When we decide if something is wrong or right a contextualising is taking place. Each event and its consequences is compared to the construction we have of our world, and assessed according to how much it conflicts with or diverges from alignment with the assumptions and principles that define its architecture. The inconsistencies and incongruity between the two – whether in violent juxtaposition or slight deviation – are discomforting, unnerving and unpleasant. We immediately seek to reconcile them.
This is exceedingly difficult because we don’t fully realise what we are doing, and that rather than changing the event we should be changing our mind. This is nigh impossible because the psychological and emotional content we give to each event comes to exemplify and characterise it. A (blank) event becomes a bad event, or a good event, an important event, a non-event, or even an “I don’t care” event (in which it may be important, but just not to us). This good or badness takes on the nature of – becomes – the thing itself, instantaneously, and we are no longer able to see what has happened as a truly mechanical act or physical circumstance. We are therefore incapable of judging it dispassionately, or able to consider an objective response based on the manner in which it actually changes our world. It may not even be relevant to us or affect us in any demonstrable way but oh dear, we do have an opinion on everything, because it is our world.