Everything exists within an environment consisting of other things with which it is inter-dependent and with which it interacts. All known things, TO1, TO2, TO3 etc., have parts, TP1, TP2, TP3 etc. and are parts of something greater, TG, which are parts of something greater still and have a function with respect to the whole. The whole is always more than the sum of the parts owing to the patterns of the interactions. Things exist as, and are known, only by these relationships - (a) the interactions between the entity and its parts TO<>TP. (b) the interactions between the entities TO1 <> TO2 etc. (c) the interaction between the entity and the whole it belongs to TO<>TG. These interactions constitute their experiences.

There is an Absolute Whole that is not part of anything else. It cannot be described as the sum of the parts. But all entities have a function with respect to it directly or indirectly, and can exist only because of this function. Ultimately, Truth refers to this function. (At the other end, the parts probably become indistinguishable from each other and also form a uniformity.)

Everyone is born, matures, changes and gradually learns from experience in contact with the environment, and by thought processing according to their various capacities and interests. This is how individuals grow, but it is also how the whole human race has grown and the Biosphere and probably the Universe itself. An object may be defined as a bundle of information or Truth, and development implies that there is a Reservoir from which Truth is transferred to these various entities.

Everyone has a different set of experiences, capacities, and interests and makes different amounts of efforts with respect to different things. Therefore, we get multiplicity of different natures and opinions. Since all entities, including human beings have limitations, then the totality of known reality Rk, itself a small part of total reality Rt, is described by the sum of all the experiences of all the entities. Each entity has its own unique function within this whole that is different from that of others. Each is a small part Re of Rt. Its knowledge Rke is a small part of Rk. Thus RT > Rk > Rke.

The knowledge possessed by an entity Re1 will be different from that of Re2, Re3, Re4.....etc. Therefore, Rke1, Rke2, Rke3, Rke4....etc. will be different. These different sets of knowledge may (1) Overlap (2) be mutually exclusive (3) One may include others.

The greater the capacity, experience and effort a person makes the greater should become their knowledge and understanding and being. This is like a ladder which human beings must ascend. Or like a pyramid the apex of which represents Unity and the base represents multiplicity. A person who reaches the apex and has a sufficiently wide angled vision will see the whole of the base as a single system. He will agree with every other person who reaches the apex and has the same angle of vision.

Unfortunately some people develop fixations, addictions, emotional attachments to certain kinds of ideas - they acquire dogmas, which is a kind of idolatry. The angle of their vision narrows down and they get stuck on a lower rung of the ladder well below the apex, and cannot make further progress. This is how sectarianism develops.

In order to understand these ideas, make a drawing of an upright triangle of 60 degree angles. The Triangle W represents the World. Draw seven horizontal lines between apex and base. These could be regarded as the heavens. At several points on each of these lines subtend two lines at 60 degrees down to the base. A line from the middle of the base to the apex could be drawn which represents a ladder, or the Straight Way, such that those at lower points are linked to those at higher points and lifted up by them. You will see that some sections are far from each other, some are next to each other but still mutually exclusive, some have common areas, some include others completely and so on. Now interpret the meaning of all this. Now interpret the meaning of all this. Note that we have a Unity represented in three ways:- by the apex, A, the base, X and the figure as a whole, W.

Suppose we call the person at the Apex P1. Now consider a person P2 who has not reached the apex. If his angle of vision is the same, then he will see less of the base as a unit than P1 at the apex and his opinion will differ from his. But if he is not arrogant and accepts the help of P1 he may himself be lifted to the apex. If he is arrogant (like some people we know) then he will suppose that his view is the absolute truth and he will also suppose that P1 is a fool, and he will refuse to climb because he cannot see that the ladder goes any further.

Now suppose there are several people P2, P3, P4, P5 etc. at any of the points on a level below the apex, and there are still other people at points on even a lower level still. Then if their angle of vision is the same (and it may be narrower) then each will see a different part of the base. But some views may overlap others. And if they are all equally arrogant (like the people we know), then they will all think they possess absolute knowledge and they will quarrel, call each other fools and they may even kill each other. But all are unable to see that the ladder goes further up and none can see what the others see, except in so far as the views overlap.

Suppose P2 has experiences a, b, c, d, e and P3 has experiences d, e, f, g, h, then they will agree on d and e and differ about everything else. P4 may have experiences e, f, g, h, i. He will agree with P3 in e and f and differ in everything else. But though P2 and P4 are in complete disagreement with each other, P3 may be a bridge between them. There could be similar bridges P5 between P4 and P6, and P7 between P6 and P8, until the whole of the possible field of experience is covered. We then get a series.

Each may, of course, also arrange the items of knowledge he has differently from the way others do it. There will be a difference between them even if they have exactly the same data. This data may exist in a certain pattern P1 at one time or in one environment. But it may change to P2 at another time or in another environment. Indeed, it is also possible for us to make rearrangements deliberately as when fictions are written or inventions are made. These differences between people can be removed if they agree that the arrangement of data is a matter of time, place or convenience and should be ignored. This will require that minds are free from rigidity and are not trapped by particular habits and patterns that are merely conditional.

Experience depends on our capacity to perceive. We compare and relate. This allows us to analyse, abstract and synthesise. The ability to see differences depends on our powers of discrimination. When we separate the differences we are left with what is common. Or conversely, we make concepts by abstracting things that are common, and what is left constitute differences. Experiences are not completely different from each other and form classes so that a number of experiences a1, a2, a3, a4 etc. exist which are like each other in some respect, denoted here by "a", and different from each other in other respects, denoted here by the numbers 1, 2, 3 etc. These classes could form a similar series as above. Each item could also be seen as a part of some greater whole, itself part of a greater whole, and divided into parts which can be further divided. There is a distinction between classes, wholes and systems. A system consists not only of parts that may fall into classes, but also has an order or pattern.

The experiences we have do not remain isolated but form links and systems. The same set of experiences can form several different systems. e.g. abcde, acbde, adcbe, aebcd, bacde, cbadc etc. etc.

Or we could also have sub-systems abc, ed, cde, adec etc. etc. (There can be any number or classes of items and the order may be in many dimensions)

It follows that differences of opinion can arise because of the formation of fixations on particular systems. Nature, however, is constantly dissolving systems and recreating new ones. The intelligent person does the same - he analyses and re-synthesises. Or he holds all the experiences as atomic events that he may form into any system which may be appropriate to any purpose.

In order to live human beings require three things: - correct thoughts (beliefs, doctrines), motives and action. These three are inter-connected. Knowledge refers to correct thought and these should lead to correct motives, which should lead to correct actions. But actions lead to modification of the person and also the surroundings. Correct actions are those which lead to those modifications which are in accord with the Divine Universal Plan. It is this, which man was made for.

It is also the case that the correct modification of the individual will cause correct actions, correct motives and correct thoughts. The capacity for receiving correct knowledge, understanding and acting according to it, depends on the quality of consciousness, conscience and will. This requires that the individual is receptive, properly tuned as it were, in a state where "resonance" with the Universal Force, the Divine Word can occur.

All things in existence are connected directly or indirectly with other things. Otherwise they cannot be known or have any effect. In fact things are known only by their effects on other things. All things exist within a context of other things with which they interact. If you take a thing out of its context and put it into another, then there will be new interactions and the thing will have a different set of characteristics. The acquisition of knowledge implies a context and interaction. Reality, Rt, consists of all the actions of all entities in existence. There are, therefore, a great number of inter-connected actions A1, A2, A3....An. A real situation as produced by behaviour, can be experienced differently by different entities or people according to their various natures - what senses and faculties they have and what part of the total spectrum of reality they are tuned into. We can call these E1, E2, E3.......En. Each of these experiences can also be described verbally in many different ways depending on how people experience and use language. We now have D1, D2, D3......Dn within each E.

The reason why scientists agree is because they do the same actions in the same situation, e.g. a laboratory or field. They also have the same training and use the same conceptual system or language. The same is, of course, true of those who follow a religion.

Consider an event X which is experienced by two observers O1 and O2 as E1 and E2 respectively, and they apply the description D1 and D2 to it respectively. Then D1 relates to E1 and D2 relates to E2. Because the observers cannot experience what the other experiences, or know how the other understands a word, there cannot be any agreement between them about either E or D. There is an agreement only if D1 and E1 relate to X and E2 and D2 also relate to X. It does not matter then how people experience things and how they understand words. In order to experience each will have to translate the forces coming from the object into experiences. In order to communicate these experiences have to translated into a description. O1 will have to encode his experiences, transmit this to O2 who must decode it into his experiences. These experiences will only correspond if the same words W are associated with X.

All this requires that we acknowledge that there is something X, something objective apart from our experience of it. But obviously, it cannot have the properties that we experience. Since nothing has these properties, there is an unknown uniformity and Unity, an Absolute underlying experience. Different kinds of experiences are, therefore, different kinds of relationship we have with the Absolute.

It follows that it is much more important that relationships should be appropriate rather than that doctrines should be uniform.

In fact, however, when scientists (and everyone else) make observations at different places and times, the object or event, X, is never the same. We assume that it is similar, that there is a class of events X1, X2, X3.....Xn described by some common feature such that when something is true of one, then it is true of the others in the class. We ignore the differences. This is a mistake that appears to be based on the idea that logical or rational thinking is something other than analogical thinking. Islamic thinking is analogical (Qias - measuring) and the Quran is full of similitudes.

All things have some similarities to other things and are also dissimilar from them. Justice (which applies not only to social law but also to thinking and correct psychological functioning) requires that things should be assessed and treated according to their similarities and dissimilarities. It is possible to place the same things into numerous different classes. A rule which applies to a class of things does not apply to the whole of any member of the class, and a member of a class can be described by rules which apply to several classes. The same thing can be used as an analogy to describe aspects of many things and the same thing can be described by many different analogies. This way of thinking has far reaching consequences.