Date: Aug 26, 2013 12:27 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: a good conversation with Kirby
Frank Zubek (FZ) posted Aug 26, 2013 2:26 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2591914):
> fz, OK I agree, but as you notice there is this same
> problem with writings of Fuller
> on many occasions, people say I wonder what he meant
> by this or that, and others have pondered
> that, and I'm sure you had to also, remember "typo
> corrections?" because most people say he was opaque
> as GSC put ti.
This statement of FZ's does require some clarification and amplification.
It's not exactly the "same problem with writings of Fuller", as FZ claims.
It is true that I believe Buckminster Fuller was fairly opaque in several of his writings, in particular, in "Synergetics". However, he had done PLENTY (in his work on 'geodomes' and 'tensegrity structures') to convince many, including me, that he had discovered something of enormous importance. That conviction leads me (at least) to the belief that there is plenty worth exploring in all his opaque writings.
If Buckminster Fuller was "opaque", I believe Frank Zubek is "impenetrably opaque" in all his writings. I for one am NOT convinced that I should spend any further effort or energy than I have already done to exploring his divagations.
I am, however, an almost incurable optimist about human beings and their sayings and doings and therefore try to retain my hopefulness.