0019 Here is a picture of the ongoing conversation between observer and graduate student.

0020 The party animal says what pops into “her” head.  The graduate student replies that the declaration turns one actor in the event_2a into a symbol of evil_2b.

0021 The observer scratches “her” head, asking, “Did God create the symbol?”

Ah, the mind-dependent reality of a symbol_2b may enter into the slot of the phantasm_2b as a stand-in for the mind-independent reality of the cat’s action_2a.

Or so, the graduate student judges_2c.

0022 Clearly, the cat cannot be evil, since the cat acts out its perfection. The cat is what it is. But, if the cat were human, then such injurious action would be immoral, if not illegal.  Thus, the cat’s action becomes a symbol of what ought not to be.  The graduate student’s well-trained intellect brings what is into relation with what ought to be.

The phantasm_2b, first objective_1b in the observer_3b, then intersubjective_1b in both observer_3a and student_3a, supports the formation of a suprasubjective judgment_2c.  If the observer_3b follows the rules of reason, agreement_1a resonates with truth_1c.  The same agreement_1a might happen if the observer_3b is enthralled by the graduate student_3b, or visa versa.