2) you say it's representations all the way down? Well it doesn't look that way to me. Or the author apparently. So that's two of us.
3) go with extremely unlikely then. Don't trip over it.
2) And your opinion should be postulate in discussion? Especially when it was reminded that the representational nature of the mind and knowledge was recognized since the dawn of thought then called a main problem (Kant) and the starting point (Schopenhauer) at relative maturity? You think that just saying that "you see otherwise" suffices?
3) And the critical difference should be one of "degrees"?! It has to be _proven_, whether it is 'impossible' or 'almost so'. And if that rhetoric that sounds like sophism just meant "'difficult' in front of obstacles", well that should be more obvious to the architect than to the commenting passer-by looking from the border of the construction site - it is a very gratuitous note which wastes everyone's time; and it if it meant so, it should have expressed so instead of literally different statements (and morally "bait").
First of all, what makes you think that this was not clear.
Secondly - why, the human mind does not work through representations? Kant and the noumenon came here to be ignored? Schopenhauer and the Vorstellung? Is it not evident anyway?
Third: that idea, all those there written ideas, should be there to /entail/ that "something is impossible". That is their task. I would like to see those Key Performance Indicators met.