About this site

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.   Personal feeds are increasingly censored and tuned to keeping people trapped within their own think-bubbles.   None of this impresses.

Nonetheless, You can find some of my content on Minds and Medium, even if Medium has definitely deffected to the dark side as regards censorship and its twisted pay-to-play policy. 

I have no promotional framework, and really cannot be bothered jumping through all sorts of technical hoops just to get in people’s faces and maybe earn the cost of a loaf of bread.   But it would be dishonest of me to deny that I see this content as philosophically significant.   So, don’t hesitate to share and link to my entirely-free content.  

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 petty arguments that can be sparked by specific details, and also frames points to have the broadest possible relevance.   In any case, we all have unique experiences and it’s obviously unreasonable to expect the reader to be familiar with mine.

Moreover, NOR sees all details as potentially distracting and easily triggering intractable disputes about yet finer details – derailing debate over whatever was originally stated.   It is my opinion that insisting human understanding must be founded exclusively on in-depth and highly detailed objective knowledge actually reduces real and wholesome understanding by creating a blinding snowstorm of endless facts that actually obstruct a more general and genuine lucidity.

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 hackneyed approaches have long become the expected behavior of our increasingly unthinking world of academia.  For whatever reason, a need exists in many minds to use external and approved references as supposed evidence of veracity; one could wonder whether that results from hidden guilt or the generally authoritarian mindset that haunts academia.   Maybe both.

In any case, NOR argues objective science to be both a flawed and an increasingly corrupted paradigm.   No matter how 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.

At risk of being accused of just making stuff up, I present various ideas that are only loosely substantiated.   The justification of this stance is that expanding one’s understanding can demand increased levels of impersonal or non-specific introspection – if not also the decreasing of one’s involvement in ephemeral worldly details and distractions such as the latest news.   If seeking more than mere entertainment – and I hope You are – readers may have to fill in some blanks by reflecting on their own experiences, but I nonetheless use the word impersonal here to indicate that the intention of such introspection is not to fall into self-obsession; it is simply to focus on the more generic aspects of human psychology and emotion by observing these things in the most direct manner possible – within oneself.  

Obviously, we all live unique lives.   However, at a deep level we probably all think and act from similar visceral and unflattering drives we would not thank others to elucidate, and so it can be argued that even professional psychologists have reasons to gloss over the true wellsprings of certain human behaviors – something that inevitably creates cultural black holes in terms of any proper collective understanding of the human world in its raw state.  Getting around such cultural black holes arguably requires getting outside culture and getting deeper inside oneself.

In any case, ruthless and honest introspection is essential to challenging objectivity and the modes of thought on which it is based, given that objectivity itself only makes sense as the complement of something that is too often denied significance: subjectivity.

I am of course well aware that, for many, objectivity and science in general 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 dubious, even as it appears blind to the commonsense 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 alongside the currently troubling state of human civilization as the tangible evidence that such an approach is indeed misguided.

On a more positive note, transcending the corresponding illusions underlying today’s dysfunctional cultures is presented as logical, relatively straightforward, and immediately beneficial to individual and society alike.

Happy reading …

PS: Various pages on this site simply examine NOR from different angles.   Once You think You have grasped the basics You may want to skip to the Articles