>>18
I have a notion that both 1 and 2 are correct, relatively, and ambiguously (they apply to more than one thing and/or situation).
Sorry to confuse the issue.
I'd rather have an all-inclusive explanation rather than a far-fetched exclusive explanation that fits only certain situations.
Does this make sense? If I use a metaphor to explain a universal process I'm not talking about the example, I'm talking about the process that exists in everything. The only way to see it is to loosen the rigidity of thought and make it flexible. This means fundamentally, a way of thinking that is changeable and easily manipulated to confirm to what is found; not what is remembered. "If the map doesn't match the ground; change the map." Understand? I am the one that needs to change. Because people change and all things given exposure an interaction eventually change to alternating degrees; I must re-learn what I have learned. Thus, I can truly know nothing; I must always be learning. Does this make sense?
And because of perception, there are certain things that we can really never know. But, that is only for me to say. If others want to disagree; that's okay with me. With the way I think, it's good and I would like to hear the alternative.
Thanks for reading.