sui_generis

I'm writing one. I am formulating curricula for myself to ensure I have the adequate basis of knowledge to avoid the sorts of mistakes that would prevent me from being taken seriously before my ideas are even seriously contended with. 

what markers should I focus on? one of my main concerns is that if I'm going to attempt to defend the universal applicability of the model, then I must be, in some sense, decently competent at talking about everything. naturally, this presents a profoundly disadvantageous burden for me, such as would likely prevent me from attaining a degree of mastery over one specific domain as would grant me the credentials that many of the actual cultural mover-shakers use to pre-filter the ideas on which they spend their time 

wdyt? ❦ 

what's the best argument attacking it that you've seen?

❦ 

sup, strangers. some of you may know me but most won't. 

due to a series of unusual events in my life, I now feel convinced of a worldview incompatible with christianity. where exactly I'll land in terms of labels I do not yet know, but it won't be miles away from neo-advaita, a strain of buddhism as I understand. 

if y'all who are so educated in the western philosophical canon might help me understand why it is neo-platonism fell out of favor (essentially explaining the rise of modernity as a whole kthxbai) I'd love to hear it. I'm researching the dharmic traditions, and interested in perennialism, non-dualism, & I'm worried I'll become a kooky theosophic occultist lol so feel free to save me from whatever you see as the dark path.

physicalist nihilists don't @ me

:3

❦