email excerpt from F.

Subject: putting intuition into words Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 11:39:18 -0400

> There's a difference between being able to understand the theory behind General Systems (and all related areas) in an intuitive way, and being able to realize it in a tangible way in a particular subject. And then, being able to formulate it in words is also different from the two. I believe I have the intuition, while most people working in Complexity know how to apply the theory in various disciplines, and they can formulate the work in math terms. So, for me, it is a long way to produce a thesis. My mind, when it is free, enjoys the freedom in literature and music. It is not disciplined in scientific reasoning. Eve! n writing this paragraph is very difficult for me.

Oh, but I never suggested that you should follow *their* path, and do a thesis on that. At any rate and again, a purely mathematic view of the world is by definition a reductionist view of the world. You can do better.

> I tried to write something without "to be" and it is impossible, because I actually *love* the vagueness that comes with this verb and other imprecise words. Perhaps I am Chinese, and Chinese language is very vague--we don't even have grammar. I use language as an artistic _expression, not as a set of scientific symbols. Hmm, maybe this is one reason why modern science and technology have to come from the West.

Yes, one of them. The other is the Son of Heaven's edict of the early 15th century (1431? 1433? I don't remember) that withdrew China from the colonial conquest of the world, and redirected its (her?) energy towards maintaining the internal status quo. And of course there are other reasons too. But that's a *looong* subject to tackle.

However, I believe that the key to superior, holistic knowledge might precisely be the fuzziness that comes with ideogramic (ideogrammatic?) writing, and with the corresponding patterns of thinking. One of the most original things I ever invented, and for which I made a patent application back in 1981, was the concept of an universal language that would be both universal and comprehensible by all, and yet, the locutor's own natural language. It was Chinese, the language (seen through the prism of Leibnitz's mind) that provided the clue for it, and of course, computers that made it possible. It never went anywhere since it would take many millions to implement, but it's quite an interesting concept.

If you use your "Chinese beingness", Taoist "philosophy", and the input of Western science, about which you necessarily have some inkling ;), you will get to whole new mountains of insights.

> I want to learn some Latin. Seems like something very useful.

I always found my very limited knowledge of Latin quite useful indeed.