One ideosyncracy that Michael has (we may dispute this in the future). Is that he sees everything as subsuming into categories. This is perhaps one of his motivations towards Kant (and infrequent allusions to Aristotle). But Michael says he had this belief before he came across Kant; but found expression and fruit in the Kantian path of metaphysics.
Let me make some general points:
1. Category schematisation-anihilation techniques (k-ANT methods) are his main process of learning. Michael contends that it only works for himself, as it is designed for him. I and Sinistre have adopted kANT-style methods of exegesis.
2. We use the Category schemata in accordance to Ockham’s razor where possible. So, this is why if we put a post about fine art, or mathematics, they would go under ‘art’ or ‘metaphysics’ respectively. Despite this, we impose (perhaps artificially) other incompatible (purposely so) categories which are a different schematisation; so we use combinations of schema; it is a schemata in this sense.
3. Is there a universal category schema? Good question, Michael would say. His answer is it doesn’t matter. He’s not (yet) proposing a metaphysical system of these category schema that is universally applicable (would be nice though!). For his usage of the category schemata it does the job. Michael works to invent these weird methods to solve problems, I wish he did more mathematics and logic…
4. The Categorisation schemata has a practical application in our lives, which, paired with modern communication technologies, and computer software, has made the organisation of my life (and my alter-ego through D-Schema) and that of Michael’s and (I’ll admit for him,) Sinistre. Metaphysics of everyday life, I contend.
Michael isn’t happy when people write about him without his consent; so I shall end!