[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 gaze2V and the way that my vision locks onto something that specular scatters photons2H.
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’.]
[The label for the intersection is a social construction.
My heart is a referencec (a single actuality) socially constructedb on a referencea (the intersection of two actualities).]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The single actuality composing the intersection of human action and human thought, for the message underlying religion, is what is good and what is bad.
The single actuality composing the intersection of recognition and participation is the state of grace or the state of self-destruction.
My heart is the single actuality corresponding to the entanglement of ‘my choice (revealing my values)2V’ and ‘something (revealing my desire)2H’.]
[I, seat of choice3V, parallels thinkgroup3V and thinkdivine3V.
My choice2V and something (revealing desire)2H parallels sinful and virtuous acts2.
Something1V parallels consciencespecified1V.
Thought experiment3H parallels lawessential3H.
Me1H parallels dispositions1H.]
