Except that's another big difference in our sensiblities - as a good progressive, you are a relativist. There ain't no such thing as speaking good ;)
I have a long thread with some guy on wittgenstein-dialognet (a Yahoo! group) about moral relativism, whether Wittgenstein was one, etc. He wasn't, nor am I, seems to be the upshot of that thread.
Synergetic geometry, as I hear it presented, is about space - but somehow exists outside of time. It popped into being - an otherwordly vision.
No, Fuller casts his body of work as very time/size specific, his self-discipline, with a vocabulary that's deliberately remote and deliberately engineered. He even admits has central insights might all pre-exist in other literature. That being said, he's a born explorer and has the right to draw his map, which is what he did. I find it a very useful contribution, as I've said. He does more to interconnect the disciplines than most, and isn't writing as a geometer, specifically. I file it under Philosophy and/or Literature. It's a work in the humanities, maybe a liberal art in its own right (given how no department wants to claim it).
Maybe true. But in my view of what makes the study of math meaningful, its math without much meaning, to the extent we are really talking math at all, rather than something not more like - American Unaccountable Geniuses 101.
Kay does make a good 102.
It's a curriculum, yes.
Art
I'll file that under "from a guy who likes to have opinions" -- whether well-informed or no. If you ever undertake a serious study of Fuller's synergetics, maybe let me know. I could maybe offer a few pointers. Kirby