Where does why end

Where does the question ‘why’ actually, in terms of brain time, end?

Does why ever end in knowing?

Say like at the end of a road, looking out over the vast chasm of a question and knowing says . . . “and that’s why,” and certitude, like a form of concrete, sets in?

Does why possess a hidden checklist covertly filled out by the answer to why . . . why ends?

Is why really just a process for answering, a kind of private stroking as a kinesthetic way of verbally calming inquiry masking anxiety?

Is why maybe an induction into a secret society, like handshakes or gestures and colors that reaffirms those who know as opposed to those who don’t . . . kind of why?

Is why, by some indirect rules, an incantation of sorts, as a way of exercising the brain towards some sort of synaptic efficiency without regard to any specific content need?

Is why a kind of self permission code that justifies inner private self-dialogue?

Is why a frame of acceptance for a possible political philosophy or the invention of a self-religion or ever so the invitation of reason as a subtle process of self identification without ever truly naming names or appearing to be self involved?

Is why a never ending way of being on the run with new knowledge providing cover, almost as a means of escape, without leaving old-thought evidence or recent opinions as obvious clues?

Why why . . . as to undress its entitlement from purpose?

Who within us calls ‘why’ out . . . almost involuntarily?

What sacred sanctuary is this and where are the boundaries of ‘why’?

Is knowledge just a shill and learning a fencing operation to fill the time by asking . . . why?

Where does ‘why’ end its formality?

‘Why’ is . . . to some degree, who’s asking?

So many answers may go down the same road.

But how far does any one of them go when the push to be, to substantiate, resides only at the outer limits of one’s attention span to end that why?

Is ‘why’ really a first person method or a superficial defense for first person behavior?

If ‘why’ were motive then would the ‘why’ account be an entrapment, since the ‘why’ would give a highlight version, based on rational presumptions and logical order, almost as a learned style of convincible storytelling?

Isn’t asking ‘why’, like asking for re-enactment or reproduction on an on-call basis?

Question authority.

Question reality.

Question questioning?