Please forgive me for attempting to assist others in answering my own question. Wittgenstein, who died in 1951, is one of the leading contributors to philosophy in the first half of the 20th century. He issued statements somewhat aphoristic in nature and left it to others to probe to find amongst them an internal consistency -- an integrated set of subsumptive relations, if you will -- and there are controversies even among the wisest of some of those as to whose resultant interpretations of that are what the man intended. I have never had a course in philosophy in my life, but do love to read and think and wonder and pose questions to learn from the viewpoints of others. As best I can gather, Wittgenstein would have us understand that if a baby were isolated from all other humans all its life (if it could even live to adulthood at all) would not have a language, any cultural beliefs, nor perhaps any notions about eternity or creation or anything else. (This is far to brief a space to pull in more than a simplistic, hence, false-by-being-grossly-unexhausted picture... but must suffice for an entry to the subject.) But, on to the dilemma I am struggling with... namely: If none of use can communicate, nor act, nor think, nor evaluate even scientific evidence except as we have been aculturated to do (by virtue of something even if greater than the sum of its parts, which is our unique interaction with our milieu) then how do we explain those great synthesists such as Newton, Bacon, Einstein... who go one step beyond all that has been a mere response to bouncing our lives and thoughts off the lives and thoughts of others to whom we are exposed? Why do some of us (including I) strain to see beyond all that others have made of us? If Wittgenstein has spoken to that issue, I have not discerned it yet. If you have, then please share with me your take on it.