1. What I consider distinctive about my newly discovered or invented
epistemology, is my assertion that _all_ my knowledge is manifestation
of my mental activity, and that _all_ my knowledge is accordingly intuitive.
Specifically, knowledge represented or imparted by symbols is also intuitive,
although in a derivative manner, (if only) because the symbol itself is the 
product of thought, and although it is invented by the mind, the symbol,
in order to become meaningful, requires intuition to be understood, to be
interpreted.

2. The clue to the correct interpretation of knowledge, including mathematical
knowledge, is the circumstance (fact) that mental activity is prior to the 
symbol (language, number) that it generates and that flows from it. If intuition
as thought independent of language preceeds speech (as is the case), then 
the basis of all "knowledge" must be intuitive. The contrary assertion that 
knowledge is derived from symbols, Hilberts assertion that mathematics and
physics might be derived from a pattern of symbols, from axioms and that axioms
are the foundation of knowledge, is erroneous.

3. Hilbert's presumption (Anspruch) to reduce all of mathematics and all of 
physics to axioms is doomed to failure, because axioms do not generate thought.
On the contrary, the reverse is the case: thought, intuition, Anschauung 
generates axioms which cannot duplicate or replace the processes of thought by
which they arose, by which they were created.