The long slew of seemingly "dead end" questions, as articulated above, cannot but arouse strong suspicions that "our" examples are only consequential effects or functions that do not in themselves constitute a "complete" phenomenon, that they might simply lack their implied constancy or any real state of wholeness.

Can it be that we have no other option but to accept as "fact" that the very nature of our "what" contains a serious flaw, or a deficiency, that prevents us from from interpreting, or even imagining, the non-general, trans-"historic", governing but chancy conditions, as well as the imperative uniqueness of entirely momentary possibilities, that are the enabling causes for the emergence and the embodiments of an ever renewed string of new examples?

Does not our "what" imply a truly untenable and presupposed element of identification, however minute, a taken-for-granted self-similarity, a synthesis that in fact ignores its "uncreated" driving force, its internal element of self-production, its "origin"?