[So, what is “desire_1a”?

Something_2a emerges and situates possibility_1a in the normal context of a thought experiment_3a.

“Desire_1a” denotes an upwelling in me_1a in regards to the thought experiment or mirror of the world_3a.]

[In the original interscope, a content-level ‘something_2a emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me_1a. Then, a situation-level my choice_2b emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in ‘something_2a‘_1b.

What happens when there are no disconnects?

Then, ‘something’ underlying my choice_1b virtually emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me_1a.

It does so by identifying the something underlying my choice_1b as the something that emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me_2a.

In short, when there is no disconnect, values_1b virtually emerge from and situate desires_1a.]

[The corresponding interscope does not account for a disconnect between the situation and content levels.

The perspective level is assumed, not questioned.

A habit is a good example.

Questions arise only when failure becomes apparent and cannot be readily explained away.

Questions are equivalent to intersections.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[What is going on?

In the intersection, there is a disconnect between my gaze_2V and the way that my vision locks onto something that specular scatters photons_2H.

I am hungry. I see a small red ball. I see an “apple”.

What I see is a contradiction.]

[In the corresponding interscope, however, there is no single actuality.

Does this imply that there is no ‘what I see’?]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[The intersection that I focus on now is ‘I see something illuminated in the mirror of the world’.

This is the same as the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’, where the single actuality of the intersection is ‘the heart’.

Here, the single actuality is ‘what I see’.]