My occupation as a self-taught philosopher began after my completion of GED requirements and attainment of an Associate Degree on Liberal Arts; I was then 40 years old. My interest in philosophy was, and is, on the nature of realness, specifically the transitional actualizing dimension inferred between mental, logical arrangements that happen to dominate all subjects of intellectual activity and the material realm; whatever it is correctly figured out to be.
My initial training on metaphysics and philosophy of mind was a project I called Transcendent Reality; a text meant to become a book that I worked on for a few years before putting it down in the basis of it being too broad a topic. In 2015 I wrote The Genetic Universe a work embodying the key issues of my original metaphysics and later a second, larger edition of it. In 2020 I wrote Genetic Universe Glossary, a reference text for the main book offering a number of additional definitions meant to better explain my metaphysical persuasion. One of my motivations to write and self-publish both texts was the potential I’ve envisioned to bring back metaphysics to its old glory after modern physics managed to make it obsolete.
I believe the effort I’ve embarked on to bring back metaphysics to its former intellectual hierarchy must include convincing instances of transcendence of the sphere of proportional representation scientific devices convey to human observation (the scientific view) therefore to disclose here what I’ve intended to do in philosophy I need to make the following comments.
Realness (or reality as the totality of instances of realness) in general terms, is a physical environment felt as realness, and what is felt is a consequence (or result) which conceals its source. The source of realness is unavailable to direct human observation and what is available to scientific devices is the constitution of the external world element, that under perception, becomes realness.
For practical scientific purposes, the mathematically accurate, proportional representation generated by scientific instruments is sufficient for the utility of any and all scientific applications, but realness proper is a mental product (that utilizes the above-mentioned external world element). Science is the master of the logic of proportional representation on all subjects it undertakes (most evidently in physics and chemistry), accurate as far as the results of repeatable experiments allow in verification mode, but not properly faithful to the state of realness.
The state of realness is ruled by the direct, concurrent, cognitive relation of a perceiving human subject and its perceived object, and as I have figured out while working on my particular metaphysical persuasion only actualized realness transcends the far-reaching range, extent and scope of proportional representation. Although knowledge is a crucial component of perception, the realness actualized in perception is beyond the reach of logical schemes and a most proper subject for metaphysics (and for philosophy of mind in my own persuasion), perhaps the last remaining legitimate subject in which metaphysics could equal or surpass modern physics (defeat it, if modern physics was claimed to be superior in intellectual gains). However talking about realness does not properly penetrate reality. Realness can only be accessed (and according to the claims of my metaphysical persuasion: actualized) in perception.
Perception is the means for reality’s actualization therefore my writing in metaphysics and philosophy of mind finds necessarily to redefine perception and even existence itself. Such redefinition allows for correct description; actualized in logical language, of what is beyond logic. For the reader of my book, there is a special role to be played in turn, which is to transcend my definition and description; presented by means of logical language, utilizing their own intuition to achieve a most significant understanding of “what is it” that I mean by existence, perception and reality. As a final comment, readers should perhaps be put on notice about the argumentative nature of my book and its glossary, the arguments presented in both works seek to justify me telling them how some things are or were, not my opinion on the subjects, not a test of symbolic logic, but self-assertions on how such things actually are or were.
P.S. I am aware some visitors to my book website come straight to this page seeking academic qualifications before considering purchasing my book or even spending time at all. All I could say in such regard is I am very much confident on my book value and lacking such confidence I would not had self-publish it. I recommend reading the excerpts selected by me, and shown in the About the Book page before considering purchasing my book, and for readers proficient in metaphysics or philosophy of mind to examine the glossary excerpts since the glossary presents additional definitions not included in the book (it is not a beginner’s guide). Once in a while, or once in a lifetime being open minded in the absence of authoritative safeguards, could reap rewards such as discovering a valuable book; what is improbable by traditional or current standards could surprise just by being possible.