Best place or Phd director to do a thesis on a mater/life/thought ontology I already create ?

[Socrade]

By "best" I mean real interest and knowledge in the content of ontological/philosophical systems, ie what they says about reality : how reality as a all is structured and how it works or constructs itself.

 

I have to put this strong because most if not all of academics presentations about ontology or metaphysics are in fact meta-metaphysics ie epistemology : they only talk about the conditions of possibilities of a possible speech about the all of reality that never comes. Very irritating and that makes their saying cumbersome. I don't want to interact with this kind of scholars especially if they are language oriented (analytical or any philosophical position that emphasize or essentialize language, I can't stand that)

 

I made-up a system, a mater/life/thought ontology, but in computer science. (if by extraordinary you tried hard by yourself to made-up one, I know you started from scratch, in complete vacuum because you discovered there exists nothing convincing and I also know you didn't succeed, sorry; so if I say the solution I found works fine and then it's the best, somewhat by default, only you can understand there is zero bullshiting or megalomania here. And for those who didn't tried please wipe the former sentence from your mind now )

 

I tried to transfer it to the philosophical world but I discovered that people, including well known academics specialized in metaphysics , are not interested at all in content. Exactly like in art, especially painting, their mind is only activated by dominance : they only want to hear the dominant words : "Hegel", "Heideger", "Derrida" etc. like "Picasso" in painting. Content is indifferent and simply doesn't exist without attributes of dominance.

 

That's why I concluded I have to paint this system with attributes of grandeur and institution via a Phd in a place and with a director who already has this attribute, ie has access to well known international publications and conferences.

 

I vaguely remember having heard of an academic, a woman if I'm correct, who do the mater/life/thought segmentation of reality but I couldn't find back the reference (was a radio talk a few years ago).

 

Thanks for any suggestion.

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Socrade

[Love and Squalor]

Take two Advil and post again in the morning.  

[dgswaim]

Ummm.... I got nuthin'.

[AP]

Errr... So you are developing a model and you want someone one to advise you where to develop it? Have you asked a professor, someone familiar with your work? As it is now, your post is unintelligible. 

Please rephrase. 

[maxhgns]

The thing is that content does matter, and your content just might not be up to snuff, or you might be pitching it to the wrong crowd.

To be honest, from what you wrote it sounds like you're one of those cranks who saw the cult of personality in some philosophical circles, noted the 19th-century German tendency towards systematic philosophy, and figured that you could come up with a system too, since that's what philosophers do. And then you tried to pitch it to people directly, and encountered resistance. And now, rather than trying to get your work read through the usual channels (viz., publication), you've decided that the key missing ingredient is a credential: if only you had a PhD, people would listen to you.

Well, that's not the case. Your approach is wrongheaded, and doesn't jibe with the conventions that operate in academic circles. It's not your credentials that are the problem, it's your hard sell. When philosophers today want to convince one another of some fairly revolutionary new ideas, we break them up into component arguments which we separately present at conferences and publish in journals. Once we've had success with a few of these component arguments, we tie them all together in monograph form, which we then pitch to a reputable academic press. The process is slow and conservative, but it also does result in truly novel ideas--even systems--getting out there, and gaining wider acceptance. Just look at Graham Priest's work on dialetheism.

It sounds to me like your reasons for seeking out a PhD programme just don't really mesh well with the way we tend to think of the doctoral education process. We don't undertake doctoral education to sell people on some prepackaged "system" of philosophy. We undertake it to become academics, to explore the field in depth and participate in its development at the highest level.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, and that's not at all what you're up to. In that case, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing you and your motives. But that's pretty much all the sense I can make out of your post.

[Socrade]

@maxhqns : thanks for your quality answer, you are almost 100% right. I don't want to become an academic (I already have a Phd and philosophy is not that important to me) I just want to have quality interactions about this model and maybe develop it further, for the sole reason it looks like a major novelty in Totality modeling. It's really a shame I'm the only guy knowing that the mater/life/thought reality's structure and self-construction can be described so elegantly, that's all and that does not rely to me : If I knew how to stay as anonymous as the guy who designed Bitcoin, I would go for it.

I believe I can easily break the thing in "component arguments" but have no idea of the best way to do it and where to present these partial points of vue.  I hope I'll know more when reading something about "dialetheism" . (edit : just read a little about it but will not go further because I have solid contempt about language oriented thinking in Philosophy. Language modeling is great in mathematics/computer science but damn stupid in philosophy : it's just a necessary evil for communication of ideas. People do that because they have some access to the metaphysic questioning -ie they somewhat feel the psychic and even the life phenomena essence is a complete mystery- but zero access to a working metaphysic thinking and at some moment they give up and fall back to language thinking for the sole and pathetic reason it's visible/heard thought)

Edited August 29, 2016 by Socrade

[MentalEngineer]

This is tremendously snarky, and I apologize for that, but it's all I can think of reading this thread. Are you sure you're not the new Russian Presidential Chief of Staff and inventor of the nooscope, Anton Vaino? Because what I can extract from your writing looks an awful lot like this:

If so, can you explain to me what a three-stage mix level is?

Edited August 29, 2016 by MentalEngineer

[gughok]

Yeah, the most I can glean from this is that in addition to the two advil, you should take a few OTC reality checks.

Sorry =/

[dgswaim]

On 8/29/2016 at 6:22 PM, MentalEngineer said:

This is tremendously snarky, and I apologize for that, but it's all I can think of reading this thread. Are you sure you're not the new Russian Presidential Chief of Staff and inventor of the nooscope, Anton Vaino? Because what I can extract from your writing looks an awful lot like this:

If so, can you explain to me what a three-stage mix level is?

This thing lost me at "Three-Stage Mix Level." Prolly makes some good cocktails, whatever that is. Also, I could use a drink.