The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. When he is discussing how we should interact, then compromise, negotiation and moderation are what he concludes are good. Why? because since we cannot know what is good, we should have these attitudes. When he is focused on the mind or we point out something in his behavior, then he will say - but I always say my ideas are also contraptions.
But the odd thing is: he does not seem to believe it himself. IOW if he think it is all contraptions he would never say C N and M are good. He would simply be this fragmented, confused person who cannot draw conclusions.
And further it does not make sense for a nihilist to conclude, however tentatively, that something is good. A nihilist does not believe there is a good or a bad and, yes, as you point out thinks there are only preferences.
And he claims not to even know his preferences, since he only seems to have an ‘I’.
And yet, despite his not having an I, being a nihilist, being fragmented,
he manages to post the exact same thing for years.
How does a fragmented nihilist with no sense of consistent self manage to assert for years and years in a row that compromise, negotiation and moderation are better, iow more good, than other approaches to politics and human relations?
How does this broken being with no sense of a consistent self manage to write in exactly the same way, often with the same phrases in the same sequence with the same opinions, maintaining the same position for years, and without ever presenting specific doubts about any of his beliefs?
It’s all fine and dandy to make disclaimers: I know this might be an existential contraption on my part. But never once does one of his various fragments actually express an option about how his beliefs might be bad, how his logic might be off, in specific. Never does he present the belief that moderation might be a problematic thing for people to have as a guideline, with a specific argument or example.
I know that regarding abortion, in the abstract, he can express being pulled towards differing positions - but even objectivists can react that way. Even objectivists can be torn on some or many issues.
But in relation to his own behavior and his own beliefs of what is good, he never reacts with ‘on the other hand moderation might be a bad guideline because saying this to people could lead to X’ or ‘no you seem correct, when I, in that post you responded to, judged his position by not my own with specific bad consequences, I was not being consistant’ or ‘you’re right a nihilist would not conclude, even tentatively that X is good.’ This fragmented ‘I’ always manages to be amazed that anyone is questioning what he wrote as a possible contradiction with his major beliefs. He is always shocked that anyone might think that he is being hypocritical in specific communicative acts here. This fragmented ‘I’ always draws the same conclusion that his behavior here, in any specific example we bring up, is consistant with his philosophy. His fragments either all have the same evaluation of everything he does- God I wish my parts always did - or he is hiding hiding what thes other fragments think about, for example, moderation and compromise.
This fragmented unsure non-I seems utterly consistant and sure.