Following the post you mention above, I pointed out the places where we do agree along with a reference to an MIT study. You claim to value science when exploring issues, so that should have been valuable. Instead, it descended into your false assumption that some competition between us was taking place and that I was trying to oppress you. If anything, I was trying to do exactly the opposite. I was not trying to compete, but to cooperate in the exploration of an issue you had brought up ( Truth ) using tools accepted by skeptics ( which you claim to be ) in order for us to reach a more complete understanding of the issue than when we started.
The original time I thought it had ended. This happened three separate times, each time following my understanding of the fact that we had reached a plateau beyond which nothing could be gained for myself (having detected the scent of debate and aggression). We had, in my mind, completed a circle of information. I said, to one degree or another, each time, "we've learned a little about how each other think
, and that's always fun/cool."
By the time i had gotten to where I was for the ending you're referencing, the things i was trying to avoid had already taken place; in addition, i wasn't being permitted courteous withdrawal. In my eyes, though probably not alone, there are few reasons for this aside from aggressive, emotionally driven hounding for a gratifying resolution -- victory. It seemed to me that you sought confirmation that the other had decided to assimilate to what they had been exposed, or you would only receive gratification from an explanation as to why not.
I
didn't and don't feel it's necessary to entertain that gratification.
I still believe that my true mistake was to proclaim myself a skeptic -- a nonbeliever -- who believes that science is the only road to objective truth. You seem to have severe problems with that idea, as evidenced by your emotional response to my summarization of the legal process. The response was made all the more interesting by the fact that the summarization was not only entirely accurate, a list of the steps involved in the process, but was being used simply to explain why I don't consider the truth sought from its procedures to be an objective truth -- the only truth I entertain as cosmic reality.
What I've gotten from our melded conversations is that the problem with skeptics is that they don't believe. However, skeptics are also not allowed to call themselves skeptics if they adhere only to the scientific method, because, somehow, critical thinking mandates that they should -- I guess.
I really thought we could wrap this up amicably, but you've now moved into a space where you try to convince me of three things:
1. The fun I seek from conversation, which you are apparently unable to understand derives from several sources,
is objectively pointless and no one will take it seriously, despite a lifetime of friendship and conversation suggestive of the contrary.
2. Given 1, I literally have conversation incorrectly.
3. I am incapable of perceiving or articulating my own experiences and purposes.
As fun as that sounds, those are things I'm unwilling to acknowledge as coherent conclusions. Which brings me to:
So when the "inner world" of another person involves expanding their knowledge base, you don't find that "fun" and therefore you "disengage"?
No, dude. When a maniac tries to argue with me regarding subjective matters of my own taste, I disengage. There's no reason, outside of psychological field research, to continue to talk to somebody like that.
There is no common ground to be found in this bloated discussion, because the nature of the subject matter is exclusively subjective and sourced from the respective individuals. Whatever you're seeking apparently isn't here.
Chalk this up as one of life's disappointments. I think it's time we move on.
