We process incoming sensory impressions according to the concepts of understanding, and paired with whatever emotional feeling stuff is going on in the context, those connections are processed according to the categories and strengthen the recorded connections for future triggering. However, we can also reevaluate the connections using reason — also according to the a priori concepts of understanding (when objectively aware of triggered connections). And using reason to reevaluate is going to denature the whole process, including reason, if it breaks self=other (or, as Hegel might put it, I=I), because it is like breaking A=A: especially if you push past the impulse of cognitive dissonance that is triggered by disharmony between deeply held intuitions, concepts, and ideas in light of their appearing together in a particular experience, whether or not it is of the conscience-involving sort.
But, complete injustice is impossible and if you did that completely thoroughly you would just die (spiritual coma, bare minimum). Normal people just walk around like a zombie in public, but normally they just stay at home, or normally they try to take over the whole damn world if they are special kind of person who knows you don’t need empathy to do what’s right, so they use it to their advantage to manipulate people by knowing them better than they know themselves. They don’t lack empathy, but they use it as camouflage. Still, they are robbing themselves as much as they fool others. These are the same types that change the world for GOOD. They are the ultimate antihero. On the other hand, if they don’t use empathy in the wrong way, but at the same time they don’t rule it, they lose their discernment—even memory.
And this is how this game is played between inversely inferential judgments of reasonable assumptions, as if such references may be interpreted to present the objective confirmation of sympathy to others, to within that doubly long past synthetic possibility
The objective based on the primordial object’s reactive effects in a modern setting, to form the new understanding of a newly evolved man
Anti heroic and masochistic cut with a dual edge
No one leaves alive
Reason is the edge between two blades , which can either slice downward into a state before judgement or after where it becomes tarnished by too many cuts
The reason “in those days everyone did what was right in their own eyes” doesn’t work is because they weren’t communicating (fully according to self=other, us=them…Golden Rule… they only did the bare minimum required for cooperation towards an end, rather than making that the end) — it was us against them unless they were in some sort of trade relationship. Again, survival-based “love“ is just an aggregate. It isn’t an actual self=other (us=them) (Golden Rule sum of Law & Prophets Jesus demonstrated in his life, death, & resurrection) free act of volition. Granted, you kind of need the earlier lower reasons of relating in order to transcend them so that you can make a free act of volition, and any of the lower reasons can be baptized by that act. They are not evil in and of themselves. The reason “Why don’t you decide for yourselves what is right“ works is because it is baptized by that self=other, us=them act of volition. The reason it is found in every major culture in history and yet it has not been applied globally is because it is an act of volition that we don’t always choose… because we punt back to the lower reasons and make them “the“ reason.
Thoughts?
Follow-up question: What is the appropriate way of attaching (& letting go) to/of someone that doesn’t make them more (or less!) important than they should be in your life? You don’t want to turn them into an idol (put them in God’s place) but you also want to recognize & acknowledge that they are made in God’s image.
