Matter Over Mind: The MOM Philosophy

It is hard to imagine humanity mastering reality and advancing gracefully into the future until we confront the internally inconsistent major philosophies of our time, both political and spiritual. Our current major philosophies—most of them at least—are outdated and confusing. If our youth aren’t confused, they should be.

Let’s sweep up the broad misunderstandings between our most popular philosophies—the “left”, the “right”, the “spiritual”, and the “scientific”—and examine them closely, under a new lens. It’s my style to get down to the fundamentals, and I mean fundamental science; the way we have come to find that the natural world works.

We can live solely through our loose, interpretive abstract thought, which does not reflect how the natural world works one iota, or we can learn to respect nature’s ways, and live in that mental place where logic and compassion are woven together in a robust partnership; one which will last us into many future millennia.

I have written a book in order to help others learn to do the latter. The blogs on this site offer glimpses at some of the views in the book.

Please leave comments with your thoughts so that we can begin an ongoing discussion, and together, form a new, reasonable, understandable, and compassionate philosophy that we can all live by.

This site will be regularly updated and expanded, so be sure to keep visiting!

  • Heinz

    Elaine, you continue to be amazing! It’s really refreshing to meet somebody who does not resign facing the ailments of our world, but has the audacity to start over.

    • Elaine Walker

      Heinz, you are almost more audacious than I, starting over with a totally new musical scale! Seriously, you did a similar thing in that you showed, on a fundamental mathematical level, that our Western music scale was somewhat arbitrary and forced (like many other things in our society) and therefore not necessarily even the best choice. You even figured out the math yourself. 🙂 I am just promoting what many have already known about complexity. [for reference:–Pierce_scale%5D

  • Michael Tiemann

    “In order to be commanded, Nature must first be obeyed.” — Francis Bacon

    • Elaine Walker


  • Geoffrey Burleson

    Indeed, dispensing with low-res labels to begin with is an excellent departure point!

    • Elaine Walker

      Yep. Not only are they low-res but are misleading because they are internally inconsistent. I just had a conversation with someone who said this. “Liberal means you do what you want. I’ll do what I want.” What he says is generally what ‘Libertarian’ means, not ‘Liberal’.

      Well sure, under a Liberal regime he can do what he wants in the bedroom, but not in his own home-grown business. Under a Conservative regime he could do what he wants in his home-grown business, but maybe not with his wedding vows.

      The thing is, the gentleman that I conversed with doesn’t own a business, and equates those who do with “greed” somehow. So he doesn’t care about that particular area of freedom. But freedom doesn’t respond well to cherry picking. (The religious right doesn’t equate gay marriage with freedom because they’re too mixed up in the ‘supernatural’ to think clearly.)

  • mosiah

    I’m completely intrigued with the topics discussed here. Does anyone know the release date for the book? I would love a physical copy!

    • Elaine Walker

      Hi Mosiah. I am shooting for this Summer. It is mainly a matter of picking the best self publishing company and getting copies printed. It’s begin edited right now. I will make electronic versions too. I am hoping to use my summer off to travel and
      promote the book.

      • mosiah

        That’s great! I’m looking forward to the release and I’ll be sure to get a copy. Good luck to you!

        • Elaine Walker

          Update: It should either be out before Christmas or shortly thereafter.

  • David Jackemeyer

    Hi Elaine, regarding the text, will you be writing as many do using “We” think this, and “We” do that, and “We” know this…?

    I witness resulting distorted thinking/writing (e.g. conclusions about the degrees of responsibility of individuals) when agreeing or suggesting that *groups* (of “we”) can think through evaluation, decision making, and acting. These actions are exclusively conducted by individuals, whether together in a group or not. Curiously, Jack

    • Elaine Walker

      Hi David. I don’t ever state anything like “We think this”. The book is libertarian leaning, so I definitely put emphasis on individuals.

      • David Jackemeyer

        Understood. Collectivism in language is a very important concept to grasp when learning new topics. I think a second, even more frustrating trend that one must grasp when newly learning science concepts and systems is Anthropomorphic treatment of natural processes. Best of skills in your treatment of both!

        • David Jackemeyer

          I was reminded of this thread, namely, on the proper use of “we” at a lecture about the results in a human kinesiology trial, where I witnessed the use of the “condescending we”.

          This speaker consistently portrayed himself as being at one with both Academia as well as the audience members, by suggesting: “We know X. We value Y and Z. We cannot trust ourselves.” Ad nauseam.

          Since Elaine mentions “libertarian leaning” above, I share a link to Mises that I recalled reading who partially addressed this issue:

          and Wakfer who went much deeper:

  • T. Lipinski

    Can not find your writings of September 2001 ! That day led to the TSA and them using up the stockpiles of He3 for there Full Body Scanners… A mission to the South Lunar Polar Region to jump start the Lunar Economy to mine the Solar Wind Gasses to help replenish the stock piles of He3 ! Back to the Moon to Stay and onto Mars and Beyond-Ad Astra… tjl