[In the camp, the ones who are able to maintain the interscope are more likely to survive. They accept the perspective level, including the insane capricious rules, for what they are. Life is reduced to practical considerations: How do I survive?

The ones who process the camp as an intersection do not survive. The ones who do not survive realize that the something that I may choose_1V no longer corresponds to the potentials inherent in me_1H.

They realize that they have hearts. Broken hearts. Then they die.]

[In the postreligionist (enlightenment) Progressive Godhead, (the representatives of) the good ones (who, by definition, are victims of the bad ones) identify and destroy the bad ones.

The bad ones become homo sacer, they are subjects under the laws but the laws that applies to the good ones does not apply to them.]

[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.]