[The interscope presumes that the perspective level applies. Sensible construction works as problem solving. ‘I, seat of choice_3b’ connects to ‘the potentials inherent in me_1a’.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[The situation level nested form for the imposer looks like: this

I, an instrument of the spirit behind the thought experiment_3b( my choice to use sovereign power_2b( the potential of my choice to impose objects^organization on subjects recipients_1b))]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[With these two examples, the lower level nested form for the imposer looks like:

A thought experiment_3a portrays the world_2a as a battle between the good poor ones and the evil rich ones.

The battle_2a demands that the organizer fix the world_1a.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Freedom_2a(1a)) to get welfare payments_2a goes with words_3a(2a.

The subject’s heart is bound to the words of the criteria.

Lawyers may be required to figure out those words.

So, freedom from want_2a(1a) translates into bondage_2a(1a)).]

[The subject, who wants something_2a, accepts dehumanization from the sovereign religion. The subject considers something_2a to be free (without responsibility, especially, without working for it).

Consequently, the subject will arrange “his” circumstances to satisfy the criteria of any welfare agency.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Can we imagine what the criteria must be?

Well, for one, the transaction would never occur in the open market, even one livened by the yeast of diverse Christian factions. For Christians, there is no “welfare” or “entitlements”. There is only “charity”.

Christians fail their mission at the moment when charity becomes dehumanizing.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Now, here comes a different example.

Let me consider the example of “welfare”, defined as transfer payments from (an imputed bad one) to an imputed good one.

Something_2a is making funds available according to certain criteria for subjects_2a.

Does that sound more humane than forcing subjects to stop smoking cigarettes?

Still, the government agent dehumanizes.

Who is the subject that fits a particular criteria?

A dehumanized person is.]

[The me_1a who is capable of imposing costs and regulations on subjects_2a is also capable of dehumanizing others_3a.

The imposer’s I, seat of choice_3b, situates the normal context of the mirror of the world_3a as ”his” own_3b. The imposer is courtier to the king.

The imposer imagines that “he” both owns and is owned by the mirror of the world.]