I could offer a point-by-point rebuttal (speaking as someone who is doing my best not to be convinced by either party) but it strikes me that it would be fairly pointless, because we'd be talking about our different /interpretations/ of something. We can never talk about our experiences directly because that's one of the limits of communication, especially verbal communication. Assuming otherwise is to court Ayn Rand-style objectivism.Examples:
Peace is inside of you and very beautiful, but you have to be constantly reminded to have it;
Peace is inside of you and very beautiful, but you have to constantly remind yourself to experience it.
Knowledge is natural and simple, but it's also really hard;
Knowledge is natural and simple AND it's really hard? As an artist I try to work with 'natural' and 'simple' conceptual models. As a musician I try to work with 'natural' (for the medium) and 'simple' (for the context) musical bases, and it's really hard.
Knowledge is easy and natural, but you need somebody else to get to it
I'm being critical of my own criticalness, but:
Knowledge is easy and natural, but it helps to have somebody reminding you of its changing nature, preventing you turning it into a set of dogmas?
