Additions of The Map Is Indestructible (Part I)

Further Thoughts, Points, and Reflections on Featured Essays

O.G. Rose

Aug 26, 2025

The Map Is Indestructible (Amazon)

Theoretical-Awareness

1. Theoretical-Awareness may have similar effects on societies as self-consciousness has on individuals.

2. Personality Tests may do to people what theories do to societies.

3. Perhaps in writing The Communist Manifesto, Marx made the working class self-aware, and as a result the class acted differently than it would have had workers not know about the theory. Strangely, making the people aware of Communism could have been that which ruined its birth.

4. Societies learn from history, but they learn to be self-aware. Societies similarly learn from theories, but…

5. It is possible that a kind of Theoretical-Awareness occurs when a society is aware of clinical conditions like sleep deprivation. Once people know about them, people are able to think of their actions and emotions within the constructs of these conditions, potentially worsening the conditions.

6. To allude to “On Thinking and Perceiving”: to think is to be prone to kinds of Theoretical-Awareness.

7. The more theories, titles, schools of thought, “labels,” etc. that exist, the easier it becomes to “box” people into certain modes of thought. Before Kant, for example, a person couldn’t be called a “Kantian,” and so people, from a single belief (such as “duty is good”), couldn’t be associated with an entire body of thought that may or may not have any relevance to their views on the world. Now, Kant’s thought having become well known, a person, when listening to another speak, cannot help sometimes but think “that person is a Kantian” upon hearing the person say something that “sounds Kantian.” Of course, what is a “Kantian” to one person isn’t necessarily what a “Kantian” is to another, but it is this very tendency to associate itself which should be considered.

As if the tendency has been programmed into us, today we cannot seemingly help but try to figure out when listening to a politician (for example) if he or she is a Conservative or Liberal, and this can distract us from what the person is actually saying. Furthermore, we seemingly cannot help but associate the beliefs of those around us with bodies of beliefs that we are familiar with (perhaps this is some “neurological tendency” moderns have developed to cope with having to deal with so much information and stimulation). Consequently, humans seem increasingly bad at nuance and quick to assume. This tendency to associate is a way by which we can feel like we understand what a person believes, which can help us avoid feeling ignorant and powerless before unknowns. Ironically, this tendency can make us understand people less, increasing ignorance.

The more theories and “labels” that exist, the easier it can become to make associational errors. Consequently, it becomes increasingly difficult to listen to one another. The less we are capable of listening, the less our society might function — it becomes too “boxed in.”

8. The man who calls himself “a writer” might consider all he does as “acts of a writer” (even if he never writes). A woman who calls herself “an entrepreneur” may think of herself as having “made a business” (even if she is yet to complete the long, hard road). On the other hand, for a man to call himself “a writer” may motivate him to live up to the title, as may calling himself “a teacher,” “a businessperson,” etc. It depends on the person, but regardless, to label ourselves is to risk.

9. The person who is overly-conscious that he or she can say “sorry”’ may be less likely to change, as the person who knows “I’m Republican” may ignore Democratic suggestions.

10. To call ourselves a Conservative, Liberal, Marxist, Capitalist, etc., can be like putting on a pair of sunglasses with a red or blue tint: it’s then more difficult to identify things by their true color (“ideas are practically eyes”).

11. To clearly identify if someone is a racist, bigot, sexist, etc., it is important that the person not know that he or she is being considered as such, as it is important that someone in a psychology experiment not know that he or she is in an experiment. Otherwise, the results might be unreliable. Unfortunately, in a society where such ideas are prevalent, it might not be possible to achieve reliable results.

12. As David Foster Wallace warned, the appearance and establishment of irony might be a sign of a society that, aware of itself, is regressing.

13. Theoretical-Awareness may contribute to a classism: those who know about a theory; those who know about how knowing about a theory can undermine the theory or cause it to work (etc.); and those who don’t know about a theory. Those “in the know” can feel like they know how people who don’t know about the theory will act, giving them a sense of control and superiority, which can be an illusion precisely due to Theoretical-Awareness.

14. Theoretical-Awareness might be “Construct-Awareness.”

15. The way people react upon learning the probabilities of their genetics may have similarities to how Theoretical-Awareness influences behavior. For example, upon learning that one is genetically orientated to become a doctor, the person may intentionally and rebelliously become a writer.

16. Theory is incomplete, for it cannot also be about people who are aware of the theory, as it cannot be about who are aware of the awareness of the theory, and so on. No theory can be released entailing empirical observations on how people will act knowing about the theory, and thus theories are incomplete (even if true), for they are based on a world that doesn’t know about them, which isn’t the world in(to) which they will be present(ed). Perhaps they will be “complete” relative to those who don’t know about the theory, but for those people at least, the theory could be useless.

Monotheorism

None

Scripted

1. As discussed in “Metamentality and the Dismodern Self” by O.G. Rose, as “scripts” become prevalent, so too can spread metamentality.

2. If Baudrillard is correct and “the real is dead,” “scripts” hold us up from falling into the void (or perhaps they are the void).

3. When “the real is dead,” it is very hard to tell if an increase or decrease of (insert) alongside an increase or decrease of talk, action, etc. about (insert) is correlative or causal.

4. As rules replace wisdom according to Barry Schwartz, “scripts” replace thoughtfulness “thoughtlessly” (to allude to Hannah Ardent).

5. “X is not a Liberal or Conservative issue” is now what a Liberal or Conservative can say to win approval for issue x.

6. In line with “On Thinking and Perceiving” by O.G. Rose, perhaps addressing “scripts” requires a mixture of perception and thinking.

7. Today, the actions of the media can be the main story of the media (media-awareness as self-consciousness)— the media is its story. Consequently, we have become cynical and increasingly aware of the various “scripts” by which we live and think.

8. “Legends,” “myths,” etc. can function as “scripts.”

9. We might not want sensitivity so much as we want genuineness and empathy, but where genuineness seems impossible and empathy what none of us are equipped for, we might settle for sensitivity. Perhaps we’ll be sensitive to one another, but this may very well just feel “scripted,” failing to provide the genuineness for which we long in a “scripted” world.

10. Where there are “scripts,” the line between “lip-service” and “meaning it” could be gone.

11. A “scripted” world is one in which Liberal Arts and Humanities are needed, but one in which the ability to recognize their value very well might be lost because of a “script” about their value.

12. Every fact could be covered (or not) by an invisible mask.

13. Like technology according to “Representing Beauty” by O.G. Rose, “scripts” change “toward-ness.”

14. We become our actors.

15. If we start our article with a defense of the argument we are about to criticize, we can “come off” as dispassionate. Or at least until readers become familiar with this “script”: then, this method would stop working, and yet defending an opposing view is precisely what a good argument tends to do, meaning we might increasingly feel as if an argument isn’t fair that very well might be. What then?

16. The word “scripts” could perhaps be used interchangeably with the word “boxes.” What I mean by this is that the brain associates, and to save time and energy, the brain gradually comes to associate a person who believes x with a person who believes y and z, and then naturally comes to label that person c. This tendency isn’t inherently wrong, only natural, but this can lead to negative consequences.

Consider the sentences “slavery contributed to black poverty” and “slavery didn’t contribute to black poverty.” Who do we think believes which? Naturally, a Progressive would be associated with the first sentence; a Conservative, the second. But is it the case that a Conservative can’t ascent to the first sentence? Not at all, and though we know this, we tend to be deeply skeptical that any Conservative could be truly genuine when he or she claimed to believe in the first sentence. It’s likely we’ll think the Conservative is just trying to garner our vote, and we’ll tend to think the Progressive who ascribes to the idea that “slavery contributed to black poverty” believes it “more so” than does the Conservative who claims to believe the same. Likewise, if someone is “Pro-Life,” we are also skeptical that the person could believe “slavery contributed to poverty,” because we tend to associate “Pro-Choice” with Progressivism, and Progressivism with racial justice. None of this necessarily follows, and though we know this, we don’t naturally practice what we know (a Martian might be befuddled by us).

We tend to think in “boxes.” If someone is a Christian, we assume the person is a Republican; if someone is against abortion, we assume the person is also against welfare. We “box,” and yet it should be acknowledged that these “boxes” are often (strangely) accurate (for reasons perhaps described in A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell). However, they aren’t always accurate, and we tend to see in culture warnings that “we shouldn’t stereotype,” meaning “we shouldn’t put people in boxes” (all while we can assume the person who says, “We shouldn’t stereotype,” is Liberal). We shouldn’t “box,” no, but what we must accept is that we naturally do so, whether we want to or not, whether we know better or not. Education will change this only insomuch as it can rewire our brains.

To break through the human tendency to “box,” we might try mixing examples: we might speak of “transexual Conservatives” and “Green Libertarians.” This way, we have some chance of avoiding being “boxed” and hence being heard. But if a day comes when this in-of-itself feels “scripted,” we will be in vast trouble: “the real” and “the fake” might prove indivisible for good.

17. When someone calls a racist “monster” and murderer “terrorist,” our subconscious minds perhaps cannot help but wonder if this is being said because the person genuinely believes it, or because the person learned on social media that this is what is supposed to be said about the individual. Like Schrödinger’s Cat, it’s “both,” simultaneously: we can’t know. We are stuck in existential uncertainty, a(n) “(in)genuineness,” per se. And we don’t know what to do, for “opening the box” kills the cat.

18. In a “scripted” world, where the authentic and inauthentic might prove indivisible as “(in)authentic,” it is hard to imagine how racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination could ever be overcome into reconciliation. Likewise, it’s hard to imagine how we could ever again come to have faith in any leader, movement, community, or institution. But we must overcome. The owl flies at dusk.

19. It is possible that we use “scripts” to help us avoid cynicism—until we know we do.

20. “Scripts” can be useful for ideology preservation, for we can keep these “bundles of ideas” in mind and allude to them at least subconsciously (to ourselves) whenever we encounter that which counters what we believe, hence enabling us to stick with our ideology. Just knowing that “C.S. Lewis is out there,” for example, can help the Christian stay Christian when he or she encounters New Atheism. But is that a good thing?

21. Even a phrase like “think for yourself” can become part of a “social script,” even though it seems to suggest that the person should think outside “scripts”: the escape becomes part of the trap.

22. In “Equality and Its Immoral Limits” by O.G. Rose, it is suggested that “free exchange” (a test) can help us tell the genuine from the inauthentic, and the more that test is violated, the more difficult it will be to divide the “(in)authentic.” Is this true? Perhaps not if the test itself seems “scripted.”

23. “On Critical Thinking” by O.G. Rose attempts to tackle the definition and paradox of critical thinking, and perhaps another characteristic of “critical thinking” should be the capacity to identify “the authentic” from “the scripted.” But what if “the real” is “the scripted” now? What if there’s nothing to separate?

24. We learn how someone who is crazy acts, and hence learn the “script” a person follows if that person is indeed crazy, and also we learn how we can act if we want people to think we are crazy. If we want to come across as the misunderstood genius, we’ve seen enough movies to know how to act; if we want to strike people as empathetic and understanding, we’ve learned the lines from television and culture; and so on. In our age of social media, in which information and ideas travel and spread so quickly, “scripts” are virtually impossible to avoid falling into: videos are uploaded in the hundreds each day; new articles are written by the thousands; and so on. We are immersed in “scripts” but knowing we are might not be a “script”—not yet, at least (though perhaps now).

Self-Delusion, the Toward-ness of Evidence, and the Paradox of Judgment

1. As described in “Read(er)” by O.G. Rose, humans are “readers” and “read” everything: we “read” atoms into chairs, humans into arrogance, etc. Humans perpetually “read’ entities into being, which means humans are always primed to erroneously “read into” things. Our tendency to “read into” things threatens our peace of mind, and once we slip from “reading” to “reading into,” we can slip from assessing to judging. Judgment might threaten peace, while assessment can preserve and authenticate peace.

1.1 This thought is expanded upon in “Read(er)” by O.G. Rose. Ideally, this paper might function as a link between “Emotional Judgment” and that work.

2. Accurate assessments require something like “objectivity,” which require truth, and a key way to determine truth can be to remove fear.

3. As “constant conjunction” can never be advanced into a law (according to David Hume), instances of observing “he is lying” can never rationally be expanded to “he is a liar.”

4. If a person requires that his or her trust be earned, the individual has easily created a system in which nothing another ever does will warrant receiving trust. For example, if to receive trust a person must get a new job, once he does so, since he “didn’t do it sooner,” trust might not be given. To create a system in which a person must earn trust can easily be to create a system that will provide “evidence” that a person shouldn’t receive trust, and it will seemingly prove that the person who created the system was wise to do so. As evidence mounts, the creator of the system will become increasingly confident in his or her judgment that the person who the system was erected around is untrustworthy (though the accuracy of the assessment will not increase as does the evidence).

4.1 Upon concluding “objectively” that a person is untrustworthy, we may go and seek council from family members, friends, or people in the surrounding community on how to deal with this individual before “something bad happens,” failing to realize that we might have begun engaging in gossip. Gossip and judgment can follow and cause one another. Judgmentalism self-deceives. Self-deception is probably when trust is lost. (For more, see “On Trust.”)

5. It is important to make assessments in such a way that those around us don’t think we are being judgmental. Perception is reality. If those around us are in a “loop of despair,” perceiving us as judgmental can result in those individuals backing away from us, which can render us increasingly incapable of loving them and of being loved ourselves.

6. To judge is to separate, and condemnation tends to follow separation. To not judge is to practice “I don’t know”-ness — a risk.

7. To judge is to “cut off,” abstract, and/or dichotomize. To judge is to “make a duality of,” similar to “reading” (see “Read(er)”) and “thinking” (see “On Thinking and Perceiving”). Love, on the other hand, can be to be “toward” a non-dichotomized existence — or not.

8. As there is a distinction between judgment and assessment, there is also a distinction between worry and awareness (or concern and care). Judgment, in dichotomizing reality, abstracting entities out of the world, and fashioning lenses through which “loops” are fashioned, tends to beget worry, stress, and fear. On the other hand, assessment begets awareness. To stress, worry, and fear can be to confuse life with death, but to fail to think about tomorrow is to set oneself up to be blindsided by reality. To be aware about tomorrow is to be “care-full,” but to fear tomorrow is to be “concerned.” Care is good, but concern is unhealthy. The terms “care” and “concern” are often used interchangeably, as are “judgment” and “assessment,” but it is important to maintain a distinction to avoid confusion.

9. The modern might constantly ask for proof. This seems like a reasonable demand, but it’s perhaps only so if all truth claims can be verified or justified by what humans consider “proof.” If not, then it isn’t always rational to ask for proofs, but how can we know if all truths can be proven? Well, we’d have to know all truths and what constitutes those truths. Since this is impossible, humans can never rationally decide that all truths must be proven, nor can humans be sure that it is always reasonable to ask for proof. The demand might be rational in one instance and irrational in another (not that humans could tell).

Also, since proof is set within a preset schema, if I ask for proof but do not share the same schema as the person of whom I’m making the request, then I might throw out valid evidence simply because I lack the framework in which to comprehend it. A framework functions as a translator that translates evidence into something a person can understand; without this translator, the evidence can come across as nonsense. As Chinese isn’t nonsense though it may seem that way to someone who doesn’t understand the language, evidence that is considered nonsensical isn’t necessarily invalid. There is such a thing as nonsensical Chinese, but a person would need to know Chinese to recognize it. Likewise, to determine if evidence is valid or not, a person needs to approach it with the appropriate framework. The same can be said regarding assessment: a person must step into the system of the person assessing to determine the probability of the assessment’s accuracy, as a person assessing must step into the system of the one being assessed to determine the probability of the assessment’s validity.

Unfortunately, when the modern asks for proof, he can be disingenuous and simply trying to disregard the presented claim. In not being genuine, the demander of proof isn’t willing to approach whatever proof is presented through the framework in which the proof is translated into sensibility. This is especially common if a person is trying to convince another to act. Demands for “formal studies,” for example, can be an excuse to moralize inaction.

10. As evidence has “toward-ness” when used to “justify something,” so do memories when recalled to “remember something.” As evidence can be misconstrued when “toward” something, so memories can transform themselves to fit into the account, story, or schema of the one doing the remembering. As memory tends to leave out what doesn’t match the preset complexes of the person doing the recalling, so too evidence tends to be left out that doesn’t fit into the preset frameworks. This phenomenon likely intensifies when humans summon memories in order to prove something.

10.1 Since memory is alive, objectivity is difficult, and self-delusion likely. If we are judged as “crazy,” those around us might suddenly begin remembering instances in which we seemed insane, thus providing evidence for the case. We ourselves might even begin remembering instances of mental breakdown, yet none of these memories may have reality. Memory is hard to trust, but without memory, we lack grounding for identity. Remembering that memory is organic is important for understanding it. Likewise, remembering that we transform what we experience in ways that make phenomena fit into our preset complexes can help us be objective about our world. However, if we begin worrying that our memories are deceiving us, we may collapse into paranoia and a “loop” of despair.

11. As there is a distinction between judgment and assessment, worry and awareness, there is also a distinction between pride and “proud-ness.” Pride is often said to come before a fall, but this kind of pride shouldn’t be confused with proud-ness (of course, the terms are often used as similes, so it is important to pay attention to context). To be prideful is to say, “I am smart”; to be proud is to say, “I am proud of your intelligence.” Pride fashions a lens (being judgmental) while proud-ness is an assessment. To be proud of one’s children is not the same as taking pride in them: the first is to acknowledge them positively, while the latter is to derive a sense of self-value from them. Though the latter seems innocent, it sets a parent up to rely on his or her children for self-worth. Also, to be prideful can result in one seeing lots of evidence that he or she should be prideful, arranging a person for a fall. On the flipside, it is also prideful to say, “I am worthless,” for the speaker is still focused on his or her self. Consequently, the speaker will start seeing evidence confirming his or her worthlessness, setting the individual up for a “loop” of self-abasement. Pride is bad; proud-ness, good.

11.1 If we grow up hearing “pride comes before a fall,” we are primed to react negatively when we hear someone say that they are “proud of their family.” Likewise, if we are told “do not judge,” when we hear someone make an assessment that is worded in a way that makes it sound like a judgment — or say when “judgment” is used aligned with “metajudgment” as II.2 discusses — we are primed to disregard what is said. It is important to be aware of the ways we are “primed.” Emotions can cause an individual to overlook context, but context makes all the difference.

11.2 Humility, as Joseph Prince puts it, rather than self-abasement, is to think of yourself less (versus “as less”). Pride is self-awareness, and self-awareness sets up an individual for “loops,” distorting frameworks, and abstracting lenses.

11.3 A possible danger of personality tests (like Myers-Briggs) is an increase in self-awareness as an INTP, ENTJ, etc. Each personality type could establish a lens through which we view oneself and all we do — the consequences of such a “toward-ness” are hard to pinpoint.

12. If language is the mother of confusion, much of philosophy is simply a process of defining words.

13. Judgment systematizes; assessment notes.

14. Forgiveness shouldn’t fashion lenses, for to forgive a “judgment” is to forgive a framing (but is this idealistic?).

15. Problems noted in this paper can also have implications in the areas of romance, for when a person says, “You’re my boyfriend,” that individual may create a lens in which that individual sees lots of evidence confirming the perfection and infallibility of the other. This might set the person up for disappointment and unintentionally asks the significant other to bear an unbearable reputation.

16. We do not readily help people when we help our ideas of them. To simply suggest people “do what we think they should do to be helped” isn’t necessarily what will help them. In fact, it may worsen their situation, which could function as evidence that they didn’t listen to us and do exactly what we suggested. This might make us more adamant in our suggestions, which might cause more damage.

17. Judgment can subtly slip in through sympathy. When I see someone suffering, I can say, “She is stressed,” and suddenly view everything that person does as “painful.” As a result, I might fail to give that person the space the person needs to develop his or her self, believing I need to help (and seeing lots of “evidence” proving this to be the case). Assessment, on the other hand, entails empathy, which helps me avoid putting on abstracting and hindering glasses. By putting myself in another person’s shoes, I can avoid thinking “he’s miserable” and think rather “he’s going through hardship.” Sympathy is arguably one of the most common ways people define others by their qualities, and though seemingly loving, it is judgmental. We should assess when others go through hardship but not judge.

18. If we judge someone as the cause of stress (for example), we will easily see evidence that the person is indeed the cause. In reality, the judger might be the cause, and it might be the very act of judging which causes the stress. Also, in seeing someone else as the cause, the judger can build evidence that he or she isn’t the cause, making it increasingly difficult to get the judger to cease generating stress (for his or her self and the one being judged).

19. Empathy requires mediation for one to determine “how” to be empathetic. If I recognize that I don’t like being called on the phone and decide not to call someone because “I wouldn’t like it,” I could make that person feel left out. To truly be empathetic, I can’t always just “do unto others what I would want done unto me.” That works in certain circumstances, but only when what a person wants done unto them happens to match the values and paradigms of the other being done unto. This occurs easily when it comes to say lying and murder (for it is fairly certain that most people don’t want to be attacked or lied to), but many situations are grayer. Since many moral philosophers or moral questions tend to be limited to extreme cases, it seems to be the case that an empathetic “golden rule” is enough to live by. However, such a “golden rule” doesn’t give us much direction when it comes to deciding whether to go to lunch with someone or to phone a friend. For that, we must think what the other person would like in concordance with his or her paradigms, frameworks, and preferences. To do what we would like to have done unto us may in fact hurt those whom we hope to love. To be effective, empathy must be informed by truth (that we might not even think is true).

Kant’s “categorical imperative” also proves ineffective when it comes to issues like whether I should call a friend, take a person to lunch, etc. If I take my friend to dinner because I believe it should be a universal law that friends should take one another out, I am implying that introverted friends should always put one another into uncomfortable and taxing circumstances. Though the “categorical imperative” may be helpful in deciding whether to murder an enemy or when it comes to reporting a theft, its limits manifest along the lines of where particularities divide. Overall, these points highlight the limits of morality and ethics and, for me, the need to attach these studies to a larger picture of character development and decision-making (which I fear some ethical paradigms might help us avoid), especially under Global Pluralism.

20. Assessment isn’t inherently good, though judgment, considering the distinction, is inherently bad. Both assessment and judgment can assume, which proves problematic.

21. We mustn’t just hear words; we must also hear frames rattle.

22. The difference between judgment and assessment can be a pause.

23. To act requires a belief in the rightness of the act, even if extremely timid, and thus in every act we are determining we are “right,” meaning we are also constantly judging, assessing, or dancing between both. Considering this, it is hard to imagine that a moment goes by when we aren’t on the verge of making the mistake of judging instead of assessing.

24. When involved, some misjudge, but feel unloving uninvolved.

25. If we call someone deceived when they aren’t, we are now deceived. When that person we have called deceived says we’re deceived, will we laugh? If you call yourself deceived when you aren’t, you are now deceived.

What you judge is what you become.
What you fear is what comes unto you.

If I say, “You are deceived,” I have now “incepted” that idea into your mind and perhaps forced you to view everything through that lens (in line with “Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom”). You now must “actively” view everything as “not effected by deception.” Of course, everything before had this characteristic, but it now takes effort to view everything like this again, which makes it more likely that you will eventually see things as “effected by deception.” (Ideas are “timeless,” it seems.)

26. ‘The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgment’.¹ The judge lays down the law, but do they do it?

¹Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. New York, NY: First Touchstone Edition,1995: 47.

27. If we judge someone to be angry and then we never see that person upset, we might think that person “has really improved,” when really the person may have never had an anger problem in the first place.

28. To shift into a mode of judgment pulls memories “toward” us into a new light: a forgotten comment suddenly appears as evidence that a person is inconsiderate, while simultaneously making the judger believer he or she is “objective” in reaching that conclusion. As subjectivity appears objective, judgment can appear nonjudgmental.

29. To allude to “On Thinking and Perceiving,” judgment is associated with thinking; perception, assessment.

30. It seems the nature of judgment to extend negative qualities out into “what a person will always do,” while judging positive qualities is often more “temporary.”

31. Do not judge those who judge as judgmental lest we become judgmental; yet, at the same time, do no fail to assess the judgmental as judgmental unless we be “toward” an unreality.

32. The judgmental generally don’t think they judge; otherwise, they would stop. Furthermore, the judgmental read a point like this and “know” it doesn’t apply to them. Yet, at the same time, one who assesses he or she isn’t judgmental will seem to be like the judgmental person in denial of his or her judgmental nature. Only a given person can know the convictions of his or her own heart.

33. If we assess that a person “is being judgmental” and that person replies, “Now you’re judging me,” that person has created “a closed loop” which catches us. Assessment can break it, but it requires honesty and discernment of the parities involved to determine who is assessing versus judging (that’s presence cannot be guaranteed).

34. Humans naturally see evidence for some case. All facial expressions, all tones, all topics of conversation, etc., tend to be “read” as meaning something beyond themselves (the mind seems to naturally “judge”).

35. The problem with judgment over assessment is that it is hermeneutical: it is a lens of interpretation rather than simply an acknowledgment of (an) occurrence.

36. In line with “Theoretical-Awareness” and “Inception, Discrimination, and Freedom”: when I say, “I like theology” or “I’m a good athlete,” or when another “incepts” these ideas into our mind, we become self-aware of these qualities, which might cause us to see the world through a “lens” which “pulls” evidence for these premises “toward” us. In deciding we are good at philosophy, we might see evidence confirming expertise and be inspired to become better at it — or to stop studying, thinking ourselves finished. It depends.

37. As discussed in Thoughts by O.G. Rose, ideas are lenses. If I believe my wife is angry, then I will see her lack of a smile as evidence that she is angry, when her lack of a smile may signify nothing at all. Since ideas are the lenses through which I see the world, to learn to think is to learn to see. To lack thinking is to lack sight.

38. The difference between phenomena and “evidence” is “toward-ness,” and is “toward-ness” found where there are no people?

39. Is there such thing as a good judgment? Isn’t it good to think about someone as “they are happy” as opposed to “they are acting happy right now”? Aren’t we lifting someone up to identify them as “smart,” “positive,” “energetic,” and the like (as opposed to merely assessing them as such)? Certainly “good judgement” may not be as consequential or destructive as “bad judgment,” but it comes with its own problems. If I think “he is happy,” I can create an expectation that the person should always be happy, fail to understand the hidden struggles the person might be dealing with, and also come to think of his happiness as a matter of personality, not diligent cultivation. Even positive judgements can create boxes which result in biases that blind individuals from the full picture. Furthermore, if a person truly is “always happy,” that is what you will always assess: the judgment is unnecessarily risky. Lastly, what a person “is” suggests that which the person doesn’t have to work to maintain; it just “is.” In this way, a “good judgment” can remove the imperative to “keep working.”

40. Judgment is misjudgment.

Coda I

None

Death Is the Event Horizon of Reason

1. The person who believes certain actions can result in a person going to Hell will reason differently than the person who doesn’t believe in Hell: they shall reason relative to different “rules,” if you will. Failure to realize this results in people failing to realize there are “rules” they need to learn if they are to talk with others in a way that makes sense to them. Learning these “rules” seems as necessary as learning the rules of grammar.

2. Where there is “apocalyptic-thinking,” whether regarding the Supreme Court, abortion, Global Warming, Capitalism, Socialism, or what have you, democracy cannot function, for there can be no debate. If x will end the world, then a compromise between x and y will be the death of both.

3. “Go time logic” is for when a crisis emerges, when a child is wandering out in front a car and quick action is required or the consequences will be catastrophic and/or fatal. During a “go time,” a person is justified to act basically anyway necessary to “save the life”: if the person cuts off a conversation suddenly, ignores you, says something aggressive, etc. — it is forgiven. All rules are suspended until the crisis is averted, for otherwise a life could be lost.

A “go time” is like the apocalypse, and “go time thinking” is like “apocalyptic-thinking”: it is extremely dangerous and should only be used when absolutely necessary, similar to Martial Law. But like apocalyptic-thinking, Martial Law, and executive orders, “go time logic” is extremely tempting to use constantly, for it wins by definition. If I want someone to do x, then all I have to do is claim, “If you don’t do x, you will y” (y being die, suffer, kill, etc.). It’s a simple argument and, to basically win the argument every time, it’s the only form of argument I need to know. For those who don’t study logic, this makes the argument even more tempting, for I gain the fruit of studying logic deeply for years without the work: I stand at the master’s level instantly (while suggesting I didn’t need to waste years studying).

But as warned regarding apocalyptic-thinking, the use of “go time logic” is the end of rules, debate, democracy, and so on. A “go time” is precisely when all rules are off, and if “go time logic” is used all the time, then there are no rules. Where there are no rules, there is chaos and pure will. There is no logic, only want and personality, and the wants that are recognized will be relative to who has the most power. Power replaces corporation: in the name of saving the day, the day can be lost.

4. If we believe that not bailing out Greece will result in the collapse of the entire EU, we will reason according to different “rules” than the person who believes letting Greece fail will not bring down the entire EU. Perhaps it is the case that, in the long run, defaulting would be better for Greece, but though someone may agree, if that person also thinks Greece won’t survive the initial shock, then what is best in the long run is that which cannot be done. What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger, but what kills us, kills us.

As should be clear, determining if a situation is in fact “apocalyptic” should be done at the start of all debates, as the rules should be established before starting any game. If rule-establishment is done halfway through, chaos, inefficiency, and confusion will ensue.

5. In our Age of Numbness, the one who doesn’t use apocalyptic language may not be heard (until the day when we are numb to such language as well), and in this environment, full of people desperate to be acknowledged, “apocalyptic-thinking” will grow.

6. Since “apocalyptic premises” change “the board,” per se, such premises should undergo unusually intense skepticism, perhaps what could even be called “profoundly intense skepticism.” The premises could be true (and do note that to be skeptical of something isn’t the same as disbelieving it), but the premises, in so dramatically shifting “the rules of debate,” must pass the strictest of standards. And yet ironically, it is precisely these premises that will seem as if they shouldn’t have to pass any standard at all: there is no time for skepticism when the fate of the world is on the line.

Apocalyptic-thinking changes the rules of debate in its favor while simultaneously making skepticism of it absurd and even a threat to the wellbeing of humanity. This suggests why “apocalyptic-thinking” is so problematic — only failure to recognize its problematic nature is more worrisome — and also why debaters love to use it: “apocalyptic-thinking” is virtually indestructible. And when a debater fights for what he or she believes is a just and good cause, to use an indestructible weapon is to guarantee achieving that just and good end. Not using it would be unjust and immoral.

The Truth Is Veiled in Blood