Talking to Mike about the book Zen and Art of Motorcycle... I often get confused with these two words--deductive and inductive. I know which one is which if I think through it. Deductive thinking is to define some knowns and rules at the beginning, and from them deduce everything else. Inductive learning is to learn by example. We want to come to our own "definition" of quality. Mike says nowadays we can define things inductively rather than deductively. I think at some point back up the road one has to show deductively how one can define something inductively. Anyway, I say to Mike that "deductive thinking sucks", and we have a good laugh about it. It is only some philosophers who want to learn the world strictly deductively. Everyone else knows about their world inductively, the world with the philosophers in. The philosophers think they know how to think better, but the laymen just laugh at the crazy philosophers. Who do I want to be? The philosopher who thinks he knows? Or the layman who knows not to think?

Let not intellectual pride or the laziness of dullness deny us the light of true Reality.