[In contrast, tribe and family may been trapped in their own word-games.
For example, the tribe is always at war with the rest of the world.
The 10 commandments do not encourage the universal thought experiments.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Compared to the obligations3a(2a and the exercises of the heart2a(1a)) of the family and tribal traditions, the Judaic Law must have felt liberating.
The Law of Moses lays down obligations that are universal. They apply to all. Including everyone in the tribe and family.]
[The mirror of the world3a was illuminated by unforgiving traditional ways.
Something2a was either freedom within one’s tribe or family (provided you accept your responsibilities) or slavery to another tribe or family.
So the possibilities inherent in me1a faced two stark choices.
Weirdly, these choices support the modern notion of “freedom” as not being constrained by pre-existing responsibilities.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Did traditional Judaic interpretations of God’s law lead to bondage?
Here is my guess.
Before the Laws of Moses, tribal and family traditions predominated.
The choice was between the obligations of tribe and family versus slavery to another tribe or family.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here is an easy example.
A parent says to a child:
“You are free as long as you do your homework.”
Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.
As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching2a becomes the something2a that enslaves “him”.]
[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?
This ‘something2a’ emerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.
The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.
I may think that something2a enslaves me.
Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]
[Let me examine the co-opposition between responsibility3a(2a and freedom2a(1a)) in the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Freedom2a(1a)) corresponds to something2a(possibilities inherent in me1a).]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Of the two arrangements, only one makes sense.
Desire goes with the content level. Value goes with the situation level.
Perhaps, for certain circumstances, desire situates value.
But, in those circumstances, nothing makes sense.]
[OK, that was the intersection for the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’.
Now, I want to go backwards.
I want to go from interscope to intersection.
There are two ways to resolve an intersection.
In both, one nested form goes into the content level and the other goes into the situation level.]
