Hi Charlie, Thanks you for the example. BTW, I am just working on linguistic paradox. So This is a visual paradox. We can not choose the "right" cube. Alfred Tarski examined the liar paradox and derived a theorem that said that in natural language there is no definition of Truth because paradox can exist : "Tarski's theorem establishes that classically interpreted languages capable of expressing arithmetic cannot contain a global truth predicate. A language containing its own global truth predicate is said to be semantically closed. Tarski's Theorem implies that classical formal languages with the power to express arithmetic cannot be semantically closed. This suggests that English itself may not be semantically closed, or, if English is closed, then it is self-contradictory. This shocking result indicates to some that our thought about our thoughts is incoherent." It seems that the same might apply to all senses (except kinethetic) where paradox can exist. If truth don't exist within a "language", we can not demonstrate anything within this frame. This is coherent with NLP which studies "subjective"  experience  (see p 276 of WITW). FA is the first level of transformation from the world so the incertitude might be lower than second order (F2 transform) but this is still not reality. In K, contradiction can not occur because 2 states collapse in one (see p 296 of WITW), which means that no paradox can exist, but the experience is still subjective. We are living in our description of the world. An personal example occured about 2 years ago when my wife, my son and I went in the office of somebody. There was a wooden articulated model (I hope that you can see what I mean) that people use as a help for drawing characters. About 2 minutes after we got in the office, my 3 years old son told us that the model has only one leg. This was obvioulsy right when both my wife and I looked carefully at the wooden model. But, I assume that as adults with "many" experiences with that kind we were expected to see something and that we saw it (or we filtered so much) whether it was true or not. only the examination of a 3 years old child was epistemological. I found it is a real issue to examine our hidden building blocks. As John pointed in his post : "it is interesting that you select the term "time distrortion" as my proposal would be the normal (with f2 filter operating) perception of variable speeds around you is the "distorted" one (additional f2 filters stabilizing it to create the illusion." I did not question what I had interpreted as time distortion. BEST