Conclusions about Philosophy List Dispute Greetings all,

(The following is apparently an explanation, but it is more of a question, in reality.)

Since I began this exploration, I have had many thoughts, and being a “philosopher” I would love to share. I put quotes around the word because I am not a pro, in the institutional sense. I am independent and give my texts freely. However, I was trained at “the best school” around, the University of Pittsburgh, and though my degree is only undergraduate, this simple predicate of course cannot bespeak of the transformations I and the department underwent while I was there, for reasons internal to and external to my status as a philosopher. For I am also a musician, director, novelist, son of a clinical neuropsychologist and sufferer of schizoaffective disorder, the most serious mental health diagnosis. Philosophy cannot be said to be only a small part of what I do, for it gladly affects everything, as you’ll know...

I questioned you all about reduction. I got one response, and my take of this, my response to Aaron Sloman, highlighted, perhaps for the first time, a new philosophy – Parallelism or Nonintersectionality. So it is only fitting that I give a full account, being the inventor.

This is a “referency.” Not, in other words, a lecture or an algorithmic proof.

What could “referency” possibly mean? Like all the words I invent or reinvent, it has a new, obvious meaning. A referent is an object pointed to. Referency would be the condition of such an object, perhaps, or maybe the phenomenon of being such an object. Either way, the word appears necessary, once you learn of it. So forgive the neologos, and try to understand my referency.

This is an autotext, not, how they like to say in school, “in context,” and solidly referential, but instead decontexted, that is, it is an auto-context, or “autotext” for short – self-chosen, ultimately. “Phrenpraxist.” Chosen or willed by the mind.

So – in any or all cases, if “evil” or systematic murder exists, or is taken to exist, it is instrumentalist, I safely wager.

In other words it uses humans. As the world is governed in print, and elections are held on tv, people are conditioned to text. Through “text,” which includes movies and groups, through reading and regimes of writing, they are molded and made, “socially constructed,” if you will.

This is diatextic. It is done through “text,” or with worldly means..

Diatextic thought would in all probability be aligned with analyticity, or the implementation of technical analysis in order to more fully control the world.

Analyticity is a game of thrones. It is a “game,” as controlling the world is a foolish end. Communicy, the concomitant of syntexticy, on the other hand, is a field of minds, minds which are by the way non-actualized as of yet. Ever nonactualized, in fact, until they are dead.

This is where my first question to you comes in. My introduction of parallelism or nonintersectionality as the meaning of the thought experiment of the reduction of predicates of time is now seen in its potential import. Not to say we want to reduce, or that meaningfulness equals goodness, but that my identification of the phenomenon of reduction and my interpretation of its meaning are rational and with educational result.

The game/field opposition is exactly, I here posit, analogous to the parallelist non-reduction of predicates of time. “Intersectionals” (opposing parallelism) as I will now call the instruments of systemic death, would of course “de-sense” beings – kill them.

Imagists, what I will provisionally call agents of the good, virtue, humanity or whatever, would instead “give” “birth.”

That’s all.

I have explained “to say.” Verbal being. It is to intersay, like “being” is an inter-being.

The old word “intersubjectivity” thus is seen to have foreshadowed the new word “communicy.” “The circle is complete.”

Thank you all, David Baird