DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUL OF NATHAN COPPEDGE

In roughly chronological order:

1 - 8 years old. Interpreting the Taken-for-granted.

I had the theory that wisdom follows from observing the obvious with great perception. Through this technique, the less obvious becomes evident. For if nothing is observed, nothing can be perceived.

9 years old - 18 years old. Age before Youth: Principle of Wisdom.

At the Age of 9, I vowed to become immortal. My principle was to sacrifice my beauty for practicality. If I once suffered and felt old, in the future must lie youth and pleasure.

19 - 23 years old. Double-Black Shirt.

In my late teens and early twenties I thought of myself as having my own belt system. It was always about intellectualism, and never involved wearing a belt. If I could just be exempt from karate, that was worth some points. I gave my white belt away, and focused on spiritual ascendence. The distracted method seeemd largely productive.

24 years old. Theological Machine: God from Engineering.

In 2006 I thought of the Tilt Motor, which I felt could solve the world's energy problem. It was not just a machine, but a surrogate for God's corpse. This, I argued, was significant for history. Nietzsche was one big process of ignoring some fundamental detail. In this case, perpetual motion.

24 - 27 years old. Time-Traveling Karma.

After I designed perpetual motion I began to time-travel. I traveled five or six times, one time aided by an avatar of Jesus. I used my travel experiences to help Barack Obama become president. I also collected what information I could about classical immortal knowledge--- knowledge which might exist 'outside of time'.

28 - 31 years old. The God Project.

I had an unusual reflection with Jonathon (non-sic) Keats, who was developing projects to sell higher-dimensional real estate (an avant-garde project) and to find God's DNA. My own contribution, which I did not directly share with Jonathon, was to develop the nascient field of Omni-Science, in other words, objective knowledge on all subjects.

32 years old. Solution to All Paradoxes: Luminescence.

The next year, in 2013 - 2014 I found what I felt was a solution to all paradoxes. This had the effect of officiating (from my own perspective) my status as an intellectual. For the first time my un-assigned papers were being read by academics.

32 - 33 years old. Dimensional Religion.

I began a project called The Spiritual Writings between 2014 and 2016, recording videos of my guru-like lectures on dimensional religion. This was the start of something new and original: beliefs collected by a presumed mortal from the obscure corners of Omni-Science. An aesthetic and logical spiritual movement which encouraged moderate pleasure and the ethical combination of perfect complexity.

32 -33 years old. The Metaphysical Art.

I wrote a series of important writings called The Metaphysical Art, establishing for the first time a transcendent relationship between metaphysics and ritualized behavior in the world. I even made it into a screenplay, hoping to sell it to TV viewers.

33 years old. The Categorischte.

As my knowledge of dimensions grew with the experience of answering questions on the internet, I hit upon numerous solutions to metaphysical problems. I explained the current existence as the 3.5 dimension, wrote numerous writings giving lists of meaningful categories (such as 78 Binary Laws and 6 Theories of Metaphysics), and established a connection with the method of Principle-Puzzles between the method of Omni-Science called categorical deduction and 4-dimensional metaphysics. Then I hit upon further insights that I published in The Metaphysical Critique.

TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF REASON

I don't know if it's worth winter so i don't know if it's worth a coca cola

I CROSSED THAT WAY AND THIS WAY UNTIL I MET A MAN

AcademicRoom (as opposed to Academia.edu) is not functioning today. So, to vent my frustration I am posting my recent paper here instead.

TWO INTERPRETATIONS OF REASON

I will begin with a description of what I mean by the development of reason. In this process, I will develop four categories, and relate how the descriptions imply two interpretations: one forwards, and another backwards. I will then explain the apparent paradox involved in this reason, and finally suggest a general method used in arriving at this useful double-comparison.

(1) Deux Interpretationes

What we know as reason is potentially just one stage of reason. I arrived at this idea by considering the question of: ‘What measures reason?’ And I thought, from a coherent perspective, the only thing that could measure reason was something outside of reason. And there could be nothing outside of reason except madness. But this raised a further question of ‘What is outside of madness?’And I thought this too could be solvable. The most obvious answer I could find was ‘Sanity’. Thus far three categories. Now, to round it out I attempted to add a fourth, responding to madness just as sanity responded to reason. And my answer for the fourth category was ‘Creativity’.

In this way, creativity became the ultimate bound of madness, just as sanity became the ultimate bound of reason.

The Four Categories are:

(1) Reason
(2) Madness
(3) Sanity
(4) Creativity

Now, developmentally, there are two interpretations (‘Deux Interpretationes’). One is that reason progresses into creativity. The other is the reverse: that creativity develops into reason. The distinction is important, because the difference developmentally seems to imply a priority for one or the other concept, or a reliance on either sanity or madness as a secondary runner-up concept.

So, now we have a second interpretation:

(1) Creativity
(2) Sanity
(3) Madness
(4) Reason

The second interpretation seems to put the emphasis on reason, but begins with creativity. The first interpretation puts the emphasis on creativity, but begins with reason.


(2) Paradox

Now, it may be further noted that reason appears to express the ‘ultimate’ embodiment of this set of data. In other words, all of the types are in some sense attempts at reason. Or, at least, reason is the simplest definition to use in place of any of the four, interpreted as I have interpreted them as translations of reason originally. However, in a similar way, creativity may be called an ‘empirical’ embodiment of the set of data.

Therefore, there is a conflict between the ultimate and the empirical, which amounts to a paradox. For, although the two concepts appear similar, the context places them separately as opposite alternatives. The choice appears to be between the two, even though they are the same.

If we are to prefer the empirical, we are left with creativity and abstract reason. If we choose the ultimate, we are left with nominalism, and end up groping for creativity to solve its significance.


(3) A General Method Derived from the Investigation

What may be called the ING Method may be derived most simply from the consideration of a set which reverses order, in which a double-horned dilemma emerges. The solution is always a choice between ultimates, and the ultimates are further made ambiguous by the ambiguous size of the set. Thus, there is a kind of criss-crossing between degrees of each extreme, and its relation to the central interpretation (a paradox).

ING may stand for ‘Inverse Negative Grouping’.