So... one can only understand what they are by: stopping what they are, that is, learning what they aren't, and within having this new found knowledge is the essense of becoming something else, and therefore never having a chance to find out what one is, only what one was; and, if in doing so one found out that what they were was preferable to what they had become, the road back is, in effect, closed for eternity.

I understood this perfectly--I think. Let me try reframing it, and sweet musick can correct me if I'm wrong. Let's say that what we are, prior to learning another culture, is
'A'. Learning another culture ("what we aren't") is 'B'.
The process of 'B' somehow changes us irrevocably, and so we become 'C', and can never go back to being just 'A'.

I disagree--to a certain extent. I believe that most
people will indeed be influenced by acquired knowledge. But it doesn't follow that everyone will be. And this theory does not allow for the possibility that a 'C'-state
person could consciously decide to rid himself of all 'B'
influences. If someone did that, they would then return to being 'A'.

Furthermore, I suspect that SM made this post tongue-firmly-in-cheek. So, you see, SM, I have foiled your little plot, hah hah haa-aah...