I read a little over half of ZMM about a year ago, and there's one aspect of it that caught my attention which I'm surprised to not see mentioned here. He give

I read a little over half of ZMM about a year ago, and there's one aspect of it that caught my attention which I'm surprised to not see mentioned here. He gives a break down of a certain style of thinking about things where you break the subject down into parts and the relationships between the parts. He gives examples in technical writing that this process has a degree of arbitrariness to it. His circumscribing the general process of conceptualizing things suggests that the process itself has limits, and while valuable, is not everything (despite the tendency of certain mentalities to see things that way. He has an ongoing contrast between himself who is inclined to think that way and others who aren't.) I see this as a bridge to understanding Eastern philosophy's low opinion of language and penchant for indirect explanations.