I can't help but think some of this reaction to your essay is going over your head. Sort of similarly to how the essay itself went over some other people's hea

I can't help but think some of this reaction to your essay is going over your head. Sort of similarly to how the essay itself went over some other people's heads. You're taking inputs and synthesizing them in the context of intellectual, emotional, biological contexts all in parallel. You're artfully communicating these intuitions to other people using all of those contexts. The ideas and messages are very complex and subtle because they involve life and human nature. It is not posible to reduce these intuitions down to a purely rational argument. This "output" then is taken as input by other people (each hugely rich and complex). They process it. Some approximation of your original intuitions form in their minds. Some of these people will "get it". Others will not. Trying to respond to the people who didn't understand what you meant using purely intellectual tools will not necessarily yield results. Because it's highly likely that nonintellectual aspects of what you're saying and how you're saying it are the causes of interference that are preventing the concepts from getting across. In that sense what you wrote is not perfect. But I don't think it can be perfect. You need to choose one set of tradeoffs over another. You're choosing to be bold and decisive rather than measured and cautious. There are plenty of deeply important true statements that can't be proven true. How much time and effort you want to put into trying to convince every last person of your ideas is your own business. There are a lot of people who do understand and appreciate what you're thinking.