Conversation

Replying to
The reason for the lack of interest of the crowds in your mortal toil is that you don't do very interesting things. In your attempts at relevance you seem to limit yourself to what's permissible. Trump and Peterson operate outside of what's permitted (which makes success harder).
3
Replying to
So the actual mystery here is why you’re trying to figure me out at all. There’s really not much to figure out, so my theory is it bothers you to see unexplained divergence. It doesn’t bother me because I think divergence is the default and convergence is what needs explaining
1
1
Replying to
Ah, ok. I did not realize that this is not obvious. I am interested in understanding specific divergence because I need to account for my own divergence. (I don't think you are not correct in assuming that convergence is not the default. Convergence is heavily selected for.)
1
1
Replying to and
Btw, this thread had two distinct moments where I felt you were stopping two steps of inference short of the actual insight. What puzzles me is not that you don't think deeply, but that you don't seem to be attracted to that particular dimension of depth. Why dive then at all?
1
Replying to
1. My description of your behavior did not contain its explanation and thus no understanding, even if it would have predictive value, and 2. divergence and convergence are not just there and need to be approved or not but are dynamics that exist for reasons we have to understand.
2
Replying to
The text holds interesting insights for me. For instance, that you‘d think that one would need to google “existential horror”, and in their old age, instead of experiencing that as the default.
2
Replying to
Yes, another joke that totally bombs in my universe, where humor is not meant to cure gravity by distorting it with levity, but a sincere way to deal with horror and tragedy.
1
2