[The intersection is sort of strange.
I, seat of choice3V needs information.
Yet, information comes from the mirror of the world3H.
The mirror of the world3H contextualizes desire, a content-level potential in me1H.]
[I, seat of choice3V, practices reason.
Reason calls for information.
Information comes from the mirror of the world3H.
Health-related information comes from the thought experiment3H.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[My choice2V increases my responsibility3H(2H (to take care of myself and retrain my dispositions) and freedom2H)1H)) (by expanding my potential for good health).
I, seat of choice3V, indirectly responds to the call by reason3H.]
[I, seat of choice3b, may or may not notice when the mirror of the world3a admonishes desire1a.
When it does, the interscope turns into an intersection.
My values1b originally justified the satisfaction of my desire1a for relief from repetitive negative thoughts.
Now, the mirror of the world3H says that smoking is bad for my health.
My desire1H still wants a cigarette.
If I value1V my health, then I must choose2V differently.]
[My potentials are inclusive and contradictory. The call3H does not directly contextualize all the current potentials in me. It contextualizes one1H.
The calling potentials1H may not support the current choice1V.
In the example of smoking, the mirror of the world3H admonishes the potentials in me1H.
It tells me that my desire1H is dangerous.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[True conversion occurs when a feature in the mirror of the world offers the truth. The something2H that appeals to a potential in me1H does not contain value1V.
Value1V conflicts with desire1H.
This discrepancy calls for a choice2V.]
[What I want on the basis of reason2V conflicts with what used to make me happy2H.
This contradiction is contextualized by I, seat of choice3V.
Since I, seat of choice3V is attuned to reason, a true conversion may occur.
I, seat of choice3V may begin to influence my desire1H.
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 world3H are rational. They contrast with what I desire1H. Yet, they adhere to my choice2V, because value1V is rational. As a result, I can envision my not smoking3V addressing a potential value1V, even though my habit2H continues to light up.
My choice2V to light up may come from the potential of something itself. I may value a ritual halt to negative thought sequences1V.
Lighting up originally connected to a potential inherent in me1a (in the interscoping form) and still does, but not so exclusively.
I am becoming more reasonable1V.]
[If a sovereign power forbids me from smoking tobacco cigarettes, then my responsibilities and my freedom decrease.
My ‘I, seat of choice3V’ is overthrown. My ‘mirror of the world3H’ narrows.
My entire heart grows smaller.
The forced cessation of smoking constitutes a pathetic parody of responsibility and freedom.
It increases words and bondage.]
