Do you believe your philosophy is a form of pragmatism? It seems so to me. If so, consider opening with a summary of pragmatism. An historical account of the philosophical basement on which your structure rests. Then slowly and carefully add the framework, which is highly dependent upon definitions.
Great post. I need to go back and read it a few more times, but from my first review I found it relatively consistent with what I perceive.
I used to practice before an old judge (he was very old when I was very young), who would refuse to let an attorney ask a witness a “why” question.
Why = either “a) How?
which is a scientific question, not a philosophical one
Or b) From what intent/to what end?
which requires a pre-existing mind”
He would say, “either rephrase your question as a “how” question or move on, counselor.” Why questions that seek intent or to what end are irrelevant when it comes to what happened, and are not subject to verification, so therefore not evidence.
I can also see how this could be a book. My thought is to pick just one topic and crank out a chapter on it. And give up the idea of a publisher, at least for now. No publishers are bright enough to touch this. Until, perhaps, after you have published on Substack.
Scientific consensus is an appeal to authority. Science disproves. So if a theory is unfalsifiable, it is discarded. If it is falsifiable, it is tested. As long as a falsifiable theory has not been disproven yet an attempt has been made, it is justified belief - no consensus necessary.
Instead of "religion", why not use the more general "unjustified belief"?
Isn't politics reduceable to economics and ethics? I've yet to find a political topic that doesn't.
"To be able to subdivide something indefinitely (Zeno) does not describe reality."
If space is not discrete, then this is not true, right?
Isn't "why" just cause & effect, and therefore reduceable to logic?
"Some things have an external referent and some have an external correlate"
Do you mean that all things are either externally a referent or correlate?
Thanks. I really enjoyed this. It must have been the result of quite a lot of experience and/or internal effort.
"The purpose is either danger/avoid or interest/approach.
All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is for the purpose of actionable certainty toward changing the world in one of those two ways"
"Perfection is a direction, not a destination. You may achieve perfection as close as possible by continuously improving.
It is not possible for a limited mind to understand what it would want in any ultimate sense, only in relation to it's immediate perspective."
"Reality" is consensus experience; that which continuously replicates. Whatever keeps being the same is the most real. It is equivalent to Truth."
I had to copy/paste some phrasings that blew my mind. I have to admit I've reread it three times and I'm still processing/internalizing concepts. I'd like to read each of the 6 in different posts with examples. Just because I feel they are so full of incredible information it would be less overwhelming and more actionable maybe?
That being said. I have to thank you for taking your time to share this information. It is actionable. It is interesting. It is true! ?
A helpful guide to basic concepts. I would love to read a version of this with regard to elements of logic explained to a beginner. Logic is missing from online life.
Do you believe your philosophy is a form of pragmatism? It seems so to me. If so, consider opening with a summary of pragmatism. An historical account of the philosophical basement on which your structure rests. Then slowly and carefully add the framework, which is highly dependent upon definitions.
Great post. I need to go back and read it a few more times, but from my first review I found it relatively consistent with what I perceive.
I used to practice before an old judge (he was very old when I was very young), who would refuse to let an attorney ask a witness a “why” question.
Why = either “a) How?
which is a scientific question, not a philosophical one
Or b) From what intent/to what end?
which requires a pre-existing mind”
He would say, “either rephrase your question as a “how” question or move on, counselor.” Why questions that seek intent or to what end are irrelevant when it comes to what happened, and are not subject to verification, so therefore not evidence.
I can also see how this could be a book. My thought is to pick just one topic and crank out a chapter on it. And give up the idea of a publisher, at least for now. No publishers are bright enough to touch this. Until, perhaps, after you have published on Substack.
Scientific consensus is an appeal to authority. Science disproves. So if a theory is unfalsifiable, it is discarded. If it is falsifiable, it is tested. As long as a falsifiable theory has not been disproven yet an attempt has been made, it is justified belief - no consensus necessary.
Instead of "religion", why not use the more general "unjustified belief"?
Isn't politics reduceable to economics and ethics? I've yet to find a political topic that doesn't.
"To be able to subdivide something indefinitely (Zeno) does not describe reality."
If space is not discrete, then this is not true, right?
Isn't "why" just cause & effect, and therefore reduceable to logic?
"Some things have an external referent and some have an external correlate"
Do you mean that all things are either externally a referent or correlate?
Thanks. I really enjoyed this. It must have been the result of quite a lot of experience and/or internal effort.
"The purpose is either danger/avoid or interest/approach.
All knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is for the purpose of actionable certainty toward changing the world in one of those two ways"
"Perfection is a direction, not a destination. You may achieve perfection as close as possible by continuously improving.
It is not possible for a limited mind to understand what it would want in any ultimate sense, only in relation to it's immediate perspective."
"Reality" is consensus experience; that which continuously replicates. Whatever keeps being the same is the most real. It is equivalent to Truth."
I had to copy/paste some phrasings that blew my mind. I have to admit I've reread it three times and I'm still processing/internalizing concepts. I'd like to read each of the 6 in different posts with examples. Just because I feel they are so full of incredible information it would be less overwhelming and more actionable maybe?
That being said. I have to thank you for taking your time to share this information. It is actionable. It is interesting. It is true! ?
A helpful guide to basic concepts. I would love to read a version of this with regard to elements of logic explained to a beginner. Logic is missing from online life.