Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does Giorgio Agamben mean by the term “homo sacer” (Latin for “sacred man”).
In the camp, the sovereign holds the individual under the law as one to whom the law does not apply.
Why does the sovereign hold but the law not apply?
The subject is deemed a thinkanti-object, who has conscienceanti-object. So “his” very thoughts are crimes.]
[Let me return to the intersection.
At the extreme, the imposer objectifies and the subject is completely objectified.
I3b and me1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.
The mirror of the world3a becomes the camp.]
[The potential inherent in something in regards to my choice1V does not virtually emerge from and situate the potential in me1H (as it does in the interscope).
A single actuality2 contains contradictions between my choice2V and something that situates my potential2H. These contradictions pervade the experience of my heart2.]
[For the intersection. I, seat of choice3V, contextualizes the potentials inherent in a choice that does not fully situate the potentials inherent in me1V.
The choice may be a forced choice. Or the choice may be a habit that no longer reflects the possibilities in me. Or the choice may be determined through reason.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[In the intersection, something2a stands at the center of the co-opposition of responsibility3H(2H and freedom2H(1H)).
Responsibility and freedom grow and shrink as a unified field.]
[One actuality is I can play the victim2H.
Can a victim make such a claim?
Does that claim contradict the actuality in the vertical nested form?
I cannot be a victim if I choose to do what it takes to fit the bureaucratic criteria2V.
The heart of the welfare recipient is torn by contradiction.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Responsibility3H(2H contains the normal context.
Freedom2H(1H)) includes potential.
Both include the actuality2H that will be put into context and that emerges from the potential of the person, me1H.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[In the modern definition, less ‘freedom’ means more ‘responsibility’.
Less ‘responsibility’ means greater ‘freedom’.
‘Freedom’ and ‘responsibility’ are opposed.
So, from the intersecting nested form of the welfare recipient, ‘the mirror of the world3H’ lifts a key responsibility weighing the recipient’s heart2. Now, the recipient is free (without responsibility) to realize the potential of a disability.
The recipient can work, but the recipient also cannot work.
Remember the realm of possibility allows contradictions.]
