I’ve been working on a personal philosophical system for some time. This is Version 3 (the most developed one without any feedback so far), which scales the framework from the individual to broader cases, including extreme human conditions.
The system is a practical attempt to answer: how to live with the least unnecessary disturbance in a world without guarantees or transcendent purpose.
It is not nihilism or moral relativism. The central goal is Ataraxia — sustainable peace of mind as the absence of unnecessary disturbance (not intense happiness or total absence of pain).
The system consists of four axioms plus one objective and explicitly recognizes its own structural limits (the “implicit base” formed mostly in childhood, partial opacity of moral judgment, and honest acceptance that full autonomy is not absolute).
Version 3 particularly develops the definition of “unnecessary disturbance”, the framework for building autonomous ethics, and how the system handles extreme cases (psychopathy, apathy, breaking the social contract, etc.).
I’m looking for honest, constructive feedback. I’m especially interested in:
The tension between autonomous ethics and the implicit base
How well the practical definition of “unnecessary disturbance” works
Whether the approach of “honest structural limits” feels coherent or like a weakness
Any inconsistencies or practical issues when applying it, especially in extreme scenarios
I took a quick scroll through your document. It seems to be pure theory.
Here is the fundamental problem: it is inherently impossible to formulate a closed theory of human/mind/thought etc. because of the infinite recursive nature of human thinking. You construct a theoretical thought; I theoretically think about why you theoretically think that way; that realization modifies heavily what you originally said, and so on into an infinite regress. Thinking is mathematically infinite; it cannot be trapped or codified by Thought itself (except by my metaphysical system, LOL, but that operates on an entirely different, non-prescriptive level, it’s an external definition from the Totality as a recursive infinite itself: useless for you or anybody).
Since a true theory of the human mind is impossible, the only actual output of systems like yours is performative. Meaning: you are essentially trying to take control of other people’s minds by overpowering their mental framework with yours (good luck attempting that on TPS, by the way). It’s not what you want to do, it’s the only output of a theoretical position, because it is a human power position in the human hierarchy. And nothing else.
If you are genuinely looking for effectiveness regarding how to produce results in mind domain the best tool I know of is the recent development in Ericksonian conversational hypnosis. You can search for Scott Jansen’s ACH (Advanced Conversational Hypnosis). It is probably not the track you wanted to take, but unlike theoretical philosophy, it actually works!
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
I understand the point about the infinite recursive nature of thought, which is an interesting epistemological issue. However, my system is not attempting to offer a complete theory of the mind. It is primarily an ethical and practical framework for living with minimal unnecessary disturbance, while openly acknowledging its own structural limits.
The infinite regress you mention actually aligns with one of the core ideas behind the system: building it around practical ataraxia and the conscious direction we can take from our implicit base, rather than aiming for a final, all-encompassing closure.
Additionally, I think you may have got the wrong idea; I’m not trying to impose any framework on others, I’m simply sharing a personal system and looking for constructive feedback on how well it holds up in practice — and possible gaps within the system that I hadn’t noticed before.
If Ericksonian hypnosis works well for you, that’s great. Different tools serve different purposes.
Out of curiosity though — wouldn’t the same infinite regress argument also apply to your own claim that I’m “trying to take control of other people’s minds”?
yes! can provide vertigo if took seriously… except that philosophy has been killed by judeo-christian oriental moronic monotheism. Last time people gave credit to a metaphysical system was hegel’s dialectics that leads to marxism that leads to stalinism thats leads to nazims. This is a quite effective vaccine! (but hegel’s dialectics is just a metaphysication of the Christ’s contradictory Hebraic logic, it’s not true metaphysics)
my system is 3 orders of magnitude above anything else, it’s the only one that really works and nobody is interested by it: this is fucking Art!
and as I edit my first answer just when you were writing: the only possible destiny of your system is the same because a theory is a point of power among humans, that what it is in essence.
another way to say it: the human mind thruster is hierarchy. The thirst for theory (in human things) is a need for dominance. For example I noticed people on TPF are not interested by ideas: they are interested by who signed the idea.