Ulrich De Balbian

A VISUAL GUIDE TO THE WORKS OF THE ULRICH DE BALBIAN FINE ART FOUNDATION au natural I am/was hardly known in my life time, apart from a few thousand on Linkedin, my 2 blogs, Facebook, Instagram - because I live as a hermit, removed from all social life, so that I can just paint, paint and paint - and reflect and write (philosophy and sociology of life, existence, culture, art). I create, as I live, as if there is no human being who interferes, intervenes, creates (paints) - as if every- thing just happens, ‘just is’ - like water flows, the ocean, a tree grows (or dies) in the forest, like light creates colours, gravity and other natural forces. Like Zen Buddhists, Christian and other mystics, Jains, Sufis - we just leave everything as we find it. This is what all arts have ever attempted to do. But, especially and more specifically so-called modern, contemporary and (post-) post-modern art, Critical Theory, (post) deconstruction attempt to, and all philosophy tried to depict by means of reflection on first order existence - as if, it merely mirrors and reflects what it comes across. Nowadays many artist are aware of this, previously few reflected on this. All creatives are/were aware of this attitude, the state of mind, this style of conscious awareness, this way of 'just being', all mystics knew that - realizing the Buddha mind, being oned with Eckhart's Godhead, the one real self of Vedan- ta, the Father of Jesus, etc, etc. The human mind treats smaller paintings as if it is looking AT an object or a thing such as a table or chair , but larger works are experienced (like installations) as if one is part of them and participate in them. Now that you know this please do not treat these images as if they are just more objects or things you look AT, but experience and participate in them.

‭My new book for FREE download. I am in the top 0.5% for downloads at Academic.edu and belong to a group of academics offering our work for FREE as publishers charge too much for books. https://www.academia.edu/31251026/_Meta-Philosophy_Philosophers_and_their_lack_of_Meta-Cognition ‭(‬Meta-Philosophy‭) ‬Philosophers and their lack of‭ ‬Meta-cognition Philosopher think about your own thinking ABSTRACT I explore the meta-cognitive nature,‭ ‬tools,‭ ‬self-reflection of philosophers and in so doing present the Socratic Method,‭ ‬Critical Thinking,‭ ‬Cognitive Bias/es and Fallacies.‭ ‬The first do are dealt with in the text,‭ ‬lists of types of the last two are found in the Appendix,‭ ‬as well as a number of diagrams and data the reader must try to look at and digest in his/her own way. Buster Benson sums up causes of or reasons for cognitive bias as:‭ ‬too much information‭ (‬data bombardment‭)‬,‭ ‬not enough meaning‭ (‬making sense‭)‬,‭ ‬constraint by time and information‭ (‬time and data limitations‭) ‬and what to remember‭ (‬selective memory‭) ‬-‭ ‬my words in‭ (‬brackets‭)‬.‭ ‬https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18#.ah90rpmw3 Everyone,‭ ‬including philosophers have cognitive survival techniques to cope with these things and consequently developed individual coping mechanisms‭ (‬for example crutch ideas:‭ ‬mine are meta-philosophy,‭ ‬-cognition,‭ ‬multiverse and intersubjectivity‭ – ‬or reflecting on everything and how I do this in a multiverse by means of intersubjective tools‭)‬.‭ ‬How do and did philosophers cope and what are their individual cognitive biases,‭ ‬of which they usually are unaware‭ (‬thus showing a lack of meta-cognition and limited self-reflection‭)? ‬What are the consequences of this for the socio-cultural practice,‭ ‬discipline and discourse of philosophy and the doing of philosophy or philosophizing‭?

Both immanent and non-immanent (transcendent) factors related to philosophy, its nature, subject-matter, aims, objectives and methods are discussed from a meta-philosophical perspective, It will be noticed that original- and creative-thinkers in the socio-cultural practice of philosophy present us with their own, new and original ideas and patterns, sets or models of such ideas. Paradigms or models that are arrived at through the processes of theorizing. Processes that consist of a number of smaller steps or stages, stages that are multi-dimensional and many-levelled. All kinds of techniques and practices are employed in the contexts on these levels and in these dimensions. Some of these will be philosophical tools. These tools contribute to the doing of philosophy. This process of philosophizing forms one aspect, dimension or feature of the process/es of theorizing. Some of the features will resemble and employ familiar, already existing and institutionalized ideas, models, tools, practices and techniques - usually from the discourse of philosophy, but also from other socio-cultural practices. In the case of original/creative-thinkers these things will be ‘intuitive’ or ‘devised’ by the the individual himself while in the case of lesser original- and creative-thinkers these things (ideas, insights, tools, techniques, the ways they are arrived at or being constituted, employed to devise or express sets of new ideas or insights or models) will be obtained from the ideas, insights, statements, hypotheses and theories of other thinkers. The latter employs insights and ideas of others as ‘facts or factual ideas’ as ‘truths’ so as to argue for, establish, validate and legitimize their own derivative ideas resembling a kind of empirical research and the presentation of data in lectures and conferences and it is far removed from the approach of original thinkers.

Institutionalized and internalized, competence intersubjectivity contain many user-illusions and an imaginary or manifest image of reality, including of themselves (Dennett and Sellars),. This can be contrasted we a comprehension or comprehensive, understanding intersubjectivity. It is possible and perhaps even necessary to transform or replace the competence intersubjectivity to a comprehension or understanding (scientific, Dennett and Sellars) image of reality and themselves.Ethics and morality and studies of ethics and morality deal with the reality of competence intersubjectivity (by means of socio-cultural practices that are derived from, based on an created by means of this restrictive, misleading, unreal, illusory, unrealistic intersubjectivity and the life-worlds associated with it) and human life-worlds constituted on the basis of and in terms of this intersubjectivity. This is why I am a nihilist, a libertarian, at least a minarchist or rather an anarchist and epistemologically a sceptic. Kant’s things in themselves are similar to Dennett and Searle’s notions of manifest and scientific image. With my addition that we are socialized and internalize the competent, know how to do it, institutionalized manifest, everyday intersubjectivity, instead of the comprehension, insights and understanding knowing that, scientific intersubjectivity of all scientific disciplines. This piece can be read as independent as comments on meta-ethics, or it can be read as a chapter in my Book ‘Intersubjectivity (continued)’, or it can be read as an introduction to my thoughts on philosophy and more specifically Intersubjectivity as – Determining the nature of philosophy Determining the nature of the subject-matter of philosophy, sociology, social psychology, aspects of cognitive sciences, ethics, epistemology, etc, Determining the nature of philosophical methodology and approaches.

Many themes and topics, both immanent as well as non- immanent, concerning philosophy and meta-philosophy are dealt with. Many of these take the form of my answers to questions addressed at me. Some of the topics and themes that are dealt with are - Self-reference and Self-application Immanence and non-immanence Disagreement and diversity Primacy of the practical Philosophy good and bad Philosophy and expertise Ends of philosophy Death of philosophy Anti-philosophies Philosophy and assertion Philosophy and exposition Philosophy and style

When reading a text in the Western tradition of philosophy, Kant, Hegel, et al, one notices that - much of consists of exploration of notions, ideas or concepts. This is the what of philosophy - conceptuaL exploration in terms of speculations, attitudes and opinions. Something else that strikes one is that the author reifies these notions and deal with them as if they are things. One finds the above in all disciplines, not just those that are passed off a ‘philosophy’. These explorations are usually executed by means of tools that include reasoning and argumentation. Nothing in particular makes some of them philosophical or more philosophical than other. Their supposedly philosophical nature and relevance occurs when this notion is projected on them when they are viewed as metaphysical, ontological, ethics, epistemological or another philosophical term, branch or domain. I deal with intersubjectivity and more specifically philosophy's intersubjectivity. As well as the aims, methods and objectives of this institution and tradition. All disciplines and arts employ this specualtion, usualy in the context of defining terms. The why is because with increased differentiation of sciences, humanities and arts, there is nothing remaining for philosophy to do. The how is the the tools, methods and techniques of philosophy.

There are many different kinds of questions. I have mentioned a few of them here- Philosophy: Aims, Methods, Rationale Paperback – 2018 by Ulrich de Balbian (Author) ISBN-10 : 1985719150 ISBN-13 : 978-1985719156 In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with ane xploration of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. Thien I show that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Traditional philosophy is no longer viable, relevant and acceptable. It might be possible to continue doing philosophizing in traditional ways. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner. One of the major issues with traditional philosophy is its lack of self-awareness, the absence of meta-cognition. This lack of meta-cognition of traditional philosophers leads to the creation of all sorts of questionable phenomena and fake problems. Traditional philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of sciences, religion, arts, etc are little more than the possibilities, limits and restrictions enabled and allowed by the philosopher's methodology, techniques and tools. It is most likely possible to envisage a project to devise a collection or synthesis of many alternative realities by means of the insights and theories of theoretical physics, mathematics, bio-chemistry, biology and other sciences, the depictions produced by the arts and pictures of realities presented by the humanities. If such a system of pictures of reality is philosophically relevant and meaningful is however another matter. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner. Some of these questions, certain kinds of questions are relevant to philosophy, to the doing of philosophy or philosophizing. What are the aims of different kinds of questions? What are their objectives and purposes? How are their relevant to the doing of philosophy? How are they related to philosophizing? These are some of the topics that will be touched on, tacitly and explicitly, in this exploration. I travel through the exploration of concepts and their role in questions, how concepts can be viewed as interconnected and being interpreted as forming a system or set of ideas and being employed to devise a theory, good, bad or indifferent.

THOUGHT or Imaginary EXPERIMENTS and METAPHORS‭ (‬volume‭ ‬3‭) I intended to deal with the different sections or chapters in one volume,‭ ‬but as certain sections or chapters are very long,‭ ‬like chapter‭ ‬1,‭ ‬THEORIZING AND PHILOSOPHIZING‭ (‬VOLUME‭ ‬1‭)‬,‭ ‬I divided some of them into separate volumes,‭ ‬chapter‭ ‬2‭ ‬HEURISTICS AND PROBLEMSOLVING‭ (‬Volume‭ ‬2‭) ‬and‭ ‬chapter‭ ‬3‭ ‬IMAGINARY EXPERIMENTS AND METAPHORS‭ (‬Vol‭ ‬3‭)‬. In this volume,‭ ‬3,‭ ‬I deal with Thought and Imaginary Experiments,‭ ‬and then with the use of Metaphors‭ (‬as is the case with Weick and Cornelissen‭)‬,‭ ‬analogies and theories such as‭ ‬CMT,‭ ‬CB or BT,‭ ‬CMA metaphors‭ ‬. My attitude towards thought and imaginary experiments,‭ ‬the use of metaphors and analogies in theorizing and in the doing of philosophy is this:‭ ‬one needs to look at the particular context in which these tools are employed and one must identify the specific function and role of a certain experiment or metaphor and the reasons why they are employed.

There are many different kinds of questions. I have mentioned a few of them here- Philosophy: Aims, Methods, Rationale Paperback – 2018 by Ulrich de Balbian (Author) ISBN-10 : 1985719150 ISBN-13 : 978-1985719156 In this meta-philosophical study I commence with an investigation of Wisdom. I then continue with ane xploration of the institutionalization of the subject and the professionalization of those involved in it. Thien I show that philosophizing resembles and attempts to do theorizing. The 9 questions, etc of the Socratic Method and details of the Philosophical Toolkit occur throughout different stages of theorizing as one level and one dimension of it. Traditional philosophy is no longer viable, relevant and acceptable. It might be possible to continue doing philosophizing in traditional ways. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner. One of the major issues with traditional philosophy is its lack of self-awareness, the absence of meta-cognition. This lack of meta-cognition of traditional philosophers leads to the creation of all sorts of questionable phenomena and fake problems. Traditional philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of sciences, religion, arts, etc are little more than the possibilities, limits and restrictions enabled and allowed by the philosopher's methodology, techniques and tools. It is most likely possible to envisage a project to devise a collection or synthesis of many alternative realities by means of the insights and theories of theoretical physics, mathematics, bio-chemistry, biology and other sciences, the depictions produced by the arts and pictures of realities presented by the humanities. If such a system of pictures of reality is philosophically relevant and meaningful is however another matter. It is possible to continue fabricating fictional realities in the manner of the Pre-Socratics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Husserl, Hegel, Plato, et al. It is possible to devise pictures of realities and depictions of human consciousness and cognition like Descartes or in the Kantian manner. Some of these questions, certain kinds of questions are relevant to philosophy, to the doing of philosophy or philosophizing. What are the aims of different kinds of questions? What are their objectives and purposes? How are the relevant to the doing of philosophy? How are they related to philosophizing? These are some of the topics that will be touched on, tacitly and explicitly, in this exploration. I travel through the exploration of concepts and their role in questions, how concepts can be viewed as interconnected and being interpreted as forming a system or set of ideas and being employed to devise a theory, good, bad or indifferent.

In this volume,‭ ‬volume‭ ‬6,‭ ‬I will deal with insight and understanding,‭ ‬meaning and communication and intersubjectivity.‭ (‬In an appendix I will include a number of‭ –‬isms,‭ ‬cognitive biases and fallacies that might interfere in,‭ ‬with and distort these things.‭) The latter is pre-supposed by,‭ ‬present,‭ ‬necessary and operating in all four of these notions when they are employed as verbs.‭ ‬I hope and intend to employ these words and explore them without the need for ghost-in-the-machine like mysterious,‭ ‬mystical and mythical‭ ‘‬mental‭’ ‬processes and organs such as‭ ‘‬mind‭’ ‬and‭ ‘‬consciousness‭’ ‬but by means of different meanings,‭ ‬dimensions,‭ ‬levels of t notions of intersubjectivity.‭ ‬Intersubjectivity enfolds‭ (‬like a pregnant mother her foetus‭) ‬insight,‭ ‬understanding,‭ ‬meaning and communication.‭ ‬Intersubjectivity is the beginning,‭ ‬the ground and reason for and the end of all meanings or sense that human beings could have. The reason for these attitudes of mine towards mental things,‭ ‬processes,‭ ‬organs,‭ ‬etc is that I do not believe they exist,‭ ‬apart from being umbrella-notions that refer to a number of undefined and not yet conceptualized meanings.‭ ‬They have their origins in uneducated,‭ ‬uninformed redundant myths and folk psychology.‭ ‬Their usage date back to almost pre-historic times in the evolution of human thinking and psychology and are conceptual remainders and linguistic left overs‭ ‬of primitive flat earth socio-cultural attitudes and beliefs. I further need to make four points concerning my approach in this volume and my approach to or understanding of philosophy,‭ ‬they manner or style in which I write,‭ ‬especially in this volume and how I employ and interpret the nature and one function of intersubjectivity,‭ ‬both in this volume and in general.‭ ‬The latter I present as a kind of hypothesis and conclusion. 1‭)‬I realized many years,‭ ‬decades,‭ ‬ago‭ ‬that I approach philosophy,‭ ‬science,‭ ‬art and other socio-cultural practices that I am interested in and became involved with in a manner that is not the usual run-of-the-mill one or that of the typical scholar,‭ ‬but in an original and creative thinking way.‭ ‬I did not attempt to study in this manner,‭ ‬but it came to me naturally.‭ ‬I would study and grasp what some philosopher,‭ ‬scientist,‭ ‬sociologist,‭ ‬artist,‭ ‬thinker,‭ ‬etc attempted to express and communicate‭ – ‬as serious scholars would and some of them do in an excellent way,‭ ‬and most of them in a mediocre manner and others rather poorly.‭ ‬But,‭ ‬that was only the beginning of my contact with a subject and an author.‭ ‬I had to go further and question his work and the assumptions he made as merely the first preliminary step,‭ ‬as I had to re-think his approach and work by means of my own original insights,‭ ‬model or perspective.‭ ‬I thought this is merely the natural or usual way of reading and thinking about the ideas thinkers or authors present to us,‭ ‬until I discovered this,‭ ‬my natural attitude and way of dealing with texts,‭ ‬approaches and theories are unusual and that the conventional way of dealing with such things is that of the academic scholar‭ ‬-‭ ‬that what we read in articles,‭ ‬theses,‭ ‬books and research.‭ ‬It often consists of commentaries on the work and/‭ ‬or the commentaries of others‭ – ‬for example one paper in sociology presented us with commentary on Habermas’s commentary on Brandom.‭ ‬Of course that type of thing is fine for the category of scholarly work,‭ ‬but to me it appears almost pointless and irrelevant and does not develop the discipline or provide us with meaningful insights.‭ ‬So much for scholarly approaches,‭ ‬or the stuff that the majority of academic books,‭ ‬articles and theses are made of and the insights and ideas of the handful of original-‭ ‬and creative thinking individuals in disciplines,‭ ‬discourses or socio-cultural practices,‭ ‬for example Plato,‭ ‬Aristotle,‭ ‬Kant,‭ ‬Hegel,‭ ‬Wittgenstein,‭ ‬Leibniz,‭ ‬Spinoza,‭ ‬Marx,‭ ‬et al. One aspect of these two approaches is the question about the intention or motive of these different kinds of work.‭ ‬The original,‭ ‬creative-thinking one is obliged to work,‭ ‬think and write in that discipline or execute the socio-cultural practice,‭ ‬as if his life depends on it,‭ ‬he lives or exists for his passion,‭ ‬the other kind forms part of the professional,‭ ‬academic practice,‭ ‬the academic who must publish and therefore is obliged to find some topic or subject-matter,‭ ‬often contrived,‭ ‬as it forms part of his tenure and job-description,‭ ‬like the majority in any discipline who lives off that subject. 2‭) ‬The second point concerns certain aspects of the so-called Socratic Method/s.‭ ‬In an earlier book I roughly distinguished between different kinds of philosophy‭ ‬in terms of the ways it is being done‭ (‬speculative or revisionary metaphysics as Strawson labelled it,‭ ‬his own descriptive kind of metaphysics,‭ ‬and two kinds of explorative philosophy,‭ ‬namely the hard ones,‭ ‬that retains certain metaphysical ambitions and the soft explorative kind,‭ ‬that lost the need or desire for any form‭ ‬of metaphysics.‭ ‬The latter is represented by the Socratic methods and the former‭ ‬by the Philosophical Investigations.‭ ‬In that work I suggested that the explorative types of doing philosophy appear to be more meaningful for the philosophical enterprise as it discarded all or most metaphysical aspirations and motives and as they provide us with a faint glimmer of hope that there remains a future for the philosophical discourse‭ – ‬a socio-cultural practice that desperately seeks for subject-matter‭ (‬by innovations such as experimental philosophy,‭ ‬the creation‭ ‬of philosophies of every subject and everything possible and increasing attempts to become involved in interdisciplinary work‭) ‬and methods and that is increasingly predicted not to last beyond the end of this century,‭ ‬if that long.

I explore the frame of reference of the multiverse and the universe as point of reference for the meta-philosophical reflection on philosophy and the doing of philosophy. Some of the many topics being dealt with in this frame of reference and from this perspective of the bigger picture are - Determinism, The absence of Free Will, Consequences of this for Law, God and determinism, Embodied Consciousness and Conscious Embodiment, Radical Scepticism, Nihilism, Libertarianism, minarchism and anarchism, Amoralism, Intersubjectivity, Mysticism and the Unity Experience, Theorizing, Philosophizing as part of the processes of theorizing, Contexts, many levels and multi-dimensionality, The Institutionalization of philosophy, The professionalization of philosophy, Philosophy as realization of wisdom, Knowing that, facts, factual information, knowing how, insights and understanding, Art and music as making the invisible visible without the use of words...

Download FREE book here Fake Morality and Ethics (in philosophy and Life) https://www.academia.edu/32532069/LETS_FAKE_MORALITY_and_ETHICS_the_pretence_of_ethics_and_morality_in_philosophy_and_life_ Institutionalized and internalized,‭ ‬competence intersubjectivity contain many user-illusions and an imaginary or manifest image of reality,‭ ‬including of themselves‭ (‬Dennett and Sellars‭)‬,.‭ ‬This can be contrasted we a comprehension or comprehensive,‭ ‬understanding intersubjectivity.‭ ‬It is possible and perhaps even necessary to transform or replace the competence intersubjectivity to a comprehension or understanding‭ (‬scientific,‭ ‬Dennett and Sellars‭) ‬image of reality and themselves.Ethics and morality and studies of ethics and morality deal with the reality of competence intersubjectivity‭ (‬by means of socio-cultural practices that are derived from,‭ ‬based on an created by means of this restrictive,‭ ‬misleading,‭ ‬unreal,‭ ‬illusory,‭ ‬unrealistic intersubjectivity and the life-worlds associated with it‭) ‬and human life-worlds constituted on the basis of and in terms of this intersubjectivity.‭ ‬This is why I am a nihilist,‭ ‬a libertarian,‭ ‬at least a minarchist or rather an anarchist and epistemologically a sceptic. Kant’s‭ ‬things in themselves are similar‭ ‬to Dennett and Searle‭’‬s‭ ‬notions of manifest and scientific image.‭ ‬With my addition that we‭ ‬are socialized and internalize the competent,‭ ‬know how to do it,‭ ‬institutionalized manifest,‭ ‬everyday intersubjectivity,‭ ‬instead of the comprehension,‭ ‬insights and understanding knowing that,‭ ‬scientific intersubjectivity of all scientific disciplines.‭ This piece can be read as independent as comments on meta-ethics,‭ ‬or it can be read as a chapter in my Book‭ ‘‬Intersubjectivity‭ (‬continued‭)’‬,‭ ‬or it can be read as an introduction to my thoughts on philosophy and more specifically Intersubjectivity as‭ – Determining the nature of‭ ‬philosophy Determining the nature of the subject-matter of philosophy,‭ ‬sociology,‭ ‬social psychology,‭ ‬aspects of cognitive sciences,‭ ‬ethics,‭ ‬epistemology,‭ ‬etc, Determining the nature of philosophical methodology and approaches. Reasons why I have refrained from reflecting and writing on ethics and morality‭ ‬-‭ a‭)‬ The intersubjectivity that are institutionalized,‭ ‬socialized and internalize and therefore being employed to constitute reality,‭ ‬life-worlds,‭ ‬selves,‭ ‬discourses and socio-cultural practices,‭ ‬including specialized disciplines,‭ ‬eg philosophy,‭ ‬is that of‭ ‬Kantian things-for-us or Searle‭’ ‬and Dennett’s notion of manifest,‭ ‬imaginary,‭ ‬competent or know-how,‭ ‬knowing-how-to images.‭ ‬This kind of intersubjectivity underlies human morality and ethics,‭ ‬as well as approaches of philosophers to these and other branches of philosophy. ‭ ‬b‭) ‬How philosophers exist and how they live,‭ ‬their attitudes and beliefs,‭ ‬are very different from the theories of human existence,‭ ‬consciousness,‭ ‬selves,‭ ‬ethics,‭ ‬morality,‭ ‬epistemology,‭ ‬ontology,‭ ‬metaphysics,‭ ‬etc they advocate or express in and as their theories.‭ ‬Philosophers have their own private ways or personal styles of im/morality and being a-ethical while they advocate theories of ethics‭ (‬and other branches of philosophy‭) ‬that are completely different from their real attitudes and beliefs.

According to Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, only when lower or basic needs are satisfied will an individual be able to concentrate on higher needs. The motivation for the doing of original and creative philosophizing, theorizing in sciences and original work in disciplines or socio-cultural practices are some of the highest 'needs', values and attitudes. What are the values, attitudes and beliefs that groups of individuals subscribe to and employ to constitute their selves and realities? These things(that individuals experience as it is their nature, their selves, their motivations, values and attitudes) are determined by genotypes, phenotypes, personality-types and other factors.

I already wrote about derivative, academic or secondary philosophy - teaching, talking and writing about and studying the work of philosophers. I compared this to original and creative thinking, thinkers, that are situated on the opposite pole of the continuum. I also wrote a lot about the nature of the work of the latter, namely creative thinking. for example, pre-conceptual or non-verbal ‘thinking or consciousness’, or intuition. This could be viewed as the first stage of creation or the combinatorial nature of creativity as Einstein and others called it. I suggested that contemplation, meditation and religious mysticism and visual art informs us about and illustrates this first stage very well. This combinatorial nature is one way, approach or attitude that we could be alive, interact with and respond to the world. They form the building blocks of this creative response and existence. They consist of ‘impressions’ (a concept that need to be explored), by experiences (also to be explored), memories (personal or individual, collective, social, cultural and historical, of our species, human existence, planet earth, our solar system, galaxy and the multiverse) and ‘influences’ (another multi-dimensional, many-levelled, extremely complex notion). These things assist us to act, be alive and live into or as consciousness and thinking and think, be conscious into and as action and existence. Einstein, and others, suggested that the combinatorial nature consists of several, for example four, stages. Institutionalized, derivative, academic philosophy deals only with the verbalized, conceptualized stage by means of its -isms, ideologies and methods (Marxism, analysis, pragmatism, etc). In chapter 3 I show ways of multi-sensory dealing with all stages of creativity as philosophical possibilities, requiring new approaches and paradigms. I explore, identify and express both sides of the limits of philosophy and the doing of philosophy. i show, reveal and make visible the ineffable and invisible.

Meta-cognology If you wish to think/write about many dimensional things like the ‘world! persons! "consciousness! human thinking etc"! you should at least think multi-dimensional and many levelled. Questioning the purpose,‭ ‬the subject-matter and the methodology,‭ ‬methods of the discipline. I have already dealt in detail about the disappearance of different subject from the philosophical discourse with the differentiation of other disciplines, as well as the involvement in philosophy in inter-disciplinary areas such as cognitive sciences, the creation of experimental philosophy and the philosophies of other discourses, eg art, religion, science, mathematics, sport and every subject possible. Philosophy has/is often interpreted as consisting of logic, which in has its own discourse, while other aspects or forms of logic really form part of mathematics. The doing of philosophy as the doing of (usually informal) logic is in some way related to this belief. As far as the method of philosophy goes, it is always seen as employing arguments, argumentation and reasoning. But all kinds of writing and talking employ arguments, argumentation, reasoning and informal logic – not just philosophy. I conclude with a discussion from theoretical physics (in the past associated with the philosophical discourse) that provides us with ontologies as philosophy used to do. Against that background I present articles on the multiverse, more conventional articles on our universe, our world, our physical reality and the origins of life. I think these are some of the many things that it is necessary that philosophy should take note of and consequently question itself, its aims, objectives, subject-matter and methodologies. We might then have something different than one-levelled and one-dimensional thinking and more many layered and levelled and multi-dimensional thinking. Is this not how our consciousness functions? On many levels, layers and dimensions simultaneously? So should this not be the manner in which we conceive of ‘it’, its nature and functioning? We, philosophy, should at least be thinking ( instead of individual concepts, or statements, linear thinking - we should simultaneously think on many layers, on many levels and in several dimensions) in terms of 3D, for example 3D scatter plots .By this I mean the many different aspects of the person (mentally and physically, socially, culturally, as well as our environment, planetary and universe context should be included in every concept we employ; each concept should therefore be at least like a 3D scatter plot image, including all these levels and information)

The tools employed might appear appropriate, the reasoning sound and argumentation valid, but the subject-matter, well one wonders what that has to do with philosophy, if anything at all? Viewing some of the topics one really wonders of the notion of philosophy is not stretched too far? So much that is passed off as philosophy itself or some kind of so-called interdisciplinary issues really appear as irrelevant. tempt to interpret, perceive and treat as if they a Topics from the grievance studies especially fall under this. It seems as if individuals have personal issues, obsessions and psychological, social and cultural problems that they are philosophical and/or philosophically related. I wish to suggest that those issues are treated as disciplines or subjects in their own right, for example racism, feminism and gender studies, but not as if they have anything to do with philosophy or should be treated in a philosophical manner. As if they inform us about profound philosophical issues or concerns. Perhaps aspects of them can be dealt with as psychological, anthropological, sociological, biological, political, etc, but dealing with them as if they provide us with some kind of profound philosophical ideas and insights might be stretching the notion of philosophy a bit too far.I’ve wondered about the seeming dichotomy of materialism/physicalism and panpsychism and if they are really the only possible consciousness explanatory positions? How about biologism? That is as if all living biological matter or organisms are conscious, as well as that consciousness (the many types of it) can be explained best by the nature of those phenomena. A biologically restricted form or modification of pan-psychism? The consciousness section is an attempt to provide guidelines for the conceptualization of different meanings of consciousness. When they have been identified they can be explored, for example the nature of the different types, on different levels and in different dimensions, the nature of the processes, aims, objectives, functions. These are mere beginnings. When they have been investigated, can one perhaps begin to develop hypotheses and theories about features, processes, causes, functions, the organs involved, etc