The thing about having these amorphous theories of mine is I lack any kind of scientific validation. As I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone that what the theories propose is true, I feel no compulsion to do much in the way of research. I suppose I could offer my theory about why there's no convincing anyone of anything to explain why that is not important to me. (A philosophical theory is "true" if it jibes with what one already was inclined to believe. There is no actual truth, as interpretation lends itself much better to an interesting world than does absolution.)
("Absolution"? How I just used it is not what the word means. "Definitivism"? I don't think that's a word at all. What indicates there is no room for interpretation, that there is only one way of regarding something? Perhaps my greatest failing as a theorist is not lack of proof nor lack of interest in proof but lack of adequately impressive vocabulary.)
I also believe everyone should try to come up with his or her own theories, not merely accept those of others (certainly not at face value), so I'm not as motivated to share mine as I might otherwise be; they cannot steal from me what I do not show them.
All theories should be self-serving. How can someone else's theory, in an unmodified form, possibly be in your best interest (even in theory)?
I'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone to even consider my theories if I paid him to do so. There's no reason for any human to ruminate on these things; I cannot justify encouraging this madness in others.