Not all questions are equal.

This is something I am sure most people already recognize on some conscious level, though, I think there is very little thought as to why this is the case. I am one of the people who has generally overlooked the various differences they have but today was something a little different. Today, I was forced to think through every one of the main questioning words with a little more purpose than usual, and it forced me to see things in a bit of a new light.

Who? This is a fairly easy question to answer. All it takes is to simply identify the people/personalities/characters involved and present them as requested. Certainly, there are numerous deeper factors that can be explored on any given answer but it is the base question of 'who?' which is a fairly easy hurdle to clear. This question has a medium sort of weight to it.

What? This is nearly identical to who in almost every way. All answers in this realm are fairly concrete and easy to identify, under normal circumstances. Again, there is a possibility that deeper factors are available for exploration but, in general, this question sits at a basically medium weight as well.

When? This one is essentially identical to 'where?' and seems to me to be the lightest of all these questions. It is a literal consideration of chronological evidence and has very little flexibility to it. The answers can be confused or incomplete but the facts and reality always exist in a measurable form. Outside of an infinite continuum, this question has very little weight to it.

Where? A basic repeat of the 'when?' analysis suits this particular question fine. The only additional bonus to this one is the possibility of the metaphysical, as there are definitely places which do not occur in the normal physical realm. Thusly, it gains a slightly higher weight than the 'when?' does... but really only slightly.

How? This is where things start to get really meaty. The 'how?' of things is one of the profoundly driving forces in the world inspiring progress and exploration. Man comprehends so little about what actually is and through the manifestation of 'how?' he climbs further and further out into the realms of knowledge he comes to realize is even more incomprehensible. This is a question which by its very nature generates more questions. It can have definitive closure, yet, there is little frequency of this occurrence to true satisfaction. This question has a very high level of weight to it.

Why? If there is one question which could be considered the literal parent of all others,(which in itself is a fairly presumptuous statement) I would have to say that it is this one. This is a question which begs the motives of the human, physical, and metaphysical world. It nearly always evades closure by its nature. Even when it is answered in simple terms it still can have place for immense depth and obfuscation. There are few complete answers to it which can satisfy its demands. Truly, there is little to compare when attempting to assign any sort of weight value to it. It is heavier than them all combined.

There are always many more ideas that could be expounded on any one of these topics. Indeed, I have only shed a tiny flicker of candlelit exposure to these topics, and still then I am far from a masterful scholar thereto. I appreciate the movement they have inspired in my mind today, though, and expect a long life of learning to revolve around any of these from time to time. The never ending process of learning is quite the experience!