When we face any other one as aquaintance or so, we must have own emoion, around assessing the good person, the bad person, otheriwise not good nor bad person.

However, the last very typically inbetween assessed one must be not interested nor not concerened one.

In this debatable context, we obviously have some specific emotion to anyone, as the other one, liking emotion given one, disliking emotion done one, and not that liking nor disliking one.

And, according to analyzable principle, not both that one must be not so known one as we are apt to take some distance from the beginning, meanwhile, liking one and disliking one are together once facing so closely even one period and after all now we usually have liking one in either constantly contact and not contact given ones have both liking one and disliking one.

However, from the beginning, not liking nor disliking one must be the presence which we could never contact so easily and now is either on the same circumsutance, though, necessarily to the one we only have not so well known fact, and either from this moment on , that emotion usually could not swtich, except very unexpected miraclous accidental contact and with it the case we mutually could be closer together, but the case is very rare, ordinarily.
That's why we can call it miraclous.

Thus, let's summarize them all.

Generally next two items must have attended to our daily life through once keeping up with stable contact at least at one massive period.

✷LIKING ONE

✷DISLIKING ONE

And usually former could swtich latter, in gradualy emotional appearance shifting.
And contrarily, latter could switch former, the case is included in miraclous case to us.

However, originally, not liking nor disliking one must be made to our own life, constantly not wanting to contact except the case (as miraclously accidentally contacting could be done and liking or disliking could be done to us, consequently).

Then, necessarily the last item for composing triple combination, 

✷NOT LIKING nor DISLIKING ONE

In other words, the third case as not liking nor disliking one must be the one to whom we used to keep distance willingly, otherwise, for several month or so, massive term obliged to concern the one with our own life, but gradually remote relation could get dominance in our life or, intentionally we made distance willingly to the one.

Though, in both cases, the third item applicable ones are ordinarily not far as concerened with once maasive contact could have been done or not, anyway, not that pleansat nor enjoyable emotion merely was left to our true deeply honest mind.

This time's regard as triple combination of emotionally notional or kind of definitively conceptual interpretation must have no serious paradoxical contradiction at least at my scheming conceptual regulation, so far, but if another problematic discovery could generate in my questing life, I'd inform it in this blog's analytical essay series, you see.

(Irregularly to be continued)

May. 10th.    2022

Appendix; To not well-known one, we only can have not liking nor disliking emotion, and after contacting so closely at massive term and mutually remotely distance relation made case must be belonging to obviously disliking one. Though, unexpectedly the case of favoritism emotion around other person must be consistently made either in triple interpretation.

In conclusion, these three items interpretation must be possible

LIKING ONE, DISLIKING ONE and NOT SO WELL-KNOWN ONE and necessarily after some massive contact and eventually remotely distanced one must be DISLIKING ONE, then not disliking nor liking one is only not so familiarly unknown one, and these all are easily switched to each other, you know.

This essay was written on basis I’d gotten from those days’ philosophy teacher Yoshimichi Nakajima(1946-)’s one beginning term of his authorship 中島義道『時間と自由 カント解釈の冒険』晃洋書房 1994年（のち講談社学術文庫）as Time and Freedom the Adventure of Kantian interpretation Ko-Yo shobo 1994(afterward, Koudansha gakujutu-bunko)