a) a non-structured phase of interests, this included things like arts/crafts, interests in certain animals (I remember being very into whales and dolphins a long time ago) and natural environments, historical periods like ancient Egypt and Rome etc. (I think at that time Wnbwi was mostly around, but we can't remember too well; sSdyt was also around but in different situations, the current split of interest is not really tracable back.)

b) a focus on a kind of rationalism, beginning with the interest in programming, then mostly sciences like chemistry and theoretical physics, with the ultimate interest going to mathematics. At this point, I also had a very strong personal identification with mathematics and a kind of rationalist outlook on the world, with a kind of tacit agreement with popular "post-modernist" relativism, basically believing myself to be a rational being of some kind. This also however was a great strain on me; I believed for example, that because I could not give to myself a good reason why I should like music and it's not just noise, that I shouldn't like music, but I still did, and this lead to many problems. (This is maybe similar to a dissociative situation, but still slightly different, as it was between me, but it did lead to putting stuff on other alters.) One concept I was very interested in, and which, since I have left that very much behind (sSdyt maybe not completely, but mostly), may be a good sign of the kind of rationality I lived with, was the concept of "post-privacy" (around 2011), which was about a very public concept of morality, and I basically believed, that because I was rational, I could prove to other people I was right, and that I should win in that, and therefore privacy or discretion was not necessary. This was a general attitude at the time, I might add, that still persists in some (often more cynical or hypocritical) form to this day, and is one of the reason I disdain so much of what is called "discourse" today; because I see in it this past mistake of mine, but without its honesty and real belief in being right, in being above those "illogical" other people etc.

c) what you could call my voluntarist phase, which followed from a way of freeing myself from those rationalist urges. The way I did that, was in disproving to myself that "rationality", as a concept, could be as universal as I thought it was. This started from me learning about Gödel's incompleteness theorem (against which still stands the completeness theorem, as I duely noted), and more importantly, the whole axiomatic nature of set theory and logic. If logic itself was only taken on faith, maybe it cannot be so easily proven. And the main point of change for me was actually reading Kant - specifically, the transcendental aesthetics of the critique of pure reason, the idea that time and space etc. are simply prejudices in our forms of thinking, paired with a general understanding of the "transcendence" of the ego/self as an abstract subject. That was enough for me to rethink this rationalist concept, and disprove it from within: that it would be illogical to believe I totally understood myself, as I could not understand what is not part of me, if everything I think is in me, as part of my form of thought. Because of the impossibility to reach beyond my thinking, everything was before me, and so I became to myself a transcendence beyond my own rationality - which made me free to just do what I want. My freedom was in this sense conditional on the fact that I was not an object of my own imagination; and in a sense I believe this to this day, in that I don't think that I can precisely define myself, or know myself in a concrete way the way I used to think when I thought I knew I was a specific type of "rational person". This kind of voluntarism - of thinking I simply was an infinite self, with a certain kind natural will/curiosity - which also heavily combined with themes of "wanting to be a child", which we now think were passive influences by our little Wnbwi, and became a certain theory of eternal childhood and about the wrong attitudes of adult seriousness and teenage sillyness, born in the misconception of identiy - lasted as long as this specific ethics of will; and that was not very long, only from fall of 2015 to the winter of 2016/17 if I remember correctly.

d) this then gave way to a more abstract form of self-understanding, which I might call _negative egology_. The basis of this new belief was the proof, that I not only was a person that didn't know who they were, but also identical to that fact, since, if _necessarily_ not knowing who I was, I couldn't imagine I did, so I couldn't understand my non-understanding, and for that to be a single act (and not in fact another seperation, or sth like that), this self I don't know has to be the same as my ignorance of it. This had the main effect of removing the concreteness of the childish self as the moral reference, and replacing it with the idea of an ego that is the _fact_ it doesn't understand itself. Naturally, with such absurd beginnings, I was drawn to different authors, Hegel at the forefront, in spite of all previous prejudices based on rationalist understandings of dialectics. I wrote in this time - from about 2017 to 2021 - a number of theoretical drafts that should have created a complete system of all understanding and reality, as folded in and out of this self-as-misunderstanding-itself. I didn't finish most of it; but the drafts that I have (mostly in German, the parts I can post without posting identifying information about myself are on the institute's website) are still important to me (Hypatia) as a basis to draw on my concepts today; at some point I want to comment on them, maybe even have an edition with myself co-authoring my deadname, but that will take some time to actually pull off.

e) The way out of this is more complicated. Mostly, it was related in my attempts at understanding desire, especially regarding to gender and sexuality; it should be noted that I understood that I was a lesbian before I understood I was a woman (mostly because, conceptualizing myself mostly as a disembodied soul almost since puberty, I simply didn't notice I actually had a functionally male body; I theoretically knew, but I didn't care much about it and more or less let it just exist), and also understood we were different genders before understanding we were different persons. This also changed my theoretical approach: from treatises on knowledge, to discussions of the relation between reality, imagination and desire, to a dialogue between different people describing different views, of realist scepticism, romanticism and abstract paganism, between which, somewhere in seeing the universal as particular and the particular as universal, the contradictions of my own thought move around. From the point of realizing plurality as a more direct thing, we are still trying to collect all these various moments, since our old forms of "system-drafts" don*t seem to make that much sense against the reality of the other within; the idea that I cannot go beyong me is somehow not correct, even if it's not disproven, and I can still prove it to myself in some way, and it's still important to me.. That's the kind of theoretical problem, I, Hypatia, priestess of Chaos, am still interested in. To me, philosophy is as much a problem of the divinity of the self as of the good, but both in that we don't understand them. But the question that now it most important to me, is how this so great abstract reality can manifest itself, and in _this complicated way_, as plural, in a physical body. We have - reluctantly, and after much consideration - accepted that the idea of a correlation of mind and brain may not be wrong, that the brain and the universe is not an epiphenomenon of the mind, even if the reductionism on the other side is also wrong. And it is from that direction that we are now much more interested in biology, medicine, psychology, sociology also; to see the connections they still have to the understanding of subjectivity we can save from a univeral self that nontheless has to be a particular person, as mirrored against the other not in word or action, but in memory and experience; an other in other words, that survives all Cartesian demons unscathed.