Karpel Tunnel wrote:iambiguous wrote:Karpel Tunnel wrote: I won't read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn't do, or what I seem to be doing.
Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.
Are you implying a particular thing that it tells others about me? must it be that?
I think it could mean a number of things. Some seem fine to me, some not.
I'm merely describing my reaction to your participation in threads that include me. It seems true to me. On the other hand, all of this may well be embedded in a wholly determined universe such that these very words that I am choosing to type [and that you either are or are not choosing to read] may be entirely beyond our control as autonomous human beings.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: Here's why I do that. Rightly or wrongly I find that you have trouble actually understanding the point of what people are saying, except as it reflects on your core question.
And I point out time and again that in reard to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world, and in grappling with the really Big Questions regarding the either/or world, my own understanding of "the point" is entangled in either "existential contraptions" or in the gap between what I think I know about "ultimate reality" here and now and all there is to be known about the very nature of existence itself.
That's why over and over and over again I suggest that, to the extent that we are able, we bring "the point" down to earth.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: So, I experience that you often do not respond to what I write, but repeat what you have written many times before as if it applies. Sometimes it does, often it does not, always I already knew your position, so it does not further the discussion.
Right, like there is no possibility of my turning this around and suggesting that, from my frame of mind, it is also applicable to you.
To the best of my recollection, I have always at least made an attempt to respond to your posts. I don't just abandon the points that you make altogether. Instead, you strike me as one of the "serious philosophers" here. You become rankled when others don't agree with the points you make. In other words, for others to respond they must eventually agree.
Whereas from my frame of mind, dasein and conflicting goods [embedded in existential contraptions], all but guarantee "failure to communicate."
We'll just have to agree to disagree reagarding our respective reactions to each other. Unless, of course, someone is actually able to demonstrate/prove which of us is in fact closer to the objective truth.
Instead, over and again [from my point of view] I get stuff like this from you...
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I find it passive-aggressive when you ask the gallery questions, rather than simply stating what you think it means. It might not be passive aggressive, you might really be simply curious to get their interpretation. I think your philosophy allows for a great deal of passive aggressiveness, since you can always say you can't be sure. Sort of erasing what you say as you write it. That may be swaying me to think that you are being passive-aggressive when you ask others questions like the above.
It is certainly one way people are passive aggressive, asking the question as if the answer is obvious, but not taking responsibility for saying directly what they think it means. But it might not be in this case.
What on earth does this mean? Note a particular context in which human beings do interact, and we can discuss our respective misunderstandings with regard to both determinism and pragmatism.