An academic collaboration?

I hope you are well. We met at the WCP2018 in China and you chaired a session when I presented my paper on "lessons philosophy can learn from science”. At the time, you were interested of the potential of this thinking to challenge the tradition. In the time since, I have found a way to blow the tradition wide open, and there are some significant implications. As you are the few who saw the potential of my research, I wanted to share with you where I have reached and ask your advice.

I have developed a scientific form of philosophy; by introducing a method of discovery and using the history of science, a descriptive record of scientific progress, as a source of empirical evidence from which an underlying process can be discovered. I then apply this process in philosophy, and articulate a new ontology of being, in terms of process, complex systems, and self as an emergent phenomenon. I then demonstrate that this process theory of being provides a more coherent basis from which to articulate a framework to explain our common sameness and collective differences, provide justified explanations of recent cultural events, and also understand this recent historical period. Indeed, by understanding the processes that underly recent history, I can present a coherent vision of progress as a culture too.

I am sure that you can appreciate the necessity for change, given the failure to understand, or take timely action on climate change. I’m sure that you’d agree that we need leadership with a more complex form of understanding, and a coherent vision of the future, and also the need for a coherent philosophy that can overcome the constraints of the modern tradition. So, in addition to presenting a vision of the future, I also present a necessary challenge to anthropocentric hubris, epistemic arrogance, and the superiority and chauvinism of the Western ego, as a necessary lesson in humility before we can make progress.

After your advice in China, I tried to find an analytic philosopher to supervise me, but my proposal was deemed too broad and unspecific, so I pursued it independently. It is ironic perhaps that my thesis is not the product of analytic thinking, but a psychological process of discovery in order to deconstruct the analytic structure of thinking into increasingly coherent understanding. Then I had to find a way to conceptualise my argument, using the history of science as an empirical reference for meaning, and invent the scientific methodology outlined above in order justify it, such that it can challenge the modern tradition, justified to the high standards it demands, and can no longer ignore.

Yet, as you might imagine, it is an incommensurable form of knowledge; it does not meet the standards of the tradition or fit within an established argument. Concepts are introduced without argument, but given an underlying explanation later in the argument, inferences are made from the evidence but only justified once the argument is complete. Yet, once complete, it is a self-consistent, logically coherent philosophical system.

Yet, before that stage it is not only incommensurable with the established knowledge and standards of the tradition, but also incommensurable with the structure of analytic thinking. It provides an objective demonstration of the same revolutionary thinking already observed within the history of science, which it later explains, and which is necessary to make progress towards self-knowledge; i.e. the scientific methodology I propose is a means to rationally deconstruct the logical rigidity of knowledge, and produce a more coherent, complex form of understanding, and transcend a limited, partial perspective, in order to see these bigger picture. Indeed, is this not what the world needs right now; people who can grasp the bigger picture and communicate it such that others can also understand it?

And what is wisdom if not a more complex, coherent form of self-understanding, and bigger picture perspective, able to understand differences in perspective, and therefore understand why they hold the beliefs they do, and able communicate ideas in the language of different communities of discourse such that they can understand it too.

I have my first paper nearly ready to publish. All the above is necessary to conceptualise and articulate the understanding that is the culmination of this discovery process. It has been a recursive process of writing and rewriting, and only now after writing 750k words is the final argument only now coming fully coherent, and the thesis statement actually came as the last step in the discovery process. I am sure that you can imagine that this is recursive process of articulation just wouldn’t have been possible within contemporary philosophy.

This presents the second irony; by a contemporary definition it is not philosophy, because it does not adhere to the standards of the tradition. So this presents the challenge as to who will read it if it isn’t consistent with a specialist domain or an established debate, how do I reach an audience, how do I publish, who will edit my work and make sure that it is sufficiently cogent for the reader?

The third irony, is that, even though this is the product of a process of discovery, the articulation of this thesis would benefit from those already trained in analytic thinking to help clarify, clearly articulate and make the argument cogent for the reader. I tried applying for a PhD to learn this, but now that the thesis is so developed, I cannot find anyone willing to supervise it. Now, I already have a thesis that is largely complete, and I already understand my argument; it is, after all, just the struggle to clearly communicate its meaning such that others can understand it that remains; it would be more expedient, and given the urgency for progress, it would benefit from from dialogue and co-production within the tradition, and a collaborative approach to articulation. Would that not be a more enlightened approach to transforming the tradition from within; than presenting it as an incommensurable form of knowledge from outside, and struggling against the resistance to acceptance?

Given that we know that revolutionary forms of progress usually comes from outside of the intellectual tradition, and particularly given the cultural sensitivity and growing anti-intellectual sentiment, I hope you can understand that I would prefer to present this first within academia and get constructive and editorial feedback, before presenting it to the public. Given the increasing anti-intellectualism, the resurgent conservatism within culture, and repeated failure to make progress when we really need to, I wonder if you might be willing to consider forgoing the usual formalities and be willing to discuss this with me, or perhaps invite me to present so I can run it by an appropriate audience first?

Response - no answer!