[The general term ‘obligations’ contains both ‘responsibility’ and ‘words’.

Responsibility stands in contrast to words.

Both are categorical transitions within the intersection.

Both go with the horizontal nested form:

Thought experiment_3H(my choice_2V and something_2H(___1H))

Here is the arena of free choice, for good or evil.

Here is where the obligation is forged as either responsibility or delusion.]

[Even stranger, do the terms ‘responsibility versus words’ coincide with the terms ‘law^acceptance versus law^denial’?]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Obligations parallel the horizontal axis pair:

Law^essential_3H( human thoughts_2V and human actions_2H(__1H))

Or:

Law^essential_3H( what is good and what is bad₂( __1H))

Do these look compatible?

Do obligations parallel the essence of the law?]

[Let me compare this to ‘the message underlying the word ‘religion’‘.]

[What do I mean by the term “words”?

Listen to the promises of Progressive politicians.

Listen to the reporting of Progressive news organizations.

Read the legalese packed into the thousands of pages in a single piece of Progressive legislation.

Listen to the Professor’s concerns about the sensitivities of others.

Read the twisted logic of Progressive so-called social scientists.

These “words” do not liberate.

They shackle.]

[Or, on the horizontal axis, words_3H2 encompass bondage_2(1H)).

Bondage_2(1H)) lays the groundwork for words_3H(2’.

Bondage_2H(1H)) reveals desire_1H.]