# Internal Consistency: Introduction
Why this absence of a need to maintain internal consistency?
Can we explore that phenomenon? How does the human mind come to be in such a state that it recognizes a challenge to the IC? Surely the event does not include a significant consequence for this modality - not at the moment of realization. But there must be that moment of realization, or at least suspicion, where one sees a potential for the issue to be examined and resolved.

1. Perception and beliefs are established
2. Challenges to the understanding present themselves

Q. What does the mind do? How does one proceed

## Options
1. Ignore
2. Adopt position which acknowledges a lack of consistency
3. Seek resolution/rectification/consolidation

### 1. Ignore
- realization occurs, but the mind sets focus elsewhere
- immediate needs do not include, or do not incur first-order effects by the information observed to challenge understanding
- more grave if occurs subsequently

### 2. Acknowledge lack of consistency
- Mode of being perceived to be intrinsically bound to this limitation.
- No trust in fellow humans
- Bias towards lack of faith in human capacity for reason
- Expectation that there is no truth among humans, just power

### 3. Seek resolution
- Identify information which disproves issue
- Identify information which allows one to believe that understanding cannot be or should not be sought
- Resolve

# Ignoring Breach of Internal Consistency

That isn't to say that some might do this while others do not, on the contrary, this is going to happen just simply by virtue of having a limited capacity to observe and analyze the necessary information. Our cognitive biases imply add icing to that cake, or turn it to a diabeetus in every bite.

We have too much complexity to deal with, thus we limit the set of work and scope of interest to ensure prioritized work can be performed. For some matters, though, we find ourselves heavily vested, to the point where a lack of critical insight could lead to tragic and catastrophic consequences. So how do we manage to choose an unclean/unreasoned path?
- Conflicting information presents itself and;
- Able to conclude the source is not to be trusted, even superficially
- Rationalize that there is something more pressing
- Tell oneself that there will be a followup

So how to consolidate the threat of unknown error? Think as a child:
- Feign ignorance, even to yourself
- Reality is not fully formed (or approved)
- Reality is only ever real when we are verifying our observations
- being together