allegiance major shareholders approached, page-31

“Suppose we have an argument with each other. If you beat me instead of me beating you, are you necessarily Right and I’m Wrong? If I beat you instead of you beating me, am I necessarily Right and you’re Wrong? Must one of us be Right, and the other Wrong? Could both of us be Right, and both of us be Wrong? Since neither of us can come to an agreement on that, then other people would be impervious to our muddled ignorance. Should we ask someone else to decide who’s Right? What if we ask someone who agrees with you? Since he already agrees with you, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who agrees with me? Since he already agrees with me, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who disagrees with both of us? Since he already disagrees with both of us, how can he make the decision! What if we ask someone who agrees with both of us? Since he already agrees with both of us, how can he make the decision! Since that’s so, then you and I and others wouldn’t be able to come to any agreement. Do we depend on other people’s opinions? “Each changing tone of sound might be waiting for another sound to reverberate with, or it might not seem to be waiting for anything, but they’re harmonized within the scope of the heavens. In that way they spread out gracefully then fade away after running their course. What’s meant by being ‘harmonized within the scope of the heavens?’ One could say: Right may not be Right; So may not be So. If Right was no different from Non-Right, then there’d be no reason for arguments about what was Right and what was Non-Right. If So was no different from Non-So, then there’d be no reason for arguments about what was So and what was Non-So."