Imagine that the human ability to form hypotheses was lost (rejected, or never existed at all). What does this mean for reality? This means only one thing - in the place where there was a table with a glass of wine, anything can appear from now on. The phrase “anything” means that we can observe both something we already know and know, and something we have never seen before. It may even be something so unexpected that we will not be able to attach any meaning to it. Although, as experience shows, we tend to see only what we are ready to see. And vice versa, we don’t see what we don’t expect to see. As you can see, hypotheses about reality again interfere with this process. In modern clinical practice, this state of affairs is relevant to psychosis[1]. In other words, we call a person who perceives something that is inaccessible to the perception of others crazy. Is it because he acts as a threat to our stability, or rather a threat to our ideas that the world around us is stable? Let me remind you that just a few centuries ago, madness did not exist at all. So, we are not ready to lose the myth of stability. However, while gaining calm, we lose new opportunities, rooted in the readiness to perceive something new and unexpected. The inability to give meaning to what is happening is a problem that frightens us only as long as we perceive meaning-making as a mental process determined by the same dynamics of hypotheses about the essence of reality . For example, if we were able to level out such radical differences in the probabilistic status of current hypotheses, anxiety would undoubtedly also be leveled out. Simply put, if a person were ready to realize fundamentally any phenomenon in his living space, then the anxiety of madness would have no source. Sense-making would be liberated from the yoke of ruling hypotheses. Moreover, the formation of meaning would also fall outside the jurisdiction of concepts. It would leave the limits of mentality and spread to the entire space of experience. In other words, if we treat meaning not as a connection between the current situation and a person’s concepts, fixed images and ideas, but as the current context of experience itself, then we will be freed from anxiety, which induces the emergence and maintenance of the myth about the stability of reality. I'll try to simplify what was said. We are accustomed to thinking that meaning should always presuppose some more or less stable connection with our worldview, ideas about ourselves and the world[2]. In this case, the category of meaning appeals to concepts. Of course, if one or another element of the phenomenological field comes into conflict with any of the important concepts of a person, it is simply thrown out of awareness, since its appearance could destabilize the “inner world” and life of a person. If it nevertheless appears in the focus of a person’s awareness, then a crisis begins. Basic concepts of both oneself and the world are under threat of destruction, which cannot but cause anxiety. Moreover, anxiety appears not only, and sometimes not so much, in the agent of awareness itself. The people around you sometimes find themselves much more frightened by what is happening. To cope with this anxiety, you need to take its source beyond “personal” experience. Thus, several centuries ago, the first ideas about madness and madmen appeared. Almost simultaneously with this, a tendency towards segregation of people “realizing the impossible” arose. Now the ruling concepts could be safe. However, judging by the fact that the number of “mental disorders” and the corresponding manuals and reference books is only growing decade after decade, the anxiety from the mismatch between the content of concepts and new phenomena does not decrease over time. And this is where the next alternative becomes obvious - or the ongoing expansion means of segregation, or transformation of ideas about