Yes. Records = lasting impressions made on external media, and/or within the mind (as memories)

Consequentially, a record may be either an objectively sourced material or a subjectively sourced material. Are all materials rendered equally valid within your system? Is validity even a consideration, or is mere influence in value and standard formation adequate basis for inclusion?

Yes, but I do feel that most people, most of the time, do it rather subconsciously.

Agreed.

I think to make a record external to oneself serves to guarantee the process will be undertaken in a more conscientious manner.

Why does that follow?

Values are hierarchal in that some take precedence over others. It's easy to conflate values and standards confusingly. A value is what motivates a conscious action. A standard is a current convention.

In other words, value represents motive and standard suggests the cognitive-behavioral norm (personal or collective) arrived at via that motivational value?

I would suggest that perhaps values are not hierarchical, so much as situational and non-static.

I think you understood me. I almost couldn't remember why I thought that was even relevant to this discussion. I was thinking about how the current trend is to accept a pre-compiled bible from some trusted authority, rather than feeling fit to compile one for oneself.

Do you think that that is due to a lack of tools (e.g. Free Bible Press), or on account of general human disposition? It strikes me that most people are not only non-disposed towards higher ordered critical thought, but may even be incapable of it. How you resolve this question for yourself would influence how you tailor your product - are you trying to cause more people to think critically for themselves rather than following external authorities than would otherwise do so... or are you trying to provide a platform for those already disposed to do so but perhaps lacking the best tools for it?

For more reasons than these, I think that self-compiled bibles should become the new norm.

I find that ideal, though for the above reason unrealistic. Internally derived values and standards take time, intention, and intellect that not all persons might possess. The question might also be asked as to whether our ideal is not premature if at all relevant to the human evolutionary trajectory. If we have evolved largely as group-think species rather than as a collective of largely independent thinkers, how would that impact our social organization if it were to change? Can we even change that way at all? I suppose this is what I was getting at regarding your thoughts on the balance between independent perspective formulation and reliant perspective formulation.

By "personal character development" I am talking most simply about habit formation.

Character is defined by our habits then? What constitutes a habit? And how would one identify what is a positive/negative habit?

It's supposed to be controversial. Offer an alternative to the current, pre-compiled bible paradigm

I think it actually makes it less controversial. It adopts the norm into its name, rather than clearly establishing itself as a distinct deviation from the Biblical paradigm. I think it also runs the risk of confusing and repelling users who conflate it with that very paradigm.

It's a form of personal journaling, and as such, yes.

How would this be any different from other personal online journaling platforms then?

I would like the tool to be of such design that it can be used as publicly or as privately as a user should choose. They should not be tied to a central organization of any kind in order to use the tool(s). I don't think privacy needs to be sacrificed in order to benefit from the process, though I do believe that engaging with others in conversations is the best way to improve a collection.

What I was getting at is whether this is more like Google Drive (collection of tools) or an interactive platform (CD), and if it is too hybrid to categorize mostly as one or the other then which attributes you would be integrating and how?

I suspect I am not entirely grasping your proposal, likely due to the differences in our respective semantic frameworks. Consequentially, I would like to clarify to ensure I understand your proposal before I move to interrogate it. Words or phrases in italics indicate items for which I would find a definition helpful. Acceptable?

You view it as inherent to the human condition that in the process of consciously formulating perspective and opinion we accrue an influential corpus of records. You consider it equally inherent that this process is one of value assertion. (I am unclear if you think the formulation process is always conscious; please clarify.)

You consider values to be hierarchical, arranged according to the standards (I am unclear how you distinguish a value from a standard) we derive from our formulation process. You claim that all trust is derived from a trust in the self, by which I infer you mean that were we incapable of trusting our formulated perspective we would be incapable of engaging with anything else because that perspective is effectively our interface for engaging with the world we live in.

You are of the opinion that in order for our personal character development to be good we must strike a balance between independent perspective formulation (which risks confirmation bias) and reliant perspective formulation (which risks uncritical imitation). You seek to introduce the Free Press Bible Process (I still do not understand why you call it this; personally I find that reference to a specific religious text a bit disorienting with respect to your more generalized thesis) as a set of tools and procedures for striking that balance.

You perceive that most of us lack focus and discipline, and ostensibly mean to indicate that Free Press Bible is a tool for overcoming those attributes. You observe that one might be pulled into the process through inadvertent introspection prompted during an evaluation of others' statements. This seems to indicate that Free Press Bible is some sort of interactional platform where users would present their corpus of records and consequent perspectives for open critique by others.

Please let me know where my interpretation has erred in any respect, identify anything important that I seem to have missed, and clarify where requested if possible.