Micro Dissociation

The presence of one's own mind is self-evident in that once could not doubt or deny its existence without relying on its existence to do so, though a non-rationalist could go their entire life without ever realizing this extraordinarily basic but deep truth.  However, absolute certainty about the existence of one's consciousness, which is itself in all ways dependent upon the absolute certainty and self-evidence of the logical axioms that underpin even this, does not mean that one can have certainty about the accuracy of externally-facing sensory perceptions, experiences it is logically possible for a person to actually dissociate from entirely.

Spacing out for several seconds by happenstance or because of stress or interest in something is dissociation, albeit a very minor and perhaps easily forgettable version of it that many can relate to on a weekly basis.  A person might literally forget if they momentarily detach in this manner many times throughout the same day.  In fact, it seems utterly normal for people to frequently experience this.  Becoming so inwardly focused that one realizes there is no recollection of sensory events for up to hours or days is just a more extreme type of dissociation that is far more noticeable to both the individual perceiving this and outside observers.

As an incidental occurrence or an outright coping mechanism, dissociation has the power to very literally allow a person to lose themself in thoughts or in a very precise sliver of their current experiences, so that it is as if they are only experiencing a much narrower part of what would otherwise be their perceptions.  That this is possible is of great metaphysical and epistemological significance.  After all, it is relevant to how one's senses can be ignored on the level of immediate focus and how sensory experiences are not the same as introspective states of mind, something which is true independent of dissociation and knowable whether someone has dissociated themself.

Dissociative identity disorder is just an even more potent example of this sort of intentional or involuntary compartmentalization.  Micro dissociation is just that: a separation of concentration from the whole of one's experiences to a specific part or category of them.  Despite how I cannot know if there is a subconscious part of my mind (in that there could be an inaccessible part of my mind beyond my awareness, as unprovable as this would be by default) or if most of my senses are accurate, I can always know my immediate mental experiences and devote attention to whichever parts I wish.

In turn, this self-awareness of one's existence and the contents of one's consciousness hinge on logical axioms for their possiblity and knowability, though the existence of my own mind is also self-evident.  Not even an intensively dissociating person can escape logical axioms or their own self, for these are the only self-verifying truths and the only ones that all other knowledge depends upon.  The exact thoughts, emotions, and other perceptions of my mind are not self-evident since they are not specifically what must be true in order to even doubt them; they require my mind to precede them, and thus my mind's existence is what is self-evident along with axioms, which are more foundational since they are true even if any being did not discover them.

With dissociation, though, either myself or other people could be separating their attention away from an even broader range of experiences that they have forgotten or locked away.  This is one of many possible ways that certain perceptions might not connect with anything outside of one's mind.  The mind is existent and absolutely certain.  So, too, are its direct experiences.  Whether these correspond to anything outside of my consciousness, other than verifiable, distinct existents like the laws of logic themselves, some sort of external world, space, and time, is epistemologically up in the air.

The Real Severity Of Death

Of all the punishments in Mosaic Law, the most severe is death--not because there are not forms of torture that are far worse than death, but because the only forms of torture permitted by Yahweh, the only ones that are just on Christianity, are so limited or relatively minor that they are not as weighty as permanently exiling someone from this life.  Lashes are never to exceed 40 strikes, for example (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), and they are not paired with execution or any other means of inflicting physical pain.  Unhindered torture in many forms is very plainly more severe than simple execution or the death it brings.  Endless torment in hell would certainly be worse than mere death; anyone who would need more than a moment or two to logically prove this to themself would be incredibly philosophically inept if they had already discovered the foundation of logical axioms that governs all truths.

Capital punishment is still very much a penalty of Mosaic Law.  Used justly or unjustly (and both the method of execution and the offense that execution is imposed for must both be correct for capital punishment to be justice), it ends lives.  Short of some logically possible--yes, all sorts of things do not contradict logical axioms!--but extremely unlikely resurrection, someone who dies or is killed would no longer be able to experience any joy or peace or rest unless their spirit continues to exist.  According to the Bible, this is not what happens: the dead perceive nothing either real or illusory until they are resurrected (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, Daniel 12:2).

After their resurrection, there might be additional chances for the wicked to repent.  Indeed, and thankfully, this is actually probable within the context of Biblical philosophy [1].  While there is life, there is at least the logical possibility of restoration to God, and if the uncaused cause that exists by logical necessity is Yahweh as great evidences point to, he desires for no one to perish (2 Peter 3:9).  Jesus still acknowledges that, as is probable by default, most people would not repent regardless of whether they have another opportunity after their resurrection (Matthew 7:13-14).  For those resolute in their irrationality, egoism, and other sins, the lake of fire will be their abode, and they will not exist there forever.  They will be destroyed by hellfire, their body ashes (2 Peter 2:6) and their souls nonexistent (Ezekiel 18:4, Matthew 10:28).  This is justice, not mercy.

Eternal torment could never be just because the very nature of an offense is that it is finite.  Some think that annihilation makes the the final punishment for sin trivial.  Yes, it is less harsh than eternal torture, but the latter is inherently cruel and disproportionate, things justice never is.  The true severity of death, however, is not insignificant despite its lesser severity.  In this life or after the resurrection, a dead person is unable to experience any sort of relief or love of reality (of reason, of God, of morality, of their own self, of fellow people, of nature, of sexuality, or of anything else).  They are incapable of pursuing repentance and being included in eternal life in New Jerusalem, where there is conscious existence in a physical universe, but one unblemished by sin and misery (Revelation 21:1-4).

Existence brings the possibility of suffering, but it also brings the possibility for love and peace in the truth, in the necessary truths of reason that transcend all else and in the nature of God and creation that are inevitably consistent with these logical necessities.  It brings the chance for experiencing psychological and physical pleasure (though all pleasure is ultimately mental, for bodily sensations could not be experienced without consciousness, but not vice versa).  To die a second time without any future resurrection, to truly perish (John 3:16), is in no way something inconsequential on an existential level.  There could be nothing greater than communing with reality in the absence of pain, boredom, or regret forever.  As capital punishment in this life exiles someone from this lifetime, the second death in the lake of fire does the same on an eternal scale (Revelation 20:15).  

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/07/while-there-is-life.html

Intensity Of Personality

Some rationalists might not experience fury or naturally have abrasive, bulldozing personalities.  Others might not be this intense but still have a great situational fierceness.  Certainly, it is possible for non-rationalists to be this way too, although they are to one degree or another deluded by assumptions they find appealing.  A rationalist can be in the right now matter what they feel so long as they do not forsake reason.  Lesser people could easily find all of this intimidating, terrifying, or upsetting.

There is the fact that them disliking or fearing it does not have anything to do with whether it is good or bad, along with how, if they do not think all intensity is evil, they must believe that there is some arbitrary level of intensity that they know makes it wrong.  Their feelings are irrelevant and they can only assume that any amount of intensity at all is evil because of supposed cruelty, arrogance, or selfishness.  In each of these cases, intensity does not require anything erroneous; it can be present without irrationality, cruelty, arrogance, and so on.

The person who cannot handle someone else's intensity, which is especially irrational if they themselves are intense but in an emotionalistic way, likely prioritizes their own subjective self-esteem or peace over the truth, and of course he or she deserves no respite from the very torment of that ferocity or potency.  How could they?  They reject reality or are not satisfied with it enough to submit to it.  What else could they have to stand on in order to deserve accommodation other than reality?  Their hypocrisy is immense.

Since reality does not depend on the preferences of those who object to intensity, they are the ones who need to change their hearts, remain silent, or at least never tell anyone to stop being intense out of emotional offense--or as much as believe this is the case in the privacy of their thoughts.  Anyone else is free to do as they please as long as they believe nothing irrational and violate no moral obligation.  Conscience and social norms do not make anything right or wrong, ferocity included.  Someone rationalistic who has an extreme intensity of personality cannot be in error because another person is bothered by them.

Should they wish to relent, a fiery or even sadistic (if they control this correctly) rationalist is not necessarily wrong.  It is just that they are not intellectually or morally problematic just because they have intense personalities.  They are not making assumptions.  They are not slaves to emotions.  They do not yield from the truth to social pressures.  Rationalists are the superior individuals, if anything.  Anyone else is either in the wrong or at best to some extent at the mercy of those who do not share their preferences.