Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Motorcycle Zen

The world unfolds as if something of innate consciousness wanted to entertain a system-simulation of feedback, to test what would assimilate.  Maybe even to test the variety of ways in which intution and empathy would rationalize credit to that something or someone.  Maybe even to participate in guiding the simulation.


Whatever the quality of the ultimate "thing" out of which all other things are avialed to be quanticized, IT itself is beyond quantification.  The only thing that fills that bill for being existentially experienced yet beyond quantifiable measure is the sense of Conscious beingness.

Thus, a reasonable hypothesis would seem to be that the ultimate Source of measurable Substance is no-thing more than Consciousness interfunctioning to express forms (to in-form) that obey math-based sequences and extensions.

This "hypothesis" is not empirically testable, but is based only on direct experience and internal consistency.  It is not valuable for pursuing a theory-of-everything to explain everything in ways that are mathematically consistent and empirically testable.  Its value is qualitative, not quantitative.  Its value is in relating direct experience of Conscioiusness to the appreciation of existentiality.  It merely provides shorthand terminology by which people may make reference as they come together in various forums in good faith and good will to seek to assimilate civilizing and meaningful moral values.


There is no ultimately measurable "thing" or "physical" building block out of which appearances are built to unfold consistent in their relations with math-based algorithms and equations.  Rather, accumulations of Information, stored as present manifestations of Substance, are coordinated to appear in respect of perspectives of Consciousness.

In-form-ation means no-thing that is not made to appear to potentiality of Consciousness.  Information that cannot inform would not "be" Information, but a pre-annihilating absurdity.  Substance that cannot store Information would not be Substance, but a pre-annihilating absurdity. The coordinate existentiality of accumulations of past Information and present manifestations of Substance requries the existentiality of a unifying Source of apprehensive perspectives of Consciousness.  It does not require that inanimate objects be deemed to contain Consciousness.  It requires only appreciation that inanimate objects would not meaningfully appear or abide without coordination and reconciliation, at some level, among perspectives of Consciousness.  Without part-icipation with such Source of Consciousness, both Information and Substance would "be" pre-annihilating absurdities.

I do not expect by this observation to lead to measured analysis of the ultimate character of Consciousness.   I expect only to label a non-measureable thing that obviously exists to every perspective's sense of beingness, so that it can be legitimately discussed and communicated about.  The purpose is to invite civilizing assimilations of intuitions, empathies, and values.  I expect only to communicate that a "real" basis for higher mindedness abides and exists.  So hedonists may be less conditioned for profit to tolerate the undermining of all attempts to assimilate human decency, dignity, individual responsibility, and freedom.  So we can aspire to be human, rather than subhuman.


When a photon strikes a body of mass, the photon imparts some of its Information TO the body of mass, in exchange for receiving some of the Information that is available FROM the body of mass.  The photon participates with the exchanging of old I for new I.  This changes the state of the Information that is stored with the body of mass.  Is the body of mass, in its new state, therefore no longer the same Identity as the old body of mass?  As a body of mass, was it ever, really, an identifiable, measurable "thing"?  Or was it a "thing" only in respect of its practical aspect, in respect of a math-based meta-system of activated equations?  The body of mass will, in main, continue to be a  sore of previously accumulated I, plus the new I imparted to it by the photon.

Is the photon "really" an identifiable particle, or a spread out field, or both, or neither?  Is it "really" a placeholder for a mathematical transposition that is being reconciled by a meta-Auditor, that is calculably accurate to whatever the level of attention that the Auditor, from any perspective, has capacity to give to it?

As an example of Substance, consider what we take as light.  No one has ever actually seen a photon itself.  Our idea of a photon pertains to some-measurable-post-manifestation that that was carried and transmitted as Information.  As a photon transmits some part of its Information, it reloads other Information.  As in a equation, that balances its functions sequentially, chronologically, expansively, and transpositionally.  Once it collapses to unload its Information to store it with another receiver, then, as it absorbs and substitutes new Information, does it retain its Identity as the "same" photon?

Until a photon imparts its Information, its specific Identity is unknown.  Once it imparts its Information, its substantive Identity has changed (no longer exists).  We, as Conscious Observers or Receptive Recorders, experience such a photon by measuring (storing Information concerning) its trace, not by measuring the photon "itself."  The Information that was carried by the photon (Energetic Substance) becomes stored in whatever form or book (Material Substance) with which we store it.  Moreover, by our Conscious actions, we participate in choosing which photons (and therefore which Information) we wish to avail to become manifest (stored to material Substantive accessibility).

Thus, the existentiality that is expressed with the photon is transposed and fluxed with present Substance, cumulated Information, and participatory Consciousness.  That is, the Trinity (Father-present [I am that I am], Holy Ghost-past [comforter], Son-future apprehensive [why hast thou forsaken me]).


I don't know the "reality."  I have a conceptualization that seems to me to be as consistent, coherent, and complete as I have been able to ascertain.  But I have little doubt that it is not perfect.   If I find a better "explanation," I will phase to it.

By my present conceptualization, there abides a Godhead that consists of a Trinity that correlates with a field, but it is not a measurable field.  Rather, it is a field that avails measuring.  That is, a math field.  The Godhead operates with a math field in a way that fluxes out (qualitating) Consciousness, (measuring) Substance, and (cumulating) In-form-ation.

By my conceptualization, measurable physics is a subordinate derivative.  The ultimate "nature" is no-thing but a field of math.  It appears to be physical because that is the upshot of reconciling communications among the various perspectives of the Conscious aspect of the unifying Godhead.  Because the conscious aspect of the Godhead is of a qualitative (spiritual) character, I cannot empirically prove its nature.  Because it is superior to measurable provable nature.

I doubt there is a controlling algorithm for defining the math field with which the Godhead operates that is knowable or appreciable to limited mortals.  Still, all that unfolds to our measurement must obey parameters of the math field.  Who/what sets the math field?  Does the math field itself phase or "expand"?  I punt to the Godhead.

What unfolds to measurable experience does so in obedience to maths of chronological and spatial sequences, i.e., "meta-equations."  As to whether or how those meta-equations may phase shift, I have little clue. 

Yes, events follow chronologies.  But I suspect they "circle back."  I don't believe in YOLO.  And while any perspective is dormant, it would not experience time.  So its recurrence may from some perspectives be eons, but only an instant from its perspective.  Even though it would seem not to know precise aspects about its previous forms of identity.

I don't believe in free will.  I believe in a flux-feedback process that entails reconciliations of part-icipatory will.  I do believe in a higher, spiritual, Godhead.  I intuit it, and every perspective of it, to be at some layers and levels, always and innately empathetic.  To me, that is the root of higher mindedness.  Which was much more poetically stated by Jesus, in pronouncing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  There is much that is worth discussing, warts and all, in most sacred religious texts.  In the Koran, however, there is mostly warts, that are more to be spurned by any decent society that aspires to civilizing freedom and dignity as opposed to subhumanizing mind enslavement.


Atheists tend to think most Christians believe all the sacred metaphors in the Bible are meant as literal facts instead of as points of discussion.  Big delusion. 

I suspect, among those with a modicum of education, there are as many delusionaries among atheists as there are among spiritual believers.  Moreover, many atheists share in deluded notions about the measurable solidity of all of "reality" and its independence from observations of perspectives of Consciousness.  They have little insight regarding an interpenetrating and reconciling aspect of the Observer Effect.

That said, I agree that "physical literalists" that call themselves either athests or believers tend sometimes to be dangerously stunted in their philosophies.

I would conceptualize that the reality of our world appears in concordance with a trinitarian flux of Consciousness, Substance, and Information -- each of which fluxes in back and forth transposition among the others.  In essence, an ineffable system of qualitative-quantities that is comprised of no-thing more than webs of math and perspectives of a Mathematician.

From Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:

"[T]he Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower."

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.   No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.   They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

“Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive”

"[V]erbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself."

“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”

Regarding Robert M. Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:   An Inquiry Into Values -- I found some good stuff here:    http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/175720-zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance: :)

“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away.  Puzzling.”

“You look at where you're going and where you are and it never makes sense, but then you look back at where you've been and a pattern seems to emerge.”

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in.  No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.  They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

“Sometimes it's a little better to travel than to arrive”

“Is it hard?' Not if you have the right attitudes. Its having the right attitudes thats hard.”

On a cycle the frame is gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is overwhelming.”

“We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world.”

"[N]umbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. it's that only that gets me."

"Your common sense is nothing more than the voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past.”

If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government.  There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.”

"If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed.”

“The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top of the mountain, or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean the Buddha - which is to demean oneself.”

“The real cycle you're working on is a cycle called yourself.”

"[V]erbalized statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself."

“When analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process.”

“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”

“Absence of Quality is the essence of squareness.”



A niche will sometmes avail cows to be sucked dry of blood by mosquitos. Every time our legislators enact a re-form, blood thirsty opportunizers twist it.

We live in a time of rapid flux and phase shifts. Even a tactic of frequent turnover and reform may become inadequate to keep predators and parasites under manageable control.

Among predators and parasites, there is little of morality that restrains them. Without a revival of respect for spirit-based morality, the trend towards mass people farms will likely accelerate.

To steer towards a miracle, it would help to keep in mind a Source of miracles. Motorcycle Zen: When I want to steer my motorcycle, I first look to where I want to go. And then the bike goes there. Just ask any cyclist.


It's hard to say how much of subhuman-crony-communism is due to genetic nature versus cultural nurture. However, it would be unscientific just to assume that none of it is due to genetics.


Too many good people lack experience to discern that Evil has its worshippers. And history shows that those proponents of Evil often float to high power over others. Good people tend to expect that the exposure of bad actors will lead to their being shunned. Wrong. Among Rainbows, such exposure just helps identify the next leaders they will want to promote.
There are worshippers of Evil. I call them Rainbows only because they fly a rainbow flag. They are many. And they dog whistle to one another, to gain power over sheeple. The reason exposure of bad actions causes Republicans to be actively shunned by Rainbows is because the Rainbows were already primed to look for reasons to shun them! But Rainbows are NOT primed to shun their own. Indeed, they promote the bad actors among themselves. Exposing Hillary to be a demented crony-commie will NOT dissuade them. Eventually, it will attract them. These people are beyond fixing. They will have to be defeated and restrained.
To the extent goodness tends to spread, the demented deviance of Rainbows can be defeated, but only if and when good people wake up to the reality that Rainbows do not share their values concerning human freedom and decency. The cooption of the term "rainbow" by perps, pimps, pedophiles, and people-farmers is just one among many of their affronts to decent good sense.


Lefty Religion:  Sitting on your fat ass for a hundred years while telling Whitey he is "morally obliged" to make reparations. (Reparations for what?  For providing the best nation with the most opportunity on earth?)  Lefty Religion is about whining how the "birth lottery" made you a "rainbow," as if the birth lottery had not imposed far heavier weights against billions of sick, lame, blind, slow, and ugly people.  Somehow, most of them grow up and learn to take responsibility for themselves.  But not the BLM and SJW folk.  The explanation:  They don't suffer under the BLT religion of the BLM folk.

Everyone has problems.  Decency is about learning how to cope with them.  Not about learning how to demand reparations from others.  Where do reparations end?  Should all the sick, lame, blind, slow, and ugly people of the world be entitled to reparations from Black citizens?  Enough of this crap!!!  https://youtu.be/oKg2FX1OvfA


I don't t say to trust central gov to launder bribe money. My meaning is that gov that is not allowed to remain benighted COULD help. It could help if, instead of training people to be entitlement-minded, it required them to work for their welfare.
But I agree that most such work should not be done by central gov, because central gov is inherently too corrupt. It tends to float crap, not cream. If (that's a big if) most functions were taken away from central gov and rdistributed to the States, local people would have more local oversight. There would still be corruption, but not on the same scale. Good people may have a better chance to dampen it. Foreign corruption would be less likely to threaten the replacement of the republic as a whole.
IAE, jobs for maintenance of infrastructure would not be done by bureaucrats, but by competing private domestic American contractors. Would you rather have private-enterprising Saudis bidding to take over toll road monopolies? How is private development by foreign corporatists better than local letting of infrastructure jobs to domestic bidders? After all, every dime foreign rentiers make by selling back to our citizens our own national resources would be taken from them by abuse of trust and foreign intrigue.
I doubt you believe abuse by disloyal international crony oligarchs is better than abuse by home-grown gov bureaucrats. What needs to be more appreciated is that there is a rentier-promoting kickback-alliance between mooching international corporatists and faithless treasonous home-grown cronies. Buying and selling pols as if they were commodities has become big international business.
Indeed, the pols that float to the top are now the ones that get the most dollars put in their shorts for doing the best strip teases. For goodness sakes, the nation elected Obama and may elect Hillary! The problem is not gov bad, corporation good. The problem is the agglomerating alliance between central gov and nation-less corporatists.
Just turning over everything to such corporatists would solve nothing. Indeed, oligarchic control over gov is what has put us where we are. Do you think there is magic in international corporatism more so than in local government? Or in distributing welfare without requiring work in trade?


Meme magic.  A thought large enough to gain traction with enough minds will manifest in external reality. Confirmation bias works.  Successful pols use it to advantage.


Buying into "white privilege" only increases the zeal of race baiters, parasites, and predators.  What is this white privilege?  Privilege to work, to pay taxes, to shed blood and sweat to defend and build the representative republic, to do the hard work to sustain the nation and human decency, to volunteer to help in community churches and schools and social clubs, to be scapegoated by every loutish lazy socialist and corrupt crony rentier.

I psss on "white privilege" as a meme!  The libs who buy into it are metrosexualized weenies.  The rapping minorities who whine about it tend to be little more than professional burdens on society.  To end "white privilege," think about what causes it.

What causes it are the people who profit from raising it.  The arms dealers who foment crisis, war, and unrest.  The hedgers who play to make advantages by controlling crises.  The pols who depend for reelection on a poor and easily misled class that can never be allowed to grow up or to leave the vote-for-a-living farm.  And, of course, the shill and loot leaders, who are often paid by the hedgers and even provided with protest signs.  And, of course, the mass of looters and leeches themselves.

What would end white privilege?  Round up the crises farmers and/or tax them out of business.  Stop the mollycoddling PC.  Stop paying heed to distinctions based on bait by hedgers bent on fomenting division.  Understand that eveyone carries his/her own cross.  That most of the world is far less well off.  That the end game for the hedgers is not to raise American minorities, but to reduce the masses worldwide to desperate serfs.  Look instead to higher values.  To innate morality or to the Godhead.  Stop imagining that the world is required to give diddly about your special skin color, lack of talent, misfortune, or ugliness.  If you want success, work for it.  If you want charity, deserve it.  If you want to do good, make a worthwhile business or contribute to a worthwhile charity or church.  But STOP with the endlessly more cental Gov, rules,  forced redistributions, PC dictatorships, and affronts to good sense and good will and individual freedom of expression and enterprise.

If someone wants to stifle racism, the way to help do that is to stop talking about it and stirring it up.  The LAST thing BLM, Progs, Dems, and NWO Cronies want is to dampen racial animosities!!!  They OWN racism.  They profit from it.  They rule by it.  They will give it up the same day talentless Muslims give up Sharia law.  To give in to people who should long ago have grown beyond infantilism merely because they whine is a form of abuse.  It abuses people to lead them to believe they are entitled to demand that the world owes them a living.  It is also an abuse of the republic.  Stop the abuse!


Something that amazes me about some so-called atheists is their lack of insight or appreciation that they DO make leaps of faith that are based more on rationalization-to-desire (pleasure) than on pure reason.  Many argue vehemently on behalf of causes, principles, or systems of belief to which they cling in ardor and faith.  IOW, they are religious about how much they care about rationalizing their lack of religion.  They are religious about the principles they would substitute for the religions of others.  Indeed, communist atheists (superior "reasoners"?) were very adamant in their methods of "persuasion."

But these moral and ethical "principles" of atheists tend more to be simple rationalizations for individual preferences, which they often hope to convince (by persuasion if possible, by force if necessary) others to follow, religiously, as if they were innate principles (or applications of principles) of pagan Mother Nature.  For example, some Gays want to believe in a Great Gay Mother Nature.  That gayness is "natural" (if not beloved by Nature).  That appreciation of Gayness should be taught in grade school, to which students should be forcibly exposed.

Some say they are "objective" minded scientists, indifferent to appeals except to pure empiricism or reason.  Yet, they care deeply about their lack of caring (i.e., stance of indifference).  Some say they base their higher mindedness in reason, apart from notions about religion or God.  OK then, justify these higher-minded principles without resorting to any leap of faith.  Show me their universailty and their objective derivation.  Show me, in pure empiricism or natural reason, divorced from all leaps of faith, why every (or any) society ougtht to adopt such principles.  And show your work.

I submit there abides higher mindedness, but it is not justified in pure science or logic.  Rather, it is justified, if at all, in the direct qualitative experience and sense of being that is innate at some level to every perspective of consciousness.  But I also submit that such cannot be proved or quanticized, apart from direct experience.  That is, we each take on a leap of faith that our beingness is (or can be) meaningful and worthwhile.  To care about arguing to the contrary is by such action to defeat such contrary argument.

Some atheists argue they can justify a system of morality without resort to "religion" or an innate godliness in beingness.  OK then, why and how does a parent or friend teach morality, ethics, or principled empathy to a child?  Does the parent say to the child, "There is really no basis for such higher mindedness, apart from self interest?"  If so, how does the parent define self, interest, or self interest?  Does he say it is ok to hurt others if it is in one's overall greater self interest?  Does he try to shape what his child's or friend's (or dupe's) self interest should be?  Or to shape or condition what his child's sense of responsibility to family, friends, nation, humanity, planet, or beingness should be?

A problem with atheists, such as communist atheists, is that they often want to take over the force of the government and use it to force conformity in "principles" among the masses.  But these "principles" are always the self-justifying principles of the controlling, ruling class.  So their "natural principles" get made into governmentally forced rule.  They make the state the new religion, the freedom and dignity of each citizen be dammmmed!  Their new ("reasonable") religion becomes:  "Thou shall have no gods before thee -- except Gov" (or the reasoned droppings of its paid shills)(or in the cases of fascist Muslims -- MoonAllah, or in the case of Greenies -- Mother Planet.)

So, which "should" prevail, and when:  self interest, elitist ruling interest, or social-scientist-unicorn-community-interest?  Why "should" such ever be so?  Will not every "answer" be a rationalization?  As a rationalization, is not every such answer akin to a conditioned religion (using religion in the sense of a ritualized way of approaching things)? 

So, what "higher-minded atheist" can really and consistently claim to an entirely unfaithful (anti-religious) "reasoner" about what principles should be accepted as being moral or ethical?  Give me an example, and show your work.  What are these" principles" that a cocksure atheist should believe should be fit to lay on all of humanity (either by force for their own good or by tricks of persuasion for the "progress" of humanity)?  Do they find Mother Nature to have written these "principles" on stone tablets, by lightning?  Are these principles innate to beingness?  If so, on what faith or "reasoning"?

For myself, I believe moral empathies and principles are innate.  That a qualitative aspect about Consciousness is inherently beyond measure, hence spiritual.  That a shorthand way to cite the most important principles was taught by Jesus, as the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule.  That for any elitist, crony, oligarch, fascist Muslim, atheist, or knowitall Communist to attempt by force to condemn and replace the traditional or religious mores, parables, and metaphors of every individual is -- EVIL.


In main, I think I agree.  :)

Light/energy, insofar as they are measurable to any present observer or  recorder, are Substance. 

But light/energy/Substance does not express or create by itself.  It carries a history (cumulation of In-form-ation) and its "collapse" into a form for being sensed as either particle or wave (field) depends on its interfunctioning with an observer or recorder (Conscious Observer Effect). 

At a deep level, all that is measurable as Substance (space, time, matter, energy) depends on an inter-flux with Information and Consciousness.  And insofar as anything is measurable, it must conform to an interfunctioning web of transposing equations, i.e., a Math Field. 

An animating Mathematician (Consciousness) expresses all that it measures subject to the Math Field with which if works. 

What the Godhead expresses fluxes as Consciousness, Substance, and Information.  Representations of what was Substance in the past have now been fluxed and cumulated  into Information.  What is the Information concerning the past is presently carried by energy or stored with matter.  IAE, the carried Information does not manifest (collapse or reconcile) as Substance without some layer or level of part-icipatory Consciousness. 

Within themselves, none of the aspects of C,S, or I is causal.  Rather, what is "caused" to be expressed in each and every sequence or instance is the unfolding and reconciled upshot of a process of part-icipatory feedback that entails all three. 

Depending on a tinkerer's practical purposes, he can operate from an assumption that any one of the three is "primary."  But I doubt that any grand explanatory scheme can ever establish that any one of the three is "really" primary.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

One need not displace one kind of categorical absolutism with another. Priestly absolutism with elitist/bureaucratic absolutism. God with Gov. One need not assume everyone wants (or should want) a society based on the rule of law instead of the rule of priests or progs. Separation of the people at large so they can be farmed by elitists. That's power corruption.

One may want a decent society that avails human freedom and dignity. One may such can be achieved by denigrating and bansishing higher-mindedness based on an idea of feedback with a guiding Godhead. Instead, you would have higher-mindedness based on feedback with what? A good-minded elite? Where in history is this good-minded elite to be found? As you say, whenever power is given to any good-minded elite, it is invariably corrupted.

So the problem is how to establish a feedback system wherein the power of elites is checked and balanced.

Higher mindedness is one of such checks. However, Nature does not write ethical rules on stone tablets. What is good, ethical, or moral fluxes depending on feedback. The Godhead assimilates and reconciles our apprehensions. Not every set of values is suitable for every kind of society. Some societies, unless they are "fundmentally changed" (as by eliminating old heads), are unfit for individual responsibility, freedom, objective standards, assimilated common values, or rule of law.

What you think is suitable for libertines/libertarians is not suitable for everyone. Least of all for "refugees" and parasites who are attracted to their economies.

An idea that to have "honest government" and "honest money" and "common man values" is to have progress for "moving in the (right) direction" would be based on its own religious-like mystical thinking. While I happen to agree with the ideas of rule of law, honest gov, and honest money, I also recognize that they are, ultimately, faith based.

Such ideas depend on a suitable society. And to assimilate that suitable society, you will need to preach and inspire. You will not be able to prove such values objectively or mathematically. There is no "science of either ethical or moral values." Those values are based in temporal practicality and faith. If you want to sustain that society, you will need to defend that faith -- which you will not be able to do entirely in logic.

The fault is not in moralists or ethicists. The fault is in disassimilation of common values. Unraveling of society brought on by excessive importation of multi-culti, incorrigible, predators, parasites, faithless cronies, and heathen shills. Faster than the society can assimilate them. Which is precisely what both the Rinos and Dinos of the NWO want. They don't want each person looking to his own idealization and feedback with the Godhead. They want each grunt to look to them to be ruled. To be told how to think, what to think, and what to do. To be reduced from a human being of higher mindedness To a widget-subhuman -- to be ruled by faithless, trust-breaching pos's.