Jacob, in a message dated 31/8/99 , you wrote:

"Rick, your demand for empirical examples or scientific proofs of Dynamic-Scientific Philosophy (D-SP) is axiomatically rejected by D-SP, which is the one that sets up its axioms.
But this is not circular thinking. One must start with axioms to build upon them. Philosophical axioms are not demonstrable. Otherwise, philosophers would have to be self-sufficient like Diogenes the Cynic, because there would be a universal philosophy, as there is a universal science, and philosophers would become superfluous."

Jacob, if your axioms are literally "not demonstrable" then why should you, or anyone else, accept them rather than any other axiomatic system? I can't believe this is what you mean, but it's what you say, and saying it makes your philosophy appear somewhat dogmatic.
You're right to say that thought must begin with axioms, but if it's genuinely philosophical it will subsequently place its own axioms in question. Rather than simply "building on them" in the linear manner of scientific positivism, it will question their internal coherence dialectically, as Socrates attempts to do in the dialogues.

Don, I have stated the principles of D-SP in the Introduction. I do this for sheer intellectual pleasure. D-SP can not be dogmatic in the least, because it is not a religion or a belief.
As explained, it does not judge, nor does it offer counsel or consolation. This is the exact opposite of a dogmatic manifest.

D-SP does not put its axioms in question, because it is not just another school of Philosophy. It is an EMERGENT Philosophy. Other individuals can continue building upon its principles, as RESULTANTS.

D-SP is supported by science. It may be considered as a Philosphy of Science. The difference with the others is defined by the comprehensiveness of D-SP's principles. One of them is COMPLEXITY, which axiomatically is non-linear. The present dialog with Rick, the second about Free Will, is self-explanatory.

Socrates was not knowledgeable in science: a very seminal historical figure, he is out of the present picture, The more his name is brought up, the less scientific acumen is evinced by the quoter.