WORLDREELS IS THE TITLE OF A PHILOSOPHY that I spliced together over the years. Each "reel" represents another point of view. I think every mature person has a philosophy -- some articulated, some encased within their acts. The reason I am articulating mine is that I got tired of all the bickering between differing schools of thought. What is the point? As if any were true and any were false. (A philosophy is a tool -- can a hammer be either true or false?) NO SUCH THING. All share the same incompleteness because when you emphasize one point of view you ignore another point of view. The philosophy of worldreels is simply the philosophy of accepting multiple points of view. Of course this can be tagged an empty phrase or as they say, a tautology. But isn't this the case with every other philosophy too?

The object of philosophy is clarification -- of the information processing machine (THE READER'S mind), of LANGUAGE and of the nature of the MILIEU(medium). If you read an author and become more confused such a philosophy is a wash -- does nothing. Simplification is often the tool of a philosopher. Organization of the total material is another tool. Other tools are "thought experiments," metaphors, analogies and allegories. All of these tools can clear up confusion in the reader's mind. HOW THEN CAN WORLDREELS BE CALLED A PHILOSOPHY? To take each author/book as a separate reel or frame simplifies the bodies of work in my mind. Just as I make no attempt to label a work as fiction or fact, as truth or distortion, partial or complete, the idea of worldreels is to connect, clarify and organize these works -- accepting each as written from a unique point of view. Each thesis belongs within its own frame and each thesis becomes a tool for the reader to use in the instance where it is USEFUL.

The logo of Worldreels (above) is anyone's head from which unreels this roll of developed film. Each reader who comments on my work fills another frame on the logo. The old idea that one's belief in a philosophy or religion will resolve all contradictions with other philosophies and other religions is pure bunk to me. Each philosophy that I have digested becomes a tool in my chest which I may use frequently or very infrequently. I see no purpose to rejecting another's philosophy outright. THE KEYWORD IS USE. If you have no use for an idea don't waste your time rejecting it, simply don't use it. The dialogue will run, "I can't use that idea." You may discover if you spend enough time on the planet that what you couldn't use today may be a good tool for you to use down the road.