God and Needs

[Received]

Cool rule!

Now how about this rule:
Thou shalt not ask a question and then respond to someone who has been putting much time and effort in answering seriously by merely making a joke that´s completely unrelated to what he´s been talking about.



Well, I guess you are not familiar with my kind of humour, so you missed it in my response. Should I explain it to you?

As for delaying the conversation: Not because of me - I don´t have anything better to do in my current condition, anyway. Plus, I feel I can still think clearly.

Thanks for the good wishes!

So you get a sense that I'm not giving your thought-out responses enough time in general?

If so, I could totally get how hurtful or frustrating that must be. Know that my intention isn't to put off your responses, but simply that they're so long and thought out that I feel overwhelmed to respond to them. They, to me, would mean putting in more work than I would want for a site like this, where my intention is to play in a thoughtful way.

And it comes down to rules, to expectations for behaviors, yeah. I have the rule that I'll put down a good OP, respond to people with a few points, but generally not go into a lot of detail unless I'm just emotionally invested in the discussion (i.e., it's especially stimulating to talk about). You seem to have the rule that no matter how long your responses are, they deserve to be responded to fully by the person with whom you're talking, and if they don't it's unambiguously disrespectful.

I definitely don't intend to neglect much of your response, or anyone's. I try to respond to the big points, as I see them, and give a response that fits my sense of what keeps debate on this forum enjoyable for me.

We have different rules. It's that simple. The reason I don't respond to a lot of your points is that they're just too much for me -- and I mean too much of a good thing. Could you see how your behavior, based in your intrinsically fine rule, is contributing to things here?

ETA: I am NOT conducting therapy here. I'm just trying to draw attention to our dynamic.

 

[quatona]

So you get a sense that I'm not giving your thought-out responses enough time in general?

Yes, I think so, but I didn´t complain or demand or anything.
It was not until you transformed your wishes as to how you´d like me to respond (i.e. with the sort of humour you can dig) into a general rule - which I thought was a joke with a serious wish in the background. Correct me if I am wrong.
So I answered in the same way, saying: Once we are at making our wishes rules here, and you have made one for me, this would be the one I would make for you. I´m not sure why it´s humourous and playful when you do it, and stops having these elements when I do it.

If so, I could totally get how hurtful or frustrating that must be. Know that my intention isn't to put off your responses, but simply that they're so long and thought out that I feel overwhelmed to respond to them. They, to me, would mean putting in more work than I would want for a site like this, where my intention is to play in a thoughtful way.

That´s totally ok, and - let´s not get carried away - my wellbeing, inner stability, happiness, equilibrium, flourishing does not depend on the responses I get on CF. But, yes, sometimes I feel a glimpse of frustration.

So from my perspective: Yes, you invite people to play (partly with very long posts yourself, partly with extreme iconoclasms, with assumptions about the minds of non-believers etc.), so it looks like worth playing. But any time I take the invitation and join the game with a response that I feel does justice to your OP (and as you may have noticed myy have become increasingly playful recently) , you seem to stop playing. Instead you start quibbling with persons about minor points, about semantics, about tangents etc.
Don´t get me wrong: You have no obligations towards me, you are not supposed to please me, I have no demands to you. But you asked what it is that triggers my frustration, and yes: Exhaustive OP, thoughtful response, practically no feedback - that would be it.
We simply seem to have different ideas what makes this game fun, and, to tell from your response you feel I am the one taking the fun out of it. Bad luck, so you and I can´t play.

And it comes down to rules, to expectations for behaviors, yeah. I have the rule that I'll put down a good OP, respond to people with a few points, but generally not go into a lot of detail unless I'm just emotionally invested in the discussion (i.e., it's especially stimulating to talk about). You seem to have the rule that no matter how long your responses are, they deserve to be responded to fully by the person with whom you're talking, and if they don't it's unambiguously disrespectful.

Except that I didn´t say anything about "disrespectful" or made any other value judgement. I told you my wishes in the very way you told me yours (by elevating them into a rule - or were you actually being serious about putting rules up for me???) - assuming that would be the way you like to play.
In fact I have no rule at all for you. You were the one who playfully started making a rule for me, remember. I just played along.
Neither did I express my wish for you to respond to my posts in every single detail (after all, besides being detailed, they usually have one or two major points. And, yes, for me a conversation also consists of feedback as to what everyone takes home from the other person´s ideas. This doesn´t mean answering sentence for sentence or anything.

So to make it entirely clear again: You don´t have any obligations towards me, you don´t owe me anything, I have no demands from you, I have no moral judgement of your posting style, there is no need to get defensive against perceived unissued attacks, and there is no need for you to justify yourself. How you post is entirely your business.

Could you see how your behavior, based in your intrinsically fine rule, is contributing to things here?

Why sure, I expect it to be contributing to things here.
To summarize what I understand is my contribution in regards to what we are talking about: You find my posts too long, too detailed, too exhaustive, too well thought out - and therefore you don´t feel inclined to respond to them.
And for the last time: It wasn´t meant to be a rule (it was the response to what I perceived as a playful way of expressing your wishes).
Plus: You didn´t respond to my "rule" as I worded it; you responded to what you made of it ("every detail", "no matter how long", "fully"). Nothing of that has been said, nor have I made any demands or statements as to what I deserve.

So "rule"-games aside:

I tend to be frustrated when I don´t get any feedback whatsoever to a well thought out post to a well thought out question/challenge/provocative OP.

This is just to inform you, it is not meant to cause you guilt feelings, it is not meant to change your behaviours, preferences or your views. I am not going to have my feelings discussed, as I am not going to discuss yours (I will, however, keep disputing you whenever you tell me what my feelings are or when you misrepresent my statements).
I thank you for making clear what your preferred way of CF-discussion is.

I conclude that there´s a mismatch.

 

[variant]

I thank you for making clear what your preferred way of CF-discussion is.

I conclude that there´s a mismatch.

I don't think either of you have the same feelings as I do on the virtue of brevity.

 

[Belk]

I don't think either of you have the same feelings as I do on the virtue of brevity.

Nu huh.

 

[quatona]

Nu huh.

Oh.
.

 

[variant]

Oh.
.

Hm

 

[Cearbhall]

It's like there's a sort of fundamentalist presupposition happening with many atheists, where if God exists then he would be a mean Hell-loving deity; therefore God can't possibly exist, and nowhere in this thinking are considerations that are more moderate conceptions of him, which basically what philosophy of religion is all about.

On the contrary, there are plenty of Christians (and other theists) who believe in God but don't believe in the common doctrine of Hell (they think that people choose Hell or Heaven, Hell isn't a fiery pit, Hell doesn't exist, etc.). I was one when I was still Christian. Atheists, on the other hand, are people who just flat out don't believe that a deity exists in any form. It's not even really about the Christian God.

 

[Received]

You are simply presupposing a lack of effort on my part to cover the hole in your argument.

I come from a religious background. You don't think my former Catholicism was a sincere effort?

No, I simply don't think you can force a belief in God no matter how much you might like to.

I came to this conclusion after failing to force the beliefs I wanted to believe.

Never said it wasn't a sincere effort. But that isn't reason to think that because you tried, even very hard, that you're therefore justified in wiping off God from the plate for your own life or others as a possibility. Maybe you tried in the wrong way, or you didn't have any real need for God and tried for another reason. "Surely God would've helped me if that was so." Well...I don't like speaking on personal experiences like this, because they're your experiences and not mine. It's probably the little atheist in me that is very supportive of rejecting a deity who doesn't talk back -- so long as you keep the door open to him talking back in the future for a good reason.

 

[Received]

I don't think either of you have the same feelings as I do on the virtue of brevity.

Maybe you, variant, should to be a quatona, and you, quatona, should aim to be a variant, and you'll end up an only slightly rambling, middle-of-the-roader like Received.

 

[Received]

Yes, I think so, but I didn´t complain or demand or anything.
It was not until you transformed your wishes as to how you´d like me to respond (i.e. with the sort of humour you can dig) into a general rule - which I thought was a joke with a serious wish in the background. Correct me if I am wrong.
So I answered in the same way, saying: Once we are at making our wishes rules here, and you have made one for me, this would be the one I would make for you. I´m not sure why it´s humourous and playful when you do it, and stops having these elements when I do it.


That´s totally ok, and - let´s not get carried away - my wellbeing, inner stability, happiness, equilibrium, flourishing does not depend on the responses I get on CF. But, yes, sometimes I feel a glimpse of frustration.

So from my perspective: Yes, you invite people to play (partly with very long posts yourself, partly with extreme iconoclasms, with assumptions about the minds of non-believers etc.), so it looks like worth playing. But any time I take the invitation and join the game with a response that I feel does justice to your OP (and as you may have noticed myy have become increasingly playful recently) , you seem to stop playing. Instead you start quibbling with persons about minor points, about semantics, about tangents etc.
Don´t get me wrong: You have no obligations towards me, you are not supposed to please me, I have no demands to you. But you asked what it is that triggers my frustration, and yes: Exhaustive OP, thoughtful response, practically no feedback - that would be it.
We simply seem to have different ideas what makes this game fun, and, to tell from your response you feel I am the one taking the fun out of it. Bad luck, so you and I can´t play.


Except that I didn´t say anything about "disrespectful" or made any other value judgement. I told you my wishes in the very way you told me yours (by elevating them into a rule - or were you actually being serious about putting rules up for me???) - assuming that would be the way you like to play.
In fact I have no rule at all for you. You were the one who playfully started making a rule for me, remember. I just played along.
Neither did I express my wish for you to respond to my posts in every single detail (after all, besides being detailed, they usually have one or two major points. And, yes, for me a conversation also consists of feedback as to what everyone takes home from the other person´s ideas. This doesn´t mean answering sentence for sentence or anything.

So to make it entirely clear again: You don´t have any obligations towards me, you don´t owe me anything, I have no demands from you, I have no moral judgement of your posting style, there is no need to get defensive against perceived unissued attacks, and there is no need for you to justify yourself. How you post is entirely your business.



Why sure, I expect it to be contributing to things here.
To summarize what I understand is my contribution in regards to what we are talking about: You find my posts too long, too detailed, too exhaustive, too well thought out - and therefore you don´t feel inclined to respond to them.
And for the last time: It wasn´t meant to be a rule (it was the response to what I perceived as a playful way of expressing your wishes).
Plus: You didn´t respond to my "rule" as I worded it; you responded to what you made of it ("every detail", "no matter how long", "fully"). Nothing of that has been said, nor have I made any demands or statements as to what I deserve.

So "rule"-games aside:

I tend to be frustrated when I don´t get any feedback whatsoever to a well thought out post to a well thought out question/challenge/provocative OP.

This is just to inform you, it is not meant to cause you guilt feelings, it is not meant to change your behaviours, preferences or your views. I am not going to have my feelings discussed, as I am not going to discuss yours (I will, however, keep disputing you whenever you tell me what my feelings are or when you misrepresent my statements).
I thank you for making clear what your preferred way of CF-discussion is.

I conclude that there´s a mismatch.

Sorry, but I do have an obligation toward you, but I won't say you have one toward me: I have an obligation to behave ethically toward you, which means to show you some degree of respect and care. I take that seriously.

But to me it comes down to differences in expressing ourselves: you the long way, well-thought out way, adding all angles to each thought so you express yourself what I would think is fully in an argumentative context, with the hidden expectation of a response; me intimidated by this length, intending a reply but getting sidetracked by other posters who make shorter and more bite-sized responses (I disagree strongly that my responses to other posters are trivial or "just semantics", the latter I've never thought of my own posts, understandable for someone to think given that many of my more recent points involve the limitations of language and things like self-negating statements) that capture what I see as significant points, all the while time passes and my intention to return to your post (which happens occasionally, and as you'll notice usually once or twice, then stops for the reasons mentioned above) fades with each forgetfulness-inspiring response to other posters.

Another important part of it is that we never seem to reach an impasse, and I guess the pragmatist part in me likes impasses or resolutions, so when someone diligently pushes through to the potentially endless end, I lose heart and focus on those posters whom I view as reaching an end. The same thing would happen with variant, another guy who never reaches an impasse with anything, but he's too snazzy and snippy with many of his comments, which often provokes me to continue on longer than I otherwise would.

So yeah, a mismatch. Either become a smart alec like variant to joyfully provoke me, make the stretch for efficiency, or have patience with me for having good intentions which would, in a magical parallel world, give you a precise response for each of your thoughtful posts. Maybe I just need to retire, and then I could spend hours giving you the response you deserve.

 

[Cearbhall]

God is to most atheists a dead argument because he has no seen usefulness or satisfies any needs, and with many conceptions even creates more psychological problems than he resolves, notably an eternal Hell.

I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from, but personally, I can think of plenty of reasons why it'd be great to have a being who is both benevolent and all-powerful running the show. I want a pain-free eternal afterlife with all of my family and friends. I'd love to think that a powerful being can hear me if I'm ever alone and need help. I want everyone to have someone who can provide feelings of hope.

I think you're looking at this as too much of a dichotomy. Not believing in the Abrahamic God does not an atheist make. There's a whole lot in-between. It's entirely possible to eliminate the "Hell problem" and still be theistic. There are plenty of options in the modern era.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, but I do have an obligation toward you, but I won't say you have one toward me: I have an obligation to behave ethically toward you, which means to show you some degree of respect and care. I take that seriously.

Which, of course, has little to do with what I tried to express (you have absolutely no obligation to conform to my wishes).
Sounds nice and all, but is, for all practical purposes, just an empty phrase. It´s not an obligation you feel towards me, it´s an obligation you feel towards your inner judge.
Everyone here defines for themselves what being "respectful" means to them, and everyone is as respectful (by their own definition) as they can in any given moment. So "I want to show you some degree of respect and care" isn´t telling me anything of use, it´s just the affirmation that the other person is in negotiations with their inner judge and would like that to be acknowledged as virtuous. "I behave respectfully" means "I behave respectfully by my own standards of respect, and I am also the one who judges how I did." It´s entirely between me and me. Practically, we have to accept what anybody throws at us, anyway.
And so it happened that in your last post (after a short expression of empathy - thanks for that! ) you quickly started having a conversation with yourself. You started negotiating with your inner judge, you defended yourself against reproaches you had invented yourself, you looked for justifications in your own moral system for stuff I hadn´t accused you of etc. - and I felt like a bystander, used as your projection surface. It had nothing to do with me.
I don´t want that. I hate it. Of course, it happens all the time - because that has been the moralists´ way for a long time. Cultural heritage, if you will. And of course, a moralist does not only have a moralist mouth but also moralist ears. So there´s little hope for me that I won´t run into such situations time and again (except with persons who have come to know me).

So yeah, a mismatch.

Yes, let´s leave it at that.

 

[Received]

Which, of course, has little to do with what I tried to express (you have absolutely no obligation to conform to my wishes).
Sounds nice and all, but is, for all practical purposes, just an empty phrase. It´s not an obligation you feel towards me, it´s an obligation you feel towards your inner judge.

No, this is a false dichotomy at most. Any "inner judge" we have is a lens through which we relate to people, and doesn't obstruct the person. I disagree strongly with that.

And so it happened that in your last post (after a short expression of empathy - thanks for that! ) you quickly started having a conversation with yourself. You started negotiating with your inner judge, you defended yourself against reproaches you had invented yourself, you looked for justifications in your own moral system for stuff I hadn´t accused you of etc. - and I felt like a bystander, used as your projection surface. It had nothing to do with me.
I don´t want that. I hate it. Of course, it happens all the time - because that has been the moralists´ way for a long time. Cultural heritage, if you will. And of course, a moralist does not only have a moralist mouth but also moralist ears. So there´s little hope for me that I won´t run into such situations time and again (except with persons who have come to know me).

No, the bulk of my last post was thinking with you on how things are from my perspective. Any "reproaches" weren't interpreted as coming from you, but indirect moral reasoning on how my case is contra you in a moral way. That's all.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

No, this is a false dichotomy at most. Any "inner judge" we have is a lens through which we relate to people,

Yes, on our "moral" home soil, not on theirs.

and doesn't obstruct the person.

I don´t recall saying anything about "obstruction of persons".

No, the bulk of my last post was thinking with you on how things are from my perspective.

Please read this sentence again, Received. Something about it sounds extremely funny to me.

Any "reproaches" weren't interpreted as coming from you,

...then I think it was a bit unfortunate to word them explicitly as if they were....

but indirect moral reasoning on how my case is contra you in a moral way. That's all.

Exactly what I meant. You checked your moral system, and wanted me as the witness for this process.
Someone talks about their needs or wants, and the immediate response is moral reasoning. How is that a response to what has been expressed??
"Ma, I am hungry." - "But you can´t expect me to interrupt my work now."
Whereever you go, this is one of the most common patterns of (total mis-)communication. It´s a mess, if you ask me.

 

[Received]

Eh, I think a moral system necessarily involves other people, given the actions that fall within morality affect other people. So to me there's no difference between my moral system and you. When I speak morally about my actions, even if they're not directly about your concerns, this involves my relationship with you, and is at the very least my good intentions contemplating on how we're reaching difficulties in our "argumentative relationship".

I don't think this is just a problem -- from your perspective -- with morality. It would then generalize to any relationship I have with another person being a difficulty given that I always have an idea or image of you that doesn't really "reach" the objective you beyond my images, at least according to the reasoning about morals above. "You're not seeing me, just your image of me," etc. Thoughts?

 

[variant]

Never said it wasn't a sincere effort.

You actually supposed that I didn't make any effort or take any initiative directly unless you and I have significantly different definitions of words.

So, you'll have to forgive me if I seemed irritated in that reply. It was because I find that line of accusation very irritating.

But that isn't reason to think that because you tried, even very hard, that you're therefore justified in wiping off God from the plate for your own life or others as a possibility.

It is a good reason if we are basing the argument for the existence of God on the proposition that it wants to fulfill my psychological needs.

Obviously if God exists it has other priorities and I am left to deal with my own psychological needs.

I can't say for instance that in the case where God exists, that it doesn't want me to be an Atheist and consider that a better psychological set up for me, since I am definitely happier being an Atheist rather than trying in vain to force a belief in God.

Which kind of turns your argument for God by psychological need on it's head.

Whether or not humans psychologically need God seems entirely unconnected with whether it in fact exists.

Maybe you tried in the wrong way, or you didn't have any real need for God and tried for another reason.

If I didn't have a real need then it seems very odd that I would have attempted to force it at all.

"Surely God would've helped me if that was so." Well...I don't like speaking on personal experiences like this, because they're your experiences and not mine. It's probably the little atheist in me that is very supportive of rejecting a deity who doesn't talk back -- so long as you keep the door open to him talking back in the future for a good reason.

It seems like a valid assumption from my point of view.

I found that if I don't actively try to force myself to see God everywhere, it doesn't appear to me to exist at all.

 

[quatona]

Eh, I think a moral system necessarily involves other people, given the actions that fall within morality affect other people. So to me there's no difference between my moral system and you. When I speak morally about my actions, even if they're not directly about your concerns, this involves my relationship with you, and is at the very least my good intentions contemplating on how we're reaching difficulties in our "argumentative relationship".

Yes, I know. The good intentions of *anyone* are never in doubt with me, and even less yours of all.
That´s why - from my pov - the permanent self-justification of moralists is a nuisance to me. It dominates everything, and the worst thing is: It´s sold as empathy - which it isn´t.

As if the theoretical background would help with anything. The house wife, the construction worker - they all have been unconsciously conditioned into a certain moral system; they all are either "deontologist", "virtue ethicist", "consequentialists" (without even being aware of it); and the intellectual researchers of morality and meta-morality have nothing ahead of them. Do you want me believe that prior to every action y´all check your imaginary theory handbook? Ah, come on. Is there such a thing as an"objective morality"? Who TF cares? What difference would it make?
(And on a sidenote: in my experience everyone who is in a moral dilemma easily and spontaneously switches between these moral systems - no matter whether they identify themselves by a certain system and what it is. Because that´s simply not how it works: the theory determining the action. And I like that.)

I realize now that this is the actual mismatch not only between you and me, but between the entire forum and me. I voluntarily keep coming back to a place that´s like hell to me; where the alleged core questions aren´t even valid questions (they are not even not valid, they are also ugly and to a large degree responsible for the very problems they are meant to solve); a place where I can see like under the microscope what it is that I ultimately suffer from.

I could go on a long rant now, I feel like playing drama queen just for once, but I´ll spare you this.

And please make - everyone - sure you don´t take anything personal. I am talking merely about myself and my feelings, and I am aware you are in no way responsible for them. I am just opening myself up a little.

I don't think this is just a problem -- from your perspective -- with morality. It would then generalize to any relationship I have with another person being a difficulty given that I always have an idea or image of you that doesn't really "reach" the objective you beyond my images, at least according to the reasoning about morals above. "You're not seeing me, just your image of me," etc. Thoughts?

Ah, Received, you are so predictable.
One of your favourite reflexes, probably driven by what you described as your desire to soon reach an impasse: You generalize the issue out of proportion. (And if nothing else helps, epistemological nihilism is always left as the last resort.) Anything that gives you a chance to escape the actual, concrete problem, and turn it into a huge unsolvable intellectual abstract issue, is welcome.

But ok: Why sure, this phenomenon underlies every human interaction, and thus plays a part here, too. Just like the limitations of language and other given conditions that are *always* there. It´s banal, actually.
And no, I am not complaining about the human condition or want it changed (even though doing so would be a good chance for an impasse ).
No. Within these inescapable conditions there are different ways of interacting with each other (hypothesis: The differences probably depend a lot on how aware the participants are of the general conditions. But I haven´t thought this through.)
So, while even in a conversation with a non-moralist these conditions are there, they don´t lead to the frustrating results I am whining about here.

 

[Colter]

Yes, I know. The good intentions of *anyone* are never in doubt with me, and even less yours of all.
That´s why - from my pov - the permanent self-justification of moralists is a nuisance to me. It dominates everything, and the worst thing is: It´s sold as empathy - which it isn´t.

As if the theoretical background would help with anything. The house wife, the construction worker - they all have been unconsciously conditioned into a certain moral system; they all are either "deontologist", "virtue ethicist", "consequentialists" (without even being aware of it); and the intellectual researchers of morality and meta-morality have nothing ahead of them. Do you want me believe that prior to every action y´all check your imaginary theory handbook? Ah, come on. Is there such a thing as an"objective morality"? Who TF cares? What difference would it make?
(And on a sidenote: in my experience everyone who is in a moral dilemma easily and spontaneously switches between these moral systems - no matter whether they identify themselves by a certain system and what it is. Because that´s simply not how it works: the theory determining the action. And I like that.)

I realize now that this is the actual mismatch not only between you and me, but between the entire forum and me. I voluntarily keep coming back to a place that´s like hell to me; where the alleged core questions aren´t even valid questions (they are not even not valid, they are also ugly and to a large degree responsible for the very problems they are meant to solve); a place where I can see like under the microscope what it is that I ultimately suffer from.

I could go on a long rant now, I feel like playing drama queen just for once, but I´ll spare you this.

And please make - everyone - sure you don´t take anything personal. I am talking merely about myself and my feelings, and I am aware you are in no way responsible for them. I am just opening myself up a little.


Ah, Received, you are so predictable.
One of your favourite reflexes, probably driven by what you described as your desire to soon reach an impasse: You generalize the issue out of proportion. (And if nothing else helps, epistemological nihilism is always left as the last resort.) Anything that gives you a chance to escape the actual, concrete problem, and turn it into a huge unsolvable intellectual abstract issue, is welcome.

But ok: Why sure, this phenomenon underlies every human interaction, and thus plays a part here, too. Just like the limitations of language and other given conditions that are *always* there. It´s banal, actually.
And no, I am not complaining about the human condition or want it changed (even though doing so would be a good chance for an impasse ).
No. Within these inescapable conditions there are different ways of interacting with each other (hypothesis: The differences probably depend a lot on how aware the participants are of the general conditions. But I haven´t thought this through.)
So, while even in a conversation with a non-moralist these conditions are there, they don´t lead to the frustrating results I am whining about here.

You two sound like you're married.

 

[Received]

Yes, I know. The good intentions of *anyone* are never in doubt with me, and even less yours of all.
That´s why - from my pov - the permanent self-justification of moralists is a nuisance to me. It dominates everything, and the worst thing is: It´s sold as empathy - which it isn´t.

As if the theoretical background would help with anything. The house wife, the construction worker - they all have been unconsciously conditioned into a certain moral system; they all are either "deontologist", "virtue ethicist", "consequentialists" (without even being aware of it); and the intellectual researchers of morality and meta-morality have nothing ahead of them. Do you want me believe that prior to every action y´all check your imaginary theory handbook? Ah, come on. Is there such a thing as an"objective morality"? Who TF cares? What difference would it make?
(And on a sidenote: in my experience everyone who is in a moral dilemma easily and spontaneously switches between these moral systems - no matter whether they identify themselves by a certain system and what it is. Because that´s simply not how it works: the theory determining the action. And I like that.)

I realize now that this is the actual mismatch not only between you and me, but between the entire forum and me. I voluntarily keep coming back to a place that´s like hell to me; where the alleged core questions aren´t even valid questions (they are not even not valid, they are also ugly and to a large degree responsible for the very problems they are meant to solve); a place where I can see like under the microscope what it is that I ultimately suffer from.

I could go on a long rant now, I feel like playing drama queen just for once, but I´ll spare you this.

And please make - everyone - sure you don´t take anything personal. I am talking merely about myself and my feelings, and I am aware you are in no way responsible for them. I am just opening myself up a little.


Ah, Received, you are so predictable.
One of your favourite reflexes, probably driven by what you described as your desire to soon reach an impasse: You generalize the issue out of proportion. (And if nothing else helps, epistemological nihilism is always left as the last resort.) Anything that gives you a chance to escape the actual, concrete problem, and turn it into a huge unsolvable intellectual abstract issue, is welcome.

But ok: Why sure, this phenomenon underlies every human interaction, and thus plays a part here, too. Just like the limitations of language and other given conditions that are *always* there. It´s banal, actually.
And no, I am not complaining about the human condition or want it changed (even though doing so would be a good chance for an impasse ).
No. Within these inescapable conditions there are different ways of interacting with each other (hypothesis: The differences probably depend a lot on how aware the participants are of the general conditions. But I haven´t thought this through.)
So, while even in a conversation with a non-moralist these conditions are there, they don´t lead to the frustrating results I am whining about here.

What "evidence" do you have that the bold is true?

Perhaps it's the other way around: your communication isn't clear enough (or is clear but so thought out and talkative that a reasonable expectation of attending to your words in reading them relatively quickly isn't enough time to digest their real meaning) to make it very unlikely for me (and I don't think I've done this with any other poster, volunteers welcome) to take the argument which your words indicate but you don't intend?

ETA: yeah, I want a response on this, if you're down. I have a sense that your interpretation of my behavior on these boards might be something other posters have interpreted (note the careful use of this word) themselves. I know Davian chided me for having a streak of threads being, basically, too pettifogging with language and trivial (when my intention was quite the opposite with the points of my threads and posts along these lines).