Top row: Wittgenstein, Steiner, Stirner, Frankl, Gurdjieff, R. A. Wilson
Bottom row: S. Gesell, H. George, SEK3, Reich, Feynman, Bonhoeffer, Locke

My political philosophy can be roughly summed up in the term left-libertarianism.

My ethical philosophy may be referred to as extrapolated rational preference utilitarianism (a derivation of both R. M. Hare's preference utilitarianism and Eliezer Yudkowsky's coherent extrapolated volition utilitarianism with dashes of Bonhoeffer's situation ethics and Steiner's ethical individualism).

My metaphysical philosophy is largely informed by logical holism, neutral monism, and noetic science (to a more limited extent), also drawing on Celtic paganism and druidry, Heathenry, the Gnostic Gospels, Sufism, Wittgensteinian, Heideggerian, and Hegelian philosophy, Kabbalah, Thelema, various forms of yoga (including agni yoga, krita yoga, and raja yoga), the Feri Tradition, the Fourth Way of Gurdjieff, Steiner's Anthroposophy, and The Law of One by Ra.

Please note that every sentence after this one should be read with the preface 'Based on what I've read, observed, reasoned, and intuited, I believe that…' and suffixed with '…and this is my interpretation and my interpretation only. Don't get your knickers in a twist.'

Political Philosophy

I am a left-libertarian, and by that I mean that I believe the following:

  • The state should not exist. If it is to exist, it should be run by the model of DDDD:
    • At the municipal level, the legislative body should consist of all citizens.
    • At higher levels (prefectural, provincial, regional; confederal; other terms may be used), voters elect delegates to the Diet (Congress, Senate, Parliament, Assembly, Council, etc.) of each level by single transferable vote (or some other preferential system). These delegates are proportional to the number of voters and are directly accountable to their constituents.
    • At all levels, in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority, a proposal must be freely deliberated upon and modified until a consensus is reached before it is enacted as law. If the deliberation and modification does not result in a consensus, it is discarded.
    • At all levels, the members of the executive and judicial branches are elected directly by their constituents by single transferable vote (or some other preferential system).
  • Natural resources are common property; everyone using natural resources must pay some sort of 'rent' back to the community.
    • In a minarchist or DDDD-based society, this would be implemented by a single land value tax which is then used to fund a universal basic income and community projects.
    • In an anarchist society, this would be implemented by voluntary associations ensuring that all matters of natural resources are taken care of in a just manner; this also may be the natural state of an anarchist society. See 'Geoanarchism' by Fred Foldvary or The Natural Economic Order by Silvio Gesell.
  • Everyone is entitled to the goods they made and to trade them for goods made by others.
  • All people have the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and property, freedom of thought, speech, association, and assembly, and the rights to trade and to form contracts voluntarily.

Ethical Philosophy

I think I can explain this in the form of a logical argument. Please contact me with a correction if you see any flaws in my argument.

  1. If something is explicitly expressed, some other things directly connected to it are implicitly expressed.
  2. If some other things that are directly connected to the original thing are implicitly expressed, then some other things are implicitly expressed that are directly connected to the things that are directly connected to the original thing.
    This forms a chain of expressions which eventually express all things.
  3. Therefore, it is impossible to express one thing in a manner that does not implicitly express all things.
  4. Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate any given thing in a manner that does not implicitly evaluate all things.
  5. Therefore, it is impossible to evaluate the preferences of any given person in a manner that does not implicitly evaluate the preferences of all other persons.
  6. Therefore, if one is to act upon one's own preferences, one must also act upon all other persons' preferences.
    Given that it is impossible to satisfy all preferences of all persons, due both to contradictory preferences and to physical restraints, one must evaluate the 'weight' of each preference in comparison to others before acting on any preference.
  7. The ability to act upon any preferences is dependent on the ability to evaluate said preferences—i.e., the faculty of reason: rationality.
  8. Thus, if a person is in an irrational state of mind—that is, any state of mind in which the ability to use the faculty of reason is suspended (e.g., a psychotic state, a melancholically or suicidally depressive state, or a manic state)—one must extrapolate the preferences that person would have if they were in a rational state of mind from one's own rational preferences and the rational preferences of others.

Metaphysical Philosophy

I'll update this section later. Read the sources I mentioned in the introductory paragraph to get a good idea of my metaphysical beliefs.

inserted by FC2 system