Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.
Me too. It's one of the most provocative things I've read in a long time.
Really? To me, he seems to be playing with the meaning of words rather than the underlying concepts. A lot of philosophers do this - it makes for a fantastic exercise in exploring what words mean but you actually never get to grips with which ideas matter.
Admittedly I stopped after the second paragraph - there is a time and place for obscurantism but I'm pretty sure that right now I prefer tea and biscuits.
He's actually taking a much different approach than simply playing with the meaning of words. It's a dense read, but from what I gather he attempts to use language itself to create a tautological, circular TOE that reinforces itself linguistically every time it is either affirmed or denied. As he notes that perception is inherently linguistic (as is the Universe, philosophy, philosophy's derivatives including mathematics and physics, etc.), perception itself becomes the model by which his theory is reinforced. He purports that the Universe is a self-reifying theory and as such he is essentially creating a theory of theories.
