FILM EDITING IS AN ORGANIC PROCESS, no different from the psychological experience of a method actor: What must be put away during the act of editing is the intellect. Theory is welcome, as long as it relates to the mise-en-scene of a shot-and how such mise-en-scene can relate to the mise-en-scene of another shot. But intuition and instinct is most important to the experience of editing. Whereas theory should arrive before the act of editing, the intuition arrives during the experience of editing, and the intellect arrives last, as it analyzes why the instinct of the editor occurred at that moment during a cut and juxtaposition.
This whole process heavily depends on the concept one grounds oneself to and from which one derives from the director. The editor-like any artist-is his own subject. The editor assembles the director's story while experiencing the director's personal philosophy. The result experienced by the spectator is the editor's personal rhythm- otherwise termed to be "internal structure"-that exists not in the footage, but in him.
Depending on how well-trained he is in listening to his intuition, he cannot deny THAT ONE EDIT CUT he makes for that ONE STORY MOMENT, even if he tries another possibility. There can only be ONE POSSIBILTY that justifies his personal rhythm. Put differently, each edit cut is a personal choice/opinion put forth and onto the DIRECTOR'S concept; a concept (a universal/human concept) that the editor himself should also be able to derive from viewing the film footage.
It is, then, up to the Director to CAST the appropriate editor for each specific project.