Summary of text [comment] page 83
[While America has not instituted camp, yet, attempts to destroy individuals through legal assault intimate the future.
Political enemies of the Progressives have been subject to intimidating and costly lawsuits. Progressive prosecutors do not seem to pay any cost for these show trials. They build a repertoire of legal assaults to launch at anyone who becomes identified as a ‘bad one’.]
[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 choose1V no longer corresponds to the potentials inherent in me1H.
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.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The rules of the camp depend on the capricious will of the sovereign director-dictator.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does Giorgio Agamben mean by the term “homo sacer” (Latin for “sacred man”).
In the camp, the sovereign holds the individual under the law as one to whom the law does not apply.
Why does the sovereign hold but the law not apply?
The subject is deemed a thinkanti-object, who has conscienceanti-object. So “his” very thoughts are crimes.]
[Let me return to the intersection.
At the extreme, the imposer objectifies and the subject is completely objectified.
I3b and me1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.
The mirror of the world3a becomes the camp.]
[The potential inherent in something in regards to my choice1V does not virtually emerge from and situate the potential in me1H (as it does in the interscope).
A single actuality2 contains contradictions between my choice2V and something that situates my potential2H. These contradictions pervade the experience of my heart2.]
[For the intersection. I, seat of choice3V, contextualizes the potentials inherent in a choice that does not fully situate the potentials inherent in me1V.
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, something2a stands at the center of the co-opposition of responsibility3H(2H and freedom2H(1H)).
Responsibility and freedom grow and shrink as a unified field.]
