Oh exactly.* Thinking in systems without recognizing there are
   other systems that may be equally valid systems... AND without
   recognizing that one is thinking from within a system can be
   dangerous and cause one to be closed minded easily. That was the
   point I was trying to make with this person.* He follows a
   system of Logic.* he doesn't see it as a system.* He sees it as
   self-evident.* I was trying to show how he can pull back from
   Logic itself and see it as a system. All systems seem to be
   man-made.* So they are useful... but absolute?* I doubt it.*
   Could be though - I really don't know enough to say. :) Oh I
   agree.* I think an education in systems thinking, however is
   useful at the beginning.* To me, it is part of the unlearning
   curve. Once you realize that the systems you taught are systems
   and not self-evident truths.. then you can begin to put them
   aside and ask, "Ok, that's great.* So, what's missing here?" And
   of course what's missing is everything that's not on one of the
   lines neatly connecting A to B to D to X to Q, sometimes
   @#$@#marflicktlabia. I remember learning Chomsky.* Fantastic
   guy, a bit paranoid and somewhat of a tall-tale teller.*
   Linguistics.* He created systems in the brain that don't even
   exist but linguistics acts as if they do.* Created whole schools
   of thought you HAVE to learn how to navigate to learn ANYTHING
   in Linguistics... because the form we use is from him for the
   most part. But... I like to say, "Chomsky, predict THIS:
   awraepojiwaeroijwo eworijweoraj0923j" No room for it in his
   system. Therefore, as good of a system it may be, it's still yet
   another system, incomplete, as it seems most systems are. I
   don't want to say "all systems are incomplete" because then I've
   just creating an AXIOM (self-supporting, self-evident truth) for
   a NEW system. But I'll leave it at the "most" part.* I can rest
   with that with a clear head.* Alls and nones tend to cause
   problems it seems, sometimes, maybe.