To me, this is a book of inquiry rather than discovery. There is always the implication that discovery is just around the corner, but it never fully materializes and that, of course, is the ultimate discovery.
I was reminded of the Greek philosopher, Pyrrho of Elis, and the philosophical school of skepticism. Pyrrho rejected all dogma. He was, in fact, skeptical of skepticism itself since it, too, represents a dogma.
A dogma is a widely shared and authoritative opinion used to explain things where explanation is not obvious. When humankind first encountered the rainbow or lightening, for example, there was no obvious scientific explanation. But surely the first observer did not simply go back to his or her hunting and gathering. They created an explanation. And that explanation became dogma.
The problem with dogma is that reality exists in a context of infinite dimensions and an unfathomable array of shades and colors. Whatever rules we develop, as a result, there are always exceptions. When we define a dogma, therefore, we both set a stake in the sand and box in the truth. By giving it dimension we have given life to its exception.
That is the paradox, I think, explored here. It is a paradox not quite resolved, but it is a very interesting exploration for sure.