In my simplistic world view, one of your subjective elements subordinated to your intersubjective relationality I guess, I came up with three laws of subjective nature. This was not just a cheap emulation of Newton’s contribution, but an attempt to simplify the complexity we are dealing with. Please keep in mind I have been a maths teacher, and the desire to keep things simple — and yet accurate to process — remains.

1. “cogito ergo sum”
It needn’t necessarily be this formulation, but this will do. Anyone who denies this as true, ask them who it is that denies it? If they persist, then steer a wide berth around them until they recognise their own existence. Of course, there are plenty of sophisticates of mind who have delved into this and found consciousness to be a process, and in such a way, there is no thing that exists; however, this is ‘einsteinian’ level thinking and here we are thinking of a minimal comprehension of subjective existence that should account for ‘the facts’ of our apparent being.

2 “i am over here, and you are over here”
Originally, I had written the here/there distinction, but this indicated a double distinction and an unnecessary difference. This is simply recognition that there is another ‘cogito ergo sum’ with their own ‘here’. That is, you reading this, me writing this.

3 “the world/universe exists independently of us, how are we going to share it?”
The trickiest by far. Again, be careful not to slip into super deep levels of subjective observation. Merely to acknowledge there is a sun-object, whatever you or I may think about it.

Put simply, the western philosophical tradition has been hung up on point 1 for far too long. The east got hooked into the second law, ala inter-dependence, and most non-literate societies are hooked into three. In this context, the massive post, and I presume books associated, is an attempt to validate the second law in an excruciatingly precise way given the many fold constraints of having to ‘think inside the box’, in this case the western tradition box of philosophy. Ho hum.

I do not expect to find any resonance in this site, partly because few bother to read comments,a nd partly because the readership here are mostly all highly linguistically competent, and a pseudo-math approach is something which is alien, and quite reasonably, excludable.

Be well!