The idea of reflection if not reflection itself, that you know the knowing, that without the irreducible reality of this you wouldn't even have raised the question. But on the contrary as soon as such a question is raised all the concomitant notions of reflection and existence beyond thought arise necessarily but only as expressions of the heterogeneity of the premises and not, as you thought, of a latent knowledge that is always trying to break through. So, the mind is such that it must raise reflexive questions which it cannot answer and which it has no warrant for being able to answer, but it mistakes the mere possibility for such a warrant. (What you are trying to do is to push a certain operation of doubt further upstream than it can go. Is this operation merely skepticism or is it Cartesian doubt? Does it break down or break through?) But say that these are questions that arise in a mind which the mind is in no way equipped to resolve, say they are questions you are not entitled to, that exceed the design specifications of the machine? You can still 'do' them? And by natural perversity you can persist in them. What then? Do you blow up the machine? If so, what then follows, where does it take you? Surely somewhere interesting. And if not, then you activate some sort of fail-safe - you are confronted by the incoherence of the striving, by its inadmissibility - but how did it 'know' to do that? Doesn't it have to have been able to get beyond itself to look back in this way?