A question instead of anger. The technique for the moment of offence: "immediately" (εὐθύς) replace the flare with a question — what TERMjudgment about TERMgood and TERMevil did he hold when he did wrong? The offence is taken apart down to its cognitive root: no one harms for harm's sake — people harm for the sake of what they have taken for a good (money, honour, safety, revenge as "justice"). To the one who sees this root, only pity remains, and the absence of surprise (ἐλεήσεις… οὔτε θαυμάσεις οὔτε ὀργισθήσῃ): there is nothing to be surprised at — the mechanism of the error is plain; nothing to be angry at — before you stands not evil will but a faulty axiology. The nearest parallel is 8.14: at every meeting ask "what are his dogmas about goods and evils."

The fork of forbearance. Then an elegant dilemma that closes every exit toward anger. Either you yourself still share his notion of the good (or one of the same kind, ὁμοειδές) — then "you must forgive" (δεῖ συγγινώσκειν): you are sick with the same disease, and your anger is hypocrisy. Or you no longer take such things for goods and evils — then "you will the more easily be kind to the one who overlooks" (τῷ παρορῶντι — "the one looking past": error as a miss of vision): from the height of a healed valuation his miss stirs not rage but concern. In both cases anger has no logical place. A continuation of 7.22 (there — four thoughts, here — one procedure), and an application of the thesis πάντα ὑπόληψις to another's soul. The governing discipline is assent (the analysis of the judgment); the sustaining one, action (εὐμένεια toward the person).