These materials are based on a synthesis of the methods described in the first part, which, we hope, provides a more comprehensive interpretation of the topics covered than relying on only one or some of them would. However, even this cannot provide full certainty.

Any written text is on an asymptotic line in relation to the truth: it can be further or closer to the truth, but it can never completely reach it. This is because of some intrinsic limitations that can be grouped into four categories:

  • The limitations of the subject (an author) refer to a finite mental capacity, the time and information available to an individual (so, for example, some details may be missed or even mistaken).
  • The limitations of the medium (a language) refer to the fact that no existing language is fully adequate to express the multi-dimensional nature of reality.
  • The limitations of the object (facts) refer to the imperfection of factual knowledge. For example, not taking into account currently accepted facts that may turn out to be inaccurate in the future would end in the existing incompleteness, but taking them into account would lead to a future incongruence (when these facts are modified).
  • The limitations of the context: any text is created at a particular time, in a particular place and within a particular mentality. It is hard to be completely immune to their influences, so some things may not fully resonate with a different time, space, or mentality.

This is not an invitation to relativize, in a post-modern fashion, the epistemological value of these materials. To what extent they approximate to the truth should be judged on the basis of the extent to which they comply with the criteria described in the first part. It is unlikely that new ways of knowledge acquisition will be discovered, and any reduction to one or some of them can hardly be superior to their synthesis (the problem with the frameworks that rely only on one of them is not so much in what they are claiming, but in what they are denying). The above limitations, however, do indicate that no interpretation can be complete and perfect, and if it is allowed to solidify and turn into an ideology, it ceases to be progressive. Therefore, the Synthesis should be taken as a dynamic process that can continue to be refined, the only condition being that the stated criteria are followed or their change is justified. There will always be a space for further developments, so this should not be considered the end, but a beginning.