You're biggest difficulty in promoting your views not only lies with your
inability to be concise, but more importantly lies in your inability to prove
the validity of AoK by using it to *predict* behaviour. Anyone can use
evidence/data *after* the fact to show that their theory is correct, and this
is something that you *always* do. I have not once seen you go out on a limb to
predict an outcome. You have only used what is published in the local rags, and
say that "oh...well, AoK shows this and that". The ability to predict is the
primary point of generating these kinds of models.
In fact I can just use basic Taoist principles to do exactly the same thing
that you are doing in AoK. To me it just looks like you are just applying
Taoism applied to a dynamic system, except perhaps you are trying to convert it
into mathematics. This in itself may actually be interesting, because at some
level it appears that you are trying to develop ideas/equations based on forms
rather than traditional reductionist principles that pervade science. But you
seem to be, rather than contributing anything new, just replacing the jargon of
taoism with the jargon of mathematics, and in many respects your very unique
form of jargon.
Maybe that is in itself okay...and in some ways I can see the need for
that...but again, until you actually use your AoK to predict behaviour in a
more quantitative way or predict a phenomenon that cannot be predicted using
the models that exist today, then you are just contributing to the great big
pile in the sky...
But what do I know, right?
Austin P. So (Hae Jin)
University of British Columbia
E-mail: haejin at netinfo.ubc.cahttp://www.interchange.ubc.ca/haejin/index.html (under construction)