The ancient question is not about the remote physical causes that may have made existence possible; it is a purpose-question; it is teleological. The phrase, for example ‘the mind of God’, too, could scarcely cover a mere account of causes. It cannot avoid referring to purpose. Incidentally, the word God, which often springs out of the mouths badly needs explaining. It is notoriously a most obscure and ambiguous word, yet it gets no discussion and no respect and does not figure in the limnal. It is treated as unproblematic when, it is the most. it is known that many people— anthropologists, historians of thought, philosophers, theologians—have already done a lot of useful work on the matter and could have saved some unnecessary confusion. God is bullshit. Believe in god! I have a bridge you can buy! Cheap!

That which is lost that turns into a loss does not necessarily presuppose a relationship of Being. The extinction of the Dodo bird is a loss without [one]. [one] can not be the extinct natural taxonomic unit named as Dodo. It is to have a curiosity, it is being inquisitive, a being drawn in and to the lost thing. If [one] does have such an interest, [one] cannot translate a speech act claiming that it is lost into an speech act claiming the total loss of an even possible liminality.