250.30 Remoteness of Synergetics Vocabulary

250.301 When one makes discoveries that, to the best of one’s knowledge and wide inquiry, seem to be utterly new, problems arise regarding the appropriate nomenclature and description of what is being discovered as well as problems of invention relating to symbolic economy and lucidity. As a consequence, I found myself inventing an increasingly larger descriptive vocabulary, which evolved as the simplest, least ambiguous method of recounting the paraphernalia and strategies of the live scenario of all my relevant experiences.

250.31 For many years, my vocabulary was utterly foreign to the semantics of all the other sciences. I drew heavily on the dictionary for good and unambiguous terms to identify the multiplying nuances of my discoveries. In the meanwhile, the whole field of science was evolving rapidly in the new fields of quantum mechanics, electronics, and nuclear exploration, inducing a gradual evolution in scientific language. In recent years, I find my experiential mathematics vocabulary in a merging traffic pattern with the language trends of the other sciences, particularly physics. Often, however, the particular new words chosen by others would identify phenomena other than that which I ident ify with the same words. As the others were unaware of my offbeat work, I had to determine for myself which of the phenomena involved had most logical claim to the names involved. I always conceded to the other scientists, of course (unbeknownst to them); when they seemed to have prior or mo re valid claims, I wou ld then invent or select appropriate but unused names for the phenomena I had discovered. But I held to my own claim when I found it to be eminently warranted o r when the phenomena of other claimants were ill described by that term. For example, quantum mechanics came many years after I did to employ the term spin. The physicists assured me that their use of the word did not involve any phenomena th at truly spun. Spin was only a convenient word for accounting certain unique energy behaviors and investments. My use of the term was to describe a direct observation of an experimentally demonstrable, inherent spinnability and unique magnitudes of rotation of an actually spinning phenomenon whose next fractional rotations were induced by the always co-occurring, generalized, a priori, environmental conditions within which the spinnable phenomenon occurred. Th is was a case in which I assumed that I held a better claim to the scientific term spin. In recent years, spin is begin ning to be recognized by the physicists themselves as also inadvertently identifying a conceptually spinnable phenomenonin fact, the same fundamental phenomenon I had identified much earlier when I fir st chose to use the word spin to describe that which was experimentally dis closed as being inherently spinnable. There appears to be an increasing converge nce of scientific explorations in general, and of epistemology and semantics in particular, with my own evolutionary development.

250.32Because physics has found no continuums, no experimental solids, no things, no real matter, I had decided half a century ago to identify mathematical behaviors of energy phenomena only as *events.*If there are no things, there are no nouns of material substance. The old semantics permitted common-sense acceptance of such a sentence as, “A man pounds the table,” wherein a noun verbs a noun or a subject verbs a predicate. I found it necessary to change this form to a complex of events identified as me, which must be identified as a verb. The complex verb me observed another complex of events identified again ignorantly as a “table.” I disciplined myself to communicate exclusively with verbs. There are no wheresand whats; only angle and frequency events described as whens.