Oh, OK! So it seems to be that I was partially misreading Tommi's comment, because I made an interpretation based on my own way of seeing things. But now as Tommi describes his view in more detail, it becomes easier to see the differences in our views, interpretations and basic assumptions. Reading Tommi's comments I say to myself: "I should have seen this coming - this is Tommi the way I know him since the university years=)"

Well, I try to keep my thinking focused:

First, let's describe two levels of thinking and talking. Level P is personal - on personal level people think and form ideas and views which help them navigate in their own life. Level S is scientific - on that level people form ideas and views which are supposed to give more general picture of life, universe and everything.

Now, if we are talking on level P - the personal, it still leaves us two basic options:

If I take it so that Tommi describes the way he sees his own life, and the ideas that help him navigate in his own personal life, then I am all fine with that. Personally I have somewhat different ideas and views, and they help me in my own life. And I simply don't see a need for Tommi and me to agree on everything, as anyway we have different backgrounds and different lives, so we might as well have a different map of ideas to help us navigate.

But if the case is that either Tommi or me is teaching some sort of general key to help everyone, by token "because this set of ideas helps me in my own life, and since I am a human being, then it can be reasoned that this same set of ideas helps every human being. If I see people having problems in their life, I suppose it is because they have false ideas, and I help them by teaching them my ideas." - in that case there might be a need of further discussion =)

Then, if we are talking on level S - the scientific world view, there certainly would be a need of further discussion. As, on scientific level it is not enough to have opinions and assumptions - every belief has to be tested against empirical studies, seeking evidence to support or to refute those beliefs. If we were talking on this level, I'd focus on the way we see human mind, especially the role and function of emotions. I think both Tommi and me agree that this is the central point where we have different views. The little I've been reading about empirical studies concerning human mind, I have a hard time trying to remember some studies which would support the way Tommi seems to think about the role of emotions. But once again -this might still be that I'm misunderstanding some details in his thinking.

But if you ask me, we are in a comment section of my non-academical blog, so I'd guess we are talking on the non-formal personal level. In which case I can just happily conclude that "yeah, Tommi and I, we see things differently. But if Tommi's set of ideas helps him lead his own life, and my set of ideas helps me lead my life, then everything is fine!"

Oh, I go check the fish traps, as pike spawn season is about here =)