What it is like is how most relationships are, most of the time, since we all give too little importance to how cognition is actually developed — rather, we take it for granted that it is a power that we already have.

But, what is “cognitive empathy”? It is a term for knowledge applied intelligently to human beings. But because we match “cognitive” with the word “empathy”, it seems to denote that cognition is somehow derived in a manner that one simply “knows” about the other person by virtue of some mysterious (or at least otherwise undefinable) force, that makes you “on the other person’s wavelength”.

In reality, though, cognition does not function like that. Cognition is developed independently from any person or personality. One can, for instance, learn about a particular sense of historical circumstances, a particular set of difficulties, and other factors that can be mapped cognitively. In this sense, one can develop one’s cognition about history and other things. After that, at some point one may wish to indicate one’s understanding in a more personal manner, by showing one’s knowledge and one’s mental map to the other person, in order to indicate one’s support.

But almost nobody is capable of this, because most people short-circuit the whole process and end up with nothing.

I can speak very generally about these issues, although I have a cursory familiarity with Gilligan and Kohlberg.

The way I see it is that Western thinking, in the broad sense of Western philosophy, has proposed that women are morally deficient or remain immature morally, compared to men. This notion seems to have an incredibly long history, and at times it asserts itself via some thinkers more strongly than at other times. So Kohlberg’s thinking may also be mapped to the notion that morality, per se is indeed a male preserve. The reason for this being so — or rather, appearing to be so — is that morality is deemed to be abstract. It is a feature of abstract reasoning in Kohlberg’s view. Abstract reasoning assumes a universal stance that is separate from the specificities of human relations.

The thing is, however, that men and women in Western society have traditionally had a different position within society, in terms of how it is structured. That is to say, it has typically been deemed a woman’s role to take care of people — to be “people persons”. This is not a role that allows one to abstract one’s values from the pressing circumstances that involve taking care of others. On the opposite side, men have been free to do this to a much greater extent than women. In fact, the idea of masculinity in Western culture has involved the notion that one should indeed embrace abstract principles and follow them through the to the end.

What these differences leave us with is a structural mis-match between the actual circumstances (and cultural expectations) of the female role and the concept of correct moral reasoning, which is already deemed to be “masculine” both by virtue of symbolism, and by virtue of the way that men are already positioned within society (in a manner that frees them from much of the responsibility of caring for others).

To be more specific, what we have here with regard to absolute, “universal”, or objective morality is a rigged game. Morality, in this conventional sense, is already deemed to be “male” or “masculine”, and therefore of course women and “feminine” values would be at odds with “morality” per se, and seem to come up deficient.

So, Gilligan comes to the rescue by trying to show that there is indeed an equal, and complimentary style of feminine morality, which is, in her view, relational.

And, yes, indeed I think that she has a point in indicating “bias”, although I think what is really closer to the fact is that women have long been struggling for equality within a game that is rigged to make sure that they fail to attain an equal status to their male counterparts. That is to say the game has been rigged for a long time, and that Gilligan’s solution , although neat, does not even begin to get a sense of the depths of moral depravity that would have led to the game being rigged to this extent that has taken place historically.

I really like Giorgio de Chirico for the mood he creates. In fact I have always liked him ever since I saw his works at the age of 18.

I was dissuaded from liking him because he grew up in fascist Italy, which meant for many idealists in the Western world, he was wrongly born, and therefore a “fascist” himself.

But what I could see in his paintings was the melancholia, deep seated yearning and sense of absence invoked by the idea of metaphysical perfection in architecture, that he portrays.

I think it is more than a little sad, and frankly quite depressing that contemporary Western culture has not yet developed a deep enough trust in its fledgling ideology of human freedom to understand that all art has its point of reference to this — and so much so that even in the presence of fascism, the artist, who given his/her nature, must remain true to himself, produces a self-critique.

Instead the humans of today are absolutely fascinated with fascism, and try to look for it, and defend against it everywhere.

To me this strikes the basement level of cultural unsophistication.