Not a book, but the whole thread is a part of the book I published. “The Physics of Psychology” was originally proposed by James as the title of a chapter of the book. He wanted to build a bridge from physics to psychology, but didn’t know who to discuss these things with here on the forum. However, I was able to persuade him to open the thread and kept my questions to the 33 points of his Affectance-Ontology.
I think it is amazing that you wrote and published that book - Affectance Ontology.
One problem I have had with the book is that as James was big into the why’s of everything it seems, I am big into the why’s of James himself. So as I read his posts, I am trying to detect his incentives for why he is saying what he says. And most of the time he quotes whoever he is talking to but sometimes not - and I often have to go find the thread to see what is going on - is he being sarcastic - is he emphasizing a tiny issue just to help work out some misunderstanding (often done) - is he introducing a new topic or idea to his audience - is it all leading up to a point - is he trying to help someone out - or what?
I still think it is great that you categorized the general topics - that helps a lot. I am just looking for more details, especially anything political, about why he said those things - why he worked out how the universe and all of this stuff works. Sometimes I feel like I am reading the diary of an older brother. And sometimes it feels like I am watching an older brother show me up in front of my chums ( ).
It is just a hobby to fill my time but I do like to dig deep into the details.
otherwise I have to superficially pretend to go along with discussions with my wife and her girlfriends .
Before u can guess, and hi Mithus, let me try to inset my reading curriculum now, as detached and objective criteria to current philosophical investigations( mine):