The page with which this comment is associated has been deleted.
"You cannot, nor do you, live in a void." - I do not understand the origin of this critique; have I suggested so? Most, if not all, of my writings explicitly argue for social and material factors in relation to individuals.
"When someone says the lack of morality will destroy domination, I get angered, and rightfully so." I did not say it will destroy domination; I said it is a form of it. I do not think one can destroy morality, nor the state for that matter. I merely think that relating to it with sacrality, i.e., not seeing it as merely useful thoughts and somehow objectively true, reduces creativity or even, in your case, 'pure potentiality.' Also, "rightfully so"; who let you become the arbiter of that? Right is only possible in front of a third party; otherwise, we are merely opponents - neither is right by the other.
"I was once a postmodernist, and it caused me greater harm than you deserve to know." And yet, you have explained nothing about your rejection of postmodernity on your page; I had to read your work on Confucious to see that you oppose merely the state and still prefer rules, norms, and governance at smaller scales - this, for me is still domination and merely brings it down to an internal level.
"What I now believe in, is a direct consequence of my experiences, just as for you." I am not denying that, but doesn't that mean my comment and opposition to your thought is also a direct consequence; as is your reply then, and this reply.
"There's nothing wrong with that, but I felt the 'opression' of your current position." That I hope to free creativity and not let concepts, thoughts, and principles become objective, fixed, and dominating?