Philosophy Now Forum

Some time ago I wrote a kind-of book I called "A Philosophy on Importance", though the book was rather unfocused at times and became really more an expression of the all screaming ideas inside my head about the workings of time, the universe and our place in it, it had one unwavering topic which was to be revealed at the end-chapter, a chapter which I lost somehow, I'm unsure whether I deleted it or not because all my chapters, or most of them, had up until then been a kind of journey through ideas with tastes of fantasy stories giving background colouring, whereas the last chapter lacked style, it became a summary, but the idea became the same, the book, journeying to catch the source, the essence, of Importance, ended in a conclusion:

Importance, when paralleled with how we use it, becomes -> that which is best to focus on at any given length of time at any given moment of time. In Opusological terms, the Science of Needs, it becomes the act of giving the proper amount of focus to any object leading to the optimal reaction towards an Ability-Graph, the graph detailing the outcomes of movement in Need-Space, both in terms of costs (the proper term is "uninsurance", I know this is a neologism and normally the term would be "insecurity", but that would give the wrong associations) and in terms of gains (proper term, "insurance", also known as "directed causality power").

Would this definition of Importance seem reasonable to the audience?

.











................................................................................................................







unimportance

English
Noun

unimportance (uncountable)

• 1. The property of lack of importance.
  2. This thread.[/size]

.

*bump*

Did Bill write that because he was mad at me or because he tried to make some point?

Anybody able to say whether they think it's reasonable or not?