Crosswordism, a conciliatory epistemological framework of viewing the world for out philosophy, of complete true justified belief. Yet here we are, some of here essays are good, some of them are not. Regarding Neurlanaysis and the overwriting of very within the language.
I gravitate towards Stephan Jay Gould and the mismeasure of man, along with Delusions of Gender as authority sources of Cordelia fine in regard to that. (I'll have to reread it.)
I wanna leave phrenology to the academics, I'm an artist/entertainer first.
Nobody's perfect with my wabi-sabism, So I take a bit from there, a bit from that. Now, such a visualisation of 3-dimensional epistemology is a way of reasons and clues being evidentiary experiences. Wow, she does like paradoxes, as do I within my fiction.
Well, that's ambiguity, that's a way to approach an essay or a fictional work.
Later she critiques the further industrialisation with academia and that's reflected or the orderisation and packaging of student into products that's a simple way with SAT tests, that later is the golden lining that brings with topics. Ad agencies lines of thinking that Seth Godin that has thought, or that he has to seek.
Attorneys being representation of advocacy rather than scientist being that of the pursuit of knowledge. Along with other distinctions, if you ignore thing, she provides a good framework for paradoxes and a 3-dimensional way of seeing discourse.
Trippy, man. Things for the philosophy are to be questioned, nothing is safe, from copyright and curious questions, a lot of questions, and then there's answers.
I'd recommend despite the odd bits.