(RELATIVE THOUGHT BASED ON THE COMMUNICATIVE BASE OF CONGRUENT PERCEPTION PROCESSES cont. from above post)

We now discover that [e] must have the same potential for flaw as [a]! This new vaiable, called [d^] (the ^ so you can tell the difference between [d] and [d^], and not for any mathematical value. also, d^=(e?%b)) must be added to the equation. So, the new equation would look like the following:

([e-d^]a-d)+([e-d^]b-d)=f

so, based on the equation, we gather that the surrounding circumstances minus the probability of thier misconception, multiplied by ones perception (minus its probability of misconception), plus the same process after replacing perception with position, must equal two in order to be correct.

Now, the variable [c], which we have not discussed in full yet, can be defined. [c] being one's value after [b] is determined, [c] must equal [f], or

(([e-d^]a-d)+([e-d^]b-d)=f)=c

Variables:
a - One's perception of his relative postion
b - One's actual relative postion
c - One's actual value based on position
d - The probability of [a]'s misconceiving [b]
e - The surrounding circumstances perception of [b]
f - The value of equation ([e-d^]a-d)+([e-d^]b-d), which must equal two in order for [a] and [e] to be correct.

In conclusion, we can realize the following:

1. Your perception of your value in a given situation is subject to flaw
2. The circumstance's general perception of your value in a given situation is subject to flaw
3. If both your perception and the circumstances perception are subject to flaw and both become flawed, the outcome is not nessescarily true.

Thus, what you might think and what other people might think of your value has nothing to do with what your value actualy is.