I also find it endlessly fascinating to translate different concepts between different world-views. Of course, I have to be careful that I’m seeing actual similarities, and not just imagining them.

I’ve been studying this matter in some detail lately because it bears upon a skill that I call “translecture” — “reading through” (and past, and beyond) the words to get at whatever truth appears behind what is being said.

I’ve found it difficult to find people who “speak the same language” that I do, and are “on the same wavelength” on most topics. So I have little choice but to translate (”decompile”?) what people say.

It’s a lossy process. After you strip away the doctrine, dogma, conditioning etc. from what somebody says, you’re usually left with little beyond this simple message: “Give me what I need without changing me.”

Quote: I also realized … the “Systematic Approach” … is far more problem-oriented, rather than solution-oriented …

I’ve created several elegant systems of analysis, only to discover that the analysis itself has become the problem, as it separates me from the reality I’m trying to … grasp. Cling to?

I view these “elegant” models of mine as mere tools, not to be taken too seriously. Somebody might represent something as a triangle, but I’ll see the same thing in terms of, say, “finite element stress analysis”. Same concept, different approach — and (typically) an inability to communicate with those who use different models. Which leads to arguments, wars and fun stuff like that.

Small wonder people like to continue to believe what they already believe. It SEEMS so much easier when you’re not aware of the cost.