J. Randall Murphy
That doesn't addresses Marduk's point and it's personally judgmental. Those are the sorts of comments that don't do anything to advance the discussion in a positive way. We were talking about schools of philosophical thought and the idea that consciousness is something fundamental. A more positive approach would be to focus on a specific issue relevant to those things and explore whether or not they might have some relevance to unexplained phenomena. Or maybe you'd like to introduce something else on a tangent. But either way, please, let's stick to the issues and only deal with personalities if it is something specific and relevant to improving communication.Not everything can be expressed or understood in the language you happen to be familiar with and comfortable in, Marduk. No wonder your thinking is so rigid.
Let me offer an example:
There appears to be some confusion surrounding your use of the word "thetic". At the moment I'm interpreting what you mean by it as the element of the formative content of a perceptual experience that is distinguished from the intentional or conceptual content. For example if we see a basketball, the conceptual component is that we see it as piece of sports equipment associated with a particular game, but before that, we experience its perceptual character, like it's roundness, color, texture, and size. These things are said to be the thetic content of the experience.
Are we both on the same wavelength there? If not. Is there some way that you can clarify in your own words by showing how your interpretation differs using the same point of reference. In other words, when we look at a basketball, in your view, what part of the perceptual experience is thetic? Or is that approach in a completely different context to what you're working with? After that, maybe add a reference to clarify e.g. Edmund Husserl (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Approaching the subject in this manner will work much better than being personally critical of participants.