It is in the nature of content to inspire confusing messages. This is how content protects itself from the casual eyes of strangers, with a web of divergent, confused, over-lapping messages, which only the pure of heart have the courage to endure.
It is as simple to understand, that nature begets a creature of words which that creature employs in relating to others of its kind the content and purpose of nature. Nature has one more surprise. This is, that the creatures believe in an omnipotent god or gods who serve as nature's master. Nature disappears in the woolen knitting ball of the language matrix and being fronted by a bearded mouthpiece.
Nature and content are clearly a problem for different but closely related reasons.
I choose to believe in God as God, not as nature's proxy or its master, though I can consider God as content. For instance, I am concerned with myself, and I do what I can, given the circumstances, but imagine (I ask myself) how many souls God has seen in like circumstances, how many souls She has seen hop out of the dugout of the empyrean womb to take their place at the dish of Jerusalem and take their swings? And yet, His eye is fresh to the promise of each soul. She knows the averages and at the same time is blind to mere numbers. That is the promise of my religion, as I understand it, and it is not a bad promise, as promises go.
The question that arises is whether it is in the nature of God to produce confusing messages. The answer I believe is that God is not merely content, or locatable as content and subject to the approximations or conditions of content. Neither is God a problem. To say She is would be to make of problems a God - a diaphanous, ill-veined, diabolical construction.
Content that is presumed to displace God marks a colonization of the soul. I take this choice to be a much greater problem than even if a stranger were to occupy your house against your choice.
Material derives from content and its relation to Nature in the form of explicit, implicit, and latent messages. There is a sameness to relations in as much as the ethical is full of meaning, brimming with meaning. A message is an avenue of meaning; all such messages function on an alterior plane, where definitions are bought by comparison, endorsement, or exclusion. The universality of the ethical is in this sameness, the quotidian wash of care and concern, anger and forgiveness. No one thought can suffice where the presumptions are natural, the goal material. Not merely the medium, but the messaging is the message.
There are signs and displays. Encampments, bake sales. A referendum follows a day of longing hinged on a proposal of music tonight. And tomorrow; tomorrow we visit the country.
