The pathological as the Other of structure (synopsis of master thesis)

I post a synopsis of my previous master thesis. Since I've written it first in German, there might be more formulated in an English form.

The contemporary world might be determined as post-communistic in the sense of historical decline of exploding the collective rage. To it is the reduction of all things into individual responsibility bound. (Neoliberalism) Whoever falls from this privileged milieu either out of free will or by accident, would be judged as abnormal or pathological as such: either juridical or psychiatric finally as "a dangerous individual" (L'individu dangereux). Here lacks the systematic understanding of a pathological individual. An attempt is therefore urgent to speculatively criticize the pathological beyond the level of (liberal-democratic) individual: instead of individual, namely to positively demarcate the pathological on the part of crisis of system or of a structure.

What does the pure pathological mean then? It is neither medical-psychiatric disease nor biopolitical vital energy (Canguilhelm, Foucault). What concerns here, is anything but physics, how problematical or symptomatic the pathological appears within a particular body or organism (of knowledge). Rather it evokes meta-physics of the pathological as transcendental-common ground of all the entities as well as crisis of the transcendental per se. Therefore, this category links itself both to the notion border and to the problematic origin: viz. as that which always returns undetermined at the present and makes the structure fall in crisis as actual origin.

The pathological as transcendental category moves over the focus from individual to structure as subject as such. Instead of the double relation of (normal) individual to (pathological) other as well as of this alienated other to (symbolic) structure does the correlation of structure to crisis as its immanent Other stand to the fore. Here the romantic understanding of "ingenious-manic individual beyond the structure" like Antigone is no longer valid. At this time it focuses rather on the immanent dealing with crisis of such structure. From now on the crucial question is as follows: "how can such structure being fallen in crisis be brought forward in order again, by means of new rules which would be issued only on the base of such alienated others?"

This is a good place to use " " marks:
What does the pure "pathological mean" then?

Can we capitalize this or use " " marks to distinguish it?
The "Pathological as Transcendental" category moves over the focus from...

This is a good place to capitalize:
From now on the crucial question is as follows: "How can such structure, having fallen during a crisis, be brought forward in order again by means of new rules which would be issued only on the base of such alienated others?"----I made some small changes here, but I am not sure if they are the appropriate changes.

This is quite difficult to understand, but maybe that is because I am not so familiar with the topic. Any time you can add simpler, shorter sentences to this, you will be able to make it a more powerful piece of writing. Simple writing is powerful, because it provides an intense experience for the reader, who does not need to do so much decoding and can instead settle into the experience provided by your imagery words and action verbs. Keep it as simple and clear as possible.

:-)