pretty early on—just so it doesn't have to overthink everything constantly..)

.. Well.. I suspect older generations didn't use the word "mind" the way you do.. it was used more in this sense: thought, mind, consciousness.. (.. somewhat akin to how people in the East use "Om"..)
.. And even regarding the body, it feels a bit more complex.. if we want to prioritize it, we need to imbue it with a bit more life..

.. But.. honestly.. I'm not against the spiritual component either—not if it’s proven to be such a clear part of the human experience.. I wonder, though.. could it become even clearer? But.. that's a different conversation entirely..

.. Regardless, yes.. the body is the foundation we need to build upon..

Build what, exactly? 😬