[It doesn’t matter whether the sovereign gives you something2a or takes something2a away from you. What matters is that something2a reflects both your potential1a, ultimately, your choice3b.
At the extreme, the subject is completely objectified.
I3b and me1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.
The mirror of the world3a becomes the camp.]
[If subjects rely only on sensible construction, they can go about their lives under the conditions of words3a(2a and bondage2a(1a)).
This is represented by the interscoping forms.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[In this postmodern scholastic discussion, freedom2a(1a)) and responsibility3a(2a are co-opposed.
Sovereign decrees often decrease the range of the co-opposition of responsibility and freedom by regulating something2a.
Intervention narrows the range of both responsibility and freedom available to the subject. It brings the subject into words3a(2a and bondage2a(1a)).]
[The interscope presumes that the perspective level applies. Sensible construction works as problem solving. ‘I, seat of choice3b’ connects to ‘the potentials inherent in me1a’.]
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 experiment3b( my choice to use sovereign power2b( the potential of my choice to impose objectsorganization on subjects recipients1b))]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[With these two examples, the lower level nested form for the imposer looks like:
A thought experiment3a portrays the world2a as a battle between the good poor ones and the evil rich ones.
The battle2a demands that the organizer fix the world1a.]
[In so-called “welfare”, the subject conforms to the words of the sovereign authority’s thought experiment (that providing the transfer payment will achieve greater “equity”).
For the subject, freedom and responsibilities transform into bondage and words.
For the government agent, words and bondage for the subject are perceived as the justified application of an objectorganization onto sovereign subjects.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Freedom2a(1a)) to get welfare payments2a goes with words3a(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 want2a(1a) translates into bondage2a(1a)).]
[The subject, who wants something2a, accepts dehumanization from the sovereign religion. The subject considers something2a 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.]
