Admittedly, i dont know where we are or what put us here, why we are here or even what we are.

How could one discern self if one (singular) thinks in suggested terms like "we" and "us" (plural)?

Giving that up

Can one give up reality or is one struggling with the temptation to want to hold onto things within reality? What if ones struggle to resist "want" represents "need"?

that cuts us from our truth

What if one (perceiving) can only exist within need (perceivable); while ones choice to want (truth) or not want (lies) suggested, shapes a layer of ignorance around oneself? Within this ignorance, the conflict of reason (want vs not want) tempts one to feel as if lies are cutting one off from truth; because whatever truth one holds onto is being constantly contradicted by more and more lies? Meanwhile, those who utilize lies are getting more and more agitated by the fanatical obsession of the opposition to hold onto truths, no matter how often they are being contradicted.

Both sides within reason are feeding upon each other.

I cant offer answers, just the truth i know

a) a question implies ones want for suggested outcomes, hence a "quest" forwards aka the allegory of the hero's journey to save the day. An answer represents both ones want for more than the quest and the power of others to direct quests with suggested outcomes. It's the hero's want to journey that gives the villain the power to set up the tribunals along the way, hence exploiting temptation (want) by suggesting more and more and more....

b) the process of dying represents the perceivable offer; living within represents the perceiving response-ability (choice).

But wait...OF'FER, verb [Latin offero; to bring.] - "to bring to or before; hence, to present for acceptance or rejection"...if one hold ones breath and chooses to accept (want) or reject (not want) breathing...does that prevent the need to adapt to the process of dying forcing the living to breathe?

Just because one has the free will of choice to want or not want an offer, doesn't mean one can shirk response-ability within need without consequences. The many keep ignoring that perceivable need for suggested offers by the "happy merchant" few.

c) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" + TRUTH, noun - "conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth"...are you really perceiving words or are others tempting you with suggested words to ignore perceivable sound? Does nature really CONFORM, adjective - "assuming the same form" or does it differentiate whole (process of dying) into each partial (living)?

but people don't want it

Hence reacting within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) to what you want from them. Neither of you considers "need" when reasoning about want vs not want.

Both sides reasoning have consented to suggested moralism, hence suggested rules of behavior based on reasoning aka agreement vs agreement; good vs bad; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc. What both are willingly ignoring is ones free will of choice in-between both the conflict of reason (choice of wanting versus choice of not wanting suggested) and before that...as choice in-between need (perceivable) or want (suggested).

What both sides within reason are trying to do is to get others to choose their side over the other. What neither sides comprehends is that consent to reason over suggested binds both sides against each other within reason until each one within chooses to resist consenting.

They oppose the obvious truth with such ignorant veracity

a) VERAC'ITY, noun [Latin verax, from verus, true.] - "habitual observance of truth"...are they really opposing the obvious truth or do they view as obvious truth what you view as obvious lies?

b) are the few reasoning about true vs false with the many? Ever heard a rothschild reasoning about obvious truth vs obvious lies with anyone? Listen to jacob rothschild talk and you'll notice that he suggests with solemnity and as a merchant he dictates the prices for the information he sells. Haggling over prices (reasoning) is for those who already consented to the offer and they're haggling among themselves, while the merchant gains the profits.

c) perceivable change (need) contradicts every suggested truth (want) and lie (not want)...are you ignoring this? If you hold onto a truth, change will change aka loosen up your hold. Try holding onto life and notice what the change from inception towards death will do to it...

it makes me lose hope

Both hope (want) and fear (not want) represent reactions to suggested outcomes, which tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin. When was the last time you chose to invest hope or fear into breathing? Now hold your breath and wait until you notice that the death you fear and hope to avoid is only ever a moment away.

Ones fear to loose represents ones ignorance about being growth (living) within loss (process of dying). You will loose everything, but until that moment you represent the free will of choice to grow within everything. Others tempt you to ignore this by suggesting you to be afraid of loss, while investing hope in suggested growth outside your reach, outside the perceivable moment (um of motion).

we are all on the same side.

That represents the suggested inversion of each different one (form) being at the center (choice) of sides (balance) within sameness (flow). For life (choice)...inception and death (balance) represent the sides and those aren't in conflict with each other.

In short...you represent one not we, partial not all; different not same; and center not side. Use implication (if/then) to discern that for yourself. Only if one comprehends this, can one further comprehend that partial represents whole; that difference represents sameness, that center represents sides (balance) and that togetherness (want) represents the choice to ignore oneness.

TOGETHER aka TOWARDS GETTING tempts one to ignore being within everything already in existence.