FAQ

Understanding is retrospective; it comes only after the experience has been had, and when the process of understanding is complete.

This has been a long time in the making, it has been becoming increasingly coherent, but only recently have I found the way to communicate it.

This research approach simply wasn’t possible within academia; it has been the product of immersion in research to find all the necessary evidence, and then largely a psychological process to synthesise knowledge into coherent understanding. Contemporary philosophy requires that one specialise within an established area of philosophy, argue rigorously to defend or change a single belief; the methodological conformity, and publish or perish model imposed upon academia, does not support this methodological approach, nor the scope or ambition of this research. The resistance of the modern tradition to accept knowledge that is not consistent with its established understanding, or fit within the established lines of argument necessitated the development of this scientific methodology.

I did study philosophy within the modern academy, albeit not as it was taught. I was more interested in the patterns between philosophies, the relation with my own experience, and why the academy and I relate very differently to philosophy.

Having deconstructed all the knowledge learned, and worked hard to reconceptualise it, this philosophy and that of the academy speak very different languages.

I tried, and would try much have liked to. I made numerous PhD applications, each more coherent and specific than the previous attempt. The last iteration and accompanying abstract can be found on the writing page. The reasons for rejection were understandable and different every time, (e.g. not specific enough, too ambitious, cognitive dissonance, whataboutism, negativism, not sufficiently cogent proposal, lack sufficient qualifications/compentence to achieve stated aims), but there was a commonality to all; the resistance to consider a proposal that is not consistent with their specialist understanding of philosophy, nor with an established idea of what philosophy is, nor to consider the possibility that an outsider might potentially be more wise than them. In essence, my purpose is not to research a specialist area of philosophy, but to make coherent and clearly articulate that which I already understand in a form that others can also understand; this arguably is what contemporary philosophy excels at, the collective endeavour to interpret wisdom, clarify concepts, and clear, cogent articulation of ideas. Yet, systemic thinking is not commensurable with the analytic structure of thinking, not is systematic philosophy consistent with the contemporary methodology of epistemic argumentation.

If we accept the premise that a more complex understanding and self-understanding is possible, then the irony is that philosophers have the chance to work with living wisdom rather than rely on its dead representation; the necessary barrier to overcome, though, is that they must accept that they do not already possess or understand it.

Well, no-one pays you to do philosophy independently, especially if one is immersed in the process of making understanding coherent and developing the methodology by which to conceptualise and communicate it, so I am self-funded and live a frugal existence. I will always release my work without charge, but there is a book in the works, and I will be raising funds at some stage in order to actually create some meaningful change in the world.

The challenge is not only in understanding what wisdom is, and how one achieves it, nor in actually becoming wise, but also finding a way to communicate it, such that others can also understand it.

This is not merely to make it conceptually coherent, or write a traditional argument about it, but to actually develop the scientific methodology such that I can prove counter-intuitive claims about our own nature, such that we can better understand ourselves, other including those with whom we disagree, against what people already believe they know about themselves and what they think about others.

I have met many people interested in philosophy, but not too many who are both philosophically informed and sufficiently open-minded to hear of an alternative approach to philosophy. Let alone help clarify them with me, and it is only recently that it is sufficiently coherent that I can share it in a form that others can accept, and excite them for possibility of progress, in spite of what they might believe they know and without provoking cognitive dissonance.

Yet, I’d rather co-create this with others; to bring a wide variety of perspectives together to tell the same story from very different lived perspectives.

The intention is a complex co-production, where the output is greater than the sum of individual contributions.

does anyone want to help?

Those interested in a better future, who want to help recoherent a divided world, and help mobilise a coherent collective for transformative change?

It’s not for any one individual to try to change the world. It will take all of us collectively.

I’m really not that important.

PhD in chemistry, vipassana and radical uncertainty, travel and inquiry into experience, discovery of spiritual experience, and commitment to inquiry until it all starts to become coherent.

I just discovered I didn’t know anything, discovered how to make progress in my understanding, deconstructed all I thought I knew, and stayed with the process longer.

I’ve only been doing the work that a whole generation has embarked on. I’ve just been immersed in the process a little longer.

This intention of my philosophy is that I removed my self from it entirely.

Although, I do have some polemical things to say.