Yep. I'm interested in how it affects people? Does it suck?
As far a some knowing critique is concerned, I'm probably the best one to critique it. I know it hasn't reached its potential and don't quite know how to continue ...
I generally have to read something over 4-5 times, possibly more to tell what I seriously think. That's what philosophy is about. Word association differs with whatever mood is present.
Right now I just see this:
1.
PERSPECTIVE Know that there are "2 sides to a coin", "6 sides to a cube" etc..
While we see the 6 sides there are also corners to the cube but don't necessarily take in those details consciously.
2.
TRANSLATION Know that insight is limited. Even if knowledge is extracted by 2 individuals, there might be similarities in thoughts but differ by the content that's communicated. Take the time to consider what that person is saying and read between the lines, per se. Optimization of meaning by acute use of language.
3.
DISTANCE Use the analogy of a camera lens. The bigger the lens, the more scenery and details to be viewed. However, these steps are necessary to get a through understand of that "object". Only through looking from all distances can we thoroughly grasp t
hat object and its parts. Only from understand the tiniest parts to the holistic synergy and its operation can we then truly begin to understand. Take caution and tread carefully.
4.
MOTION Automorphism Vs. Polymorphism
5.
FUZZINESS Always be skeptical of own thoughts and challenge them
6.
HIERARCHY Deconstructing never ends. Know that even isolated systems have their associations and can be affected by their surrounding systems. Acknowledge that there are always emerging systems within the hierarchy. Knowledge is fickle.
6. Number 6 is quite unclear. I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say. For one, it's impossible to deconstruct carefully in real-time events. Where and when is this tool applied?
Most of your tools already have names such as introspection, deconstruction, systems are subject to Godel's incompleteness, learning never ends, the medium is the message and other idiomatic expressions.
Another issue is when writing obscure guides or "tools", it leads to the "everyone understands in their own way, or differently".
For example, to even further discuss this we'd automatically use your "translation" tool, and as you can see some of these "tools" exist automatically in the real world. Also the names of your tools are really abstract, even for me as an INTP who is flexible with titles and semantics.
Anyway, as far as I know most people aren't interesting in being taught "how to think". It conflicts with their belief systems etc... I gave it up years ago. It was seemingly a waste of time. Not to discourage you. (There are few who are actually interested in these fields of thought).
@ OP
Uhh, Math is quite far in the 21st century but there is much more to be learned. It would also help if they stopped bitching out when using or looking at infinity.
Prodigies often know the most math. Autism also increases chance for knowing more. Einstein wasn't a prodigy but was a genius (something different). There are tons of people today who know more than him now.
I know that 0^0 = 1 because of factorials.
Mind = blown.
) I think too much weight is put into concrete numbers. If you think about it, we are using a subjective system to explain an objective idea - at least that's the way I look at it.