KPLL No.2 affirms the inability to meaningfully analyse parts independent of their relationship to the whole (as any independence requires nonsense disconnects that are meaningless and contrary to KPLL No. 1).

The world around us co-exists with us at-once -- no science, at least none that rely on measurable confirmations (reliant on speed-of-light delays) can fully and entirely confirm that at-once nature. That is to say, there will remain a fullness (wholeness) to life that will not be fully revealed by scientific inquiry.

Key Principle of Life, For Life No. 2:
All occurs at once

We may appreciate, in accordance with KPLLs 1 and 2, that any particular statement, thought, idea or belief that does not explicitly make mention of, or include the at-once reality and participation of both parts and wholes does not represent a root-level truth about life.

This leads us to the third Key Principle of Life, for Life;

Key Principle of Life, For Life, No. 3:
Root-level truths embrace paradoxes¹

To assert that some statement, idea, fact or belief about some aspect of life is True, while discounting or removing the participation of each part that composes the whole of life is clearly not a complete Truth, but only a biased, limited understanding.

Are there some rules by which we can clarify our understanding of life? Are there key principles that can be used for practical results, to yield greater creativity, understanding, ease, peace-of-mind?

Clearly, a key principle must exist .. some connecting mechanism or principle has to be operating at a root level of life. Furthermore, whatever that principle, it has to accommodate the theories and proofs of science, particularly science's most successful physical theory in history (quantum mechanics).

How might we recognise this principle? What should we look for? Can we use it in any area of life, to more deeply understand any experience?

Introducing the Paⁱradox Rule -- a useful tool by which to assess 'truth' and by which to advance understanding, insight, creativity and effectiveness.

Q. Is Darwinian Evolution correct, or "Intelligent Design"?