[vajdagabor]

No, not terror management, and not new age either. This is a modern idealist approach, based on rigorous logic. The insights listed at the end of the treatise might not be convincing on their own, but the writing explains everything step by step. It offers proofs (in the form of logic), but each step needs careful thought to really get the insights that follow.

[nabla9]

With fuzzy terminology logic is meaningless. That's why philosophy puts so much importance in defining concepts rigorously. If you base your theory into some existing views provide sources and put it into context.Like "This is my personal interpretation that takes idealistic viewpoint."

Individual thinking aloud is not as interesting as contrasting and comparing.

[vajdagabor]

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation about a philosophical work you haven’t read. If there’s something specific in this framework you disagree with, please tell me what it is and why. Let me know which terminology you find unclear and why, and where you think my logic fails.

I avoided basing my work on existing philosophies for a reason. Existence and the mind are highly debated topics with many unresolved problems and a lot of confusing ideas. I wanted to understand reality from the ground up—not just to learn what other philosophers thought. I find this approach more effective and reliable, and it led to an understanding that feels coherent, solid, and logical. I believe this model solves at least one or two major problems of philosophy and science, while reflecting reality better than the mainstream model.

This writing is my attempt to share this system in a way that doesn’t require a background in academic philosophy, only the presence of one’s own mind and intellect. We can’t prove anything by pointing to Descartes, Hegel, or Heidegger. These philosophers are known because they used their own minds.