[The potential inherent in something in regards to my choice_1V does not virtually emerge from and situate the potential in me_1H (as it does in the interscope).

A single actuality₂ contains contradictions between my choice_2V and something that situates my potential_2H. These contradictions pervade the experience of my heart₂.]

[For the intersection. I, seat of choice_3V, contextualizes the potentials inherent in a choice that does not fully situate the potentials inherent in me_1V.

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, something_2a stands at the center of the co-opposition of responsibility_3H(2H and freedom_2H(1H)).

Responsibility and freedom grow and shrink as a unified field.]

[One actuality is I can play the victim_2H.

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 criteria_2V.

The heart of the welfare recipient is torn by contradiction.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Responsibility_3H(2H contains the normal context.

Freedom_2H(1H)) includes potential.

Both include the actuality_2H that will be put into context and that emerges from the potential of the person, me_1H.]

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 world_3H’ 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.]

[It doesn’t matter whether the sovereign gives you something_2a or takes something_2a away from you. What matters is that something_2a reflects both your potential_1a, ultimately, your choice_3b.

At the extreme, the subject is completely objectified.

I_3b and me_1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.

The mirror of the world_3a becomes the camp.]

[If subjects rely only on sensible construction, they can go about their lives under the conditions of words_3a(2a and bondage_2a(1a)).

This is represented by the interscoping forms.]