A statement/account that connects to rational study It always exists but humans are always unable to understand it all things come into accordance with the logos

'always true' is a strong statement, does this mean that it will be true forever? how can someone be expected to understand the logos before hearing it?-does this require the right type of consciousness or can we learn the logos after repeated exposure

If the belief is that all things come into accordance with the logos then all events are rationally intelligible there is no random chance for Heraclitus otherwise there would be things that don't come into accordance with the logos=impossible

this is because some humans don't have the right experiences to understand the logos humans don't always live consciously; they don't notice what is around them so they don't understand the logos humans not critically examining perceptions=not understanding the logos the world is hard to understand, we are not cognitively limited

the logos is common-could mean that the account it purely objective the account is inter-subjective- it depends on a point of view but not necessarily your point of view logos seems to be more objective

most people live their lives without paying attention to the objective logos people pay attention to their private understanding and may accidentally follow the logos

there is an objective way the world is, independent of our own private understanding of the world the objective world is rational and knowable lack of awareness means that we are stuck in our subjective understanding of the world contradictions in the world are designed to shake us awake so we can be more aware of the logos

everything is in constant flux every item is changing,between any two points in time, x is changing every feature there is numerical identity and qualitative similarity and there is no sense in which something is either of these across time they must always change

the logos tells us that all things are one, this implies that despite appearances all things turn out to be one in cases where there seems to be plurality, there is in fact one things unity of opposites everything flows and nothing rests

change implies plurality-there must be two things if an object changes

he discussed both change/plurality and fundamental unity/logos which one do we believe?

stress flux/change unity follows from flux theory

flux wakes us from unawareness takes us from subjective appearances which appear to show things in changing plurality

We cannot step in the same river twice-it is in flux we can step into the same river, just with different water flowing-still the same body of water