[So, what is “desire1a”?
Something2a emerges and situates possibility1a in the normal context of a thought experiment3a.
“Desire1a” denotes an upwelling in me1a in regards to the thought experiment or mirror of the world3a.]
[In the original interscope, a content-level ‘something2a emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me1a. Then, a situation-level my choice2b emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in ‘something2a‘1b.
What happens when there are no disconnects?
Then, ‘something’ underlying my choice1b virtually emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me1a.
It does so by identifying the something underlying my choice1b as the something that emerges from and situates the potentials inherent in me2a.
In short, when there is no disconnect, values1b virtually emerge from and situate desires1a.]
[The corresponding interscope does not account for a disconnect between the situation and content levels.
The perspective level is assumed, not questioned.
A habit is a good example.
Questions arise only when failure becomes apparent and cannot be readily explained away.
Questions are equivalent to intersections.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What is going on?
In the intersection, there is a disconnect between my gaze2V and the way that my vision locks onto something that specular scatters photons2H.
I am hungry. I see a small red ball. I see an “apple”.
What I see is a contradiction.]
[In the corresponding interscope, however, there is no single actuality.
Does this imply that there is no ‘what I see’?]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The intersection that I focus on now is ‘I see something illuminated in the mirror of the world’.
This is the same as the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’, where the single actuality of the intersection is ‘the heart’.
Here, the single actuality is ‘what I see’.]
[What I see2 depends on the item specular scattering light1V plus my own interests (what I want to look at)1H.
By “depends”, I do not mean “cause and effect”, I mean “emerges from and situates”.
As you have already seen, I substitute the term the mirror of the world3H for the term the thought experiment3H.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here, the potential of the source of the specular scattering1V is has little to do with the potentials inherent in me1H, except to say that the thing may attract my eye2.
Also, the thought experiment3H may easily be replaced with the term “nature and source of illumination3H” or (more evocatively) “mirror of the world3H”.]
