Betts, poor betts, with the great big holes in his compelling crack-potish presentation, which has been opened in front of me not for no reason. We have to first ask, who is betts, what is his life, what is his mindshape, where is the thought coming from. So already, you know, I can’t read him. Plus think for a moment the advantages I have over Betts just for living 136 scientific and philosophical advancing years ahead of him. I can contextualize him now with colonialism, and isolation, let’s look at the holes, at the questions, to in order to manifest them, then I will pluck them from the Betts inquiry and use them on my own work. why a crack pot? Why a self-serious vanity book? Because there’s the holes to see. I’m not exactly bumping into them in the Newton.

Why start with the monad? But good job naming the starting point. “Only by studying ourselves, he believes, can we ever arrive at a true knowledge of the external.” He doesn’t qualify this most important statement. Is he mad? Er… or just poorly composed?