[Guille]

Hi Lloyd, thanks for answering on this thread.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Guille, I think we must study all the different branches of ideation at once. We must study, subject/object, metaphysical/logical, ontological/teleological/mereological, and all such mind, and reality topics.

I agree. What is mereological? And teleological? Those two terms I’ve come alogn sometimes but didn’t understand. But I agree that we should study all parts of existence.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie The problem with almost all philosophy has been some form of exclusionism, whether of Aristotle or new ones like Richard Rorty. Exclusionism is the enemy of true philosophy.

Interesting point. I have seen throughout reading philosophy that philosophers and philosophies can’t embrace it all. They can’t because the have to be more centered on some things than on others. But this is simply impossible to escape form. If you truly try and philosophize, you will see it’s not possible to have all observations from reality and therefore impossible to have all cognitions (concepts) clear. With Husserl’s phenomenology, and the relativity/subjectivity problem, it is simply proved that we can’t make a perfect philosophy that explains reality exactly.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie At the same time, all areas of philosophy must be kept in their formal languages' presentations, not to be mis-understood. Also, we should work through the newer schools of systemology, to unite all the various inter-disciplinary schools of thought. I work in the area of systemology, as espoused by such notables as Kondratieff on. I have great confidence in much of the Russian vein of thought, as contributary to philosophy. The schools of systemology are working toward the united universal concept, to better express our yet incomplete perception understanding of the whole. I think this is a very promising area for the integration toward a new theory of everything. I really see no other way, except to integrate it all into the answers we all seek.

No possible systematic true philosophy is possible. We started to notice this from the rationalist, from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. They knew it, so did the empiricist, and the idealist. So did Hegel, and so did Kierkegaard. So did Engels, Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Stuart Mill. Even Pierce and Dewey knew. And Russell, Wittgenstein and Carnap. And Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre and Heidegger. And I know, and you know now. Systemology is not systematic, nor is methodology methodological. I don’t understand why now people want to make things show themselves and use themselves and contain themselves. This is not existential. Jaspers knew.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Epistemologically speaking, the world of our emotional desires, greatly exceeds the capacities of the world's present formal logical systems of real institutions and nations, to supply. If we truly look at the entire world, it's the historical evolution of total logic systems of all nations, that holds our emotional desires in check. Thus, in order to improve the human condition, to allow a greater expansion of true emotional liberty, we must better understand the epistemology of systemology, and its possible new integrations into better universal justice systems, i.e., sensible scientific semi-utopias.

We have more thoughts than feelings but feelings are ‘bigger’ in average than thoughts. The total final proportions depend on the person. Semi-utopias are not utopias nor are they non-utopias, they simply don’t exist. Either perfect happiness or imperfect happiness/unhappiness, no semi-perfect happiness exists.