late october early november 2015 musings

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Part 1:

the "mind" is a "nested hypersphere," whose "inner-sphere" is the "ego" and whose "outer-sphere" is one's full potential capacity for "intellect."

regardless of whether "all that can be known" is an infinite sum-set or a finite one, it is (most likely) too large to be 1:1 with any one person's "intellectual capacity." Therefore, if "nobody can know everything," then the terrain of communication is defined similarly to that of mountains and valleys, with the "ego" as the mountain-top, and "society" as the valley formed by erosion between them. Each "inner-sphere" / "ego" is a unique point, unlike any other, ever. However, almost all realms of knowledge overlap with one another in the "outer-sphere" / "intellectual realm." Very few people, therefore, know anything that no one else knows. Most of what all people know is the same for them all. Therefore, though there are many "egos" / "inner-spheres" there is, ultimately, a single, averaged "outer-sphere" / "human IQ" that is, itself, less than the sum total of "all that can be known."

""Intelligence Interval : Cognitive Designation

40 - 54 : Severely challenged (Less than 1% of test takers)

55 - 69 : Challenged (2.3% of test takers)

70 - 84 : Below average

85 - 114 : Average (68% of test takers)

115 - 129 : Above average

130 - 144 : Gifted (2.3% of test takers)

145 - 159 : Genius (Less than 1% of test takers)

160 - 175 : Extraordinary genius""

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification

IQ testing is, although a valid theory, one not yet substantiated by valid testing methods. For example, a rich person can be expected, based on modern testing models, to have a "higher IQ" on average than a poor person; this is not because the poor person chooses to be stupid, nor that they are born stupid and fail to change; it means that, relative to the rich person, the poor person has no choice but to devote most of their time to working to earn means for their own survival, and thus has less time to acquaint themselves with the abstract concepts that comprise the idealization of intelligence among the lazy, rich "intelligentsia" who design the modern IQ tests. Nevertheless, there ARE "smart" people and "stupid" people, and there IS a very obvious gradient between people who are exceptionally "smart" and those who are exceptionally "stupid," into and along which all people can be said to fall.

the "intellectual realm" or "outer-sphere" of the "mind" as "hyper-sphere" is comprised of all our unique "egos" or "inner-spheres." The "outer-sphere" is like a rainbow made of raindrops - the "inner-spheres." The surface of this "outer-sphere" is irregular, and its terrain is (as described) defined as the lower altitude distances between varying, higher altitude "peaks." One "peak" may be around 123 (on the "Intelligence Quotient" scale) while another may be around 77, but on "average" the radius of the "outer-sphere" is around 100 IQ "points."

the "mind" is NOT a simple 2-layered "nested hypersphere" however. According to my own research (this diagram is from the MPDR) the "mind" can contain at least 10 "dimensions" or "levels" in such a model, including spheres within spheres, smaller spheres surrounding larger ones, planes within spheres, lines on planes and points on lines, etc.

the moment of "technological singularity" can be defined as: the moment when the electronic telecommunications machinery (the internet and all data it accesses) reaches a point of "critical mass" relative to the average human IQ (around 100 points on modern scales), that is, when any random "chat-bot" can score higher on an IQ test than any random person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvnZbh4hXHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBqiQ_Faj4Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphmJEpLXU0

http://www.youtube.com/user/eidolonTLP/videos

Part 2:

Because the "strong" so vociferously oppose the "intelligent," it is far too easy for those demons among mankind to rule over the remainder, the kind-hearted, the meek, mild-mannered and easy-going - those who are neither "strong" nor "intelligent." There are many theories as to how is the best manner for the "strong" to rule, and why it is so easy, almost second-nature, for them to do so; these theories however are all irrelevant, considering that the "strong" are not those most "fit" to rule over the rest. The "intelligent," however, do not seek to rule, and for this reason alone the "strong" persist in doing so. Until the "intelligent" render the "strong" utterly irrelevant, those who seek power, who lust to rule over others, will govern. In truth, the "strong" lack power naturally; they are weak and jealous of power, so they struggle to achieve and maintain it; they are not, however, at all "intelligent."

if you define "consequential" as those who successfully determine historically consequential events, then you are only accepting the fact that, much more often than not, conflicts are resolved by violence and shows of strength, rather than progressing toward what should be seen as the most beneficial course for all. Too often, the mentality of humanity, and consequentially the history of our contributions to nature, has been "might makes right" and "kill them all and let god sort them out." If Napoleon, Hitler and George Bush are examples of those who have successfully determined historically consequential events, then we would be back to the "strong" ruling instead of the "intelligent."

while I agree "liberty" is a "good" thing, I do not think the explosion of metal-based industrialism during the 20th century is also "good," and I would agree that the industrial revolution occurred ONLY as a direct result of American Constitutional libertarian governmental models. I also agree that "strong" and "smart" are "one-dimensional" rather than "all-encompassing" traits, and that the division between such specifics, rather than the focusing on general equalities instead, does create cognitive dissonance and can lead to violent conflict. I'm open to any answers as to how to resolve such logical conundrums as these, though, so any input is welcome. Fire away!

people only "need" leaders if there is a worthy goal for them to pursue which, otherwise, they would not see as such. Then the job of the role of "leader" is only to show the people this goal in a desirable light, that they will then, of their own accord, move toward it. By this criteria, a "good leader" would be more or less like the "pied piper of hamelin," but might - should one also realize that NO "goal" is truly "worthy" if it remains, by the masses, unrecognized - just as well be seen as leading a herd of lemmings over a cliff. Personally, I reject the idea that any individual truly needs or ultimately benefits more from having a leader than if they simply lead and follow only themselves. This is a large part of why I am also an atheist; I reject the need for the idea of a "god," and therefore I see no reason why one must or even should exist.

We, the species of humanity, do NOT need rulers nor leaders, kings nor presidents, emperors nor popes. We deserve recognition and respect for our innate right to individual sovereignty and to self-government above all else. We, the people, have the abilities to turn the tides of history, to rebel at will against any and all authorities, and to overturn any format of state - and we exercise these often. We have earned the right to a global Anarchy, and we are, at present, on the verge of one's emergence. We are each unique individuals, all of us are freeborn and as a species by a vast majority we reject tyranny as unjust and respect as inviolable personal liberty. So, as "crowned and conquering children" into this "new aeon" have now spun we 7 billion living souls. We Understand: "National Security" nowadays is only a front for Nazism - Nationalist Socialization: scaring people into giving up their right to rule themselves; the gambit of safety trumping freedom to legally justify forced confiscation. We are not scared of either this "big brother," the "Establishment," nor by the "Terrorists" and "Immanuel Goldsteins" they themselves create. We do not buy into the geopolitical theatrics that lend false facade to the increasingly irrelevant pundits and politicians who proselytize and promote war and terror any longer. We simply disagree with the official story. We have been lied to for too long. We, the People, are fed up. We're fed up with the United States federal government, and with the Federal Reserve System of their national central bank. Enough about the influence on politics by a counterfeit class of affluents was learned by us from the rise and fall of Rome. So let's take a moment to thank all the criminals among us who commit victimless acts of social rebellion, deprived of their voice for just reforms, and who operate the black markets, evade taxes, grow hemp, and etc. not simply because the government tells them not to, but because they know themselves what is the right thing to do.

I would add that it is not the fault of these modern American victims of any and all opportunities for self-abuse for their addictions, since this programming is ubiquitously pushed on them by the CIA's importing of drugs, the media's amplification of unrealistic stereotypes, and the military use of electromagnetic technologies to hypnotize the American population. I can't "blame the victims," because I know it is far easier to weaken the resolve of a large group of people than it is to convince them of their individual empowerment being increased by their belonging to the large group.

EDIT: in short, were it not for the victimizing of the "weak" by these predatory "strong," then the average IQ would not still be only around 100 points. We would all be smarter without the oppression of our own "elected" leaders.

minarchism is a median good, if waxing toward anarchism, which is an ultimate good. neither the collective of "government," nor any other individual, should be allowed to take from you what you produce and what you, other than by coercion, would not willingly donate to them.

because "minarchism" depends LESS on militant "might" than does "absolute statism," it is a step toward disempowering those who wish to gain military might to enforce their own dictates from being able to do so. If implemented globally, "Atlantean Democracy" - as a model for minarchism - would accomplish this goal, and be a step toward achieving global peace by disempowering militant absolutist Statism. However, any model of minarchism is only a step toward anarchism if it successfully disempowers the governing principle of warfare. In a global anarchy, the only infringements on one's own personal rights would come from other individuals or from, at most, small groups; the government, as such a "small group" or, more accurately, "gang," would have been disabled from its ability to harm the masses via its military technology, and could no longer, at the press of a button in one place, destroy a city in another. Peace is the antithesis of war, just as "love" is of "hate." To advocate war is to advocate hatred. Therefore, the individual should Love Peace above all else.

the "sneech machine" of modern centralized bureaucracies like the US "intelligence community" that rule modern "Democracies" from behind the scenes, using bribery and black-mail, is quite simple to comprehend in its philosophy: offer "welfare" (bribe the cowards) but deliver "warfare" (black-mail the competition). "Welfare" is based on the concept of a "community chest": if every individual chips in a little, it goes to the "community" and then everyone who is part of the "community" gets something in exchange from this collective fund. So, people agree to pay some of their income to the government in the form of taxes, expecting to get something back in return. But then the government takes that money and uses it to manufacture weapons of mass destruction in a never-ending arms-race against an enemy they only imagine even exists. The people then get back nothing in exchange for their taxes aside from the racket of "protectionism," the concept of "national security" and a "defense industry." Central banking only brokers this exchange, and under a fiat-economy, adds unlimited imaginary funding to the government for its militarism. While attacking the central bank of such a system destabilizes it enough for it to malfunction and collapse, the idealization of such a centralized bureaucracy is the foundational principle which, if not erased as obsolete, will only reinvent itself as a new model, promising the same lies and delivering the same death-count.

"...Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses...""

- (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)

cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

"Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer and above all, gambling, filled up the horizon of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumors and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because, being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice."

- George Orwell, 1984, introduction.

the notion that political power is gifted to certain individuals by popular consent was so obvious and ingrained during the lifetime of Juvenal (later 200's - earlier 100's BC) that it appeared to him, from an intelligent point of view, that this power had been "abdicated" by the populous in favor of entertainment. He found this shocking. Despite his intellectual education about the public policies of earlier historical periods, Juvenal was dumb-struck that people, once they had given away offices of authority over themselves, would no longer possess the collective, personal capacity to overturn these powers over them: that people, once they had given away their power, no longer had it in them.

on the other hand, Juvenal's complaint had, by the lifetime of Orwell (1903-1950 AD), some 2,150- 2,200 years later, become such an ingrained matter of public policy that the ability to question it as the dominant dogma and doctrine was considered long-since atrophied, and the "power of the people" that some still whined over having lost, was completely removed from the hands of the masses.

it can therefore be argued that, once a large group of people give up their power to a smaller group, the large group cannot ever get this power back from the smaller group, no matter what. In the Empire of Rome, the last time such military expansionism had accrued such a large land-mass to govern over, not even foreign invasion of the capitol city of Rome by the Goths could topple the power of the Roman Papacy, and there is still a Pope with loyal Roman Catholic believers to this day. The moral of this is that Prussian Imperialism, exported covertly into American Democracy in the form of a self-funding, centralized welfare / warfare-machine, now that it has latched onto and is leeching its life-force from the American populous, will NEVER let go of its victims, and that, rather than thinking ahead only as short-term as a "project for a new american century," the "neo-cons" in power behind the "two-party" electoral system of today are establishing a continuation of Adolf Hitler's dream of a "thousand year reich."

it is said, "every lie contains a kernel of truth," that "in all fiction are grains of fact peppered throughout," and that "the greater the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe in it." If these are gospel, or "written in stone," universal laws, etc. then it is because truth is the seed, and the lie the tree grown from it; because "variety is the spice of life;" and because great lies are no better in the average opinion among the masses than great truths, for neither change their own present conditions.

there is literally zero difference between absolute statist government and a monkey zoo. If the modern American federal government were removed one day, and replaced with a monkey zoo, exactly zero people would notice, care, or be affected by it. Peace.

Part 3:

Who are the "Annunaki?" Who are the "Ones Who Watch?" The audience is ever in shadow, but never asleep. Their eyes are the stars, and the spotlight - our sun, an all-seeing eye of a universal mind. The earth is just a petri dish. The planets waltz around a shifting center in a masked charade before the backgrounds of the ecliptic zodiac's constellations. The fundamental ruling principles of natural reality, unsleeping, undying, quietly observe all this.

Who are the Illuminati? Who are those who "light their lamps at dawn?" Independent minded individualists do not ask irrelevant questions about their own inner-locus of control. To improve everyone's living conditions by increasing their free-time, and to foster the desire in them to use this free-time developing their own education, are goals worthwhile to such sages.

What one thinks can never fully be known by anyone else. Most of what we do will undoubtedly be forgotten. In two centuries from now, everyone alive now will probably be dead. Yet humanity persists as if against resistance, when in reality there is none. When people embrace their own, truly limitless freedom, they become inflamed, tyrannical, like our ancient heroes and alike their fallen gods. "Love Must Temper Liberty." Our ancestors' whispering warnings of inevitable mortality surround us all, yet those among us who would lead others still seek out challengers to prove their will to do so to be superior to all else.

So empires measure the waxing and waning tides of cosmic forces, just as people act out their deified personae on the global stage. Empires are built up from polities by madmen, possessed by the delusion of wanting to live forever as elemental deities. And when these brazen dictators of history die, their eyes too join the silent, watchful gallery.

a multitude of thoughts holographically surround the mind's central-core, and in this pilot seat sits the "ego," the idealized self-concept, an averaging between the "id" or "inner-child" (1/2 of what we fear we are) and the "super-ego" or "future-self" (1/2 of what we think we could achieve). It is the "ego" that is the symphony's conductor, the actor's director, etc. in the theater of their own mind. Inside this darkened cavern, many stumble blind, feeling along the walls, seeking without knowing what they might find. It is the job of the "ego" to orchestrate the grand show of life, viewed out of the cavern's portals - in the brilliant light shining through the eyes, seen from within the skull. But to do this the "ego" must see this light, as though at the end of a long tunnel, must desire this light and move toward it, and to do this it must leave many of its thoughts, those blind and lost, behind. Their graves pave a way for the true future of the soul. Lastly, it is only by climbing up a pyramidal pile of dead bodies, those dust accumulating corpses of history's mistakes - once learned, that the soul may escape the skull's cavern and exude itself, in tears, from the yawning portals of the eyes. Now we, who wander, wonder also, "is there a point to all this? what is the purpose for which we endure this?" I once heard it said best: "there is no answer. Console the living." Peace.

the Sumerians believed the dead became "hungry ghosts," an idea they passed along, doubtless via Tibetan Bon, to modern Buddhism. These "hungry ghosts" in Sumerian myths specifically "squat and eat dust" according to these, most ancient now known of myths about the underworld. In Sumerian legends, Erishkigal, "queen of the damned," garbed in raven feathers, reigned as regent ruler of hell in the absence of her husband, ostensibly the devil. In Egyptian myths, Erishkigal, sister of Astarte or Ishtar, became Nepthys, sister of Isis. In the Greek myths, she was Persephone, wife of Hades, lord of the infernal regions. In Hebrew myths, she is named Lilith the black - first wife of Adam; as distinguished from Lilith the red, or the younger Lilith - the succubus night-hag. While the elder Lilith - the black - was the wife of Samael as the "slant" or "twisted serpent," Lilith - the red - was the wife and sister of Samael as the "torturous serpent." The myth of Tammuz / Dummuzi, the "shepherd king" deity and Ishtar, is retold in Greek drama as the tragedy of Orpheus, inventor of music, and Euridyce, his muse, and again in the Shakespeare folio of plays as Romeo and Juliet. In this myth, a gentle young male lover pursues his deceased young bride into the afterlife, descends into hell to be with her, and in some versions is then tricked into staying there while his lover may come and go from it as she pleases. In the original, Sumerian version of this story, Ishtar descends into the underworld where she goes through 7 steps of disrobing from her fleshly possessions, and is finally hung up on a meat-hook on the wall. Dummuzi follows her, but only too late realizes his love Ishtar, as the sister of Eirshkigal, can leave the labyrinthian caverns at will, but he cannot. This story was old even by the time it was recalled in the Epic of Gilgamesh by that novel's title hero to recount to the goddess Ishtar her many faults and infidelities. The idea of "hell" and an "underworld" probably dates back to the era of Shanidar cave co-habitation between homo-sapiens and neanderthals, some 35,000 to 65,000 years ago.

reference 1: excerpt from the Epic of Gilgamesh discussing Ishtar and her lover Dummuzi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZKhUiWSo_g

reference 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar_Cave

it is likely that the story of Dummuzi's explorations of Hell also inspired the minds of Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler and George Bush, not to mention that "myth of christ" that still serves the Popes so well even today. The "gentle shepherd" was an early symbol, along with the ICHTOS vesica fish, of the Christian Church prior to the Council of Nicea. However, if you were to ask a Hindu from Kush or a Yezidi from the Khyber Pass if they saw value in this solar archetype, they may ponder on it, but would probably ultimately say no. Their deities are seen as pure personifications of dialectic "good" and "evil" - Ahura Mazda is the wizard of spirituality, and Ahriman the wizard of materialism, and for some it is as simple as that. There are, of course, more complex prophecies regarding the "end times," including as characters Iblis-Shaytan - as alike an earthly son of the cosmic demiurge; Al Madhi, the 12th Imam, the "righteous teacher;" and the second coming of Christ - true king of earth, the so-called "wicked priest;" and, like Gilgamesh and Enkidu, the "son of peace" and the "son of war" will both battle the "great beast" together, as brothers. When, however, this "battle" is seen as that in all men between spirit and matter, then these "end times" prophecies' specifically detailed characters lose much of their modern-day relevancy. If the battle between "good" and "evil" occurs inside the souls of us all, then the "heros" embodying these traits in modern geopolitical theater become less significant than what to have for dinner, let alone where to find food.

modern western civilization is a conspiracy; that is to say, it is a tacit, mostly unspoken (even considered unspeakable) agreement between a group of counterfeiters to pretend the role of "guards" and a group of working-class freemen who agree to serve as "inmates." The goal of this agreement was (and is) that these masses, led like lambs to the slaughter, will act out amongst themselves certain events, play out certain roles, and act out certain, pre-planned, pre-written parts. This is the essence of a "conspiracy," and insofar as it is the fundamental moral and dogmatic basis of western civilization, it is a conspiracy to which almost all of us who would be reading this (myself included) belong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guv3YzaajNc Peace.

Part 4:

Who are "the gods?" Traditionally, they were "the bold" across the generations of our ancestors. Originally, the idea of deities, let alone the monotheism of today, was nebulous and mystical, outside the realms of common thought, esoteric and vague. Cave paintings depict great animal spirits, relentlessly pursued for all time by the epic warriors of mankind. As homo-sapiens gradually surpassed neanderthals, and the agrarian revolution ushered in sedentary idyll time among the gold-hoarding royals in expanding urban polities, the idea of "ancestral wisdom" being the definition of "deity" in itself had become eclipsed by the idealizations of various natural forces in themselves - such as, "fresh water" or "salt water," for the "air" or the "southwest wind," etc. - and these, collectively, were idolized as the "annunaki": "wacthers over" or spiritualistic idealizations, "archetypes," etc. of their elemental, natural counterparts in material reality; the sculpting of "venus statues" venerating the era of the earth-goddess gradually phased into the profession of "temple prostitution" as many idols cluttered the mantles in increasingly dense population centers. By the "Golden Age" of Greek philosophy, the "gods" were considered more or less as anthropomorphic or zoomorphic physical embodiments of universal physical forces and the authors of natural laws, ranked in authority according to their scale of influence and scope of power; for example, according to the myths of the era, the 7 "Olympian" deities - the rulers over the "mobile heavens" (including the visible planets, the sun and earth's moon) - had rebelled against the elder gods, their parents - rulers over universal forces of nature (such as "time" itself, the universal "creator" deity, the "cosmic mother" goddess, etc.), and this "war in heaven" had ushered in a new age when "giants among men" - the so-called "titans" or "heroes" of legends, rulers of men including high-priests, warrior-kings and conquering generals - could become "like unto gods" themselves. This era peaked with Alexander's imperial expansions into far-eastern Asia, and was already waning when Rome's first Emperor, the general returned from conquering Europe crowned ruler of the empire, Julius Caesar, was assassinated by men wary of this amount of power being in the hands of a single person - recalling the slavery of the Hebrews under Pharaohs prior to the Greek age of individualism and reason. To counter their Gnostic (Hellenic-Hebrew and Coptic Egyptian) influence, subsequent Roman Emperors purged Judea and created the myth of Jesus, the Gnostic philosopher, having been the Jewish "Messiah" (Greek "Christos") - the "son" or physical incarnation of the monotheist deity. The history of Hebrew monotheism began with Abraham escaping the earliest empire, Babylon, and fleeing to Egypt; in Egypt, the generations descended from Abraham then claimed responsibility for the renaissance in Egyptian metaphysics beginning the "new kingdom" era, prior to invading their "promised land" in Canaan and establishing Judea and Israel. The deity of Abraham and his descendent tribe of monotheists was simply a combination of all prior ideas of "god" into one omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent sentient being. Following the destruction of Jerusalem by Flavius Titus, the "New Testament" was promulgated to advocate pacifism among any militant resistance against the, now "monotheist," empire of Rome. By the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH) called the "final prophet" of monotheism, some 500 years after the sacking of the second Temple, the notion of the "universal creator deity" as being one and the same as the "deity that created mankind" was already affixed in the minds of all the Empire of Rome and all its nearest potential enemies alike. At present, western monotheist cults disagree about the nature of their shared idea of deity only insofar as to his proper name, but still would wage wars over this; while in the far-eastern orient, more or less untouched by western concerns all the while between Alexander's conquests and the Communists coming to power in China to expel British importing of opium, the idea of theism in general had simply more or less atrophied following the teachings of the Buddha, considered the wisest person on earth, and had certainly not followed the progress of the western monotheist deity. Buddha's teachings on reincarnation lead their student to tend toward the future, rather than toward the past, in seeking a source for their own personal divine guidance. While in the "old world" the notion of leaving a "name" for oneself, a legacy to be remembered by for all later history, was a primary concern only for the "heroes," the "titans" and the "bold," and the vast masses dwelt in a herd mentality predetermined to worship these "heroes" as personifications of natural forces in themselves, as "gods among men," in the present "new age," now we have become more advanced technologically than any of our ancestors could have ever dreamed, and each of us, even those among us who yet suffer, still live alike "gods" compared to the lives of these ancients, our own ancestors. And so, for us now, who remains left to worship besides, or better than, ourselves in the future? Should we not look for "guardian angels" among those guides who could lead us all toward a better world for future generations? And so, I ask again, who are our modern "gods" and who should they be, if any should even exist at all?

violence remains considered justified in self-defense, and even in defense of one's property. therefore war remains considered "just" when it is in defense of the national borders. but is war ever truly "just" - is it the right and proper method for sentient human beings to resolve conflicts? is violence ever truly fair? when wars have been waged that were seen as "unnecessary," the leaders who commanded them have been recorded by history's scribblers as "villains" and "devils." Thus, the infamy of some has even approached the fame of ancient warriors who, though commanding their forces from the front rather than from behind, were still (if not even more so) complicit in the killing, the brutality, the bloodshed and violence of wars fought for even less "just" reasons than solely "national security." Irony is the ultimate ruler over us all.

the corpses of the ancient gods are rotting away inside the coffins under the central temples built to them within our hearts.