What follows is partly an evaluation of the expanded CRH Diagram, not a rationalization of why certain philosophers were chosen in it or an explanation of the method, all of which will be made clearer in a later post. The first and foremost value of the CRH is its practical use in understanding other people’s philosophies. CRH makes APEIRON into a hypothetical practical method based on Theory of Nested Concepts, which rigorously defines the Model. While the Model displays all knowledge, the Diagram displays all the categories that structure human consciousness and thus all of humankind.
The Model and the Diagram provide two different ways of analyzing reality, through science and through philosophy, respectively. However, the second is based on the first, so modifications in the first will affect it as well. The Diagram can also be seen as the analysis of all the ways to interpret the Model. The Diagram shows better and worse interpretations, with a variety of individuals who are categorized, i.e. who had their views fitted into the framework of the Model, hence showing how they would have interpreted the Model if they understood it. Of course, the Diagram, as seen through the prism of integrative philosophy, is a biased account of interpreting the Model, hence also the added “hypothesis.”
What I’ve noticed while developing CRH is that philosophical types do not change for people. Their mental structures restrict how they view and interpret the Model. In other words, anything may change about a person but never his or her type of philosophy (i.e., his view), which must be innate. That is, the structure of the mind with which you are born is determined by your type of philosophy, which is determined by reality. People are born with their philosophies and die with the same ones. Changing people or even changing yourself in this sense is impossible. This is naturally caused and predetermined. This may sound strange, but reality apparently chooses what people must be born to balance it.
What is the meaning of life?
With such conclusions in mind, we can learn a different way of answering the age-old question about the purpose, or meaning, of life. Meaning connects you to the universe. Otherwise, if you don’t know your meaning in life, you are asleep, which creates difficulties in categorizing your philosophy. I can only categorize those who are awake, and people usually awaken when they are older. Nonetheless, most people are unaware of their philosophies.
So, I want to talk to you about your meaning of life. Do you not relate yourself to universal meaning (knowledge)? Or do you find your meaning emotionally (and hence mystically)? Or do you accept what idealists say about meaning? If so with the latter, then you are talking about teleology. That’s purpose, yes, but it’s sometimes given from outside. However, think of your purpose as within you, that you were born with it, innately in your mind. It’s what you do with it that matters.
Here is an example of a purpose: God hath made you, and thou shall doth His bidding. Here is another example of a purpose: your philosophical type, whether idealist, materialist, or integrator. That is, you do what your philosophy requires. Your philosophy, not anybody else’s. It is free will through fate that I’m talking about. It’s free will for fate. In other words, your fate is what you want. Your fate, not anybody else’s. The only true punishment there is is self-punishment (like in the movie Incendies), and it can occur if you deny yourself your own philosophy or go against it in any way. Because getting to the Truth occurs in each individual’s own way.
For example, I only say what my philosophy makes me say. I don’t reduce everything to mere opinions, but instead I believe that there must be an authority that supports my principles that I use to understand the universe. And I follow this authority with a great belief in my heart. Even if you can’t believe in a higher authority, do you at least believe in human love? If you do, your relationships are purposeful, and thus you do not separate yourself from the rest of the universe. We cannot yet know everything about the universe. Our sciences and philosophies are incomplete in relation to it but evolve to complete it in some indefinite amount of time.
Conflicts within a category
But even within a single philosophy there are differences and can be conflicts. Carl Jung harshly criticized Helen Blavatsky, but the philosophies as depicted through their main books, The Red Book and The Secret Doctrine, are quite comparable. One instance of conflict is that a newer generation of the same philosophical position is more progressive than the previous generation. For example, Newton is more progressive than Aristotle, even though they have comparable philosophies, as also shown by Leonard Peikoff in his DIM Hypothesis.
Within the Diagram, every individual at the end of a category is considered the progressive kind for that philosophy, and someone who belongs to that category but follows earlier proponents of it may have a conflict with the progressive one. Then there can be individuals who think that they belong to one type, when they are actually a different type. Miguel de Unamuno, Karl Popper, and even I are examples. Earlier in our careers we thought we were Marxists but realized what Marxism really is and stopped associating ourselves with Marxists, instead finding our true philosophies.
Sleeping and uncategorizable philosophies
Not only non-philosophers can be unaware of their own philosophies, but so can professional philosophers. Many philosophers were not aware of the true category of their philosophical tradition. These kinds of philosophers are especially found during the Enlightenment, however paradoxical that may sound. Nonetheless, most of them are categorizable, even while there are difficult cases among them.
A consequence of all the aforementioned conclusions is that there are probably sleepers among us. Perhaps we are surrounded by them and may also be asleep. A sleeping philosopher (or a “sleeper,” in short) is a person with no clear philosophical categorization or philosophical conviction. They do not clearly select any one type of philosophy and hence cannot be shown to have any type. And even then they still belong to some vague area of the Diagram. These are usually artistically-minded individuals who explore some different and sometimes conflicting philosophies (e.g., Herman Melville, Denis Villeneuve).
In addition to finding sleepers, it is sometimes problematic when judging people based on limited evidence of their reasoning, such as through quotes on (behavioral) personality types. People may be lost, for example, by following some phantom of someone else’s thought, and they ultimately may find themselves, but they may also sleep throughout their lives. They may think they have one type of philosophy but really have a different type. I’ve also learned from the Marxist thread linked in the previous post that just because a person is a materialist does not mean that he or she is not awake. They can truly be awakened Marxist materialists, for example, so asking them to wake up can be an error.
Similar to what Marxists believe, there is a need for perpetual conflict between types for progress to occur. Without a single type, such as materialists, people would sleep and reality would not function properly. Each type provides necessary material, motivation, or creativity necessary for the whole picture to be available. This conflict is manifested by reality, of which we are only parts and hence cannot overcome it until our reality changes. All conflicts between philosophies can be resolved only above level 15 (i.e., above idealism).
The only problem remaining that we need to cover is the problem of categorizing the Enlightenment philosophers, and, for this task, the Diagram provides a perspective unseen throughout our history.
 Whenever I mention CRH, I mean the expanded version,
which I tried to make more objective by excluding those who are not duly represented in public consciousness or have not yet proven themselves to be truly significant, including myself. This latest Diagram only includes persons, whose information is more accessible to general public (such as through the Wikipedia). Due to excessive conflicts between materialists, generally known as ‘skeptics,’ and the rest of population leading to concealment of important information and restrictions in popular access, I’ve opened up my books to include individuals who probably will be otherwise never known.
 The length of a universal cycle is 311 trillion 40 billion years, if you follow Hindu cosmology.
 The writer of the longest American poem, Clarel, and the most acclaimed American novel, Moby-Dick, Melville is also an example of a sleeping idealist, who was inspired by the Bible, Shakespeare, and Milton but used postmodernist and eroticist themes throughout his works.
 Villeneuve is a Canadian film director currently rising in fame. He is a sleeping realist because his philosophy has no precursors and no formal representation in the Diagram. Villeneuve’s most recent film, Sicario (2015), equally mixes and shows both materialism and idealism while not leaning in or selecting either position (this is especially clear, considering Villeneuve’s changes to the original script for the film).