I have yearned to develop an original philosophical system ever since I was a teenager.   My primary motivation was not interest in philosophical questions or the work of existing philosophers.  Rather, it was emotional:  pain and confusion in alternation with a sense of cosmic wonder.   If I’m being honest I suppose there was also a strong desire to be  someone who knows  , to pass judgment on the world - some kind of identification with the greatness of Nietzsche, fueled by a sense that I was a monstrosity or a freak, which goes back to my family history and upbringing.     

As my System continues to incubate, there’s always a barrier preventing me from producing a concise exposition:  I lose confidence in the integrity of my starting point.   The question of where to begin or of how to philosophize in an immanent way is, of course, a major topic in modern philosophy, addressed in different ways by different thinkers in different traditions.   

One idea is that thought is driven by the unthinkable.  It requires contact with an outside that eternally resists symbolization but responds to symbolizing efforts by coughing up fundamental ideas (axiomatic, aesthetic, lacking discursive foundation) that can be built upon.   

If I accept this premiss then I am essentially allowed to construct whatever system I want - or rather, on the contrary, I have no choice but to solve the unique problem that I am, the wound that came before me and afflicts me.    To some degree I think this is true:   I can sense that I wouldn’t be motivated to philosophize in the first place if I didn’t have such an unusual experience of class, sexuality, religion and gender, that I have something true to offer the world because of a particular experience of chaos.   

But there has to be an additional requirement involving breadth and depth of scope, and some kind of criterion for rigor.   This criterion is very difficult for me to establish, because a criterion depends on a community, and I know of no community that would take my basic philosophical axioms seriously (I’m thinking of the thirst to unify dogmatic theology with psychoanalysis, Marxism and pragmatism in particular).   The fact that I have never had a mentor is what requires me to make contact with God, an imaginary mentor who blesses and authorizes my work.