Summary of text [comment] page 37
[However, I cannot stop there. I can also wonder:
Does “intensity” also pertain to the horizontal nested form?
Consider these scenarios:
A: Thinkgroup3(x2( consciencelacking1)) favors “x2” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions” in regards to oneself, basically claiming that “lawessential does not apply to me”. The person ignores the consequences that may harm self (and possibly others).
Example, no one who windsurfs ever imagines drowning.
B: Thinkgroup3(x2( consciencelacking1)) favors “x2” that would be performed if “one denied the consequences of one’s actions in regards to others”, basically claiming that “lawessential does not apply to me”. The person ignores that others may suffer evil consequences.
Example, a vendor who rents a cracked windsurfing board to a novice.
C: Thinkpro-object1(x2(consciencepro-object1) favors “x2” where “one defines the consequences of one’s actions” (technically, lawdenial), basically claiming that ‘lawessential conforms to my intentions or to my interpretation of what lawessential should be, especially when others imagine that they suffer consequences and complain’. In fact, the complaining person is beholden to thinkanti-object ideologies and has false conscienceanti-object”.
Example, the lawyer defending the vendor who rented out a faulty board that led to the death of a novice windsurfer.]