That's about all I can say, I think. The main thing is that when I say I'm giving you a fellowship to think. And you say, well, do you want me to sit in the school house to do that. I say, No, No. You say, Can I go fishing? I say, great, yeah. That's a great place to think. So while you're out there fishing and thinking, I say, I want you to think about the fact that when you get through thinking you don't have to go and cheat somebody else out of their job so that your family can eat. You don't have to tell a lie to get that man's job or something. So you're going to say, "What else was I thinking about before they told me I had to have a job?" And you'll suddenly get back in that wonderful continuity of the child. Really the freshness and the eagerness and the interest in the Universe.

"Expand more fully the concept of the 12 degrees of freedom in physics in the physical Universe." I did give you the wire wheel which needed a minimum of twelve spokes. I gave you the ball on a string fastened to a pole that we called tether ball with one restraint. Then I expected two restraints, and found that when you had two restraints you were as if you were in the middle of a violin string, and you could now, you couldn't make a whole sphere anymore, a wavy sphere, now you could only operate in a plane. Then I had the third restraint and you could only operate in a line as in the middle of a drum head. And then I gave you four restrainings and you seemingly couldn't go anywhere, but you'd find you could wriggle around locally, not till I had twelve restraints could I stop you wiggling locally. So then you became part of a system which operated as a system. Is that not clear? Is that alright? But, there are then, because there are everything in Universe is divisible by two in other words unity is plural and a minimum of two, that is there, and there will always be two poles to any system, and there is another kind of twoness there is insideness and outsideness, and there is, I said, a multiplicative twoness and an additive twoness. The poles themselves are the additive twoness but twoness. So all the topological accounting you always come out with the number of vertexes will always be divisible by two and so will the number of faces and so will the number of edges. But, when I said I took out the polar two removed it, then I found that the relative abundance from thereon was that for every vertex there were always two faces, and there were always three edges because there are always two vertexes anyway, therefore there are always four faces and six edges, and those six edges are the edges of the tetrahedron, or the minimum structural system. So, at every event, you are always going to have six there are six linear moves six vectorial moves. And I said you could go around in a hexagon and come back where you started, or you could be six places away. Because of the options, everyone of those are valid, every time you have a play, you get six moves. You can only use two checkerboards, but you get six moves, of whatever way, I'm saying. You're going to have four checkerboards, but you can make six moves. And, this means that you could be This is the reason that we have positional differentials in Universe. That there is any spatial differential due to those freedoms. Can you understand that? And why there is any time lag because under so many dispositions it's going to take longer to get back to here again. So, that sixness or the twelve each one is positive and negative, so there are twelve degrees of freedom, the sixness also, I want you to realize is a push and a pull, so there are actually twelve vectors involved.

"How do you describe thinking?" This is Jack? I don't try to describe thinking. What I said I do is to try to say, "What is my conscious what am I conscious of doing when I say I am thinking, and I say that, I found that it started with a spontaneous interest in something. That's already underway, so my conscious part I got to was simply dismissing irrelevancies and let something happen, the subconscious does the rest, and suddenly I find that as I keep putting the grass apart, as I put the irrelevancies apart, and suddenly there is a path, there is the relationship I was looking for. So, I can't, I've described operationally what I do when I say I'm thinking, but I assume that a great deal goes on subconsciously in time. Then I could, I said, describe a thought, however Was a thinkable set and differentiable from a finite but non-unitarily conceptual Universe. Because it was scenario and I can't see all the pictures at once. I can get a meaning out of a continuity of a section of continuity, but I don't know when it ends or begins, so I find a thinkable set is what I gave you as a system, that has an insideness and an outsideness had a macrocosmic irrelevancy and a microcosmic irrelevancy, but there was a lucid set of stars of this magnitude, just the right ones. That is a thinkable set, so I could really describe a thought as having insideness and outsideness and really that's a geometrical description of the thought.

"What do you believe to be the relation of pure thought to language?" I don't use the word "pure" Jack. I don't use the word "believe" my I can sort of speculatively reconsider experiences and I can zero in on a special something that I find your question interesting, therefore I suddenly find that I am thinking spontaneously. The relation of "pure" thought to language I don't know what a PURE thought would be. But I did give you how I cope with operational description of what goes on when I say I'm thinking, and I did give you a thought as having probably insideness and outsideness it is the first subdivision of Universe. It is the division of Universe into a thinkable set a tunable set of relevancies. Now, what the relationship is to language, I've said that, to me, Universe is an aggregate of all of humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated experiences. So the word language and then communication I saw it the communication can be to self or to others but it has to be communication. This is the only way we have any identity or awareness of something occurring. But I think I can tell myself, I can talk to myself. I don't think I talk French, and English or and German to myself. So, I think there is a very spontaneous conceptualizing. And what we do in the way of communicating what it is we are thinking about, that took a long, long time to really evolve the logical sounds that went with the right conceptualizing so that it became sort of a spontaneous way to follow along what the other man was doing. There was an awful lot of circumstance of the time that may no longer be operative. Things that people many tools they used that we don't use today, and they're in the words they describe probably in the word, and yet we don't use that tool anymore, so the sound doesn't seem to have any we don't identify any thing with it, and so we have a lot of those kinds of words. I don't really quite know how to my own relationship that I've described as best I could what I do when I'm thinking, and then I may want to communicate that to you, and I might, so there would be several languages, like I might go to the board and make a drawing, I might write something on the board, I might make some sounds to you. The big thing, the relationship between thought and language is that somebody wants to hear what you're thinking, so you take the trouble to communicate. They've said they'd like to know what you're thinking. I would think that is the big relationship.

"Do you believe, like Norm Chomsky that various languages exhibit certain universal structural characteristics which are a function of the mechanics of mind and brain?" Yes, I, in my own NINE CHAINS TO THE MOON I did a little of this, but there is one I did call The Game of Life, which was originally in NINE CHAINS TO THE MOON and I chopped it out. Ed Schlossberg has recently published it. But I think that the, ssss, ssss, the "s", this is a resting, arrest, and you might stop, or you may start. Is a change from one to the other. This would be typical of what he is saying here, isn't it? That's a universal structural characteristic in there. And the "s" is really either way, to either stop or to start. It'll accommodate, but it is a change. It's really a very abrupt change. S is abrupt I think it is very structural, and applies to what we are saying in any language. And it would not be, just the sound sss, just the snakes' hissing, and they've used the snake with the hissing.

"You said Friday night that design is something a group can do is not something a group could do right. And is group exploration in Design Science and World Game possible in a work shop format? When I take for instance University groups and we have undertaken a produced something. I've immediately then, given functions of that task, and I put them up there, there is going to be a coordinator, assistant coordinator, for the total effort is going to be the mathematician, I really need some mathematics to be done. There is going to be a design and there's going to be some drafting, and there is the design of the undertaking of the strategy, but then there is the design of the object, but also the design of the method of installation. There is the design of the there are many different designs, but I ask individuals to decide which one of those they would like to do, but I call them all designs really. But the usual word about design is just an object that the whole effort is going to produce, but I consider every bit of it the Design. And each one is done by an individual. I think designing is an individual function, and you can coordinate your designs of the individual designing, you can have a common objective, and so you handle one part of the task, and you do another, but they will both be designs. And then there is the Synergetics of those designs once they are done.

"Two observations prompt the question which follows. More than one primitive society has been discovered in which the role of the female is huntress and the male is homemaker. Two. The biological function of the male role is one of seed implanting which can also be seen a continuous wave phenomena." No, it is not the seed, it is fertilization, but it is not the seed. The ovary is really the seed. That contains it and there is quite a difference between the fertilization of it, it's like the pollination. I can understand a because we really don't have the pure any absolutely pure female or pure male, and I can certainly see how a set of casualties in a tribe, where the male, there was a war and they really got killed off, the women then started having to do the task, so some of the women started off hunting, and they got to probably be pretty good at it. There's no reason why they shouldn't be.

I can understand that but you can see really it's a general pattern of mammals and with mammals even of the water, that the males tend to sweep out larger areas than the females. That's all. So I call it a "sweeping out." I explained it as hunting or one thing and another, but I don't want to just use the word hunting, but the main thing is the sweeping out a large area. Am I clearing up at all what you asked? "Does the male-female distinction determine biologically social patterns of behavior, and role? Or are the differences culturally determined and ethnocentric?" There is no question to me that the female and the male have different many different characteristics, and I, for instance, just in cold water, the female can stay in this cold water longer than a male. She has just a little extra flesh in here. What makes her very soft also makes her a little better insulated. She can be a little more naked than the male, under the same thermal conditions. There is no question that there are really physical differences here, and I would think so one is mildly impeding, and some another advantaging. That I just accept as so, but individuals have very different lives, and there are oh so many forces that operate genetically, and circumstantial-wise, environmental wise I wouldn't try to, I certainly wouldn't try to generalize too much in here. But, just, I've certainly got to say there is a physical difference, and I am, I really feel very strongly about the woman being a wave phenomena, that she is opening from inside out, and the male really does not, there is no question about it to me, the male penis, and he's a pusher and she's a puller. And her tactics are that way, and she is really designed that way to have pull and to be attractive. And he is, he tends to be an aggressor. That's the big thing, but it does not hold all the cases at all, I would not like to insist that way, Jack, at all. I'm not really being hard edged here. They are their main forces are very greatly complex effects there are all kinds of side issues. And I see also Nature also playing this game where she wants to stop propagation and she'll make females do one thing, and the male do others and so forth, where you get to where there, just the way they look to one another may be more conducive to propagation or not propagation. Things like that go on that you and I don't know much about. These are the big trends, big waves.

"What are the constraints upon architectural schools and the architectural profession? they seem to be so effectively inhibitive and frustrate a comprehensive approach to the environment. " Just the profession of architecture! Period. It is the end of a tailoring business and it is really a pathetic one. And yet it has there is manliness there is dignity, there are human dignities involved, and there is no question about how easy it is to excite, and it has excited, and to carry on as it has carried on. And it is very exciting when suddenly the patron says, "going to do this, going to build a great castle, going to build this and that. A lot of people get excited and a lot of people are going to eat for a while, and it is fraught with excitement and romance.

"As our current economic crisis continues, it may be that the whole building industry and architectural profession could undertake a major reorientation during this interim period. What form might such a transformation take?" I say, just really abandon it all together, and really begin trying to do some thinking. And really look into the resources of the earth, and what is the tasks to be done, and how do you do them best. And try to keep out to me the only aesthetic for tomorrow is integrity. Absolute integrity. That is THE aesthetic. I have exercised this very rigorously in all my undertakings. I do not go in for trying to color something I said I must be if Sandy called and like what I was doing, and he did with my tensions and things, but he then gets into mobiles, but I've seen time and again I could exploit what I was doing as an art, and that might bring some admiration and it might make some money, but that's not what I'm at I'm strictly at some problem solving in the most economical possible manner. But I must use THE best materials, or whatever it is, and what do I say, when it is all through, if I don't think it looks beautiful, then I know I've failed, but that is the only time I really think about what it's going to look like when it's finished. At all times I must be doing this thing in the terms of what it's functions are, and doing it absolutely the best known and practical of our moment. I think, you may or may not feel that some of the things I have done in the way of structures are I do have some beauty, but I can tell you many that didn't look very beautiful to me, because I knew something I didn't really do right. But if I really have done things the way they should be done, they tend always to be beautiful to me. So I say, the aesthetic was the integrity, and the is it must be integrated, there must be the synergetics in all.

"Recent book, MEANING IN ARCHITECTURE in l973 labels you as the most extreme representative in the architectural movement it calls bio-technical determinism, 'a neo-romatic approach to design which obtains its criteria directly from the behavior of Nature, and in effect short-circuits the process of incorporating socially meaningful symbolism in the resulting form. Such an approach, the article goes on to say, is totally functionalist an aesthetic which denies itself as such, and of no symbolic value." I'm not even mildly interested in producing symbols except when I try to do actually write, and communicate. I like a symbol for communication, but I would not use a building as communication I don't think. I think it is misuse of a tool, and that I don't many, many people made the mistake of saying, because I have a whole lot of slides we didn't run showing you Synergetics in Nature, they have said that I learned about this from Nature, that I was copying Nature, and I simply tried to use Natural forms. I never have done it, never. There is growth in form and a lot of people were excited about that, and I am sure that a great many people have tried to make a building look like a cabbage or whatever it is, but I've never done anything like that, ever in my life. I've been astonished to find that there was a relationship between the mathematical logic I was employing, because I am simply doing the most with the least what gives me the most volume containment with the lest material whatever it is. What is giving me the greatest strength that I suddenly found Nature had done it over here also, for the same reasons, but that I had never copied Nature never, so this, in the first place is a complete misinterpretation so I will not comment on it. It is not what I'm talking about. It does not operate the way I am operating.

"What about your concept of 'eternal metabolics'? I don't say "eternal metabolics'. (From the audience "external metabolics." Oh! External metabolics. Oh. "Where does it come from? What do you think of Professor McLuhan's utilization of that idea in his work. The there is something called extracorporeal artifacts there are internal and I have extra corporeal. So the tools I went into. I said many creatures are tool makers. That the species exist by virtue of separately operating organism parts. That the nest of the bird, and the bird, are absolutely one, because you cannot have the bird without the nest, and so I then had extensions, mechanical extensions of my arm, like something else you're going to make some scissors out here because they'll squeeze a little more than I can sheer a little more. So, I've no, no, none I can't find any tools that are not extensions of original integral functions of the human being. And so I go back to NINE CHAINS TO THE MOON in 1938 and I talk about the mechanical extensions of man.