Ok, so the generality like LISP/Scheme with a few basic productions/rules and some basic operations could be used to create/represent any levels of complexity. Something like Northhead & Russell's Principia Mathematica.
Yes, and that's why you're often scratching your head at the function definitions: they're extremely general solutions to general problems. This, in conjunction with the documentation issue means that often you end up getting referred to papers, which does nothing to help the "only for academics" impression.
I think painting Haskell as a LISP but in a blank-slate world without packages is not quite accurate. There is a large library of existing packages that take you beyond the language's primitive constructions.
