Form: Reply

Correct. Though a couple of things I would remind you of.
(a) I have never sought to inform the common man, only learn the thinking of the common man – it’s biases, limits, and failures.
(b) I have always assumed that others will make use of my work to address groups ‘downriver’.…

Correct. Though a couple of things I would remind you of.
(a) I have never sought to inform the common man, only learn the thinking of the common man – it’s biases, limits, and failures.
(b) I have always assumed that others will make use of my work to address groups ‘downriver’. For example, look at @Exquofonte’s video today on religion. It’s better than I would have done.
(c) it’s a filter that sorts people out, making my life easier.
(d) if you can understand it you likely won’t get it wrong which I can’t say for more accessible prose.
(e) there is a relationship between my prose and operational language that is a natural evolution such that anyone developing the skill will converge on it – see @LukeWeinhagen’s even more exemplary prose.
(f) historically your criticism doesn’t hold up. We live in a world constructed by thinkers who were and remain all but impenetrable to the common man – who merely consumes ‘dumbed down’ versions of those ideas such that he doesn’t even know the origin.
So you are correct, but as far as I know my work is not useful for common folk, but for intellectuals and activists who must influence common folk in many different narratives and frames.
But again, you’re correct and thank you for trying to help. 😉