I think all of that would have made a superior OP for this thread.
And I have realized something concerning the maths analogy -
In mathematics there is a number line that orders all rational numbers. And the irrational numbers, even though they don’t actually fit onto that line, each come very close to a small range of rational numbers. The irrationals could be placed on a line just above the rationals and in order.
So with that I thought the act of organizing all rational and irrational thought would end up with a similar “integrated” understanding of all thought - rational AND irrational - just order them.
Obviously that wouldn’t be easy but then I remembered James’ “Resolution Debating” in which a type of tree of knowledge grows through experience, categorizing, and documenting the debates - to eventually order all thought and also which person accepts which thoughts (and for heavens sake don’t tell the Chinese ).
That resolution debating requires 3 people - a logic monitor and two challengers. The monitor must be a very strict rationalist with a keen eye for logic compliance. I tried an experiment with Magnus to see if we could somehow mutually monitor and that certainly resolved what it was that was causing the disagreement but because of it being what it was - further debate became problematic. It turned out that we had different definitions for the symbol “…”. As usual the problem was that same - “get your words straight” issue. And I think those kinds of things become branches of the tree where anyone who agrees with one definition takes off with others who also agree on that definition. Every resolved dispute leads to either a willing correction or another branch of thought and associated persons.
Resolution debating is proposed as a way to discover exactly what the differences are between people’s beliefs and allow them to identify their own group. A “tree of knowledge” grows as well as a “tree of personalities”.
I now think that enacting that resolution debating process takes care of this proposed concern of integrating because it orders literally all belief - rational or not.
But still there is that issue of forming the “hand” although now it seems it only requires a designated logic monitor and willing debaters. So merely 3 people of specific nature and you have it accomplished.
And now I remember that it was proposed as an open-for-continued scrutiny in his Constitution of Rational Harmony - Restoring Sanity. That makes up for an imperfect monitor.