“Be Free, be Mental Dynamite”

Philosophy should not be your master my friend, it should be as your slave. I will no longer bow to an abstract not fall victim to the confusion that misses the Ontology that we are the body fully alive with every breath a self evident absolute truth so profound it is before reason it’s the existential awareness of self emotional aware even before any other way of awareness it is at such a core beginning we simply forward to start there confused about if or not reason or anything else that is a thinking abstraction. Hear me, we are aware before the abstraction, we are a body feeling all that is around , fully realized when one understands that there is no aware undamaged human mind that is not emoting. This includes before, during, and after you believe you are doing reason. And this also brings up the ontological or qualities of reason. Reason is a high thinking primates mental style or process to add accuracy, we learn, well most of us try to learn how to further develop our reason, the thinking strategy to not simply have a goal of accuracy it can be so developed that it’s use, skilled mastery is not simply finding external truth to belief accuracy one is also achieving a inward self mastery, not over emotion as if it was reasons enemy. No, emotion is a vitality needed part proven in brain damage studies. Reason and emotion are friends, more accurately we are emotional feeling beings that with emotional intelligence construct thinking methodologies to improve our accuracy or we should.

Are you a Believer or a Thinker?

When you can, with all honesty, say that you put a similar voracity to one’s own ideas as they demand for others then they are a thinker not just a believer. And when you can quickly and eagerly relinquish any and all ideas, even the most cherished if they were not true; yes a willingness to discuss or discard if required, even if you like them is being a thinker and not just a unthinking believer.

Error Crushing Force of the Dialectic Questions and the Hammer of Truth

*(Ontology) What are you talking about, please slow down and give me each specific detail individually?

*(Epistemology) How do you know that and why do you think it is justified or warranted?

*(Axiology) What is its value if any and why do you value that or why would anyone?

If you don’t already know, Dialectic is the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.

What I am trying to say in this message of Dialectic Questions in order to find truth by giving people three questions that can be put towards almost anything and it help remove error and thus improved accuracy.

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge protocol

My “Methodological Rationalism” approach

Challenged or Challenging?

Someone once told me that life had no value, I happily was not so confused, as that is all there really is from one extent to another in this world.

Creating Our Purpose?
You know I have one message, be a good person, for whatever is the extremely short lives. Life is just to short not to be kind. Our behavior with others will either add to human flushing or it doesn’t. How desperately want acceptance and how desperately we need to accept each other in kindness.
I only have one goal?
Some people are a bit confused as to what my goals are with my thinking. I am not trying to change minds, I am trying to change the world.
“Expose the Unspeakable harm”
We all can be irrational, but bises that is not even in the interesting point. Because we can all be irrational we have an outright moral obligation to institute accuracy in one’s choices. Which is similar to the potential for harm that beliefs unchecked can and do have, even if it’s just that it contributed to unspeakable harm.
To Feel or Not to Feel?
Slow down, and think, is that even a reality coherent statement?
To think we actually can someone how ,like a switch, turn off completely what you feel or wish not to fee. No matter what the external really in every way possible we can know the external pressure against the fragile body our minds are iensrined.One who questions deeply the Reality of Existence every breath you willfully take and wish not abstracted should remind you that you have had your experience to bring it all along, that aware was as point begin with feelings in fact, you always feel, unless something is very disrupted, it’s just that sometimes, we are refused to only feeling, for a time, Instead of clear thinking we fail for untruth or half truths, in the acquisition of extremely traumatizing motivators we are nothing but unchecked feelings and runaway emotions. We are no longer the pilot then, no we have become the plain getting hijacked.
Is the Appeal to Humility, a red Herring Fallacy?
Why do do we believe without thinking? I need to be humble? Is some truth less true if I lack Humility? So again I ask you to please provide a justification for why I can’t somehow do almost all the factors of life well and never appeal at all to some society or social abstraction of undo control we for some odd reason seem to almost willingly accept without a second thought. Which makes my brain think, wow, what confusion generator.

 Live up to my Ego?

I am arrogant by nature so I strive hard to hold myself up to the glittering heights of my ego, rather than let such a mental bisis run over me removing the credible truth simply because I dont like how it makes one look. I do care how I look as my number one fan “ME” has some staggering feats of exalted character to live up to in juxtaposition to actually present reality in thought and deed I can and do engage in or aspire too.

Strong vs Weak Thinkers?

A strong thinker can deeply analyze their own positions removing all that are unworthy and updating to the most currently accurate. Whereas a weak thinker can only offer deep attacks to the positions of others that differ in thinking.

We have High thinking to overcome things or it should be that way.

Don’t be Boxed in by Abstraction?
All we have is “Now, ” the here and now awareness is to finally live in what is actually present, anything else is Abstraction.
“you are not some abstraction, you’re a body and you feel. So, no extra justification needed”

Atheistic Humanism?

Raise your head high my friend, for you are not some fallen wretch of a being, shackled with the notion of sin and inborn evil depravity. My “Atheistic Humanism,” is highly evolved yet simple, just one taking back their family name of self-ownership. l breath in the liberty and equality of free thinking glory, built on a godless realization and a connected compassion, seen to fruition as a passion for doing some good while you’re alive. Don’t be brought down by evilness of hate, instead rise to the goodness of kindness.

I am an anarchist in thought, yet not limited to some abstraction but rather as a full expression of my support for an equal humanity; no gods nor earthly masters. Thus, I am also a humanist, who is aspiring to the greatness and full human potential: freedom, liberty, and justice. How simple is it to feel free and how quickly it can be lost? It is with such a clarity of humanity about the importance of liberation over some bleak servitude that we are truly free. I am appealing to a cold controller glorifying world. I offer only a simple humanist manifesto, one of the heart. I am well aware, that one is embodying a humanist archetype when they accurately realize the desperate nature of humanity and the equality it needs in a world that is hell bent on anti-humanism. This archetype of anarcho-humanism is evident, if one follows the thinking of “do no harm and do good” and this should be the letter of the unwritten law that is grounded on hopes of brighter futures. This desire for a free and equal society thrills me with renewed vigor by seeing how we are one but individually valuable, which is almost self-evident to a heart that is open in love and kindness as it is set free in liberation.

“Dialectical thinking has values for education that have been largely overlooked by researchers and educators. Dialectical thinking refers to the ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information and postures. Dialectical thinking is a form of analytical reasoning that pursues knowledge and truth as long as there are questions and conflicts. One inhibition to its use is that it can easily be abused–most modern uses of the dialectical paradigm known as the “Socratic Method” essentially are abuses of dialectical thinking. In an explicit teaching model, students are taught, through direct example (and non-example), that seemingly opposing views of reality can be reconciled into a meaning more reasonable than either of the seemingly contradictory positions. Implicit teaching methods include the “ReQuest” procedure, which engages students in loosely structured instructional conversation that contains the salient elements of reciprocily; the “Question Only” procedure, in which students are instructed to question the teacher repeatedly in order to learn all they need to know about an object; and the “Refutation Text,” a means of reorganizing printed material to enhance comprehension. Two curricular models that could further advance dialectical thinking are the REAP/AnX system (based on a reading-writing-study strategy called Read, Encode, Annotate, Ponder) and a citizen leadership institute in which students wrote four-paragraph essays demonstrating the use of dialectical thinking for particular issues. In addition, the annotations gathered from the REAP system can be made available to a wider audience, stimulating a dialectic of creativity as the volume of responders increases. Dialectical thinking also has implications for teacher education and how research might best be conducted. (A figure critiquing a study of dialectical thinking and a figure presenting REAP annotation types are included; 31 references are attached.) (RS).” Ref

Life itself is education.

Words are largely emotional projections, with an intentionally attached “emotional biology” created to motivate “emotions” in yourself and others to regulate or deregulate emotions.

Belief Regulation also Involves Emotional Regulation
If someone challenges a specific point and your minds first responce is to employ rhetoric, like oversimplified hasty generalizations or inaccurate half truths used to imply a further truth that is nothing but a mental evasion from a truth inquiry. If you do this you seem to exhibit some obscurity in the claimed truth stance offered and not in the court of dialectical scrutiny. Be willing if shown to say, I guess I was a lot surer about the claim until it was critiqued, now I am wanting to learn more about in with you.

Addressing The Ethics of Belief

We Love Generalizations (even if wrong):

“We don’t like slow clear accurate thinking, no, we are bias irrational compulsive disordered hasty generalizations thinking beings.”

We build our “belief” of the accuracy of our hasty generalizations one assertion at a time. In other words we add undue increasing assurance because we keep saying it over and over again, not because it’s actually accurate to the facts. We may cherry pick a few facts to support this error in thinking but that is intellectual dishonestly, as if it can be destroyed by the truth it should be.

Seeing Philosophy: don;t get things confused
Such confusion, to talk of layer upon layer of abstraction as if my shear crafted ness theis tethered conclusions as given almost a “real” value confusing the map for the train, the menu for the food and or a picture of someone as the person. I am not saying this almost magical imbuing of fancy words as if the held some philosophers stone of truth only some elite may make use of. Yeah, what ever. words are not living entities this they are abstractions we create and attach meaning and value. What many dont get is people attribute over value to some thin and under value all of which is more emotionally enriched then just the fact that the real value of all words ois they dont have any innate value it all must be given buy us. o you not remember that philosophy was created to help people? I mean who can not realist all of philosophy is a intelectual web of clever mental abstractions, useful as they may be people were not created to help philosophy.

Why hold yourself back when you could start “thinking unconditionally” like me?

Epistemology Confusion?

Skeptics think they are more clever than me an astute rationalist, with claims such as, because we distrust our senses we therefore somehow can’t use them to know if we exist but fear not my friends as all is not lost. Just saying something has a random nature is not an evidence clam it lacks all value. lol