Does this apply to you and any of your theories?
"The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, so to speak, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed in the two or three commonest types of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says he is the rightful king of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were the king of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do."
[snip]
Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed. Perhaps the nearest we can get to expressing it is to say this; that his mind moves in a perfect but narrow circle….in the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but is not so large.”
-GK Chesterton (Orthodoxy)
TLDR – Stupid conspiracy theories can have perfect internal logic, but fall apart when presented with outside facts.
a) to explain implies to suggest a definition aka an affixed meaning
b) Ones consent to a suggestion implies com (together) plete/plere (to fill).
c) Mad/moito/mei - "to change; go; move"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/mad
Change (inception towards death) implies status quo for being (life)...
https://genius.com/Tears-for-fears-mad-world-lyrics
Senses respond to origin...satisfaction tempts one to seek outcomes, hence "I can't get no satisfaction...cause I try and I try and I try and I try".
a) Initiation (inception) and conclusion (death) of being (life)
b) Conclude implies "enclosed together"...being implies apart from one another, while wielding FREE will of choice.
One has the free will of choice to dispute anything YET ignoring ones choice for a chosen ones suggestion establishes dispute aka conflicts of reason.
Being implies expression (ex) within plane (plan) of action (ation)...holding onto suggested facts covers ones self discernment with willing ignorance.
a) How could an answer ever be complete if one wields the free will of choice to keep on questioning it?
b) What if suggested mercantilism aka question (to buy) and answer (to sell) completes a contract binding ones free will of choice to a chosen one?
Aka choosing a side within a conflict of reason (wrong vs right)...a LOGIC LOOP.
What if suggested pluralism (we) TEMPTS perceiving singular (one) to ignore self for others? What if a suggestion implies an ATTEMPT to TEMPT ignorance of perception?
What if mind (life) is being moved within wide range (inception towards death)? What if ignoring all perceivable for another ones suggestion narrows ones perceiving mind?
If it's internal, then it's a PART within whole...