Categorisation for Reciprocity

As described a bit here, three units of categorization insinuates a middle level, which can sort be used to meddle between the two others. At the same time, to the extent the categories are exclusive of each other, such meddling is hardly total. On the other hand, if also two categories are supposedly exclusive, then if they are part of the constellation of three, that can mean the third one more or less excludes their qualities of mutual exclusion. Of course, two categories without a third one there might also in a similar sense be regarded as exclusive of each others tendency to exclude. But with just the two of them there, the one that is least exclusive of the two stays excluded, simply by that the other one does exclude it. This problem is solved by the third one, in that it can exclude the one with the worse exclusion tendency among the two others. It will probably tend to do so, too, because doing so saves it from being excluded itself.

But what, then do they tend to exclude each other from? Well, to begin with, from the care there could be within one category. If one views the categorizations this way, then couldn't one view them as having a tendency of survival of the fittest to them. To the extent the answer is yes, two categories alone seemingly lead to one more or less always taking over, meaning two always ends oneness, in the sense described here. But with three categories there, the third one would most likely interrupt the overtake, thus more or less resurrecting oneness in the mentioned sense.

With thoughts, the exclusions can perhaps work similarly, that they survive (or so to speak) too, if they are not excluded by other thoughts. Even between thoughts the exclusion might be having to be from the care that could tend to be general, but isn't that, due to the exclusion of some from it, especially two-category-based exclusions. But exclusions done with three categories seem to lead, usually, to that regards be taken to everything, since it provides a winning tendency for anyone with negative regards against those against oneness, which provides care (much of a winning tendency per se), with all possible regard for everything.

I have earlier had it that the three categories can also stand for the trinity of heaven, hell and purgatory, which seems like a half-truth now, but which I still believe says something about how the three categories can be important also in other aspects of reality than the ones mentioned otherwise:

Even so, I think that if one is too strict with this type of rule alone, though, it at least might more or less often become more or less unnecessarily cruel to those who would be caring, but were manipulated into not caring. It might easily, at least perhaps, work as an excuse for oppression against those discovered to be cruel in any manner. Perhaps it could even be used to create surface cruelty of those unwanted, and thereby create an oppression against that only sort of sort of springs from themselves, but also blames the victim.

In order to avoid that sort of a possibility, there is usually a good mechanism to the type of three-categorical expectation that pertains to living karma and so. That mechanism creates an insinuation of cruelty as unacceptable in itself, in that it otherwise could be turned against whoever insinuates it to be acceptable. Because those three categories of expectation also deal with expectations about how to treat such categorisation structures, and thereby tests itself with its own systems.

Due to this, there is a consistency to the expectations one can have on different categorisation structures, among with the one with three is the third one, which pertains to sorting out between spiritual existence, cruelty of inconsistent moral and last but not least the heterogeneity that tends to create opportunity for all to pertain to all sides at once of any problems  -  or at least, that is, both sides of any basic border between them, and then both sides again, and again, of any other border between those who are treated well and badly.

No comments:

Post a Comment