Indeed, and rather fortunate for you in that you have been able to think yourself into a frame of mind that allows you obviate an essentially absurd and meaningless world by subsuming “I” in what I construe to be but one of many whollistic intellectual scaffoldings.
They abound here, at KT and in many other venues devoted to philosophical, political and/or religious discussion.
It is then only a matter of whether you come to recognize [as I once did] the psychological nature of these basically didactic mindsets.
“I” is anchored to a way of understanding the world such that the crucial distinction can then be made between “one of us” [who get it] and “one of them” [who don’t get it].
On the other hand, I have what might be called a more enviable frame of mind. I may well be right regarding my own dilemma above; but I am always hoping that someone will come along able to convince me that I am wrong.
As I had suggested you need to strive to reframe your philosophical position on this by your own self.
And, from my vantage point, you need to recognize the extent to which, in offering this advice to others, you are arguing that only when they come to share your own set of technical assumptions, have they reframed their philosophical position to be in sync with what is in fact true for all of us.
Okay, I then note, but in what particular context regarding what particular conflicting behaviors?
Instead [over and over and over again] we get “analysis” like this:
I have mentioned it is critical for ‘knowing’ to be complemented with ‘doing’. I have done extensive research, i.e. secure solid wide and deep intellectual foundations [not contraption] and spent years practicing to reinforce the neural circuits in my brain to modulate the inherent existential impulses and other potential deviations to sustain an optimal state for my well being.
This is why I am very optimistic and moving forward in contrast to you wallowing in your muddy pool of pessimism.
And then, when, in exasperastion, I ask, “what on earth does that mean?!”, you simply reconfigure the words into yet another “general description”.
I am well aware there are many psychological, existential holes and the mother of all ‘holes’ in life and I have always taken the effort [knowledge and ‘spiritual’ practices] to ensure I don’t fall into them [I have preference for a certain one though].
All I can surmise here is that you accomplish this by refusing to substantiate your “analyses”/“arguments” above. In other words, in an exchange that probes human interactions we are all familiar with such that the manner in which I construe dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, are grappled with [by you] existentially.