Because I criticise the basic paradigm of Western culture that the world is fundamentally material, I will be met with ruling techniques. I will be told that I lack sufficient competence, fantasise, misunderstand things, etc.

Instead of arguing against it, I choose to expose my injury and unique position – and explain how the knowledge came to me.

Since the theory presented in the next part of the book is about «everything in the whole world», there is hardly anyone on this planet who can be said to be sufficiently competent.

A freethinker without an «approved» background must have as much right to speculate as astrophysicists or particle physicists with their often narrow field of study, simply because physics and all other disciplines are only part of the picture.

I, therefore, expect those who want to silence me to explain their position and background.

I want to know their relationship to intuitive versus analytical knowledge, how they feel about academic competition and position, and whether there may be other motives that drive them than the purely academic ones.

I want to know if they can conceivably see things distorted due to injuries in their own childhood or something going on in the family; expectations, relationships one is not open about, etc.

We all have biases created by our very first experiences and traumas. They colour and determine everything that later follows in our lives.

In short, I want to know if my possible opponents are herd animals, sheep, primarily concerned with protecting their position. I suspect that this is all too often the case.

After a long life as a lone wolf, I'm not naive.

So, well, now the book can begin.

What is the world?

« Previous Next »