Now, let us apply the tool of “nestedness” to the following definition:

“Judgment is a relation between ‘what is’ and ‘what ought to be’”.

Looks easy.  The obvious answer is:

Relation (“what is” (“what ought to be”))

This makes sense if “what ought to be” made “what is” possible, such as:

Hungry (act of eating (food will satisfy hunger))

But then, it would not make sense if “what is” made “what ought to be” possible, such as:

Earning ( making money (working))

Instead, relation (“what ought to be” (“what is”)) does the trick.

What if Person A was hiding a surprise gift for Person B, then

“So B does not find it” (hidden gift (locating a good hiding spot))

Here, “what ought to be” (“what is” (relation))

“So B does not find it” puts “hidden gift” into context.

“Locating a good hiding spot” makes the “hidden gift” possible.

So, judgment can get complicated, even though it may be expressed with such simplicity.

What does this mean?

Judgment is the most flexible three-element being.

“Nestedness” is a very useful semiotic tool for investigating judgments.

And finally, I am guessing that Original Sin has something to do with Judgment.