East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.  R. Kipling

   Of course, It should be interesting to know in which language the messages of the Lord to the forefather Abraham were written, but we only know that the skill of writing down thoughts took place by our ancestors as a result of the development of thinking, and then the development of this skill went in two ways: alphanumeric or alphabetic and analog-semantic or hieroglyphic. The dichotomy of modern man, especially with letter-type thinking, is probably caused by the fact that thinking operates with symbols that are quite specific, and speech uses words that allow for different interpretations. This is hypothesis number one.

  The second hypothesis is related to the difference in the way of thinking of a representative of hieroglyphic or alphabetic writing. At the same time, there is no doubt that thinking precedes speech. Hieroglyphic writing is the greatest specificity of symbols, which, as a result, is determined by a type of thinking other than when writing letters. Hieroglyphic writing also allows variants of interpretations of its signs, however, not as wide as alphabetic.

  Hypothesis number three is, of course, is a personal point of view: the presence of a significant percentage of such masters of speech as lawyers and actors among representatives of a certain ethnic group is associated with the special mentality of this ethnic group, which has the alphabet, the oldest existing, and has the greatest experience in using its ambiguous concepts.

  But hypothesis number four directly concerns the art of painting. The difference in thinking can be traced not only in the form of analysis, for example, writing, but also in the form of synthesis - artistic creativity, when the pictorial concept of the letter form of thinking is a rectangle (painting is realized in the form of a rectangular picture), and the concept of hieroglyphic painting is rather a polygon (painting is realized in the form of a polygonal picture). It is not difficult to notice that the feature of the conceptual-symbolic form of thinking is a pictorial concept in the form of a circle.

  It is naive to expect universal recognition of new concepts and symbols from a society that has the ideal of Lucifer. The fate of Conceptual Symbolism today is a selection. The same is the case with symbols, and with universal written signs. They should be recognizable on the one hand and bring new, often unknown images into the world on the other. And since the symbols of conceptual symbolism are the symbols of tomorrow, it is no wonder that they are difficult not only to describe, but also to imagine, because, according to Vitaly Komar, "these are visions of an unborn, unpronounceable word." Or, as Vasily Ivanovich said about the square trinomial: "I, Petka, am not something to describe - I can't imagine it."