Thank you for this, Mr. Kernan.

It seems one of these "meta" considerations is to consider how difficult it was to "simultaneously" in some sense:

1. Identify these terms

2. Understand to at least some degree how important they are and WHY they are important

3. Locate great core examples and cite readily available resource which document them to some degree

4. Relate them in a way which was personal and did not strike the reader as "bragging" either in the context of something you "know" as a fact and perhaps they don't, or even by way of overtly claiming you're possessing genetic material that makes you better since you clearly have the material referred to as in some way important.

5. "Stood on the shoulders" of your father's experience and reasonable deductions of his own limitations and "frailties"--i.e., he 'envy' which prompted, in some sense, many of these reflections.

6. Did it under the overall branch of "correlative" not "causative" reasoning. i.e., SOLID reasoning. The reasoning that understands we find most answers when you assume you DO NOT understand everything perfectly rather than "rest firm on convictions which are poised above foundations of sand."

And several other things.

I am sure I will liberally take advantage of your thoughts here, and credit them where directly referenced but credit them even further than that: Using them to ALLOW myself to think better than I previously have. To be fairer about my assessments of other people and do so better from the understanding of the sometimes subtle difference between 'knowledge' and 'intelligence.'

It is so very true that in what we call "nuance" so many more things could surely be understood.