[What I want on the basis of reason_2V conflicts with what used to make me happy_2H.

This contradiction is contextualized by I, seat of choice_3V.

Since I, seat of choice_3V is attuned to reason, a true conversion may occur.

I, seat of choice_3V may begin to influence my desire_1H.

True conversion increases responsibility and freedom.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[How would true conversion work in this example?

The health claims in the mirror of the world_3H are rational. They contrast with what I desire_1H. Yet, they adhere to my choice_2V, because value_1V is rational. As a result, I can envision my not smoking_3V addressing a potential value_1V, even though my habit_2H continues to light up.

My choice_2V to light up may come from the potential of something itself. I may value a ritual halt to negative thought sequences_1V.

Lighting up originally connected to a potential inherent in me_1a (in the interscoping form) and still does, but not so exclusively.

I am becoming more reasonable_1V.]

[If a sovereign power forbids me from smoking tobacco cigarettes, then my responsibilities and my freedom decrease.

My ‘I, seat of choice_3V’ is overthrown. My ‘mirror of the world_3H’ narrows.

My entire heart grows smaller.

The forced cessation of smoking constitutes a pathetic parody of responsibility and freedom.

It increases words and bondage.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Sovereign intervention in the markets produces forced conversions to a religion^infrasov.

The citizen’s behavior becomes more formalized and less dependent on freedom. Personal responsibility diminishes. The whole person becomes of a slave to the mirror of the world_3H.]

[What does my heart see in the mirror of the world_3H?

My heart sees the romantic view of brotherly smoking diminished.

My heart finds rational arguments against smoking tobacco products.

My heart sees smokers demonized.

Rational arguments may not be sufficient for attaining the organizational objectives of the anti-smoking lobby, even though the health argument can easily be understood. Demonization does the trick.]

[If cigarettes_2H increase in price, decrease in availability and otherwise come under the mandates of a sovereign, then my choices_2V are correspondingly limited.

Even if I maintain the same desire_1H for cigarettes_2H, the sovereign takes my power to choose_3V from me by mandating a healthy lifestyle.]