It's one of the most complicated questions! Barring moments where you're quoting shit you'd be making points of depth as well, and those didn't translate immediately they take time to think about and, frankly, were rewarding from having given it said time.
My structure for relaying information can be a hastily recovered dyslexic mess at best sometimes lol.
It's more what's behind what you're trying to show me that shows me something unintended.
The unintention is where most of the room to pick up anything seems to work with us. When we're too tied to our own narratives it becomes harder to bridge them, much like The Nihilist and The Existentialist.
Even if we never truly meet eye to eye on some of life's questions, I feel like our talks push us to further points that'd not be there independently.
I also like to consider public speakers, and how they can give points and facts in clear simple ways that general public can understand... Jordan Peterson can probably ramble and be overly complex to lose a majority of his listeners; he is smart enough- But he makes simple points, and highlights parts that needs explained with a coupled metaphor for his audience to understand.
When I dumb it down too much you start saying it makes no sense either though, and frankly it makes sense as to why: I end up missing far too many details.
Only thing I can remark is in these *sometimes* cases is that *sometimes* you do miss too many details. Metaphors seem unconventional for you, but maybe resolve the above infrequent/semi frequent hiccup.
Metaphors aren't facts, they're just a way to try to bridge more complicated points in simpler words.
The metaphor by itself isn't enough, it needs a basis next to it.
When you can only take in information in bite sized portions, the Graphic Designers and Brainwashing Advertisements win.
Red and yellow makes a hunger thought/feeling come up. Some bite sized bits are effective because they carry subconscious influence.
Do you want to be the one who just does what your senses tell you though, or do you want to shake it off and see what's past the bite-size?
Seeing what steers us (or otherwise being completely blind to it) is what gives us irregular paths, and those are what make people more interesting. Exposure to knowledge can strongly warp a person's behaviors, even if their base natures' remain undisturbed.
"Brainwash" is a big word that can potentially carry different meaning to different people.
I mean literally knowing what I mean when I say "Na-na-na-na-naaaa! I'm lovin' it!"
It's subtle, but done through reinforcement of factors that are less overt than they appear. Brainwashing isn't "MK Ultra" nonsense, it's the subtle tugs through multiple sources that push the same ideas.
We are among those touched by it's influence, and only through recognizing it can we shake free of it.
Streamlining is how to appeal to people who don't want to think, and we shouldn't be taking such a road when we're discussing what is behind why we exist and what life's purpose is.
I like to think that streamlining some things is like being able to cut a branch off a bush, rather than eliminate leaves; one by one.
Idk why we exist, purpose seems self defined.
Self-defined is all humanity can ever hope to accomplish, but some are less creative than others when it comes to their journey for meaning, accepting the faster answers.
I think the fact that we can't know is what makes the journey so interesting. It's pointless, but it otherwise tells so much about other facets of life correlationally.
In this case it's not a simple answer, and simplifying it is a crime that serves to not just miss tons of important details, but also biases the message through what parts are willingly skipped over. For example, we have The Nihilist who says nothing matters versus The Existentialist who says everything does; If they weren't oversimplifying their points they'd see that they're arguing similar things.
New perspectives counter to above mentioned perspectives may help with bringing light to both sides.
Sometimes the other answer isn't a matter of bridging both perspectives, but finding an entirely unrelated one from the effort.
It's always possible that neither of us are right.
