Hi David - it is worth noting a few points in your reply.
I posted comments from about 1:30 a.m. EST to 3:30 a.m. EST last night, but wanted to locate the intention and removed the post.
So here is the post again, distilled.
First, I did predicate my post as being potentially more appropriate for a practice thread. So, you may note that b - d have no questions for you or anyone.
Your comments of course are welcome. This is a public thread and I replied to you, an initiation of communication.
___
You write:
">>>As the rest of your post is a reaction to your mis-interpretation of my post..."
About interpretations and mis-interpretations to what you said, to what i responded, and your follow-up:
As I noted in the brief post, even one person, Goldilocks, can
interpret three sensations from porridge.
Two people can manifest as many interpretations as they can conceive. 7 billion people worldwide can...
On what is an interpretation based?
Is interpretation based on a physical sense?
What can interpretation cause?
Considering the constituents of 'interpretation', should one's interpretation be so conclusive?
All to say, your interpretation is an interpretation. I accept that it exists on par with my own (many and ethereally founded) and that countless more exist in others.
We might inquire, before concluding.
Not a lecture: my own drive for singular conclusiveness of ideas has (also) had unnecessarily harsh edges here, amid colleagues.
Just an fyi.
____
And, welcome to the DhO.
{per usual, folks: editing immediately following post for 1 minute...}
{Ooo: second edit for meaning, 3minutes after post. gah.}
{edit three: adding a quote for clarity}