What I wrote here seems to be true:
Well, I'm sorry Keith, this is all very repetitive. Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes and will never be able to understand each other in this - and it's possibly because of our different and peculiar paradigms.
I do apologise for suggesting the use of "transcendent", but, as I wrote:
By suggesting "transcendent", I was only trying to be helpful and move things along.
However, we still seem to be in the state of trying to have a rational discussion whilst continuing using undefined terms, so I don't think things have moved along at all really, nor would they seem likely to do so under these continuing circumstances.
The premise seems
to be along the lines of "You can move beyond gamification by designing up Maslow's pyramid." (OWTTE)
I am unsure what that means, because:
- (a) The term "gamification" hasn't yet been assigned a precise definition.
- (b) "Maslow's pyramind" is a relatively weak/insubstantial (unproven) theoretical construct, possibly at least partially attributable to it using an undefined term "self-actualisation" in it's own structure.
I am trying to be polite about these terms here, so as not to cause offence. The point is though that they are still apparently BS (QED), which effectively makes them useless as tools for rational thinking to develop and follow a rational argument.
The premise above therefore does not seem to be able to exist in a rationally-based form. Thus you can form no rational argument out of it for discussion - and I think we have amply demonstrated that, in this thread.
So I must confess that I feel I have been unable to suggest any helpful or useful thinking for you on this subject, and I apologise for trying nontheless. I had been wanting to communicate, but I had not realised that at root we seem to fail to communicate for some reason.
I had not realised that you might have felt that I was trying to score points or justify myself, or whatever other "bad" things you may have felt I might have been doing in this discussion, and I apologise if it seemed so. Please put it down to my natural impatience rather than any feeling of antagonism or ego-gratification on my part. I had not realised that you might consider that I had been making "cheap replies" or that I had "humped on back to an unhelpful direction just when you seem to be leaving it just so you can have a last word on how much you detest buzz words.".
That sort of thing is/was never my intention. I generally chip in if I think that what I have to say could be of humour or use/help in a discussion, or - more especially - if I wish to pursue discovery of some truth in a debate.
Please note that I have not called you irrational or made an ad hominem
, and that I take exception to the ad hominem
of you calling me irrational, yet I refuse to drag us into the gutter with a "Tu quoque"
(Latin: "you also") in response to your ad hominem
. What I might think of you as a person is irrelevant to our discussion.
...life does not end at all...
Can be neither proven nor disproven, except presumably by individual experience.
Uhh...no... I'm not talking about just individual life but the impact of individual life. The things left behind by a dead person like memories, influence, contributions, legacies.
This is a good example of a failure to communicate. I had been unable to understand, from that statement of yours about life, that it might have implied so much more/different than what I had supposed.
So, if "Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes and will never be able to understand each other...", and if we are starting to call each other names or ad hominem
, then - if you don't mind - I really think it would be best if I withdraw from this particular discussion. At this juncture, it ceases to be possible for me to find it enjoyable or rewarding, it seems to antagonise you, and I don't think I am able to contribute any more of use/help than the little I might have done so far.
Thankyou for some thought-provoking discussion.