I like where you are going with John. And I believe there are a few ways to think about it.

If John views a screen that shows him what he is thinking, then the idea is that he is thinking about the screen and what the screen is showing him, which is what he is thinking. So there is an infinite chain, much like 2 mirrors opposite each other.

However, much like the mirrors, all that the screen would show would be exactly what John is already thinking. The duplication would in fact be hidden, as all John could see would be the immediate screen - he would necessarily be unaware of the infinite chain behind what he is currently seeing. You could argue there are hidden multiverses beneath the first image, and I'm ok with that - but it doesn't really prove much to postulate I don't believe, at least here. John the 1st would only be aware of the immediate image. and as all the images would be the same: thinking about a screen that shows me what I'm thinking, and all the johns would be thinking the same thing... it is exactly like looking into a mirror that can show you what you are thinking. which depending on your poker or people-reading skills... well never mind that.

And even if John could think infinitely - which is maybe what you are saying, all those thoughts would be identical. Infinity that has a singular scope is really just singularity when considering the singular scope.

So I'm not sure how that proves anything - even in the thought experiment it exists in - about the objectivity or subjectivity of mind. Certainly an interesting start, but not sure how to get from the thought experiment to objectivity and subjectivity. Perhaps you could elucidate?

Philosophy is a parlour game because it can’t address issues of a great scale? Nonsense.

To keep the gun analogy, the misconception with the argument is that it mistakes the gun for the bullet.

Philosophy is a bullet. Point and shoot. But you can’t say the bullet is inadequate because it is being shot - or aimed - at a direction you don’t like.

So that leads to who holds the gun, why they are pointing it, what they have to gain, and how larger groups of interests are represented and why are they not always for the greater good but for their own benefit? And how to align those desires wth generic benefits and match those up to where and how people want to live?

As with anything it is a black hole - all we can really see is the circumstantial effects.

But to stay at a specific level: I guess psychology and psychiatry are worthless because they aren’t applied to the people who really need help? And financial structures fail because the changes made to them, and their import are not concerned with the greater good? Just because a universal isn’t applied to your specific interest doesn’t mean the universal is a parlour trick. It means you have an agenda and you are rightly voicing an opinion to draw attention to it. Guess what that isn’t new. As I’m sure you are aware. I’m not trying to say anything new here, but just add some perspective to your claims.

Peace

Quality is value.
Value is worth.
Worth is perception.
Perception is fleeting.
Fleeting is temporal.
Temporal is reality.
Reality is metaphysical
Metaphysics Is quality.

Haha well that isn’t epistemologically correct but makes a half decent post