Actually, this "chop wood carry water" analogy has its own reflection (these days I have too many words in my mind and I can't decide on a right word for this--mirror, image, projection, version, impression, copy, etc.). See, before IT, I am scattered and shy and unable to focus; after IT, I am still scattered and shy and unable to focus. I suppose I will have to act like God to overcome myself being human (I mean, being myself). Boy, even enlightenment is not the ultimate. Even IT is not IT.

Hmmm, last night I read one page of Gödel Escher Bach book, and incidentally came across the concept that outside Zen, there is not Zen, or even Zen is not complete. I hope the above realization "IT is not IT", shows that I am still learning more about IT and getting better. Maybe this will make me humble again.

I am interested in the subject "what kind of people are more likely to get IT and why". Do you think it would be a good subject to explore? The basic theme would actually be, "why are people the way they are". For example, in one of my earlier email I asked the question, "what kind of people are atheist?" Since everyone is only a mirror image of anyone else. Would be very interesting to draw a comparison chart of atheist vs. vegetarian vs. Christian vs. biologist, etc. and see the common things in them. Maybe this is the area of social science or psychology?

As I am writing this, I am gradually understanding where epistemology fits in this big scheme of things. It is to be able to "jump out of the system" and see the common things between seemingly completely different things. In mathematics it is called mapping, one-to-one mapping. Yes, since everything is an image of everything else, everything is a reflection of itself, the trick now for me (if I want to pursue this) is to find a subject of real interests to me and produce a work.

Wow, it is true, the channel is getting deeper and wider....

> You are getting Chinese. :) Zen is just Ch'an Buddhism (or
> however it is written today in pinyin. And think, you can
> even read the Old Master in the original text!

I was about to read Lao'zi and Zhuang'zi later today, because I actually have their books with translations (Chinese translations, of course! since the original is quite difficult to understand, unless I want to devote my time to do my own translation, which can be interesting--like what you did to Bruno's work). If I learn some more about these things, I should definitely write a book about comparative religion.

This experience is really telling me a lot about who I am. I need to listen quietly and learn what I am telling myself. What I have learned so far is--science is really not my cup of tea. My original interest in physics lies in the implication of metaphysics, and now I get META-physics, so science is no longer that interesting to me. Seems all my life I have been preparing myself for THIS. But I really should pick a direction and go. I will keep writing, since I have always liked writing. And I will somehow make myself a celebrity too. And maybe I will learn more music, and other fun things in life.

Gödel Escher Bach is really a monumental book. I doubt I can produce anything better than that. But again, he is probably a mathematician and a musician and a computer scientist, so he can do a god job applying the principles in these areas. I don't have an area of expertise yet.

-- email excerpt to F.