On Jun 19, 2014, at 12:08 PM, GS Chandy <email@example.com> wrote:
> You are already writing with utmost clarity and precision that cannot be improved upon,
I never said it cannot be improved. I said many times that it was improving. What I am saying is that it is by no means too imprecise for people to understand, ipso facto, because of the vast number of people I converse with who have no problem understanding what I write. The reason you two make such a fuss yet don?t ask for clarification has nothing at all to do with the precision of my writing. You simply don?t like what I write and you don?t think like I do. You?re educated but you have no instincts. And I wish I had better news, but in my experience with people, there is no cure for that.
Here is an example of instincts. I look at all of this and feel that society as a whole is governed by a form of entropy that, like physical entropy, is unavoidable. You cannot raise the energy of all its members all at once. However, there will always be members of that society who rise well above the average, and members who fall well below. Now, you won?t like that model because you are religious rather than inquisitive and you base your models on faith rather than instincts. There is no way to communicate my models to you because without instincts, you will never understand them. In your mind, who would ever think such a thing. But I am not *thinking* such a thing. I am seeing it instinctively and relaying it to you.