We are on such a different level of understanding, that there isn't any point in us two talking to each other – about anything. Feel free to take that as a compliment.
It's been a long time since I read The Myth of the Framework, but I think the concept of "talking past each other" is wrong. On the other hand I often feel this kind of fatigue and don't want to get involved in debates. It probably isn't really about incompatible "level of understanding" (or "frameworks" as in the title), but something else.
> We are on such a different level of understanding, that there isn't any point in us two talking to each other
That would be a very convenient conclusion, but ultimately not true. Willfully misinterpreting a story so that it sounds morally palatable for a modern world is not a different level of understanding, it's propaganda, and it's extremely common.
And when I'm not doing my day job, I am reading, discussing, and interpreting stories. Drawing subtext involves evidence from the text itself. You are making up subtext. There's a difference, and it's transparent.
I only engaged because you give lots of grace to Christianity and disrespect to everything else, which is annoying to read, but also not even based in real digestion of the work.
> That would be a very convenient conclusion, but ultimately not true.
> Willfully misinterpreting
I don't think it works this way. If we've established that we're trying to interpret something, you cannot just claim that your interpretation is the right one, and someone else's is wrong.
I nominate you as the winner of this discussion, and any future discussions. Meaning you don't have to reply to any of my comments, since you already automatically won by walk-over.
