Let's examine your understandable objections.
I came across this today, while studying Hitler's Mein Kampf (or whoever's total work it is).
Thought immediately of how this puts a pause in one's embracing of OP theory. A pause, because this is real example of how (a subjective kind of) "objectifying" toward others in itself can open a "portal" unto evil.
Mr. Hitler certainly has claimed that his views were "objective". We know by his actions that they were actually psychopathic. I guess if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc. there can be no doubt, but perhaps it is not always so obvious on the surface. Your reasoning seems to be that Hitler objectified others, and was a psychopath. OP theory also "objectifies" others and ergo must be at least suspect. Can there be, however, a real comparison between these two "objectifications"? Let's continue...
Our own negation of identical and natural potential in others serving in this case, our own active negativity, and possibly too often: a genuine resistance to mercy. miserecordia: hearfelt 'sense' (meaning both) in our response to misery. A shared experience upon which we can certainly all agree (except perhaps for indeed, glad patriots of this day and age...who get me thinking to hell with theology: show no bloody mercy towards the games of such OPs. But there is always that possibility: that a source of absolute mercy calls one on to active solidarity with all beings, beyond the scope of problem/response straight into transendent redemption. A real one...
In the above quote you seem to be associating the "objectification" of OP theory with a complete abscence of compassion and empathy. In fact, you seem to be associating it with an attitude of "Show no bloody mercy to the games of such OP's". And you associate what amounts to the way of the psychopath with
"negation of identical and natural potential in others serving in this case, our own active negativity".
I would like to express that I agree that OP theory does negate identical potential in others but
it does not negate natural potential. The two are not the same, and that is an important distinction. So then your disagreement amounts to the opnion (if I am correct) that if we negate identicle potential in others we are in danger of psychopathy. In other words, we either level humanity to a common denominator or we have no compassion, emphathy or mercy towards others. We are then no better than Hitler, as Hitler's crimes stemmed from assuming people do not have the same potential as human beings.
This leads to the perspective that the view affirming the uniformity of all human potential is a compassionate view. There were other psychopaths, however, that preached such uniformity; Marx, Lenin, Stalin among them. Ponerology, which is a system of objectification founded on principles of mercy to our fellows, based its conclusions on the complete opposite premise: that belief that humans have identical potential can lead to the perpetuation of not only psychopathic scenarios but also collective pathocracies.
Deeper introspection on OP theory would, furthermore, reveal that it is a view that promotes mercy and compassion when we do not jump to doctrinal conclusions. It recognizes that although we may all as human beings use the words empathy and compassion, we do not all share the same experiences associated with these words. People that feel deeply and empathically need principles of organization to form constructuve social structures, but they do not need laws, religions, externalized ethical lists for harmony in such, and they do not need authoritative imperatives to keep them in line.
People that feel in a more instinctive manner do need these things. They need their customs and traditions and externalized presentations of conduct. They do not regard rigidly structured culture as simply an expression of solidarity, but as a necessity without which society falls apart into chaos and anarchy. Individualized humans, on the other hand, have the potential to be true anarchists in the philosophical sense, as they can learn and evolve to be independent of external modes designed to keep them in line. They can work and play together because their sense of right comes from within, even if it may need to grow and mature and earn their integrity based individuality. Even so, the impulse of "inner right" is there in an organic manner for these people, and that is NOT true for everyone.
Many people consider what is right simply that which serves the instinctual needs organically inherent in all humans (including the need to form bonds with other humans). And since all humans are social beings to one degree or another, they accept rules and laws and authority as "right" because it preserves them from stronger others who would otherwise threaten them and those close to them.
The difference is that for some people harmony comes from within and guides external behaviour, and for others harmony is a necessity that needs to be imposed from without to keep stability within.
I do not agree with OP theory for ideological reasons. OP theory simply affirmed my own life-long observations. And consistently when I doubted the sanctity of the variety in human potential, I payed a dear price. My observations have led to a merciful and compassionate understanding of the differences in potential in others, and to an affirmation that this is also a realistic understanding of the complex and natural spectrum of all human potential.
As such, I have no inclination to write my own Kampf. I notice in your quote of Herr Hitler that he denied a group of people their humanity and equated them with "scum". OP theory neither denies the humanity of ANY human being nor considers OP's in derogatory terms. The word "Organic Portal" may sound derogatory on the surface, but it simply describes a tendency of this portion of human potential to be manipulated and controlled (something we are seeing a lot in the modern world).
Differences in environment CANNOT absolutely account for all differences in human behaviour and disposition. There are genetic factors, and these are not racial. External appearance has nothing to do with these differences.
Before I go on, I'd like you to consider that there was a religious movement that came to be called Christianity that equated the Divine with Love and preached the values of compassion and understanding. And yet, the attrocities commited in the name of Christian divinity and even Christian "mercy" make Hitler look like a flower child. Psychopaths like Hitler, the Bolsheviks and the Christian Inquisitions proclaimed radically different things, yet all revelled in blood, conquest and torture.
On the other hand, the recognition of inherent differences in human potential is not a sign of psychopathy. On the contrary, it is the conclusion of observation. Haven't you noticed that when you admit people are different and respect them for it, and act accordingly, and with compassion to yourself and others, conflicts are much less than when you try to put everyone at the same common denominator. I have. To me OP theory provides a realistic context within which I can respect others for what they are and not for what I want them to be. I can adapt to circumstance and chart my path being true to myself, and at the same time allowing non-psychopathic others to be true to their own potential, whatever than may be.
IMO the most potential for lack of mercy exists when we try to force others into identification with our objectives. Having such a "levelling" view works against the empathic nature of some people because they either have to conform to standards that they can never own, or seek to force others to conform to their own standards. Contrary to being "unmerciful" OP theory is, thus, both realistic and the natural outcome of a compassionate outlook.
