"Being alone" is the one thing we all have in common. Nobody but me feels my pain and my joy, nor do they digest my food or breathe for me. I can convey these things and in a sense we then share the experience, but it is still "me", the ego-sense of self that tells me I am alone. We don't experience any 'self' that is connected to, or a part of, any other self.

If, in our own view, we give more value to the world (existence) rather than the self, the self loses its importance and becomes disempowered. In that state, feeling like a lone, insignificant person in a large universe can become an unpleasant and depressing feeling.

But if we choose to place more value on the self rather than the world, then the whole of existence becomes a playground just for us. The place that the self occupies in existence is no longer important, the only thing that is important is that the self has a place. So, in that sense, negative feelings of loneliness are essentially a surrender of value of the self to the value of something else.

So don't take anything in life more seriously than yourself and be empathic to the fact that we are all alone and therefore ought to be extra nice to each other, so that through little acts of kindness and thoughtfulness we alleviate each other's feelings of being alone.

The expectation society we live in, in which demands are made of us in every strata of society, diminishes our selves. We are reduced to cogs in a contraption that only works for itself and not for people. There is only the senselessly forward-moving beast of technology. To save ourselves, we need to save others. Be tolerant and give others the room to be themselves. Let go of your expectations, implied and expressed, so that others can have a place in the world that is not imposed on them but freely chosen.

We seem to get along well enough. It isn't necessary that anyone superlatively express meaning in most cases.

Then what are people usually talking about?

So don't take anything in life more seriously than yourself and be empathic to the fact that we are all alone and therefore ought to be extra nice to each other, so that through little acts of kindness and thoughtfulness we alleviate each other's feelings of being alone. — Benkei

This sentence attempts to salvage your theory which was headed in the direction of pure egoism. You posit that we know only ourselves, that the external world is our playground to experience how it best fits our fancy, and we shouldn't place the external world over our self.

The problem, as I see it, is that other selves are the external world as much as any physical object, and you therefore can't sustain your distinction between selves and objects on the basis of one being external and the other being internal. You should be kind to others not because the external world needs to be relegated to a lower status, but because other souls (and that is dangerously what you are talking about here in your dualistic external/internal distinction, but I do welcome you aboard the Cartesian train with open arms) have that special spark that provides them the knowledge of good and evil.

Yours is an argument for empathy, which hints at some degree of prior internal suffering that has caused you to understand that others might be in need of the same kindness that once sustained you. I suppose my real objection doesn't come from your observation that we are at a most foundational level alone in our experiences, but it's that empathy (which is the foundation of love) doesn't bridge to some degree that loneliness that exists between two people. That is to say, my kids are decidedly not alone, as there is someone who 24/7 is on the look out, well aware of the pain and suffering they feel, maybe sometimes to a degree more than they do. What frees them from the pain of loneliness isn't that someone provides them medication to reduce their symptoms, but it is that empathy and love result in a cure.

Painfully romantic. Hug me.

It seems to me that the more I have tried to explain myself, the more distance becomes between myself and where I come to be. And it seems language is incapable of expressing anything relating to an actual meaningful experience. The only exception to this is in poetry... But can poetry be adequately defined as language?
When I look out into the world I am surrounded by meanings that have become attached to certain things, and often these meanings are painful or reminding of something painful, due to simple association. And I am to the point where I don't know whether or not to give up on philosophy, which has been my greatest passion.
Philosophy, or perhaps language in general, is a transcription of experience; a game of representation and abstraction for the purpose of an exchange, for perhaps just the smallest possibility that the inner world 'of ours' (whatever is that owns I have no idea, and I cannot prove it) can change to be in accordance with another's world, and that our own 'subjectivity' could be penetrated by something just as or more meaningful than itself.
The will has always been to an objectivity... But what is an objectivity but another? The Other. What could possibly firmly base an objectivity other than another? But is this too not an illusion? An objectivity? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal?
Maybe in music this happens? I have felt it maybe. But how can I be sure? Am I delusional with all of these thoughts?

@Benkei

We are reduced to cogs in a contraption that only works for itself and not for people. — Benkei

This is communication itself. This is consciousness. Contrarily... It does work for people... But not for 'a' person, the single profundity.

And it seems language is incapable of expressing anything relating to an actual meaningful experience. — Blue Lux

And yet you have.

The only exception to this is in poetry — Blue Lux

Yet you have expressed meaning without being poetic.

But can poetry be adequately defined as language? — Blue Lux

If it's not language, what is it, applesauce?

And I am to the point where I don't know whether or not to give up on philosophy, which has been my greatest passion. — Blue Lux

The significance of your giving up your greatest passion will be a tragedy only to you.

The will has always been an objectivity... But what is an objectivity but another? The Other. What could possibly firmly base an objectivity other than another? But is this too not an illusion? An objectivity? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal?
— Blue Lux

I take back my prior assessment that your linguistic expression is meaningful.

Am I delusional with all of these thoughts? — Blue Lux

Incoherent more than delusional.

Then what are people usually talking about? — Blue Lux

Usually? Their children, their spouses, their friends, their work, sports, politics, their health, their relatives; in short, their lives.

Which is extraordinarily vague! Inauthentic everydayness.

Which is extraordinarily vague! Inauthentic everydayness — Blue Lux

How vague will depend on the speaker, I would think. But what can be more authentic about us and our relationship with the rest of the world than our everyday lives?

I have not expressed any meaning actually. I have been vague and have only hinted at what you can never understand.

...

It seems actually to be an insult to myself to reply to you further...

But anyway...

Poetry does not conform to the usual character of language and what is often expressed with poetry is not within the language itself analytically. Walt Whitman for example... Or Robert Frost.

The will has always been an objectivity... But what is an objectivity but another? The Other. What could possibly firmly base an objectivity other than another? But is this too not an illusion? An objectivity? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal? The theoretical amalgamation the concrescence of all minds, separate but equal?
— Blue Lux
I take back my prior assessment that your linguistic expression is meaningful. — Hanover

Let me rephrase.

The will has always been one to an objectivity; the will of consciousness-with-others. In terms of being alone, how could one not be alone if communication is the establishing of an objectivity? Objectivity is transpersonal: it is the internal negation of what would be a subjectivity, due to the existence of a separate radical alterity of itself, namely another subjectivity... And to reconcile this is the creation of a transpersonal reference point... Objectivity. Objectivity is thus fundamentally without regard for the authenticity of a subjectivity, and does not give any regard for a subjectivity unless it regards all subjectivities, which are incapable, at base, of being united in an exchange of meaning; that is, what it is to experience something and all that it is that constitutes a personal existence.
My contention is that objectivity is an illusion--with regard to an exchange of meaning. All that is grasped in an objectivity... For instance, in what is happening right now when you are reading these words, is a glimpse into a possibility of what I could mean, which will inevitably be up to you to interpret.
Thus.
I am alone.

'Our everyday lives' is fundamentally an inauthentic expression.

You posit that we know only ourselves, — Hanover

I didn't posit this though.

Regardless of whether or not there is a soul or whatever one wants to call the ego or the I, it seems that within our own sphere, our 'hyletic nucleus,' we are absolutely incapable of expressing to anyone else, specifically and superlatively, meaning.
Is this the case?
Am I thus alone to my own experiences after all?
Is language a game of mere abstraction? Is knowledge too this? — Blue Lux

What? No.

Let me rephrase.

The will has always been one to an objectivity; the will of consciousness-with-others. In terms of being alone, how could one not be alone if communication is the establishing of an objectivity? Objectivity is transpersonal: it is the internal negation of what would be a subjectivity, due to the existence of a separate radical alterity of itself, namely another subjectivity... And to reconcile this is the creation of a transpersonal reference point... Objectivity. Objectivity is thus fundamentally without regard for the authenticity of a subjectivity, and does not give any regard for a subjectivity unless it regards all subjectivities, which are incapable, at base, of being united in an exchange of meaning; that is, what it is to experience something and all that it is that constitutes a personal existence.
My contention is that objectivity is an illusion--with regard to an exchange of meaning. All that is grasped in an objectivity... For instance, in what is happening right now when you are reading these words, is a glimpse into a possibility of what I could mean, which will inevitably be up to you to interpret.
Thus.
I am alone. — Blue Lux

Ah, that's much clearer.

Refute me please lol. I don't like the idea of being alone.

'Our everyday lives' is fundamentally an inauthentic expression — Blue Lux

Not a real, or sincere, or genuine expression? Not accurate? I think we all have a fairly good idea what we did, who/what we encountered, how we felt, etc., today and can describe it to another in a way satisfactory for most purposes. What we describe will be easily comprehended by most we describe it to. Perhaps your expectations are unreasonable. In some matters we deal in probabilities; nevertheless, we can make intelligent judgments based on less than absolute certainty or knowledge.

I understand your point. But hear me out.

Explaining life in terms of 'our everyday lives' implies the following: Who is 'our'? and 'What everyday life?'

If an understanding of life has to be boxed into this characterization of it... Then an understanding of life is completely nonspecific. Furthermore, this idea of an every life of ours implies that the experiences of people are interchangeable and the same. They are not. Our experiences are incomparably personal and unique.
The point is to say that in communication or expression of life tere is only abstraction and faith in an understanding. There is only a knowledge as if it is knowledge.

Furthermore, this idea of an every life of ours implies that the experiences of people are interchangeable and the same. They are not. Our experiences are incomparably personal and unique. — Blue Lux

So, personal and unique, therefore, unintelligible, incomprehensible, and indescribable by us? Yet, here you are, trying so hard regardless. Are you saying that psychologists are nothing but a bunch of nonsense in concert?

There is a difference between methodology, principle, characterization, objectivity, etc. and individual psychology.

The psychology that I respect the most is psychoanalysis, because it does not impose upon the individual and tell them how they are. Psychoanalysis explores them.

Not incomprehensible by the one who experiences it.

But, as this conversation shows, and as the world around you shows, you're not alone, and I think you know that you're not alone, except perhaps in some other less obvious sense that you're not making very clear. If you feel alone as a result of not being understood clearly, and you don't like this feeling, then why not simply adopt a clearer writing style?

Good advice.

As to feeling alone in a very large universe, I felt completely alone. It nagged at me. I think it stemmed from perception and projection as well as feeling misunderstood, an outlier in a bell curve world. I also didn't feel whole and complete. I also had so much faith in my own subjectivity, but it turned out to be philosophically unlearned, untested.

If an understanding of life has to be boxed into this characterization of it... Then an understanding of life is completely nonspecific. Furthermore, this idea of an every life of ours implies that the experiences of people are interchangeable and the same. They are not. Our experiences are incomparably personal and unique.
The point is to say that in communication or expression of life tere is only abstraction and faith in an understanding. There is only a knowledge as if it is knowledge. — Blue Lux

Of course our experiences will differ is some respects, and some of us may be significantly different from the norm. Some climates in which we live are significantly different from others, cultures are different.

But we're all the same kind of living organisms and are parts of the same world, and interact with other parts of the world which are in many cases similar and in similar ways. So there is common ground. necessarily. Differences may exist, but can be addressed and explained on grounds other than "faith." In fact, we successfully communicate all the time. Simply put, there is no reasonable basis on which it can be maintained that each of us have, exclusively or even primarily, unique experiences which can't be communicated or expressed to others.

Of course our experiences will differ is some respects, and some of us may be significantly different from the norm. Some climates in which we live are significantly different from others, cultures are different. — Ciceronianus the White

i think all experiences are unique to the person experiencing them - by definition. Any attempt to communicate an experience is an abstraction, a construct of the mind, and not the same as the experience. The experience is that knife edge between history and future, a Qualia you will. Or from another thread - Quality.

We are alone in our experiences, but that is different than being lonely.

we are absolutely incapable of expressing to anyone else, specifically and superlatively, meaning.
Is this the case?
Am I thus alone to my own experiences after all? — Blue Lux

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that we are unique individuals whose experiences are not duplicated. Yes, in the sense that our POV is singular. Yes, in the sense that we can not transfuse the contents of our brains with others (like a Vulcan mind meld (Star Trek) or the Bene Gesserit mind sharing (Dune). But... even though we are singular, unique individuals, we are not shrink-wrapped in lead and asbestos.

No, in the sense that we are porous. Before our birth until our death we constantly exchange information with other singular, unique beings who are also porous. We did not invent the language with which we hear, read, think, speak, and write. We did not invent the culture in which we are immersed. We are quite inter-dependent. We are even porous on a biological level, taking in one another's molecules, viruses, bacteria, proteins, etc. and expelling our own.

Not only are we engaged with one another on many levels from before birth until death, but we are biologically required to be so engaged. If we are not so engaged, we will die an early death.

We are both individual, unique, alone AND tangled up with many other individuals, most of whom came before us (as progenitors or cultural creators) or are rubbing up against us now. We can draw a curtain around ourselves and pretend that we are all alone, but this will give way pretty quickly to hunger, thirst, and boredom, and we will pull the curtains back and go look for company--probably to triumphantly explain to them how we are all alone.

We can speak intelligently, we can transmit complex meaning accurately and vividly (in poetry, for instance) because we draw from a common well of meaning (the vast ocean of culture). True, we can make communication very difficult through deliberate efforts or incompetence, but we can get the point across when we want to.

If it were the case that "we are absolutely incapable of expressing to anyone else, specifically and superlatively, meaning." then there wouldn't be a cultural ocean to draw from, we wouldn't have language, and we wouldn't be chatting with one another. We would be worse off than pan troglodytes throwing feces at each other.

think all experiences are unique to the person experiencing them - by definition. Any attempt to communicate an experience is an abstraction, a construct of the mind, and not the same as the experience — Rank Amateur

I just typed this. In what sense is my experience typing these words unique, compared to your experience in typing the foregoing?

If you are alone in any rational way, to whom do you address the question...in a meaningful way?

I just typed this. In what sense is my experience typing these words unique, compared to your experience in typing the foregoing? — Ciceronianus the White

i didn't have the exact same tactile feel on my keyboard that you did, we had a different and individual sense of our purpose. Inform, impress, selfish, educate, kill some time. We each felt something unique as we typed.

think the famous black and white room thought experiment. You can intellectually understand color, what wave lengths are, how are eyes and brains process light. But you still only know color when you experience it. Until then it is only an abstraction. You and I can stand in the same place and look at the same sunset, and we will have 2 unique experiences.

didn't have the exact same tactile feel on my keyboard that you did, we had a different and individual sense of our purpose. Inform, impress, selfish, educate, kill some time. We each felt something unique as we typed. — Rank Amateur

How do you know this is the case? If you're correct, in what sense is it significant? Do you think that if you told me you were typing or had typed something, I wouldn't understand what you said in any respect?

@Ciceronianus the White @gloaming @Bitter Crank

The point is not one of sollipsism. The point is one of existentialism, a return to oneself. Obviously there are other people. There is the experience of an alterity of my own sort being; another person. The point is that since I cannot completely express myself to another person and that perhaps 90% of myself will never be communicated to anyone, I am in a very real sense alone.

But anyway. I think it is this very fact that binds people together. I have distinguished between an existential identity and an existentiell identity, borrowing terms and conceptions of Heidegger but creating them as well. The existential identity is that which precedes language and expression for an individual. It is the authenticity and truth of a personal existence; this alone-ness. There is only one existential identity for a person... It is their own meaning. It is their own truth.
Furthermore, people have other identities; a multiplicity of identity. These are the existentiell identities, and they are formed by communication. That is... Within language, which is a connection, there is obviously a connection of something with something else. Communication between two people is the connection of two existential identities, which are at base incapable of being made interchangeable. It is precisely this inability to be made interchangeable that creates a new identity contingent upon that discourse.
I have created this in terms of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
When you talk to another person, you are no longer answering your own questions or 'thinking' to yourself, and therefore the configuration is different: the other person assumes the position of what would be the Other, with an uppercase o, which would be the reflection of a person's ego primordially but in my conception would be a reflection of the existential identity. But the position of the Other is, only in relation to the existential identity, the assuming of the other. An existentiell identity is who you are in relation to another delivering and configuring your thoughts but not merely your thoughts, your meanings. Your meanings are changed, contingent on the Other and therefore an exclusive identity is formed. In authentic discourse the goal of communication is interchangeability of consciousness... This is an adaptation of the Socratic dialogue. This interchangeability is only possible if a new, exclusive identity is formed to be that which is within the confines of that relationality.
Thus we are not alone in the sense that we have a multiplicity of identity, and the identity that is not alone is that which is based on Others, our Being-with of Heidegger.

I have had to shorten this down dramatically so I am sorry if it does not make complete sense.

The purpose of this is psychoanalysis. In psychoanalysis the analyst must be careful to not assume the position of the Other, but remain in the configuration of the other, not projecting his or her meanings into the free associative atmosphere. The point is to deliver one's thoughts to themselves in psychoanalysis, not an existentiell identity.

Existentiell is understanding life by living. The existential is more ontological in the sense that it is not a product of the living of life but rather is a priority of being, what experience IS as opposed to what it is as experienced temporally, exclusively.