This is very well put.
I think to say we are one way as opposed to the other i.e. deterministic or relative or name another if you like, is a common sticking point or communication killer, it is a mistake we make and all face and employ at times and especially in politics.

I notice this in philosophy forums were many threads are started out with a question of is it this vs. that which is a disabled question form to begin with and leaving no room for solvency compared to reality unless the question is reformulated properly. Most often both perspectives offered as false opposites hold truths and relevancies to our human conditions.
We want to think that reason is our best or only intelligence that we communicate through which is seldom the case.
So we pit our linear thoughts and linear language intellects against other forms of our own thoughts that are intellects but not linear and this reflects as a disability in our arguments.
We say reality is this rather than that instead of saying it is relative to this defining truth when I look from this perspective and relative to that when I look from that other perspective. This is contrived division. We also communicate more holistically like qtwerp points out.

I jumped into this thread half by chance and half by my eye catching someone saying things were only one way.

There are more perspectives to see, there is always more to see.

The more we allow ourselves to see of our own thought processes the more we can choose between those forms and attributes and combine them the better.

If we let them choose us because it works for what we are pushing in argument at the time instead, then we are, then from there on out, ruled by only half the truth or less.