[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.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[Responsibility_3H(2H contains the normal context.

Freedom_2H(1H)) includes potential.

Both include the actuality_2H that will be put into context and that emerges from the potential of the person, me_1H.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[In the modern definition, less ‘freedom’ means more ‘responsibility’.

Less ‘responsibility’ means greater ‘freedom’.

‘Freedom’ and ‘responsibility’ are opposed.

So, from the intersecting nested form of the welfare recipient, ‘the mirror of the world_3H’ lifts a key responsibility weighing the recipient’s heart₂. Now, the recipient is free (without responsibility) to realize the potential of a disability.

The recipient can work, but the recipient also cannot work.

Remember the realm of possibility allows contradictions.]

[It doesn’t matter whether the sovereign gives you something_2a or takes something_2a away from you. What matters is that something_2a reflects both your potential_1a, ultimately, your choice_3b.

At the extreme, the subject is completely objectified.

I_3b and me_1a become, what Giorgio Agamben called, homo sacer.

The mirror of the world_3a becomes the camp.]

[If subjects rely only on sensible construction, they can go about their lives under the conditions of words_3a(2a and bondage_2a(1a)).

This is represented by the interscoping forms.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[In this postmodern scholastic discussion, freedom_2a(1a)) and responsibility_3a(2a are co-opposed.

Sovereign decrees often decrease the range of the co-opposition of responsibility and freedom by regulating something_2a.

Intervention narrows the range of both responsibility and freedom available to the subject. It brings the subject into words_3a(2a and bondage_2a(1a)).]

[The interscope presumes that the perspective level applies. Sensible construction works as problem solving. ‘I, seat of choice_3b’ connects to ‘the potentials inherent in me_1a’.]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[The situation level nested form for the imposer looks like: this

I, an instrument of the spirit behind the thought experiment_3b( my choice to use sovereign power_2b( the potential of my choice to impose objects^organization on subjects recipients_1b))]

Summary of text [comment] page 83

[With these two examples, the lower level nested form for the imposer looks like:

A thought experiment_3a portrays the world_2a as a battle between the good poor ones and the evil rich ones.

The battle_2a demands that the organizer fix the world_1a.]