You might think, Oh no, she’s still at it!

You’d be right. I can’t seem to get out all that seems to be in it and around it. IT being the “Rule”–or, if mental-affective flows are [become, at some point in time] the proper subject of physics/natural science–the “Law” (of Reciprocity).

I was thinking about formalizing it as a Law of Humanity, so experimented with some logical notation:

do (x) = would-want (x, S) | S = be-done-to (x, y)

where x = I, you, s/he… they
S = sentence, proposition, subordinate clause this this case
y = anyone/anything other than x

So a COROLLARY (in a more general sense rather than in the strict sense of math/Peircean logic) to the Golden Rhyming Rule popped up:

As I/you…they

do

so will I/you…they

be done

to

Thus,

do (x) = will-be (x, S) | S = be-done-to (x, y)

Doesn’t it look like intending/acting, analogous to what physics tells us about the indestructibility/changeability of Energy, may in fact be undergoing transformations, but not disappearing?

do (x, y) = be done to (x, y-or-z) 

or

do (x, y) <=> be done to (x, y-or-z)

In the colloquial idiom, “What goes around, comes around”.

I’M THINKING IT JUST MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE TO CONTINUE EXPERIMENTING WITH DERIVING A HUMAN(E) *LAW* OF A SIGNIFICANCE COMMENSURATE WITH THAT OF E=mc^2

What if one of E or m corresponds to “doing” and the other “being done to” – in the sense of an organism interacting with its environment – per e.g. Gregory Bateson’s proposed unit of evolutionary survival = organism + environment, or per  John Dewey (1916) before him?