can the experience of the other ever become own? how can another be the ultimate object of ones will? the use of the word "object" already raises red flags. does this ethics of other assume an empathy that is also temporally accurate? what is the difference between compassion and an overactive imagination? if the difference is trivial, what infrastructure do we have in place to prevent a potentially dangerous or misinformed compassion (i am thinking of white knighting, or motherhood-- i am thinking of a justified subjectification, one where losslessness is impossible)? this seems almost inevitable as people live in increasingly disparate worlds (the accessibility of technology and knowledge changes cultures; changes the real phenomenal worlds experienced). if the difference is significant, what of intentional concealment of emotion by the other? is it unethical to bare what another does not want to bare, all in the name of compassion (i am thinking of the potential benefits of the opaqueness of the other, in terms of privacy)? and there would also be the question of this "mental picture" only being possible because of an implicit promise of consistency of character (genealogy). further, does the delimiting of the ego into bodies assume a nonexistent "transparency of the self", that destroys any potential language for internal inconsistencies, and as such suffocates our interpretation of reality?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14iG2dVtyjvn2E8fF2m8xDwQxIpzi70Dd/view?usp=sharing