Home Aspects Of Citizen Philosophy Kate Thomas & Findhorn Foundation Findhorn Foundation: Problems
Letter To Robert Walter MP Ken Wilber and Integralism Internet Terrorist Gerald Joe Moreno Shirdi Sai Baba & Sai Baba Movement
Climate Change Complexities Hazrat  Babajan Desert Fathers and Christian Philosophy Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Meher Baba and Yazd The Kundalini Phenomenon Aleister Crowley



The approach which I have chosen to call citizen philosophy has different facets. This outlook strongly relates to contemporary issues. Confrontation with those problems has gained expression in web articles, published epistles, and my book Pointed Observations (2005). In contrast, several of my earlier books related to the history of religion and one to the history of science. Those books were composed in relation to an atmosphere of library studies at Cambridge, where rich archival sources were available.

This form of philosophy extends to what I have designated as “citizen sociology.” I began using that description in 2004, qualifying this by saying: “Citizen sociology is of amateur status and does not claim to be expertly scientific, but merely to address in a critical spirit pressing matters requiring attention” (Some Philosophical Critiques and Appraisals, 2004, p. ix). There are now too many of those urgent matters needing rectification, mushrooming under inadequate political supervision and contemporary psychological laxity.

Gaining ground in academic sociology is the extension known as sociography, a subject differently defined. Because of the non-academic identity of some literature studied by sociologists, I recently employed the word sociography as an equivalent to “citizen sociology,” in a web article on the escalation of crime in Britain. See Citizen sociology and analysis of crime (2008).  I do not press any close equation. Sociography is said by specialists to relate to micro-analyses of societal sub-groups in specific geographical zones.

Citizen sociology does not attempt a macro-theory, as I have expressed such an endeavour in the philosophy of culture. Therefore, I am content with micro-analyses, in terms of citizen sociology, as a complement to citizen philosophy. So my form of sociology could be described as an exercise in sociography, however approximately.

A further aspect of citizen philosophy is the more intricate rationale of interdisciplinary anthropography, which is the description I now confer upon my early exercise in the philosophy of culture during my library phase at Cambridge. That exercise was represented by the book Meaning in Anthropos (1991), composed in 1984, and dedicated to an interdisciplinary ideal of research and expression. The archival resources attendant upon that exercise permit extension into history and prehistory, wherever this might prove useful. Updating has inevitably occurred; the conceptualism has hopefully improved in my philosophy of culture. See also my bibliography.

My interpretation of anthropography does not coincide with standard dictionary definitions, these converging with the specialist discipline of ethnography and the geographical distribution of human races. The psychological components of humankind are a very open-ended addition to the purely physical characteristics so frequently charted. The geographical distribution of religions, sects, cults, philosophies, and political systems, does add complicating factors to the ethnic dimensions. In my view, the interdisciplinary approach is the most viable for overall analysis and problem-solving.

I formerly stated that citizen philosophy involves “independence from establishment modes but a simultaneous avoidance of the  ‘alternative’ confusion that is now widespread,” a confusion including “superstition, cults, and commercial mysticism.” Commercial mysticism is deceptive. This drawback flourishes disconcertingly in, e.g., commercial “workshops” and superficial literature.

Kevin  R. D. Shepherd
August  2009, slightly modified 2020