IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF FAULT LINES.

          In the philosophy of fault lines, the Problem of the First and Only Tower of Eos was the question of how to reconcile the existence of the continent's turbulent inner core with the free will of the inhabitants above.
           The term “Tower” was used with a wide variety of different meanings. These tend to fall, however, into two main groups. On the one hand, there were metaphysical interpretations of the term: The “God of Towers” as a prime mover, or a first cause, or a necessary being that had its necessity of itself, or a being whose essence was identical with its existence. On the other hand, there were interpretations that connect the term “First and Only Tower” in a clear and relatively straightforward way with city affairs, and with intrinsic metropolitan desires, such as longing for a Tower to triumph, that the continent not be one where fractures prevail, or that the location never be one to be controlled or carved in error.
            Arguments from the inner continent attempt to show that the co-existence of core exposure and such a “Tower of Eos” is unlikely or impossible, and attempts to show the contrary have been traditionally known as the compatible composition defense.  If however, this defense were to fall, if a First and Only Tower of Eos was ever truly constructed or conceived beyond reflection, it could have only been approached through the dark or in avoidance, alone with outright shadows or else obscured until conclusion.