Observations/Reflections: On The Futility of Attempting Pure Expression
Status: Dictated but Not Reviewed
Published: 03/23/10
Written: 03/01/2010
Dictated By: Flint McGlaughlin

I'm struggling, yet again, as I try to express concepts in linguistic form. As a child, I developed a language that allowed me to think more efficiently. It was based on a zero plus tri/binary system. At that time, there were no PCs and I did not understand what binary was except through theoretical wonderings. It occurred to me that counting did not have to repeat itself at the one zero combination, but I could use zero as the place holder, and one, and two, as the only numerators, or as the base integers. In this way, I was able to devise a set of symbols that represented the finest application of one and two lines. These symbols were then combined in order to provide an infinite counting system. I was able to match it to phonetic sound, and start creating words with a more logical flow of ideas.

As time passed, I realized that the language could be more effective if it could adapt the grammar or any user's existing syntax. The value of the language was found in its ability to provide clarity. Because lines were tied to numbers, which were tied to sounds, I had a language that could be expressed, geometrically, mathematically, or phonetically. I use this approach today, but I still find myself befuddled when I try to express an idea in its purest form.

I spent this morning in anguish trying to state something in theology that I cannot express. I pray for God to preserve my sanity.