A deep breath... a moment set upon contemplation quickly turns to chaos... another breath, this time much shallower... conscious of the tensions holding it back. The discord between this sensation and 'the unbearable lightness of being' exacerbates my discomfort.

The fact that the majority of the stress finds root in my mind does little to improve my situation, except maybe to propose a new perspective.

A large part of my discomfort rests in the distance between my interests and the knowledge lending to their accomplishment. My history still lacks the weight of fact.

To a point, I know how to overcome this lack of confidence. The inquisitive mind, transforming problems into challenges - refusing barriers - undertakes the process of exposition.

But should our subject accept the potentiality of insurmountable obstacles? Tautological paradoxes aside (ie: problems the answer to which logically imply divergence from the terms of supposition), can the case be made either for or against what might be called 'that which is obscured from the potential to be known or understood'?

Can we 'know' anything?... or can we 'know' everything? The case might be easier made for the latter, than the former.

Regardless, even at the most base level, absent positive conceptions of development, the concept of learning - of experientially and/or logically affected intellectual change - is undeniable.

Whether or not the process can be fruitful (ie: lending to private or publicly valued ends), is another question altogether.

More to the point: does the will to an end and the logical appreciation of the means imply access to said means? Would it be too simple to say that the redundant question of access to means can be reduced to a utilitarian approach to structure?