Few online platforms cater for serious non-news content. Supposed dialog on social media sites is disjointed at best, and usually mired in personal attacks, whilst the barrage of page content screaming for reader attention only cements a thoroughly distracting experience. Meanwhile, personal feeds are increasingly censored and tuned to keeping people trapped within their own think-bubbles.
Time and effort goes into everything online. Please consider sharing and linking to my entirely-free content. I have no promotional framework, and really cannot be bothered jumping through all sorts of technical hoops just to get in people’s faces. But it would be dishonest of me to deny that I see this content as philosophically significant.
How I write
After continued difficulties composing NOR (Non-Objective Reality) ideas in book form, I began writing much shorter self-contained pieces that seemed more readable.
I generally opt for a generic narrative with the goal of minimizing distance from the reader. This also avoids the pettiness of specific details, whilst framing points to have the broadest possible relevance. In any case, we all have unique experiences and it seems unreasonable to expect the reader to be familiar with mine.
More generally, NOR sees all details as potentially distracting and easily triggering intractable disputes about yet finer details – derailing debate over whatever point was originally made. It is my opinion that for as long as human understanding is to be founded exclusively on detailed knowledge, real and wholesome understanding can only be blinded by a resultant snowstorm of facts.
In today’s age of science, it is just too easy to mistake a host of references to peer-reviewed studies and popular theories as a form of sound and suitably critical thinking. It is also too easy to quote the words of well-known intellectuals as if those words carried more weight for having come out of a particular mind. But unfortunately, such approaches have long become the robotic behavior of our increasingly unthinking world of academia. In response, NOR argues objective science to be a flawed and increasingly corrupted paradigm, as explained throughout these pages. However popular objectivity and the scientific perspective might currently be, these remain simply two closely-tied perspectives among numerous other ways of seeing the human condition.
Hence, at risk of being accused of just making stuff up, I present with various ideas that are only loosely substantiated. The justification of this stance is that bettering one’s understanding often demands increased levels of impersonal introspection – if not also correspondingly decreased involvement in trivial worldly distractions. If seeking more than mere entertainment, readers may have to fill in some blanks using their own reflections. This is an inevitable consequence of challenging objectivity and the modes of thought on which it is based; even objectivity only makes sense as the complement of subjectivity.
I am of course well aware that the objective outlook and the sciences which feed it are believed by many to unquestioningly constitute the highest form of truth. But this is basically a holier-than-thou view that often regards all else as more or less circumspect, even as it appears blind to the common sense idea that nothing claiming to be truth should ever be considered beyond question. I simply do not agree that objectivity should be afforded exclusive adjudication rights as regards what constitutes truth and knowledge, and I set out my reasons together with the troubled state of human civilization as the tangible evidence such an approach is indeed misguided.
On a more positive note, transcending the corresponding illusions underlying today’s human cultures is presented as logical, relatively straightforward, and beneficial in both individual and societal terms.