Originally Posted by
Daniel Casper Lohenstein
After studying Philosophy, focus on Philosophy of Science, Aristotelianism and Phenomenological Science of Art, I would classify your statements, loosely according to Wittgenstein, Husserl and Popper, as "without sense". Because I can't see any reference points for how your PMM method is supposed to work. You say you think PMM is the super great method, but these assertions lack sensual as well as categorical "Anschauung", intuition, because you don't explain how exactly it works. It's the same with cults who believe in something but don't know why, and who don't want to explain anything either, perhaps because they're afraid that it's actually contradictory or trivial. Experience tells me that such teachings, which one finds great, but which one cannot or does not want to explain, are usually rather trivial or banal. Especially when you have to pay for it. Please forgive me if I assume the same here. Convince me of the opposite, please.
Bookmarks