fractastical · February 25, 2025 23:11
diff --git a/gistfile1.txt b/gistfile1.txt
 I have written a few works of pure philosophy touching at times on political, economic, and social issues but I believe it is time to return to the most core elements, including my unique position.

 First, I am solidly in the line of American pramaticism, Quinian empiricism, and Heraclitan realism, and though I recognize other social schools I do not see their benefits as sufficiently large to deviate from these historical lineages.  

 Second, I have three novel concepts concerning information density, phenomenological scope, and axiomatic chaining.

 The first of these describes that the world is composited of information and that we seek to plot it through the highest density of information, which means effectively maintaining a high signal to noise ratio (including a tendency to the laconic) and at times combining transmedia data streams of multiple types (i.e. vocal, syntactical, tonal, olfactory, etc.).  This biases me at times to poetic traditions (Laozi, Pindar, Homer) where something can be expressed in a pithy and inspirational format, as well as, in modern times, those that combine audiovisual illustrations of  problems in hard science and math. 

 The second of these is that we are have a max information **absorb sion** at any point in time including our knowledge of self and our knowledge of the outside world, inclusive of our sense of self and identity. This total amount of presumed knowledge I refer to as "phenomenological scope." Now, this is extended via a trust (often implicit) on third party data sources such as what our parents told us, what we learned in school, books, with which we inform our overall worldview, which is challenging to formally validate. One key point here is that  phenomenological scope can be extended via various means, including traveling around the world, reading books, and experiencing altered states of consciousness. 

 This leads us to the third point, axiomatic chaining, and can be referred to as a first principles approach to building our phenomenological scope where we have some formalization in how we state our convictions that attempts to make these as reliable as possible. In this case, it is simply the assumption, accompanied by tools, that we can formally validate many of these suppositions.  One such method, for example, is to clearly state the assumption, seek  experimental evidence that validates this, and then formally represent this evidence through a peer system. Such a system, which is most prominent in science, has various outgrowths in the metascience community and lends itself to some form of standardization which applies across multiple fields, which in turn can be used to organize research on these topics (such as my own attempt to formalize Hard Problems in Computational Law, Frontier Physics, Ludology, and Neuropharmocology ).

 I do not believe that anything more is necessary to explain the unique features of my philosophy, except that I have referred to it as "Buddhist Accelerationism." By "accelerationism" here i simply refer to the concept that all things are in flux and that any new system can be better than a previous system with respect to the above and, as such, can represent as positive state. In that sense, there is no point in accepting a static system as opposed to a dynamic one. As for "buddhism" I refer to the statement that I have placed on budacc.org, which is effectively the qualia valence system[1], which holds that we can find positive purpose in collectively shifting conscious beings from pain oriented to ones that are more positive, including via medical interventions and not attempting to restrict or cap on positive states. 

 I would also like to acknowledge the other key living philosophers that have influenced me including Peter Suber, Wei Dai, Michael Levin, Alexander Bard, Sandy Pentland, Chris K., Dennis Hauck, Jonathan Gorard, and key 20th century philosophers including Arthur Kostler, Johan Huizinga, as well as key mentors in my life including Harold Roth and Martin van Creveld. 

 [1] See Principa Qualia and the Qualia Research Institute's formalisation of these topics. Formal buddhism additionally contains a number of tools and rules.
	I have written a few works of pure philosophy touching at times on political, economic, and social issues but I believe it is time to return to the most core elements, including my unique position.

	First, I am solidly in the line of American pramaticism, Quinian empiricism, and Heraclitan realism, and though I recognize other social schools I do not see their benefits as sufficiently large to deviate from these historical lineages.

	Second, I have three novel concepts concerning information density, phenomenological scope, and axiomatic chaining.

	The first of these describes that the world is composited of information and that we seek to plot it through the highest density of information, which means effectively maintaining a high signal to noise ratio (including a tendency to the laconic) and at times combining transmedia data streams of multiple types (i.e. vocal, syntactical, tonal, olfactory, etc.). This biases me at times to poetic traditions (Laozi, Pindar, Homer) where something can be expressed in a pithy and inspirational format, as well as, in modern times, those that combine audiovisual illustrations of problems in hard science and math.

	The second of these is that we are have a max information absorb sion at any point in time including our knowledge of self and our knowledge of the outside world, inclusive of our sense of self and identity. This total amount of presumed knowledge I refer to as "phenomenological scope." Now, this is extended via a trust (often implicit) on third party data sources such as what our parents told us, what we learned in school, books, with which we inform our overall worldview, which is challenging to formally validate. One key point here is that phenomenological scope can be extended via various means, including traveling around the world, reading books, and experiencing altered states of consciousness.

	This leads us to the third point, axiomatic chaining, and can be referred to as a first principles approach to building our phenomenological scope where we have some formalization in how we state our convictions that attempts to make these as reliable as possible. In this case, it is simply the assumption, accompanied by tools, that we can formally validate many of these suppositions. One such method, for example, is to clearly state the assumption, seek experimental evidence that validates this, and then formally represent this evidence through a peer system. Such a system, which is most prominent in science, has various outgrowths in the metascience community and lends itself to some form of standardization which applies across multiple fields, which in turn can be used to organize research on these topics (such as my own attempt to formalize Hard Problems in Computational Law, Frontier Physics, Ludology, and Neuropharmocology ).

	I do not believe that anything more is necessary to explain the unique features of my philosophy, except that I have referred to it as "Buddhist Accelerationism." By "accelerationism" here i simply refer to the concept that all things are in flux and that any new system can be better than a previous system with respect to the above and, as such, can represent as positive state. In that sense, there is no point in accepting a static system as opposed to a dynamic one. As for "buddhism" I refer to the statement that I have placed on budacc.org, which is effectively the qualia valence system[1], which holds that we can find positive purpose in collectively shifting conscious beings from pain oriented to ones that are more positive, including via medical interventions and not attempting to restrict or cap on positive states.

	I would also like to acknowledge the other key living philosophers that have influenced me including Peter Suber, Wei Dai, Michael Levin, Alexander Bard, Sandy Pentland, Chris K., Dennis Hauck, Jonathan Gorard, and key 20th century philosophers including Arthur Kostler, Johan Huizinga, as well as key mentors in my life including Harold Roth and Martin van Creveld.

	[1] See Principa Qualia and the Qualia Research Institute's formalisation of these topics. Formal buddhism additionally contains a number of tools and rules.