I had not seen your response to Mikes's clear explanation of what I was doing re the "person,dog" model. My argument (and you acknowledged to Mike he was probably right, thank goodness) was about the fact that to be "unique" is to be "known". (I may add: at least at some level)
I also had not paid attention to your apology.
When I returned to my post; I realised I was over-lecturing you.
Of course you know I really DON'T like the ideology of "mental health"; I agree with Szasz that it is morally outrageous and very destructive and irrational. So I can get preachy when tarred with the brush of that most unpleasant ideology. I have never been drugged or incarcerated in an institution and do not expect so! I find that ideology repulsive. Social behviour disputes should be dealt with non-medically and rationally.
Quote: "You know what preaching is? It is long essays where you talk about all this ultimate reality stuff you think you figured out (which few believe, but rather form opinions that you have lost your mind)."
Excuse me! My long essays are simply my attempts to figure out stuff, mostly re: physics and Dr Dick's paper. What is so preachy about them? I just put the ideas up for debate.
I had a good debate with you at Counterbalance. We ended having both agreed that "relationships" exist.
Please do not be repressive of free exploration of ideas! If Dr. Dick talked to me more, maybe I could sort out his work a lot faster!
Just because you do not understand my use of language, doesn't mean I have lost my mind. "Mind" involves "minding", "paying attention", "being aware of". When you do not follow my idea; "mind" is indeed lost: what is lost is the "awareness" of what I'm on about!
It is the mutual "mind" that is lost, between writer and reader; perhaps.
What happened here was a misunderstanding. Mike cleared a lot of it up. You acknowledged that. I took exception to being tarred with the brush of pyschiatric facism? So would you?
Re: communicate rather than preach: I place the ideas up for discussion. Communication is a two-way process. I invite it.
"Why not engage in more practical discussions. "
I have limited money, no computer, limited time. The most practical discussion for me is to unravel Dr. Dick's claim; as the hold-up on this is costing me.
"Why the fascination with Dick's work?"
Simple: Discussion plus his own explanation led me at Counterbalance to feel I had understood some key aspects. I innocently just wanted to clarify some matters.
"You become so fixated sometimes that a developing mental illness becomes a reasonable explanation."
I wish you would consider that there is no such thing as a mental illness. Disagreements about choices of behaviour are not illnesses. The testimony of pathophysiology is: psychiatry is a fraud. See my reply to Aurino.
"Fixated": yes; it irritates me that this artifact of the refusal of Dr. Dick to engage in sustained two-way discussion of his work, should occur.
You have been treated very well by Dr. Dick, Harv. Spare a thought for what he seems to have put me through! I believe in open, rational debate. He seems to evade it, with me? He promotes a bizarre, nihilistic philosophy it seems; based on a maths whose foundations he admits he assumes and leaves others to question.
I have found Dr. Dick very difficult to deal with. But I am not going to give up just because he despairs of my lack of mathematical training.
The alleged "fixation" on his work is explained thus:
Because he rarely talks to me, I have to explore his work and my ideas for a long time between getting responses from him. I have limited funds and time. I simply cannot afford to spend much on other topics; because so much work is required to understand him!
If he only had had a sustained two=way conversation with me (like he had with you) long ago; his work might be "rest in peace (or pieces)" long ago!
His avoidance of talking to me = origin of alleged "fixation". An artifact of that refusal. You had the luxury of sustained debate here with him Harv; do not judge me harshly for merely wanting to do what you did!
I do not give up easily. Many succesful people are like that. Pathologising behaviour that you dissaprove of is an exercise in metaphor.
"Why not put all these concerns aside and engage in real debates about more practical matters?"
In my opinion, if "the laws of physics" are circular in the way he says; this IS a very practical matter.
The subject can be made much easier for students; money can be saved from being wasted on poorly though-out experiments.
Practical matter: I think I understand his "cute little game". I am just seeking some common understanding with him as to what he is on about.
I am free to play with theoretical physics ideas, practical or not!
"Or, do you prefer to preach?" If people will not challenge and critique my ideas; that is up to them. It is their judgement. My physics essays are not preaching. You are free to dismantle their logic.
"It is better to communicate with people rather than preach at them as you tend to do."
All you need to do is demonstrate errors in my logic, in my idea development. I do not prevent communication.
Harv, you have sympathised with me before. Feel free to do so again!
I don't want to be hard on Dr. Dick: just: please Dr. Dick; don't make me have to work so hard to get a response that my refusal to give up leads others to accuse me of being a nut!