[My choice_2b can validate the expectations in the report_3a.

My friend’s report_3a expects to arouse my desire_1a.

If I make a choice_2b, I validate the thought experiment_3a, even if it turns out that there are no good apples at the market.

Then I do_2b something foolish.

I purchase undesirable apples at a high price.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[A report of apples at the market_3a acts as a mirror in which I see I can make applesauce and stock up for the winter_2a in the potentials inherent in me_1a.

If I focus on the opportunity for making applesauce_2a, then I address my desire_1a.

If I ask myself, “Is this what I value_1b?”, then I question my desire_1a.]

[If I am contemplative, I do not seamlessly fold the content-level into the situation-level nested form.

That is sensible thinking.

The contemplative is aware of the dangers of the interscope.]

[Back to the applesauce example, I got to a place where something_2a consisted in the actuality of the opportunity to make apple sauce.

‘This something_2a’ is virtually situated by ‘my choice_2b’, in the following nested form:

I, seat of choice_3b( my choice_2b( the potential of something_2b))

If I am not contemplative, the potential of me_1a is subsumed into I choose_2b.

No further articulation needed.

I decide to make applesauce.

The interscope remains an interscope.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Opportunity is sandwiched between responsibility and freedom.

Is opportunity sandwiched between words and bondage?

I have a better word: ‘temptation’.

Temptation is sandwiched between words and bondage.

Opportunity and temptation belong to the single actuality that is ‘my heart₂’.]