Echoing Monarcheon's opinion, the piece feels more like an "argument" than a " conversation". Granted, the instruments take turns at the beginning - it's just that the topic doesn't seem to be very exciting or memorable, doing which the concept, very clever in itself, could be better executed. Then the instruments increase their pace of exchanges and ultimately "talk" over each other, very much in a "clashing" way - but, since the initial subject wasn't that sticky, one gets the feeling of a dialogue spinning out of control.
Generally speaking (and this piece being no exception), the shortfalls most reviewers have pointed out in your works have little to do with their whimsical nature, the philosophical concept behind them, or their stated goal. I can think of "sententiae" and "conversations" as valid artistic genres as themselves, without any question. What is puzzling for some of us is their execution, since the success of a given concept depends a lot on the particular, engaging elements which make a specific composition to stand out as an example of it (think Mendelssohn's Songs without Words or Liszt's Symphonic Poems). You've been able to pull out the feat with good results in some of your pieces, but tend to fall flat in others, and this inconsistence leads your work as a whole to be underapreciated.
I'd suggest (if you were willing to take any friendly advice) to go back to your more "successful" pieces and look at what you did, and try to carry out the traits of these pieces into your newer works, so that the quality of your output can be more consistent. By doing this, you can deploy and reinforce your musical individuality while allowing listeners to know what to expect (perhaps in the same way that Berlioz, Debussy, Satie or Ives managed to master their craft while remaining staunchly individualistic).
Good luck!