Most people underestimate inferential distance, so that's a pretty good theory.

If it helps, I think the primary problem I'm having is that you have a habit of substituting discussion of one idea for discussion of another (e.g, "morality's response" to Nietzsche vs. the radical/extraordinary nature of paradigm shifts, the value system that sorts airplanes vs. the "investigative part of humanity's attempt to control Nature," etc.) without explicitly mapping the two.

I assume it's entirely obvious to you, for example, how you would convert an opinion about paradigm shifts in morality into a statement about morality's response to Nietzsche and vice-versa, so from your perspective you're simply alternating synonyms to make your writing more interesting. But it's not obvious to me, so from my perspective each such transition is basically changing the subject completely, so each round of discussion seems only vaguely related to the round before. Eventually the conversation feels like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Again, I don't mean here to accuse you of changing the subject or of having incoherent ideas; for all I know your discussion has been perfectly consistent and coherent, I just lack your ability (and, evidently, atorm's) to map the various pieces of it to one another (let alone to my own comments). So, something that might help close the inferential distance is to start over and restate your thesis using consistent and clearly defined terms.