We have answers to everything.
This is not incomprehensible. In fact, it is assumed. But somewhere along our timeline we as a society have come to believe that there are varying, and many, answers to any single question. We do not adopt this imagination with every industry, for then much would fail, but where we can get away with it, we will defend it. Mostly, we give credence to a single solution when we are regarding anything tangible or of an externally sensed nature, but of the intangibles and metaphysical, we disbelieve in an exclusive explanation.
In other words, the avowal of multiple, complete conclusions for any given conundrum is considered asinine in accounting, science, natural observation, and logic, but viewed as enlightened when concluded in areas of morals, ethics, thought, and lifestyle.
“Every answer has importance,” we say. And this is true insofar as the answer stays true to its nature. But the state of being important and worthy of acknowledgement does not mean an answer is correct. In the same way, we know what is incorrect by what is correct. What is incorrect is worthy of notice, it tells us just how correct correct is, but we would never infer from its expository nature that it is correct itself. It is correct in its incorrect nature, not correct by its correct nature.
Why is it, if I told you one hundred divided by ten was twenty-six, you would challenge me. Why is it, if I told you the sun revolved around the earth, you would dismiss me with utter contempt, disdaining my postulation. Why is it, if I told you you don’t actually exist, you would blow me off with a laugh (well most of you).
And yet, why is it, if I told you one hundred divided by ten was ten, and the earth revolves around the sun, and that your existence is very much a reality, you would agree with me?
Because incorrect is incorrect, and correct is correct, regardless of what we theorize about it.
But the course we have taken is to accept this patent truth in any tangible situation, and disregard it for everything else of intangible nature. So mathematics and science have correct solutions, a true, natural identity, but life of thought, of ideals and mindsets and philosophies and religions have not a singular, ultimate claim. Why?
Grace is not given for engineers to arrive at imperfect calculations when designing structures. There is a logical reason for that. The integrity of a structure depends on absolutely correct computation. That is, the integrity of a thing relies on singular solutions, and not a multitude of theories.
For the integrity of our beliefs about intangibles a single answer is required.
Seek the correct, Reader. For it is out there.