i've always felt vimothy has much more to offer but haven't been able to find a way to coax it out
of him. i reckon he's got a good brain but he's wasting it on things like university and maths
and economics and the dark enlightenment.
i get frustrated with craner for smiliar reasons. does that make more sense?
on dissensus there are two very different approaches to intellectual stimulation.
i think me and you find people talking about their ideas (anyone by the way, not just dissensians) a bit blase and not particularly stimulating. we're more interested by their psychology and their relationships with other people. we're looking at what someone's opinion about chaka kahn says about their sexuality, their relationship with their parents, their racial attitudes, how they talk, how they dress, their politics, their class, their drugs choices, friends, geography, etc. we prefer to talk obtusely, figuratively and economically because we're essentially talking about things that aren't concrete or tangible. we can only talk about this stuff in innuendos and allusions. vim spends most of his time on here giving the impression that human cognition is so inherently flawed that any quest for objective truth is worthless, so i think he's of a disposition where he'd get a lot out of this type of thing. unfortunately he views us like a poor man's chuckle brothers so we haven't reached him yet.
as for everyone else, they're more interested in more traditional forms of intellectualism. luka, be happy to coexist. both ways of doing things are valid. we tipped the balance too much our way before, so we've adjusted. no need to seek converts.