Advanced E-Prime — English without the verb 'to be', pushed further.
The definite article “the” marks specific, known referents in English. In Standard English, speakers use “the” to point to particular things: “the book on the table,” “the woman I mentioned,” “the sun.”
However, “the” also enables one of English’s most insidious spook-generating patterns: “the” + abstract noun creates entities that seem to exist independently and command obedience. “The State demands...” “The law requires...” “The truth compels...” These constructions transform human actions and expectations into ghostly agents that haunt and possess the speaker.
E-Prime Max teaches students to recognize when “the X” constructions hide persons acting behind abstractions. Not every use of “the” summons spooks—”the cat,” “the table,” “the sandwich” point to concrete things. But “the State,” “the law,” “the people,” “the truth”—these phrases mask specific persons doing specific things.
Etymology: From Old English “þe,” replacing earlier demonstratives. The definite article specifies and particularizes—yet when attached to abstractions, it paradoxically UNIVERSALIZES them, making local human arrangements seem like cosmic necessities.
Link: https://latinum.substack.com/p/indexA Note on This Discipline
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✦ “The” + concrete noun (the cat, the book) → usually no dissolution needed
✦ “The” + abstract noun (the State, the law, the truth) → high spook probability
✦ Watch for “the X demands/requires/forbids” patterns—the abstraction appears as agent
✦ Dissolution reveals: persons acting, weapons deployed, labels attached, expectations enforced
✦ The question remains: WHO benefits when “the X” commands instead of “certain persons want”?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Forbidden “To Be” Forms (Complete List)be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being I'm, he's, she's, it's, that's, what's, there's, here's, who's you're, we're, they're art, wast, wert (archaic) Spook Categories
A. MORAL: justice, rights, duty, good, evil, virtue, morality, conscience
B. POLITICAL: state, nation, society, freedom, law, authority, government
C. METAPHYSICAL: truth, reality, God, spirit, soul, reason, being
D. COLLECTIVE: humanity, history, progress, civilization, the people, the masses
E. REIFIED EMOTION: love, fear, hope, anger—WHEN appearing as agents that “do” things
NOTE: These lists exemplify, not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as AGENT demanding, requiring, or forbidding.The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: Personalization — dissolve to specific persons acting
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: Operationalization — dissolve to concrete actions/experiences
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ: Genealogical — trace to human origin and purpose
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: Ownership — convert to first-person experience
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: Label Exposure — reveal category as act of labeling by personsThe Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat sat on the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.1a The cat sat on the mat.
1.1b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sat (V-past) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
1.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM DISSOLUTION STRATEGY [none needed] Concrete nouns require no dissolution —
∴ E-Prime Max permits “the” + concrete noun without transformation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State demands obedience from citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.2a Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” demand that persons they label “citizens” act as those persons with weapons specify.
1.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “the (DEF.ART) government” (N-label) demand (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) specify (V-pres).
1.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the State persons with weapons calling themselves X D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ citizens persons labeled “citizen” D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ obedience act as specified D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ demands demand (retained—persons CAN demand) —
∴ “The State demands” hides “persons with weapons want”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law forbids theft.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.3a Certain words that persons wrote on paper, enforced by other persons with weapons, specify that if someone takes property others claim, those persons with weapons will cage the one who took it.
1.3b Certain (DET) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words.persons.wrote]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past) on (PREP) paper (N), enforced (V-past.PART) by (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-agent) with (PREP) weapons (N), specify (V-pres) that (CONJ) if (CONJ) someone (PRON) takes (V-pres) property (N) others (PRON) claim (V-pres), those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿cage (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→caging]) the (DEF.ART) one (PRON) who (PRON-rel) took (V-past) it (PRON-obj).
1.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the law words persons wrote, enforced by persons with weapons D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ forbids words specify + consequences follow D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ theft taking property others claim D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will set you free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.4a When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may act more effectively—and the persons who previously controlled you through false reports may lose that control.
1.4b When (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observing.accurately]) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres) and (CONJ) report (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) accurately (ADV), you (PRON-subj) may∿act (V-pres.MOD) more (ADV) effectively (ADV)—and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[controllers→persons]) who (PRON-rel) previously (ADV) controlled (V-past) you (PRON-obj) through (PREP) false (ADJ) reports (N) may∿lose (V-pres.MOD) that (DET) control (N).
1.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the truth what you observe and report accurately D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ will set you free may enable effective action D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ free acting without others’ interference D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The mystical promise becomes practical observation: accurate information helps
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people have spoken.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.5a Many persons in this region marked papers in certain ways, and the persons who count those marks announced results.
1.5b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N) marked (V-past) papers (N-obj) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) count (V-pres) those (DET) marks (N-obj) announced (V-past) results (N-obj).
1.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the people many persons in this region D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ have spoken marked papers + results announced D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “The people have spoken” mystifies a counting process controlled by specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market decided the price.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.6a Many persons buying and selling reached the point where some accepted what others offered, and the price emerged from these interactions.
1.6b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) reached (V-past) the (DEF.ART) point (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) some (PRON) accepted (V-past) what (PRON-rel) others (PRON) offered (V-past), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) price (N-subj) emerged (V-past) from (PREP) these (DET) interactions (N).
1.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the market many persons buying and selling D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ decided interactions produced outcome D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “The market decided” hides: “persons with more resources shaped this outcome”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government serves the public interest.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.7a Persons holding official positions act in ways they claim benefit many persons—though the actual beneficiaries often include those officials themselves and their associates.
1.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.holding.positions]) holding (V-pres.PART) official (ADJ) positions (N) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) benefit (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→many.persons])—though (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) actual (ADJ) beneficiaries (N-subj) often (ADV) include (V-pres) those (DET) officials (N-obj) themselves (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) associates (N).
1.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the government persons holding official positions D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ serves acts in ways they claim benefit D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the public interest benefit to many persons (claimed) D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ Officials often serve themselves while claiming to serve abstractions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The accused has rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.8a The person whom officials charge with violating rules may expect certain treatment because other persons wrote documents specifying limits on what officials may do.
1.8b The (DEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[accused→person.charged]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) charge (V-pres) with (PREP) violating (V-pres.PART) rules (N) may∿expect (V-pres.MOD) certain (DET) treatment (N-obj) because (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→documents.persons.wrote]) specifying (V-pres.PART) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) may∿do (V-pres.MOD).
1.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the accused person whom officials charge D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ rights documents specifying limits; expectations D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has (rights) may expect treatment D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO enforces these limits? What happens when they refuse?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The community expects proper behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.9a Many persons around me express displeasure when someone acts in ways they dislike, and they apply social pressure to discourage the behaviors they disapprove.
1.9b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) when (CONJ) someone (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) dislike (V-pres), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) apply (V-pres) social (ADJ) pressure (N-obj) to (PREP) discourage (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) behaviors (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) disapprove (V-pres).
1.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the community many persons around me D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ expects express displeasure, apply pressure D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ proper behavior behaviors they approve D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO sets the standard? Whose displeasure matters?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy needs workers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.10a Persons who own businesses want other persons to work for them, and the owners offer payment to attract workers.
1.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.owning]) who (PRON-rel) own (V-pres) businesses (N-obj) want (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿work (V-inf) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) owners (N-subj) offer (V-pres) payment (N-obj) to (PREP) attract (V-inf) workers (N-obj).
1.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the economy persons who own businesses + persons who work D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ needs owners want D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ workers persons who work for payment D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits when “the economy’s needs” replace “owners’ wants”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society condemns violence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.11a Many persons around me express disapproval when someone harms another’s body—though the same persons often approve when officials harm bodies they label “criminal” or “enemy.”
1.11b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-obj) when (CONJ) someone (PRON-subj) harms (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[violence→harming.bodies]) another’s (PRON-poss) body (N-obj)—though (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) same (DET) persons (N-subj) often (ADV) approve (V-pres) when (CONJ) officials (N-subj) harm (V-pres) bodies (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “criminal” (N-label) or (CONJ) “enemy” (N-label).
1.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY society many persons around me D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ condemns express disapproval D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ violence harming bodies D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ criminal/enemy persons labeled X D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO gets to harm bodies with approval? WHO gets condemned?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The institution protects its members.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.12a Persons holding positions within the organization act to shield other position-holders from outside interference—especially when that interference threatens the organization’s continuation.
1.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[institution→persons.in.positions]) holding (V-pres.PART) positions (N-obj) within (PREP) the (DEF.ART) organization (N) act (V-pres) to (PREP) shield (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protect→shield]) other (DET) position-holders (N-obj) from (PREP) outside (ADJ) interference (N)—especially (ADV) when (CONJ) that (DET) interference (N-subj) threatens (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) organization’s (N-poss) continuation (N-obj).
1.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the institution persons holding positions in organization D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ protects act to shield D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ its members other position-holders D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO actually receives protection? WHO remains vulnerable?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality demands sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.13a Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed that I should give up things I want, and they expressed displeasure when I kept things for myself—now I feel discomfort when I consider keeping the things I want.
1.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.who.taught]) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) should∿give∿up (V-past.MOD ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up]) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) expressed (V-past) displeasure (N-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) kept (V-past) things (N-obj) for (PREP) myself (PRON-refl)—now (ADV) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) keeping (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres).
1.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY morality persons who taught me + their claims D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ demands they claimed, expressed displeasure D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ sacrifice give up things I want D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (internalized guilt) now I feel discomfort D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO benefited from teaching me to sacrifice? Do I still serve them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge us.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.14a Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what we do now, and persons reading those books may form opinions about us.
1.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing.books]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N) may∿describe (V-pres.MOD) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) now (ADV), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) reading (V-pres.PART) those (DET) books (N-obj) may∿form (V-pres.MOD) opinions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→form.opinions]) about (PREP) us (PRON-obj).
1.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY history persons who write books about past events D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ will judge may describe; readers may form opinions D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ us we, now D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ Why should I serve the opinions of persons who do not yet exist?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution requires commitment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.15a Certain persons wanting to change how power distributes ask other persons to devote time and risk safety, and the askers benefit from the commitment they request.
1.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolution→persons.wanting.change]) wanting (V-pres.PART) to∿change (V-inf) how (ADV) power (N-subj) distributes (V-pres) ask (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿devote (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[commitment→devoting.time]) time (N-obj) and (CONJ) risk (V-inf) safety (N-obj), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) askers (N-subj) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) commitment (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) request (V-pres).
1.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the revolution persons wanting to change power distribution D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ requires askers ask D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ commitment devoting time, risking safety D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Even “anarchy” becomes spook when “anarchy demands”—no sacred words exist
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1.1 “The cat sat on the mat.”
[Standard English: same—no spooks present]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: none needed—concrete nouns]
1.2 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘the government’ demand that persons they label ‘citizens’ act as those persons with weapons specify.”
[Standard English: “The State demands obedience from citizens.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled)]
1.3 “Certain words that persons wrote on paper, enforced by other persons with weapons, specify that if someone takes property others claim, those persons with weapons will cage the one who took it.”
[Standard English: “The law forbids theft.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → words persons wrote + enforcers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (forbids → specifies consequences)]
1.4 “When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may act more effectively—and the persons who previously controlled you through false reports may lose that control.”
[Standard English: “The truth will set you free.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observing and reporting accurately), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (free → acting without interference)]
1.5 “Many persons in this region marked papers in certain ways, and the persons who count those marks announced results.”
[Standard English: “The people have spoken.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (have spoken → marked papers)]
1.6 “Many persons buying and selling reached the point where some accepted what others offered, and the price emerged from these interactions.”
[Standard English: “The market decided the price.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons buying/selling), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (decided → emerged from interactions)]
1.7 “Persons holding official positions act in ways they claim benefit many persons—though the actual beneficiaries often include those officials themselves and their associates.”
[Standard English: “The government serves the public interest.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons in positions), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (public interest → benefit to many)]
1.8 “The person whom officials charge with violating rules may expect certain treatment because other persons wrote documents specifying limits on what officials may do.”
[Standard English: “The accused has rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (accused → person charged), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → documents + expectations)]
1.9 “Many persons around me express displeasure when someone acts in ways they dislike, and they apply social pressure to discourage the behaviors they disapprove.”
[Standard English: “The community expects proper behavior.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (community → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (expects → express displeasure)]
1.10 “Persons who own businesses want other persons to work for them, and the owners offer payment to attract workers.”
[Standard English: “The economy needs workers.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (economy → owners + workers), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (needs → owners want)]
1.11 “Many persons around me express disapproval when someone harms another’s body—though the same persons often approve when officials harm bodies they label ‘criminal’ or ‘enemy.’”
[Standard English: “Society condemns violence.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (violence → harming bodies), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal/enemy → persons labeled)]
1.12 “Persons holding positions within the organization act to shield other position-holders from outside interference—especially when that interference threatens the organization’s continuation.”
[Standard English: “The institution protects its members.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (institution → persons in positions), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects → shield)]
1.13 “Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed that I should give up things I want, and they expressed displeasure when I kept things for myself—now I feel discomfort when I consider keeping the things I want.”
[Standard English: “Morality demands sacrifice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → persons who taught me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → giving up), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (internalized demand → I feel discomfort)]
1.14 “Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what we do now, and persons reading those books may form opinions about us.”
[Standard English: “History will judge us.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → future writers and readers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → form opinions)]
1.15 “Certain persons wanting to change how power distributes ask other persons to devote time and risk safety, and the askers benefit from the commitment they request.”
[Standard English: “The revolution requires commitment.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none needed]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (revolution → persons wanting change), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (commitment → devoting time, risking safety)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1.1 The cat sat on the mat.
1.2 Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” demand that persons they label “citizens” act as those persons with weapons specify.
1.3 Certain words that persons wrote on paper, enforced by other persons with weapons, specify that if someone takes property others claim, those persons with weapons will cage the one who took it.
1.4 When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may act more effectively—and the persons who previously controlled you through false reports may lose that control.
1.5 Many persons in this region marked papers in certain ways, and the persons who count those marks announced results.
1.6 Many persons buying and selling reached the point where some accepted what others offered, and the price emerged from these interactions.
1.7 Persons holding official positions act in ways they claim benefit many persons—though the actual beneficiaries often include those officials themselves and their associates.
1.8 The person whom officials charge with violating rules may expect certain treatment because other persons wrote documents specifying limits on what officials may do.
1.9 Many persons around me express displeasure when someone acts in ways they dislike, and they apply social pressure to discourage the behaviors they disapprove.
1.10 Persons who own businesses want other persons to work for them, and the owners offer payment to attract workers.
1.11 Many persons around me express disapproval when someone harms another’s body—though the same persons often approve when officials harm bodies they label “criminal” or “enemy.”
1.12 Persons holding positions within the organization act to shield other position-holders from outside interference—especially when that interference threatens the organization’s continuation.
1.13 Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed that I should give up things I want, and they expressed displeasure when I kept things for myself—now I feel discomfort when I consider keeping the things I want.
1.14 Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what we do now, and persons reading those books may form opinions about us.
1.15 Certain persons wanting to change how power distributes ask other persons to devote time and risk safety, and the askers benefit from the commitment they request.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
**These grammar and dissolution rules govern “the” in E-Prime Max:**1. Standard English Function
The definite article “the” performs several functions in English:
Specification: “the” points to a particular, known referent. “Give me the book” (the specific book we both know about) versus “give me a book” (any book).
Anaphoric reference: “the” refers back to something already mentioned. “I saw a dog. The dog barked.”
Unique reference: “the” marks things considered unique. “The sun rises.”
Generic reference: “the” sometimes indicates a category. “The tiger hunts at night” (tigers in general).
Abstract nominalization: “the” + adjective creates abstract nouns. “The beautiful,” “the sublime,” “the good.”2. E-Prime Considerations
“The man is a doctor” → “The man works as a doctor”
E-Prime transformation targets the verb, not the article.3. Spook Proximity Analysis
Critical pattern: “the” + abstract noun frequently creates spooks.
Real (existing independently)
This grammatical treatment encourages treating human arrangements as natural facts and collective fictions as unified agents.
High-risk constructions with “the”:
Pattern Example Spook Function the + political abstraction the State, the government, the nation Persons with weapons → unified agent the + collective noun the people, the masses, the public Many different persons → single voice the + moral concept the good, the right, the just Preferences → cosmic commands the + reified process the market, the economy, the system Interactions → deciding agent the + metaphysical claim the truth, the reality, the meaning Observations → transcendent facts4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization)
“The market determines” → “Persons buying and selling influence”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization)
“The justice system works” → “Persons in courtrooms follow procedures that...”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure)
“The enemy attacked” → “The persons whom our officials label ‘enemy’ attacked”5. Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Dissolving “the” + concrete noun unnecessarily
“The cat sat on the mat” requires no dissolution. Cats and mats exist concretely. Save dissolution energy for abstractions.
Mistake 2: Incomplete dissolution
“The government (persons in offices) demands” — this half-dissolves. If “demands” remains attached to an abstraction, the spook survives. Complete the dissolution: “Persons in offices demand.”
Mistake 3: Missing hidden spooks
“The book describes the journey to freedom” — “freedom” hides a spook. Dissolve: “The book describes moving without interference from others.”
Mistake 4: Forgetting WHO benefits
Dissolution identifies persons behind abstractions, but the Stirnerian question remains: WHO benefits from this abstraction? Dissolution without this question becomes mechanical.6. The Stirnerian Test Applied to “The”
When you encounter “the X” where X appears as agent:
Ask: “Does ‘the X’ serve me, or do I serve ‘the X’?”
If “the X” commands, requires, demands, or forbids → SPOOK → dissolve to persons
If “the X” merely describes what I observe → permitted (but stay alert)
“The book sits on the table” — The book does not command → permitted
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) developed General Semantics as a discipline of clear thinking. His famous formulation—”the map does not equal the territory”—points to the gap between words and the things words represent.
Note: The phrase “the map is not the territory” itself violates E-Prime. E-Prime reformulation: “The map does not equal the territory.”
“The answer is three” → “The answer equals three”
E-Prime reveals the speaker’s perspective hidden by the copula’s false objectivity.2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner (1806–1856), born Johann Kaspar Schmidt, wrote Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), translated as The Unique and Its Property or The Ego and Its Own.
The concept of “spooks” (Gespenster / fixed ideas):
Stirner observed that humans create abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Morality, Truth—and then forget they created them. These abstractions then appear to command obedience. The creator becomes servant to the creation.
“Man, your head is haunted... You imagine great things, and you have worked out for yourself a whole world of gods that exists for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called...”
The creation possesses the creator
Ownness (Eigenheit):
Stirner proposed “ownness” as the alternative to possession by spooks. The unique individual—neither servant to God nor State nor Humanity nor any abstraction—owns their powers and uses concepts as tools rather than masters.
“I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique.”3. The Synthesis: E-Prime Max
E-Prime attacks predication: the structure “X is Y” that creates false identities and hides perspectives.
E-Prime Max extends this attack to reification: the structure “X demands/requires/forbids” where X names an abstraction that appears as commanding agent.
E-Prime Max dissolves: “The law demands punishment” → “Persons with weapons will cage him”
E-Prime addresses linguistic structure. E-Prime Max addresses conceptual possession. Both serve the same goal: reclaiming what the speaker has projected onto abstractions.4. What Dissolution Reveals
When spooks dissolve, what becomes visible?
Persons acting: Behind every “the State demands,” specific persons demand—persons with names, addresses, weapons, interests.
Weapons deployed: Behind every “the law punishes,” specific persons cage, beat, shoot, confiscate—using physical force.
Labels attached: Behind every “the criminal,” “the citizen,” “the enemy,” specific persons apply labels to other persons—and these labels determine who gets caged, protected, or killed.
Expectations enforced: Behind every “morality requires,” “tradition demands,” “duty calls,” specific persons (often now dead) expressed preferences that other persons (often now living) enforce through displeasure, ostracism, or violence.
Power relations: Behind every abstraction that “acts,” specific persons benefit. The question “WHO benefits?” cuts through mystification to material interest.5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation: Speakers invoke abstractions to avoid responsibility. “I had no choice—the law required it” hides “I chose to follow what persons with weapons told me.” Dissolution exposes the choice.
Resisting possession: When you feel commanded by “duty,” “honor,” “morality,” dissolution asks: WHO taught you this? DO they still benefit from your obedience? The spook loses power when you see who created it.
Reclaiming ownness: E-Prime Max does not tell you what to do—no prescription for action. It clears the field of ghostly commanders so you can see what persons actually want, including yourself.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained E-Prime Max practice changes perception. Abstractions that once commanded begin to appear as what they always were: words that persons use for purposes.6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception, cells, atoms. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The bedrock shifts depending on purpose.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent demanding, requiring, or forbidding. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects,” “the data shows,” “nature intends” → all spooks when the abstraction commands. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complex dissolutions, competitive circumlocution, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to “haunted” speakers. The moment E-Prime Max becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “The revolution requires...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique decides—not “the movement,” not “the cause,” not “liberty,” not “freedom.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
STIRNER ORIGINAL (Wolfi Landstreicher translation, 2017):
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844), Part 2E-PRIME MAX TRANSFORMATION:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “the (DEF.ART) government” (N-label) label (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[calls→labels]) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.violence]), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons.not.controlled]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not∿control (V-pres.NEG) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.for.violence]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the state persons with weapons calling themselves X D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ law label attached to official violence D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ the individual persons they do not control D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ crime label attached to unofficial violence D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ calls labels (exposes labeling act) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ its their (persons possess, not abstractions) D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The state does not call—persons call. The law does not exist—only labels exist.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════F-C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY
Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”F-D: VOCABULARY AND GRAMMAR NOTES
label (V-pres): In E-Prime Max, “label” often replaces constructions where abstractions “call” or “name” things. Abstractions cannot call—only persons label.
violence (N): Concrete enough to retain without dissolution. Violence means bodily harm—caging, beating, shooting, killing. Both “law enforcement” and “crime” involve violence.
control (V-pres): Key dissolution concept. “The State” dissolves into persons who control (hold weapons, give orders, enforce compliance). “Individuals” dissolve into persons not controlled by those weapon-holders.
persons with weapons: Standard E-Prime Max phrase for governmental agents. Makes visible what “the State” hides: physical force wielded by physical persons.F-E: COMMENTARY
Stirner wrote in 1844 and used the language available to him, including the spooks he criticized. This demonstrates an important principle: even the critics of abstraction use abstractions.
E-Prime Max transformation does not correct Stirner but extends his critique. We dissolve Stirner’s spooks just as we dissolve any other writer’s spooks. No authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself.
The dissolution reveals what Stirner saw: the distinction between “law” and “crime” reduces to who holds the weapons. When persons with state-recognized weapons harm bodies, they call it “law enforcement.” When persons without such recognition harm bodies, those weapon-holders call it “crime.”
The underlying violence remains identical. Only the label differs. And persons—not abstractions—attach the labels.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining how “the State” dissolves into persons with weapons making decisions and attaching labels.PART A: INTERLINEAR CONSTRUED TEXT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State exists to protect its citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.16a Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” claim they protect persons they label “citizens”—yet those same weapon-holders frequently harm the persons they claim to protect.
1.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “the (DEF.ART) government” (N-label) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) protect (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label)—yet (CONJ) those (DET) same (ADJ) weapon-holders (N-subj) frequently (ADV) harm (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) to∿protect (V-inf).
1.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the State persons with weapons calling themselves X D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ exists [eliminated—abstractions cannot exist as agents] D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ citizens persons labeled “citizen” D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO decides who counts as “citizen”? WHO gets harmed despite the label?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government has a monopoly on legitimate violence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.17a Persons calling themselves “the government” claim that only they may harm bodies without other persons stopping them—and they harm or cage anyone else who harms bodies without their permission.
1.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.themselves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “the (DEF.ART) government” (N-label) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) only (ADV) they (PRON-subj) may∿harm (V-pres.MOD ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[violence→harming.bodies]) bodies (N-obj) without (PREP) other (DET) persons (N) stopping (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) harm (V-pres) or (CONJ) cage (V-pres) anyone (PRON) else (ADV) who (PRON-rel) harms (V-pres) bodies (N-obj) without (PREP) their (PRON-poss) permission (N).
1.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the government persons calling themselves X D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ monopoly only they may + they stop others D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ legitimate without others stopping them D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ violence harming bodies D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ No mystical “legitimacy” exists—only who has more weapons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The police serve and protect the community.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.18a Persons wearing uniforms and carrying weapons claim they help persons in the area—while those same uniformed persons frequently harm, cage, or kill persons in the area, especially persons with darker skin or less money.
1.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[police→persons.in.uniforms]) wearing (V-pres.PART) uniforms (N) and (CONJ) carrying (V-pres.PART) weapons (N) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) help (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[serve→help]) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) area (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→area])—while (CONJ) those (DET) same (ADJ) uniformed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) frequently (ADV) harm (V-pres), cage (V-pres), or (CONJ) kill (V-pres) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) area (N), especially (ADV) persons (N) with (PREP) darker (ADJ) skin (N) or (CONJ) less (DET) money (N).
1.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the police persons in uniforms with weapons D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ serve and protect claim they help D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the community persons in the area D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO gets helped? WHO gets harmed? The pattern reveals whose “community” they serve
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.19a Persons with weapons take money from other persons, threatening to cage those who refuse—and the persons taking the money call this arrangement “civilization.”
1.19b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) take (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[taxation→taking.money]) money (N-obj) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N), threatening (V-pres.PART) to∿cage (V-inf) those (PRON) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres)—and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) taking (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) money (N-obj) call (V-pres) this (DET) arrangement (N-obj) “civilization” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[civilization→label.for.arrangement]).
1.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY taxation taking money under threat of caging D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ price we pay money taken from us D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ civilization label the takers attach D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO labels this “civilization”? The takers label their taking
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution protects our rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.20a Words that certain persons wrote on paper over two centuries ago may influence how persons with weapons treat us today—if current weapon-holders choose to follow those old words.
1.20b Words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Constitution→words.persons.wrote]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past) on (PREP) paper (N) over (PREP) two (NUM) centuries (N) ago (ADV) may∿influence (V-pres.MOD) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) treat (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→influences.treatment]) us (PRON-obj) today (ADV)—if (CONJ) current (ADJ) weapon-holders (N-subj) choose (V-pres) to∿follow (V-inf) those (DET) old (ADJ) words (N-obj).
1.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the Constitution words certain persons wrote on paper D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ protects may influence treatment—if weapon-holders choose D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ our rights how weapon-holders treat us D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ What happens when weapon-holders ignore the words?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The courts uphold justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.21a Persons wearing robes in large buildings decide who gets caged and whose property gets taken—and the robed persons call their decisions “justice.”
1.21b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[courts→persons.in.robes]) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N) in (PREP) large (ADJ) buildings (N) decide (V-pres) who (PRON) gets∿caged (V-pres.PASS) and (CONJ) whose (PRON-poss) property (N-subj) gets∿taken (V-pres.PASS ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judgment→caging/taking])—and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) robed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) decisions (N-obj) “justice” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→label.for.decisions]).
1.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the courts persons wearing robes in buildings D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ uphold make decisions that get enforced D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ justice label for their decisions D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ The deciders label their own decisions “justice”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract binds us all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.22a Certain writers claimed centuries ago that persons agreed to let other persons rule them—though no one alive today signed any such agreement, and persons with weapons enforce the arrangement regardless of what any of us wants.
1.22b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[social.contract→claims.writers.made]) claimed (V-past) centuries (N) ago (ADV) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) agreed (V-past) to∿let (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj) rule (V-inf) them (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) no∿one (PRON-subj) alive (ADJ) today (ADV) signed (V-past) any (DET) such (DET) agreement (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[binds→enforce]) the (DEF.ART) arrangement (N-obj) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) any (DET) of (PREP) us (PRON) wants (V-pres).
1.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the social contract claims certain writers made D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ binds weapon-holders enforce D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ us all persons alive today who never agreed D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The “binding” occurs through weapons, not through agreement
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation calls its sons to duty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.23a Persons holding official positions command young persons—mostly male, mostly poor—to kill and risk dying, and the officials call this “duty” to the “nation.”
1.23b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→officials]) holding (V-pres.PART) official (ADJ) positions (N) command (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[calls→command]) young (ADJ) persons (N-obj)—mostly (ADV) male (ADJ), mostly (ADV) poor (ADJ)—to∿kill (V-inf) and (CONJ) risk (V-inf) dying (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) officials (N-subj) call (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) “duty” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→label]) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) “nation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nation→label]).
1.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the nation officials who invoke the label D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ calls officials command D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ sons young persons, mostly male, mostly poor D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ duty label for commanded killing D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Duty” labels what they want you to do for them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rule of law ensures stability.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.24a When persons with weapons consistently follow written procedures, other persons can predict what the weapon-holders will do—this predictability benefits some persons and harms others.
1.24b When (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rule.of.law→persons.following.procedures]) with (PREP) weapons (N) consistently (ADV) follow (V-pres) written (ADJ) procedures (N-obj), other (DET) persons (N-subj) can∿predict (V-pres.MOD) what (PRON-rel) the (DEF.ART) weapon-holders (N-subj) will∿do (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stability→predictability])—this (DET) predictability (N-subj) benefits (V-pres) some (DET) persons (N-obj) and (CONJ) harms (V-pres) others (PRON).
1.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the rule of law weapon-holders following written procedures D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ ensures creates conditions for D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ stability predictability of enforcement D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from this “stability”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The authorities have the situation under control.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.25a Persons with weapons report that they can make other persons do what the weapon-holders want—for now.
1.25b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authorities→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) report (V-pres) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) can∿make (V-pres.MOD) other (DET) persons (N-obj) do (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[control→making.do]) what (PRON-rel) the (DEF.ART) weapon-holders (N-subj) want (V-pres)—for (PREP) now (ADV).
1.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the authorities persons with weapons D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ the situation other persons D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ under control made to do what weapon-holders want D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The sentence means: armed persons report they can make unarmed persons comply
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The system works for everyone.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.26a Persons who benefit from current arrangements claim that the arrangements benefit all persons—while persons harmed by those arrangements often disagree.
1.26b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) current (ADJ) arrangements (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[system→arrangements]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) arrangements (N-subj) benefit (V-pres) all (DET) persons (N-obj)—while (CONJ) persons (N-subj) harmed (V-past.PART) by (PREP) those (DET) arrangements (N) often (ADV) disagree (V-pres).
1.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the system current arrangements among persons D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ works benefits (claimed) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ everyone all persons (claimed); some benefit, some harmed D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO gets to define “works”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy gives power to the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.27a In certain arrangements, many persons mark papers periodically, and the persons who count the marks then claim that the officials who win have “the people’s” endorsement—though the winners often serve persons with money more than persons without.
1.27b In (PREP) certain (DET) arrangements (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[democracy→arrangements]), many (DET) persons (N-subj) mark (V-pres) papers (N-obj) periodically (ADV), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) count (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) marks (N-obj) then (ADV) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) officials (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) win (V-pres) have (V-pres) “the (DEF.ART) people’s” (N-poss ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→many.persons]) endorsement (N-obj)—though (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) winners (N-subj) often (ADV) serve (V-pres) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) money (N) more (ADV) than (CONJ) persons (N) without (PREP).
1.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY democracy arrangements for marking papers and counting D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ power ability to make decisions others must follow D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the people many persons marking papers D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ Winners often serve wealthy persons more—WHO really holds power?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The sovereign nation has the right to defend its borders.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.28a Persons with weapons who control a territory claim they may harm persons who enter that territory without permission—and other persons with weapons in other territories generally accept this claim because they make the same claim about their territories.
1.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.controlling.territory]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) control (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) territory (N-obj) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) may∿harm (V-pres.MOD ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[defend→harm.enterers]) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) enter (V-pres) that (DET) territory (N-obj) without (PREP) permission (N)—and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) in (PREP) other (DET) territories (N) generally (ADV) accept (V-pres) this (DET) claim (N-obj) because (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) make (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) same (DET) claim (N-obj) about (PREP) their (PRON-poss) territories (N).
1.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the sovereign nation persons with weapons controlling territory D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ the right claim other weapon-holders accept D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ defend harm persons entering without permission D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ its borders territory those persons control D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The whole arrangement rests on mutual armed standoff
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The political process reflects the will of the voters.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.29a After many persons mark papers, the persons who count the marks declare winners—though money shapes which candidates appear, which messages spread, and which persons actually mark papers.
1.29b After (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[voters→persons.marking]) mark (V-pres) papers (N-obj), the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) count (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) marks (N-obj) declare (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reflects→declare.after.counting]) winners (N-obj)—though (CONJ) money (N-subj) shapes (V-pres) which (DET) candidates (N-subj) appear (V-pres), which (DET) messages (N-subj) spread (V-pres), and (CONJ) which (DET) persons (N-subj) actually (ADV) mark (V-pres) papers (N-obj).
1.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the political process marking papers, counting marks, declaring winners D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ reflects counters declare after counting D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the will what each person wanted when marking D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ the voters persons who mark papers D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO controls the filtering? WHO provides the money?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State must wither away after the revolution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
1.30a Certain persons claim that after they seize weapons and official positions, they will eventually stop using those weapons to control others—though persons who gain power through weapons rarely choose to abandon those weapons.
1.30b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolutionaries→persons]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) after (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) seize (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) official (ADJ) positions (N-obj), they (PRON-subj) will∿eventually∿stop (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[wither.away→stop.using.weapons]) using (V-pres.PART) those (DET) weapons (N-obj) to∿control (V-inf) others (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) gain (V-pres) power (N-obj) through (PREP) weapons (N) rarely (ADV) choose (V-pres) to∿abandon (V-inf) those (DET) weapons (N-obj).
1.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK DISSOLUTION STRATEGY the State persons with weapons and official positions D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ must persons claim they will D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ wither away stop using weapons to control D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the revolution seizing weapons and positions D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Even revolutionary spooks remain spooks—”the revolution demands” commands just as firmly as “the State demands”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════PART B: NATURAL SENTENCES WITH TRANSFORMATION NOTES
1.16 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘the government’ claim they protect persons they label ‘citizens’—yet those same weapon-holders frequently harm the persons they claim to protect.”
[Standard English: “The State exists to protect its citizens.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State, citizens), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens)]
1.17 “Persons calling themselves ‘the government’ claim that only they may harm bodies without other persons stopping them—and they harm or cage anyone else who harms bodies without their permission.”
[Standard English: “The government has a monopoly on legitimate violence.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (monopoly, legitimate, violence)]
1.18 “Persons wearing uniforms and carrying weapons claim they help persons in the area—while those same uniformed persons frequently harm, cage, or kill persons in the area, especially persons with darker skin or less money.”
[Standard English: “The police serve and protect the community.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (police, community), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (serve)]
1.19 “Persons with weapons take money from other persons, threatening to cage those who refuse—and the persons taking the money call this arrangement ‘civilization.’”
[Standard English: “Taxation is the price we pay for civilization.”] [E-Prime: “is” eliminated] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (taxation, price), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (civilization)]
1.20 “Words that certain persons wrote on paper over two centuries ago may influence how persons with weapons treat us today—if current weapon-holders choose to follow those old words.”
[Standard English: “The Constitution protects our rights.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Constitution), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects, rights)]
1.21 “Persons wearing robes in large buildings decide who gets caged and whose property gets taken—and the robed persons call their decisions ‘justice.’”
[Standard English: “The courts uphold justice.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (courts), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (justice)]
1.22 “Certain writers claimed centuries ago that persons agreed to let other persons rule them—though no one alive today signed any such agreement, and persons with weapons enforce the arrangement regardless of what any of us wants.”
[Standard English: “The social contract binds us all.”] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (social contract), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (binds)]
1.23 “Persons holding official positions command young persons—mostly male, mostly poor—to kill and risk dying, and the officials call this ‘duty’ to the ‘nation.’”
[Standard English: “The nation calls its sons to duty.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation, sons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (duty, nation)]
1.24 “When persons with weapons consistently follow written procedures, other persons can predict what the weapon-holders will do—this predictability benefits some persons and harms others.”
[Standard English: “The rule of law ensures stability.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rule of law, stability)]
1.25 “Persons with weapons report that they can make other persons do what the weapon-holders want—for now.”
[Standard English: “The authorities have the situation under control.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authorities, situation), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (under control)]
1.26 “Persons who benefit from current arrangements claim that the arrangements benefit all persons—while persons harmed by those arrangements often disagree.”
[Standard English: “The system works for everyone.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (system, everyone), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (works)]
1.27 “In certain arrangements, many persons mark papers periodically, and the persons who count the marks then claim that the officials who win have ‘the people’s’ endorsement—though the winners often serve persons with money more than persons without.”
[Standard English: “Democracy gives power to the people.”] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (democracy, power), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people)]
1.28 “Persons with weapons who control a territory claim they may harm persons who enter that territory without permission—and other persons with weapons in other territories generally accept this claim because they make the same claim about their territories.”
[Standard English: “The sovereign nation has the right to defend its borders.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation, borders), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (right, defend)]
1.29 “After many persons mark papers, the persons who count the marks declare winners—though money shapes which candidates appear, which messages spread, and which persons actually mark papers.”
[Standard English: “The political process reflects the will of the voters.”] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (political process, reflects, will), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (voters)]
1.30 “Certain persons claim that after they seize weapons and official positions, they will eventually stop using those weapons to control others—though persons who gain power through weapons rarely choose to abandon those weapons.”
[Standard English: “The State must wither away after the revolution.”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (wither away, revolution)]PART C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY
1.16 Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” claim they protect persons they label “citizens”—yet those same weapon-holders frequently harm the persons they claim to protect.
1.17 Persons calling themselves “the government” claim that only they may harm bodies without other persons stopping them—and they harm or cage anyone else who harms bodies without their permission.
1.18 Persons wearing uniforms and carrying weapons claim they help persons in the area—while those same uniformed persons frequently harm, cage, or kill persons in the area, especially persons with darker skin or less money.
1.19 Persons with weapons take money from other persons, threatening to cage those who refuse—and the persons taking the money call this arrangement “civilization.”
1.20 Words that certain persons wrote on paper over two centuries ago may influence how persons with weapons treat us today—if current weapon-holders choose to follow those old words.
1.21 Persons wearing robes in large buildings decide who gets caged and whose property gets taken—and the robed persons call their decisions “justice.”
1.22 Certain writers claimed centuries ago that persons agreed to let other persons rule them—though no one alive today signed any such agreement, and persons with weapons enforce the arrangement regardless of what any of us wants.
1.23 Persons holding official positions command young persons—mostly male, mostly poor—to kill and risk dying, and the officials call this “duty” to the “nation.”
1.24 When persons with weapons consistently follow written procedures, other persons can predict what the weapon-holders will do—this predictability benefits some persons and harms others.
1.25 Persons with weapons report that they can make other persons do what the weapon-holders want—for now.
1.26 Persons who benefit from current arrangements claim that the arrangements benefit all persons—while persons harmed by those arrangements often disagree.
1.27 In certain arrangements, many persons mark papers periodically, and the persons who count the marks then claim that the officials who win have “the people’s” endorsement—though the winners often serve persons with money more than persons without.
1.28 Persons with weapons who control a territory claim they may harm persons who enter that territory without permission—and other persons with weapons in other territories generally accept this claim because they make the same claim about their territories.
1.29 After many persons mark papers, the persons who count the marks declare winners—though money shapes which candidates appear, which messages spread, and which persons actually mark papers.
1.30 Certain persons claim that after they seize weapons and official positions, they will eventually stop using those weapons to control others—though persons who gain power through weapons rarely choose to abandon those weapons.PART D: GRAMMAR AND DISSOLUTION NOTES FOR GENRE SECTION
Revolutionary spooks: Even anti-State language generates spooks. “The revolution demands,” “anarchy requires,” “freedom calls”—all command as firmly as any State. Dissolution applies to every commander, including our own.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform these sentences. Each contains “the” with a spook.
1. Standard: “The media shapes public opinion.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who own newspapers, television stations, and websites choose which stories to publish—and many persons reading those stories then believe what those owners chose to show them.”
public opinion → what many persons believe
Revelation: No “media” shapes anything—owners make choices, workers follow orders, readers respond. WHO owns the outlets?
2. Standard: “The invisible hand of the market allocates resources efficiently.”
E-Prime Max: “When many persons buy and sell without a single coordinator, resources move to persons who pay more—which some economists praise as ‘efficient’ while others note that ‘paying more’ favors persons who already have money.”
efficiently → economists’ judgment, contested
Revelation: No “hand” guides anything—Adam Smith invented a metaphor that economists reified into an agent. Resources go to persons with money. WHO already has money? WHO lacks it?
3. Standard: “The arc of history bends toward justice.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain writers describe past events as progressing toward outcomes they prefer—though persons in each era faced their own struggles, unaware they served future writers’ narratives.”
justice → outcomes certain persons prefer
Revelation: No “arc” bends anywhere—writers impose narratives on past events. “Justice” names what the narrator approves. WHO writes the history? Whose “justice” do they mean?
4. Standard: “The law is blind.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons in courtrooms claim they treat all persons equally regardless of wealth or status—though persons with expensive legal help routinely avoid consequences that fall heavily on persons without such help.”
is blind → claim they treat equally (E-Prime: “is” → “claim”)
Revelation: No “law” sees or fails to see—only persons making decisions exist. Those persons observe wealth, skin color, connections. The “blindness” masks selective sight.
5. Standard: “The Constitution is a living document.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons argue that the words those older persons wrote should mean whatever current judges decide they mean—while other persons argue those words should mean only what the original writers intended.”
living document → changing meaning decided by judges
Revelation: No document “lives”—only persons arguing about interpretation exist. WHO gets to decide what the words mean now? Judges—unelected, appointed by politicians, serving for life.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
CSV-Based Vocabulary Progression: This course follows a 1000-word curriculum derived from frequency analysis, ensuring students encounter the most useful vocabulary in systematic order. The definite article “the” appears as Lesson 1 because it ranks among the most frequent words in English—and because it generates spooks more readily than nearly any other word.
Latinum Institute Methodology: For nearly two decades, Latinum Institute has developed materials for autodidacts—students teaching themselves without classroom instruction. The interlinear construed text format makes every grammatical element visible, enabling independent analysis.
E-Prime Max as Consciousness Discipline: This course synthesizes D. David Bourland’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook critique (dissolving reified abstractions). The result: a linguistic discipline that reveals persons acting behind every abstraction that commands.
The Bourland-Stirner Synthesis: E-Prime attacks predication; E-Prime Max attacks reification. Together they enable seeing through the language that haunts and possesses. Students learn not merely vocabulary but a method of perception.
Link: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Link: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk@ᶠᴵᴺᴬᴸ.ᵂᴬᴿᴺᴵᴺᴳ
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 1
✓ Lesson 1 E-Prime Max complete
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max synthesizes two radical linguistic disciplines:
E-Prime (developed by D. David Bourland Jr. from Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics) eliminates all forms of the verb “to be”—arguing that this verb creates false equations, masks process as substance, and generates dogmatic thinking.
Spook Dissolution (derived from Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, 1844) eliminates abstract nouns that function as commanding agents—”justice demands,” “society expects,” “duty requires”—revealing these as Gespenster (ghosts/spooks) that possess the thinker rather than serve them.
This Lesson’s Focus: The word “be” occupies a unique position in E-Prime Max: it names the very verb we eliminate. Lesson 2 teaches what “be” does, why we forbid it, and how “be” functions as the primary grammatical mechanism for constructing spooks. You will learn the forbidden forms by learning to recognize and replace them.
Why “Be” Enables Spooks: The copula “be” performs a sleight-of-hand: it asserts “X IS Y” as if X possessed stable, eternal identity with Y. This grammatical structure allows abstractions to masquerade as substances. “Justice IS sacred.” “The state IS sovereign.” “Truth IS eternal.” Without “be,” these spooks lose their linguistic foundation. They must dissolve back into the persons and actions from which they arose.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
How “be” typically appears: As copula (linking subject to predicate), as auxiliary (passive voice, continuous tenses), as existential (”there is/are”), and as identity marker (”I am X”).
Common spooks enabled by “be”: Every predication of the form “[Abstraction] is [property]” or “[Abstraction] is [agent]” uses “be” to grant substance to spooks. “Justice is blind,” “Freedom is precious,” “The state is necessary.”
Recommended dissolution strategies: E-Prime replacement strategies (E1-E8) combined with spook dissolution strategies (D1-D5). Replace “be” with perception verbs, state verbs, existence verbs, relational verbs. Simultaneously dissolve any spooks present into persons, actions, or experiences.
What becomes visible: When “be” disappears, static identities become processes. When spooks dissolve, persons with specific interests become visible behind abstractions. Power relations emerge from behind the curtain of linguistic reification.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
(Included in Lessons 1-10)
Infinitive: to be
being (present participle)
‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS: love, hate, fear, hope, anger — when treated as agents that “do” things (”love conquers,” “fear prevents”)
The Test: Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts? If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting. “Society demands” → “Certain persons around me express displeasure when...”
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences they mask. “Freedom matters” → “Acting without interference from others matters”
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure Trace the spook back to who created it and why. “God commands” → “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented commands”
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership. “Fear prevented me” → “My body contracted and I refrained”
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons. “Criminals deserve punishment” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘criminal’ get confined”
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “To be or not to be, that is the question.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.1a To continue living or to stop living—that remains what I must decide.
2.1b To (PART-inf) continue (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[be→continue.living]) living (V-pres.PART) or (CONJ) to (PART-inf) stop (V-inf) living (V-pres.PART)—that (PRON-dem) remains (V-pres.STATE) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) must (V-modal) decide (V-inf).
STRATEGY: E3 (state verb)
2.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “To be“ conceals the concrete question: shall I continue the process of living? ∴ The verb “be“ makes existence sound like a static state rather than an ongoing activity ∴ Dissolution reveals: living requires continuous action; “existence” names no thing ∴ WHO benefits from making life sound like a possession rather than a practice?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice is blind.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.2a Persons who call themselves “judges” claim they evaluate cases without knowing who stands before them—though they usually see quite clearly who holds wealth and who lacks it.
2.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.calling.themselves.judges]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) evaluate (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[blind→evaluate.without.knowing]) cases (N-obj) without (PREP) knowing (V-pres.PART) who (PRON-rel) stands (V-pres.EXIST) before (PREP) them (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) usually (ADV-freq) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) quite (ADV-degree) clearly (ADV-manner) who (PRON-rel) holds (V-pres) wealth (N-obj) and (CONJ) who (PRON-rel) lacks (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
2.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” exists anywhere to possess the quality of blindness ∴ Only persons exist who call themselves “judges” and who make claims ∴ The verb “be“ (”is”) allowed the spook “Justice” to appear as a subject possessing properties ∴ WHO benefits from personifying an abstraction? → Those who wield power in its name ∴ The dissolution exposes: the claim contradicts observable behavior
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am a citizen.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.3a Certain officials label me “citizen” and attach expectations to that label.
2.3b Certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit.state→officials]) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizen→label.attached]) me (PRON-obj) “citizen” (N-label) and (CONJ) attach (V-pres) expectations (N-obj) to (PREP) that (DET) label (N-obj).
STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
2.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “I am a citizen” performs an identity-claim that grants substance to a category ∴ The dissolution reveals: no “citizenship” exists as essence—only a label attached by specific persons ∴ WHO attaches the label? → Officials with interests in your compliance ∴ The verb “be“ made the label seem like inherent identity rather than external imposition
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no such thing as society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.4a No entity called “society” acts or thinks—only individual persons act and think, sometimes in coordination, sometimes in conflict.
2.4b No (DET) entity (N-subj) called (V-past.PART) “society” (N-label) acts (V-pres) or (CONJ) thinks (V-pres)—only (ADV-restrict) individual (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→individual.persons]) act (V-pres) and (CONJ) think (V-pres), sometimes (ADV-freq) in (PREP) coordination (N), sometimes (ADV-freq) in (PREP) conflict (N).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
2.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “There is“ functions as an existence-claim for abstractions ∴ The original sentence (famously from Thatcher) already attempted spook dissolution ∴ E-Prime Max completes the dissolution by eliminating “is” and specifying what persons DO ∴ WARNING: “Individual” can itself become a spook if reified—we use it here as shorthand for “each separate person”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth is out there.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.5a Statements that accurately describe what I and others observe may exist beyond what I currently know.
2.5b Statements (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→statements.accurately.describing]) that (PRON-rel) accurately (ADV-manner) describe (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) others (N) observe (V-pres) may (V-modal) exist (V-inf.EXIST) beyond (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) currently (ADV-time) know (V-pres).
STRATEGY: E3 (existence verb)
2.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” floats independently in space ∴ Only statements exist, made by persons, which may or may not match observations ∴ “Is“ made “truth” appear as a locatable substance ∴ The dissolution reveals: “truth” functions as shorthand for “accurate descriptions”—useful when owned, dangerous when reified
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human nature is fundamentally selfish.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.6a Persons often act to benefit themselves—and persons often act to benefit others—and different persons who call themselves “philosophers” emphasize different patterns.
2.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human.nature→persons]) often (ADV-freq) act (V-pres) to (PART-inf) benefit (V-inf) themselves (PRON-refl)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) often (ADV-freq) act (V-pres) to (PART-inf) benefit (V-inf) others (N-obj)—and (CONJ) different (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[nature.claims→persons.emphasizing]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “philosophers” (N-label) emphasize (V-pres) different (ADJ) patterns (N-obj).
STRATEGY: E-Prime restructuring
2.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “human nature” exists as a thing possessing properties ∴ Only persons exist who act in diverse ways ∴ “X is Y” claims create the illusion of eternal essences ∴ WHO benefits from claiming humans “are” fundamentally selfish? → Often those who wish to justify institutional coercion ∴ The dissolution reveals: both selfish and generous patterns exist; the essentialist claim performs ideological work
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality is objective.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.7a Certain persons claim that their preferences about behavior apply to all other persons regardless of those others’ preferences—and they label this claim “objective morality.”
2.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.with.preferences]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) preferences (N-subj) about (PREP) behavior (N) apply (V-pres) to (PREP) all (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) those (DET) others’ (N-poss) preferences (N)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[objective→label.for.claim]) this (DET) claim (N-obj) “objective morality” (N-label).
STRATEGY: E-Prime restructuring
2.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” exists as a substance that can possess objectivity ∴ Only persons exist who hold preferences and make claims about those preferences ∴ “Morality is objective” uses “be“ to smuggle a contested claim into the structure of grammar ∴ WHO benefits from this claim? → Those whose preferences get labeled “objective” ∴ The dissolution reveals: a power move disguised as metaphysics
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom is not free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.8a Acting without interference from others often requires effort, risk, and sometimes violence against those who would interfere.
2.8b Acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) others (N) often (ADV-freq) requires (V-pres) effort (N), risk (N), and (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) violence (N) against (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) would (V-modal) interfere (V-inf).
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
2.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists as an entity that could be free or not-free ∴ Only the concrete experience of acting without interference exists ∴ The slogan uses “is“ to create a paradox that sounds profound but obscures the concrete situation ∴ WHO uses this slogan? → Often those recruiting others to fight wars ∴ The dissolution reveals: someone wants you to accept “violence” as a cost
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law is the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.9a Persons with weapons will harm you if you disobey certain written rules, regardless of whether those rules serve your interests—and many persons expect you to accept this without complaint.
2.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will (V-modal) harm (V-inf) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) disobey (V-pres) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]), regardless (ADV) of (PREP) whether (CONJ) those (DET) rules (N-subj) serve (V-pres) your (PRON-poss) interests (N-obj)—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit.society→many.persons]) expect (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) accept (V-inf) this (PRON-dem) without (PREP) complaint (N).
STRATEGY: E-Prime restructuring
2.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “X is X” uses the copula to create a tautology that masquerades as wisdom ∴ The tautology attempts to foreclose discussion: nothing more CAN be said ∴ The dissolution reveals what the tautology conceals: threat, violence, social pressure ∴ WHO benefits from ending discussion? → Those who enforce the rules ∴ No “law” exists—only persons with weapons and written words
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Being good is its own reward.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.10a When I act in ways that certain persons around me approve, I often feel pleasant sensations—and those persons taught me to call those sensations “the reward of being good.”
2.10b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[good→persons.approving]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[reward→I.feel]) pleasant (ADJ) sensations (N-obj)—and (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[good→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) call (V-inf) those (DET) sensations (N-obj) “the reward of being good” (N-label).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
2.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Being good” uses the gerund of “be“ to nominalize a process into a state ∴ No “good” exists as essence—only actions that persons approve or disapprove ∴ No “reward” floats independently—only sensations I experience ∴ WHO taught me to frame compliance as “reward”? → Persons who benefit from my compliance ∴ The dissolution traces the genealogy: pleasant sensations become “virtue” through teaching
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That was wrong of him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.11a He acted in a way that I disapprove, and I expect others to share my disapproval.
2.11b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) way (N) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) disapprove (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[wrong→I.disapprove]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) others (N-obj) to (PART-inf) share (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) disapproval (N-obj).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “wrongness” attached to his action as a property ∴ Only my disapproval exists—an experience I have, not a feature of the world ∴ “Was wrong” uses past-tense “be“ to assert that wrongness inhered in the action ∴ The dissolution reveals: I disapprove and I want social support for my disapproval ∴ More honest, less commanding—I own my evaluation rather than projecting it onto reality
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History is written by the victors.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.12a Persons who win wars and conflicts usually control which accounts of past events get taught to children and published widely.
2.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[victors→persons.who.win]) who (PRON-rel) win (V-pres) wars (N-obj) and (CONJ) conflicts (N-obj) usually (ADV-freq) control (V-pres) which (DET) accounts (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[history→accounts.of.past.events]) of (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) get (V-pres.PASS) taught (V-past.PART) to (PREP) children (N-obj) and (CONJ) published (V-past.PART) widely (ADV-manner).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
2.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists as a singular text that gets written ∴ Only accounts exist—written by specific persons, taught to specific children ∴ “Is written” (passive voice with “be“) conceals who controls the writing ∴ The dissolution specifies: persons who win → control what gets taught ∴ More useful than the original—names the mechanism rather than mystifying it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You are what you eat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.13a The materials I consume become incorporated into my body and affect how I feel, think, and function.
2.13b The (DEF.ART) materials (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) consume (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[eat→consume]) become (V-pres.STATE) incorporated (ADJ) into (PREP) my (PRON-poss) body (N-obj) and (CONJ) affect (V-pres) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE), think (V-pres), and (CONJ) function (V-pres).
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
2.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “You are what you eat” uses “are“ to assert identity between self and food ∴ This identity-claim oversimplifies: consumed materials BECOME PART of my body; they do not EQUAL my identity ∴ The dissolution restores process: consumption, incorporation, effect ∴ Less catchy, more accurate—E-Prime Max often trades rhetorical punch for precision
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state is a necessary evil.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.14a Certain persons with weapons who call themselves “government” do things I dislike, and some of those persons—along with many writers and teachers—claim that without these armed persons, I and others would experience worse outcomes.
2.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) do (V-pres) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) dislike (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[evil→I.dislike]), and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) persons (N)—along (ADV) with (PREP) many (DET) writers (N) and (CONJ) teachers (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[necessary→persons.claiming])—claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) without (PREP) these (DET) armed (ADJ) persons (N), I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) others (N-subj) would (V-modal) experience (V-inf) worse (ADJ-comp) outcomes (N-obj).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “state” exists—only persons with weapons using a label ∴ No “evil” exists as substance—only my dislike of what they do ∴ No “necessity” inheres—only claims made by specific persons with specific interests ∴ WHO benefits from the claim of necessity? → The armed persons and those who collaborate with them ∴ “Is“ made three spooks appear as a single metaphysical fact
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All men are created equal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.15a Certain persons who wrote a famous document in 1776 claimed that a deity they postulated produced all male humans with equivalent moral status—though those same writers held enslaved persons and denied women equivalent treatment.
2.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit.founders→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) famous (ADJ) document (N-obj) in (PREP) 1776 (N-date) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) deity (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[creator→deity.they.postulated]) they (PRON-subj) postulated (V-past) produced (V-past) all (DET) male (ADJ) humans (N-obj) with (PREP) equivalent (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal→equivalent.status]) moral (ADJ) status (N)—though (CONJ) those (DET) same (ADJ) writers (N-subj) held (V-past) enslaved (ADJ) persons (N-obj) and (CONJ) denied (V-past) women (N-obj) equivalent (ADJ) treatment (N-obj).
STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
2.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Are created equal” uses passive “be“ + past participle to assert a metaphysical fact ∴ The dissolution reveals: a CLAIM made by specific persons at a specific time ∴ Those same persons’ actions contradicted their claim ∴ WHO benefits from this claim as universal truth vs. as historical assertion by interested parties? ∴ Not a dissolution of the ideal—a dissolution of its presentation as cosmic fact rather than human aspiration
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (be → living as continuous activity)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons calling themselves judges), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (blind → claim to evaluate without knowing)]
[Dissolution: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → label attached by officials)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → individual persons acting)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → statements accurately describing observations)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (human nature → persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (selfish → act to benefit selves), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (essentialist claim → philosophers emphasizing)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (morality → persons with preferences), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (objective → label attached to claim)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons + written rules), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (enforcement → harm if disobey)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (good → persons approving), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (reward → pleasant sensations I feel), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (origin → persons taught me)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (wrong → I disapprove)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (history → accounts of past events), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (victors → persons who win)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (identity claim → process of incorporation)]
[Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (evil → I dislike), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (necessary → persons claim)]
[Dissolution: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (metaphysical assertion → claim by specific persons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (all men → all male humans)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
2.1 To continue living or to stop living—that remains what I must decide.
2.2 Persons who call themselves “judges” claim they evaluate cases without knowing who stands before them—though they usually see quite clearly who holds wealth and who lacks it.
2.3 Certain officials label me “citizen” and attach expectations to that label.
2.4 No entity called “society” acts or thinks—only individual persons act and think, sometimes in coordination, sometimes in conflict.
2.5 Statements that accurately describe what I and others observe may exist beyond what I currently know.
2.6 Persons often act to benefit themselves—and persons often act to benefit others—and different persons who call themselves “philosophers” emphasize different patterns.
2.7 Certain persons claim that their preferences about behavior apply to all other persons regardless of those others’ preferences—and they label this claim “objective morality.”
2.8 Acting without interference from others often requires effort, risk, and sometimes violence against those who would interfere.
2.9 Persons with weapons will harm you if you disobey certain written rules, regardless of whether those rules serve your interests—and many persons expect you to accept this without complaint.
2.10 When I act in ways that certain persons around me approve, I often feel pleasant sensations—and those persons taught me to call those sensations “the reward of being good.”
2.11 He acted in a way that I disapprove, and I expect others to share my disapproval.
2.12 Persons who win wars and conflicts usually control which accounts of past events get taught to children and published widely.
2.13 The materials I consume become incorporated into my body and affect how I feel, think, and function.
2.14 Certain persons with weapons who call themselves “government” do things I dislike, and some of those persons—along with many writers and teachers—claim that without these armed persons, I and others would experience worse outcomes.
2.15 Certain persons who wrote a famous document in 1776 claimed that a deity they postulated produced all male humans with equivalent moral status—though those same writers held enslaved persons and denied women equivalent treatment.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “be” in E-Prime Max:
Identity marker: creates equations (”John is the president”)
“Be“ appears in more English sentences than any other verb. Its forms include: be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being, plus contractions (’m, ‘s, ‘re).
“Be“ constitutes the CENTRAL prohibition of E-Prime. Every example in an E-Prime Max lesson must eliminate all forms.
Conceals the speaker’s role in evaluation (”That is wrong” vs. “I disapprove of that”)
E8: Equation verbs (”is four” → “equals four”)
“Be“ has MAXIMUM spook proximity—it ENABLES spook construction at the grammatical level.
Identity: “I am a citizen,” “You are a criminal,” “We are the people”
The pattern: “Be“ allows abstractions to appear as subjects possessing properties, or as objects with which persons identify. Without “be,” the grammatical structure for spook-construction collapses.
“Society is changing” → “Many persons around me act differently than before”
“Truth is important” → “Accurate descriptions help me predict outcomes”
“Murder is wrong” → “Most persons express strong disapproval of killing and taught me to do likewise”
“This is boring” → “I feel restless and disengaged while doing this”
“She is an expert” → “Certain institutions certify her as ‘expert’”
Subjunctive: “I demand that he be present”
Passive to active but keeping abstraction: “Truth was revealed” → “The truth emerged” (still treats truth as agent)
“The state, defined as persons with weapons, is illegitimate” (spook + “is” + moral spook)
“Does this use of ‘be‘ create a substance that could command me?”
Ask: Who benefits from this abstraction appearing as substance?
Ask: Who attached this label to me, and why?
The goal: Not merely grammatical compliance, but seeing what “be“ conceals.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics based on the insight that language shapes perception. His famous formulation: “The map does not equal the territory.” The verb “be“ creates identity-statements that treat maps as territories—words as things.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928-2000) proposed E-Prime in 1965 as practical General Semantics. His insight: the verb “be“ systematically creates the “is of identity” (X is Y) and the “is of predication” (X is Z-property), both of which falsely essentialize.
The operational approach: Instead of “X is Y,” describe what X DOES in specific contexts. “He is stupid” becomes “He failed that test” or “I feel frustrated by his response to that situation.”
Max Stirner (1806-1856) identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—abstractions that possess the thinker rather than serving them. His central insight: humans create concepts (God, State, Humanity, Morality), then forget they created them, then serve them as masters.
Persons serve the abstractions they created
“Ownness” (Eigenheit): The capacity to USE concepts rather than SERVE them. The unique individual OWNS their thoughts; spooks OWN the possessed individual.
E-Prime attacks predication: eliminating “X is Y” prevents the grammatical structure that makes identity-claims seem factual.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: eliminating spook-as-agent prevents abstractions from appearing as things that demand service.
Together: E-Prime removes the copula; spook dissolution removes the subjects that the copula would have connected. The result: language that traces all agency to specific persons, all qualities to concrete experiences, all “essences” to processes.
Why both together? Without E-Prime, you can dissolve a spook but then re-essentialize: “Justice, understood as fairness, is still important.” Without spook dissolution, you can use E-Prime but keep the abstraction: “Justice appears as important.” E-Prime Max closes both loopholes.
Power relations emerge from behind the veil of abstract necessity
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “The law is the law” or “History is on our side” or “Morality is objective,” the combination of “be“ + spook signals an attempt to foreclose discussion by making a claim seem self-evident.
Resisting possession: When you notice yourself thinking “I am obligated” or “This is wrong,” ask: Who taught me this? Who benefits? What would happen if I thought otherwise?
Reclaiming language: Every time you replace “be“ + spook with persons + actions, you perform a small act of consciousness liberation. The reprogramming effect accumulates.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception, electrochemical processes. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The verb “be“ could also apply to persons: “She is a person.” E-Prime Max treats “person” as a pragmatic stopping point, not a sacred category.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy is conserved,” “Evolution is true,” “The data is clear”—all use “be“ to essentialize; all warrant scrutiny. E-Prime Max does not grant exemptions for your preferred abstractions.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ use of “be,” feeling superior to “ordinary speakers.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. “I am an E-Prime Max speaker” uses the very verb we prohibit to create the very identity-attachment we critique.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy is freedom” → spook + be + spook. “Anarchism demands...” → spook as commanding agent. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The Stirnerian test applies to Stirner.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[calls→label]) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do (V-aux) not (ADV-neg) control (V-pres) “crime” (N-label).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual,” “law,” “crime”) ∴ The dissolution PRESERVES and CLARIFIES his insight ∴ No “state” exists anywhere → only persons with weapons who use labels ∴ No “law” exists as distinct substance → only a label for violence persons with weapons commit ∴ No “crime” exists as distinct substance → only a label for violence those same persons disapprove ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from the distinction? ∴ The E-Prime Max version makes explicit what Stirner implied: LABELING as the mechanism of power
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Stirner’s sentence uses no form of “be“—the copula would appear in translations like “violence is called law.” The original German also lacks the copula in this construction. However, Stirner does employ the reified terms “state,” “law,” “individual,” and “crime” as if they named things rather than relationships and labels.
Dissolves “individual” into persons not controlled by the weapon-holders
Stirner’s original insight: what we call “law” and what we call “crime” differ not in essence but in who commits the violence. The E-Prime Max version makes the mechanism explicit: LABELING. “Law” and “crime” function as labels attached by those with the power to enforce the labels. The dissolution also exposes the possessive pronouns (”its own,” “that of”) as attributing ownership to a spook—there exists no “state” to possess violence; only persons possess the capacity for violence.
The transformation demonstrates that Stirner’s insights GAIN rather than lose when subjected to E-Prime Max discipline. The abstraction “state” already concealed what Stirner wanted to reveal; replacing it with “persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’” makes his point more forcefully.
Pedagogical note: Even liberatory thinkers rely on spooks. Dissolving THEIR language honors their project more than preserving their formulations as sacred text. No authority remains unquestioned—not even Stirner.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A dialogue in E-Prime Max between a student and an interlocutor who refuses to abandon “be.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This is madness! You can’t just eliminate the verb ‘to be.’”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.16a “This seems madness to you! You believe I lack the ability to eliminate the verb ‘to be.’”
2.16b “This (PRON-dem) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) madness (N-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[is→seems.to.you]) to (PREP) you (PRON-obj)! You (PRON-subj) believe (V-pres) I (PRON-subj) lack (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) ability (N-obj) to (PART-inf) eliminate (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) verb (N-obj) ‘to be‘ (V-inf).”
STRATEGY: E7 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “This is madness” asserts madness as objective property ∴ The dissolution reveals: madness appears in your perception, not in my proposal itself ∴ “You can’t” presupposes impossibility; dissolution reveals: you BELIEVE I cannot
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “But ‘to be’ is essential to the English language!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.17a “But you consider ‘to be‘ essential to English!”
2.17b “But (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[is→you.consider]) ‘to be‘ (V-inf) essential (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) English (N-obj)!”
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “X is essential” claims necessity as fact ∴ Dissolution reveals: you JUDGE it essential—others judge otherwise ∴ English functioned before “be” took its current form; languages exist without copulas
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “How can you even say what something is without ‘is’?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.18a “How can you even describe what something does, appears as, or functions as, without ‘to be‘?”
2.18b “How (ADV-manner) can (V-modal) you (PRON-subj) even (ADV-emphasis) describe (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[say.what.is→describe]) what (PRON-rel) something (PRON-indef) does (V-pres), appears (V-pres.PERCEPT) as (PREP), or (CONJ) functions (V-pres.REL) as (PREP), without (PREP) ‘to be‘ (V-inf)?”
STRATEGY: E1-E8 (replacement strategies)
2.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The question assumes “what something is“ names something sayable ∴ E-Prime denies this: things DO not ARE; they APPEAR, FUNCTION, BEHAVE ∴ The question reveals its own answer: E-Prime replacement strategies
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This is just playing word games.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.19a “This seems to you like playing word games.”
2.19b “This (PRON-dem) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) to (PREP) you (PRON-obj) like (PREP) playing (V-pres.PART) word (N-mod) games (N-obj).”
STRATEGY: E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “This is just X” dismisses by asserting a reductive identity ∴ Dissolution reveals: in YOUR perception this appears as word games ∴ Others perceive it differently—as consciousness practice, as philosophical discipline
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Language is just a tool for communication.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.20a “Language functions as a tool for communication—and tools shape what we can build.”
2.20b “Language (N-subj) functions (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) tool (N) for (PREP) communication (N)—and (CONJ) tools (N-subj) shape (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) build (V-inf).”
STRATEGY: E4 (relational verb)
2.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Language is just a tool” attempts to minimize language’s power ∴ The E-Prime Max response accepts “tool” and extends: tools SHAPE BUILDING ∴ If language shapes thought, then linguistic discipline shapes consciousness
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth is truth, regardless of how you say it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.21a “Accurate descriptions remain accurate regardless of phrasing—yet phrasing affects whether we notice accuracy or assume it without checking.”
2.21b “Accurate (ADJ) descriptions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→accurate.descriptions]) remain (V-pres.STATE) accurate (ADJ-pred) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) phrasing (N)—yet (CONJ) phrasing (N-subj) affects (V-pres) whether (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres) accuracy (N-obj) or (CONJ) assume (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) without (PREP) checking (V-pres.PART).”
STRATEGY: E3 + restructuring
2.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Truth is truth” uses tautology to claim self-evidence ∴ Dissolution separates two points: (1) accuracy persists; (2) noticing accuracy depends on phrasing ∴ E-Prime Max accepts that some descriptions match observations—but resists reifying “truth”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Some things just are what they are.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.22a “Some things persist in their current patterns regardless of how we describe them—and other things change when our descriptions change.”
2.22b “Some (DET) things (N-subj) persist (V-pres.STATE) in (PREP) their (PRON-poss) current (ADJ) patterns (N) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) how (ADV-manner) we (PRON-subj) describe (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) other (ADJ) things (N-subj) change (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) our (PRON-poss) descriptions (N-subj) change (V-pres).”
STRATEGY: E3 + E7
2.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “X is what X is“ uses tautology to claim permanence and self-evidence ∴ Dissolution distinguishes: some patterns persist independent of description; some do not ∴ Social facts (money, marriage, crime) depend on descriptions; physical processes may not
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You’re being deliberately difficult.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.23a “You perceive me as deliberately difficult.”
2.23b “You (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[are→you.perceive]) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) deliberately (ADV-manner) difficult (ADJ).”
STRATEGY: E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “You**’re being** X” asserts my behavior AS X ∴ Dissolution reveals: YOUR perception, YOUR category, YOUR frustration ∴ I might describe my behavior as “thorough” or “precise”—who decides which label applies?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This whole discussion is pointless.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.24a “This whole discussion seems pointless to you—while I find it clarifying.”
2.24b “This (DET) whole (ADJ) discussion (N-subj) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) pointless (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) you (PRON-obj)—while (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[difference→I.find]) it (PRON-obj) clarifying (ADJ).”
STRATEGY: E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (both perspectives owned)
2.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “X is pointless” asserts pointlessness as fact ∴ Dissolution reveals: two persons with different experiences of the same discussion ∴ Neither experience trumps the other—both remain valid within their contexts
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fine, but some truths are self-evident.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.25a “Fine, but some statements strike most persons as obvious upon first hearing—which reveals nothing about whether those statements accurately describe anything.”
2.25b “Fine (INTERJ), but (CONJ) some (DET) statements (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truths→statements]) strike (V-pres) most (DET) persons (N-obj) as (PREP) obvious (ADJ) upon (PREP) first (ADJ) hearing (N)—which (PRON-rel) reveals (V-pres) nothing (PRON) about (PREP) whether (CONJ) those (DET) statements (N-subj) accurately (ADV-manner) describe (V-pres) anything (PRON).”
STRATEGY: E2 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
2.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Self-evident” claims evidence requires no external verification ∴ Dissolution reveals: FEELING obvious differs from BEING accurate ∴ Many false beliefs felt obvious to persons who held them ∴ “Self-evidence” functions as a way to foreclose checking
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am who I am, and I’m not going to change how I talk.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.26a “I act as I currently act, and I choose not to change how I talk right now.”
2.26b “I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) as (PREP) I (PRON-subj) currently (ADV-time) act (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres) not (ADV-neg) to (PART-inf) change (V-inf) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) talk (V-pres) right (ADV) now (ADV-time).”
STRATEGY: E7 + temporal specification
2.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “I am who I am“ uses identity-tautology to claim unchanging essence ∴ Dissolution reveals: current behavior, chosen continuity, temporal limitation ∴ The E-Prime Max version leaves room for future change; the original forecloses it ∴ Note: The E-Prime Max speaker respects the interlocutor’s choice—no coercion
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Being stubborn won’t help you in life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.27a “Persisting in positions regardless of evidence often leads to outcomes I find unpleasant—though sometimes persistence serves me.”
2.27b “Persisting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[being.stubborn→persisting]) in (PREP) positions (N) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) evidence (N) often (ADV-freq) leads (V-pres) to (PREP) outcomes (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) unpleasant (ADJ)—though (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) persistence (N-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).”
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Being stubborn” uses gerund to nominalize a pattern as identity ∴ “Won’t help you in life” makes vague predictions of negative outcome ∴ Dissolution specifies: sometimes persistence harms, sometimes serves—context matters ∴ The original presents certainty; the dissolution presents contingency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Words are just words.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.28a “Words function as words—and words shape how I perceive, categorize, and respond to experiences.”
2.28b “Words (N-subj) function (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) words (N)—and (CONJ) words (N-subj) shape (V-pres) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres), categorize (V-pres), and (CONJ) respond (V-pres) to (PREP) experiences (N-obj).”
STRATEGY: E4 (relational)
2.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Words are just words” uses tautology to minimize language’s power ∴ Dissolution accepts the tautology and extends: words SHAPE perception ∴ The interlocutor wants to dismiss linguistic discipline; the response explains why words matter
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You think you’re so smart.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.29a “You perceive me as claiming superior intelligence.”
2.29b “You (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[think→perceive]) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) claiming (V-pres.PART) superior (ADJ) intelligence (N).”
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
2.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “You think you**’re** so smart” attacks the speaker through an identity-claim ∴ Dissolution reveals: the interlocutor’s PERCEPTION of my CLAIM ∴ I might not claim superior intelligence—I might claim usefulness of this discipline ∴ The dissolution defuses the attack by specifying whose experience we discuss
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Whatever. This is getting nowhere.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
2.30a “You feel done with this conversation, and you perceive it as producing no value for you.”
2.30b “You (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[whatever→you.feel]) done (ADJ) with (PREP) this (DET) conversation (N), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) producing (V-pres.PART) no (DET) value (N-obj) for (PREP) you (PRON-obj).”
STRATEGY: E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
2.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “This is getting nowhere” asserts futility as fact ∴ Dissolution reveals: YOUR experience of futility, YOUR judgment of value ∴ The E-Prime Max speaker acknowledges the interlocutor’s experience without accepting the universalized claim ∴ Conversation can end when either party chooses—no coercion operates here
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (madness as your perception)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (essential as your judgment)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (what X is → what X does)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (to you)]
[Dissolution: Extension rather than reduction]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → accurate descriptions)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (distinguishes pattern types)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (your perception)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (both perspectives owned)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truths → statements), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (self-evident → strike persons)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (identity → action)]
[Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (stubborn → persisting), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (help → outcomes I find)]
[Dissolution: Extension showing language’s power]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (your perception of my claim)]
[Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (your experience, your judgment)]
2.16 “This seems madness to you! You believe I lack the ability to eliminate the verb ‘to be.’”
2.17 “But you consider ‘to be’ essential to English!”
2.18 “How can you even describe what something does, appears as, or functions as, without ‘to be’?”
2.19 “This seems to you like playing word games.”
2.20 “Language functions as a tool for communication—and tools shape what we can build.”
2.21 “Accurate descriptions remain accurate regardless of phrasing—yet phrasing affects whether we notice accuracy or assume it without checking.”
2.22 “Some things persist in their current patterns regardless of how we describe them—and other things change when our descriptions change.”
2.23 “You perceive me as deliberately difficult.”
2.24 “This whole discussion seems pointless to you—while I find it clarifying.”
2.25 “Fine, but some statements strike most persons as obvious upon first hearing—which reveals nothing about whether those statements accurately describe anything.”
2.26 “I act as I currently act, and I choose not to change how I talk right now.”
2.27 “Persisting in positions regardless of evidence often leads to outcomes I find unpleasant—though sometimes persistence serves me.”
2.28 “Words function as words—and words shape how I perceive, categorize, and respond to experiences.”
2.29 “You perceive me as claiming superior intelligence.”
2.30 “You feel done with this conversation, and you perceive it as producing no value for you.”
Dialogic E-Prime Max demonstrates several features:
Refuses to accept universalized judgments as facts
2. Extension rather than reduction: Several responses accept a partial point and extend it. “Language functions as a tool” accepts the tool metaphor but adds: “tools shape what we can build.” This demonstrates that E-Prime Max does not merely contradict—it DEVELOPS.
3. Temporal specification: “I choose not to change how I talk RIGHT NOW” adds temporal limitation that the original (”I’m not going to change”) lacks. E-Prime Max tends toward process, change, and conditionality rather than permanence and essence.
4. The dialogue models respectful disagreement: The E-Prime Max speaker never attacks the interlocutor, never claims superiority, never coerces. When the interlocutor chooses to end the conversation, the E-Prime Max speaker acknowledges the choice. This embodies the Stirnerian principle: the unique decides, always.
5. Tautology dissolution: Several examples transform tautologies (”Truth is truth,” “Words are just words,” “I am who I am“). Tautologies use “be“ to foreclose discussion; dissolutions open discussion by distinguishing what the tautology conflated.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “The government is the servant of the people.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim to serve the many persons they categorize as “the people”—though their actions often serve their own interests and those of wealthy persons who fund their activities.
the people → many persons they categorize (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: The original asserts relationship as fact; the dissolution reveals: a claim made by the powerful about their relationship to those they rule.
Exercise 2
Standard: “He was found guilty.”
E-Prime Max: Persons calling themselves “jurors” announced that they believed he committed the acts that other persons calling themselves “prosecutors” accused him of committing.
[implicit agents] → persons calling themselves jurors/prosecutors (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “guilt” inheres in the person; “guilty” names a judgment made by specific persons using specific procedures.
Exercise 3
Standard: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
E-Prime Max: Different persons experience pleasure when perceiving different things—what delights one may leave another indifferent or disgusted.
the eye of the beholder → different persons perceiving (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: The original ALMOST dissolves “beauty” but still treats it as a thing located somewhere. The full dissolution: no “beauty” exists—only pleasurable experiences of perception varying across persons.
Exercise 4
Standard: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons will confine you even if you did not know about the written rules you violated—and many persons calling themselves “judges” refuse to consider your lack of knowledge when deciding how to treat you.
no excuse → refuse to consider lack of knowledge (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: The maxim presents itself as impersonal principle; the dissolution reveals: specific persons (judges, police) making choices about how to treat other persons.
Exercise 5
Standard: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
E-Prime Max: When persons I disapprove of act, and persons I approve of refrain from acting, the persons I disapprove of often achieve their goals—and certain writers attribute this pattern to abstractions called “good” and “evil.”
do nothing → refrain from acting (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: The famous quote (often misattributed) presents moral categories as self-evident. The dissolution reveals: MY judgments about which persons count as “good” and “evil” drive the analysis. Different persons would categorize differently.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max Language Course developed by the Latinum Institute for autodidactic students interested in consciousness archaeology through linguistic discipline.
The Course Structure: 1000 lessons based on a frequency-ranked English vocabulary CSV. Each lesson introduces a Standard English word while demonstrating E-Prime Max constructions—training students simultaneously in vocabulary, E-Prime discipline, and spook dissolution.
The Synthesis: E-Prime (Bourland/Korzybski) + Spook Dissolution (Stirner) = E-Prime Max. Attack predication AND reification. Comprehensive linguistic consciousness liberation.
Why This Works: Language shapes thought. Habitual use of “be“ + spooks creates habitual reification. Sustained practice in E-Prime Max gradually reprograms perception. You begin to SEE persons where you once saw abstractions; you begin to SEE processes where you once saw substances; you begin to SEE power relations where you once saw “necessity.”
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 2: BE
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max combines two powerful linguistic disciplines into a single practice. First, it inherits from E-Prime the complete elimination of the verb “to be” in all its forms (is, am, are, was, were, been, being, and all contractions). Second, it extends this discipline through spook dissolution—the systematic refusal to allow abstract nouns to appear as agents that demand, require, forbid, or act.
The term “spook” (Gespenst) comes from Max Stirner’s 1844 work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Property). Stirner observed that humans create abstractions—justice, society, freedom, morality—and then forget they created them. These abstractions then “haunt” their creators, appearing as authorities that command obedience. E-Prime Max trains the speaker to dissolve these spooks back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
The conjunction “and” occupies a unique position in E-Prime Max. While “and” itself carries no spook status—a conjunction merely connects—it frequently serves as the bridge between paired spooks. Phrases like “justice and freedom,” “rights and duties,” “law and order,” and “truth and beauty” bundle abstractions together, doubling their obscuring power. When we dissolve both sides of “and,” we reveal the persons acting on each side.
This lesson demonstrates how to use “and” in E-Prime Max constructions while dissolving the spooks that “and” often connects.
FAQ: What does “and” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “and” retains its standard function as a coordinator connecting words, phrases, or clauses. The challenge lies not in the conjunction itself but in what it connects. E-Prime Max practitioners watch for paired spooks joined by “and” and dissolve both sides to reveal the persons and actions beneath.
Dissolution reveals that no “justice” or “freedom” exists anywhere—only persons acting and persons refraining from interference
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
✦ A Note on This Discipline ✦
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Never use any of the following in E-Prime Max constructions:
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
Spook Categories
Category A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
Category B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
Category C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
Category D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
Category E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS: love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives) — when treated as agents that “do” things
The Test for Spook Status: Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts? If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
Note: These lists exemplify, they do not exhaustively define. ANY word becomes a spook when it appears as AGENT. “Energy demands,” “history teaches,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides”—all spooks, regardless of which priesthood endorses them.
The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1 — ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2 — ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3 — ◊ᴳᴱᴺᴱᴬᴸᴼᴳᴵᶜᴬᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ: Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4 — ◊ᴼᵂᴺᴱᴿˢᴴᴵᴾ⁻ᴬᵀᵀᴿᴵᴮᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5 — ◊ᴸᴬᴮᴱᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
The Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice and freedom are what the people demand.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.1a Many persons around me and many other persons in various places express that they want others to fulfill certain expectations and to refrain from interfering with their actions.
3.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) many (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) various (ADJ) places (N) express (V-pres) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) others (N-obj) to∿fulfill (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→fulfill.expectations]) certain (ADJ) expectations (N-obj) and (CONJ) to∿refrain (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→refrain.from.interfering]) from∿interfering (V-ger) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj).
SPOOK: demand → DISSOLUTION: express that they want → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists anywhere → only persons with expectations
∴ No “freedom” exists anywhere → only the absence of interference
∴ No “people” acts as a unit → only many separate persons expressing wants
∴ “And” connects two dissolved spooks, revealing paired experiences
∴ WHO defines “justice”? WHO decides what counts as “freedom”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Law and order must be maintained.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.2a Persons with weapons and persons who give them instructions will continue confining and harming those who act contrary to certain written rules.
3.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[order→persons.giving.instructions]) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) instructions (N-obj) will∿continue (V-fut) confining (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[maintained→confining]) and (CONJ) harming (V-ger) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) contrary (ADV) to (PREP) certain (ADJ) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj).
SPOOK: must be maintained → DISSOLUTION: will continue confining and harming → STRATEGY: E1 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists → only written words and persons who punish
∴ No “order” exists → only compliance enforced through threat
∴ “Law and order” dissolves to “violence and obedience”
∴ WHO writes the rules? WHO holds the weapons?
∴ The passive voice (”must be maintained”) hid the agents—dissolution reveals them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat sat on the mat and watched the bird.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.3a The cat sat on the mat and watched the bird.
3.3b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sat (V-past) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj) and (CONJ) watched (V-past) the (DEF.ART) bird (N-obj).
Simple coordination of two actions by concrete agent
3.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Concrete nouns (cat, mat, bird) require no dissolution
∴ “And” here connects two actions by a visible agent
∴ This sentence demonstrates that E-Prime Max does not distort concrete description
∴ The discipline targets spooks, not ordinary language
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights and duties are the foundation of society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.4a What certain persons claim they may do and what those same persons say others must do form the basis of how many persons around me coordinate their actions.
3.4b What (PRON-rel) certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→persons.claiming]) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) may∿do (V-modal) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) those (PRON-dem) same (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duties→persons.saying]) say (V-pres) others (N-subj) must∿do (V-modal) form (V-pres.REL) the (DEF.ART) basis (N-obj) of (PREP) how (ADV) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) coordinate (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj).
SPOOK: are the foundation → DISSOLUTION: form the basis → STRATEGY: E4
3.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “rights” exist → only claims persons make
∴ No “duties” exist → only demands persons impose
∴ No “society” acts → only persons coordinating
∴ WHO decides which claims count as “rights”?
∴ WHO benefits from calling demands “duties”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She cooked dinner and he washed the dishes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.5a She cooked dinner and he washed the dishes.
3.5b She (PRON-subj) cooked (V-past) dinner (N-obj) and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) washed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) dishes (N-obj).
Concrete actions by identified persons
3.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “And” connects actions by visible agents
∴ E-Prime Max preserves ordinary concrete language
∴ No dissolution needed when persons act directly
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth and beauty are eternal values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.6a What I observe matching what others report and what pleases my senses—certain persons teach that these matter across all time periods.
3.6b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) matching (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) pleases (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[beauty→pleases.senses]) my (PRON-poss) senses (N-obj)—certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[eternal.values→persons.teaching]) teach (V-pres) that (CONJ) these (PRON-dem) matter (V-pres) across (PREP) all (DET) time (N) periods (N-obj).
SPOOK: are → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED] → STRATEGY: E7
3.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists independently → only matching observations
∴ No “beauty” exists independently → only my sensory response
∴ “Eternal values” dissolves to “what certain persons teach”
∴ WHO taught that these abstractions matter eternally?
∴ WHO benefits from the claim of eternality?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Good and evil are clear to the moral conscience.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.7a What I approve of and what I condemn appear obvious to me when I remember what my parents and teachers told me.
3.7b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[good→I.approve]) of (PREP) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) condemn (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[evil→I.condemn]) appear (V-pres.PERCEPT) obvious (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) my (PRON-poss) parents (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conscience→parents.teachers]) and (CONJ) teachers (N-subj) told (V-past) me (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: are clear → DISSOLUTION: appear obvious → STRATEGY: E2
3.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “good” exists independently → only what I approve
∴ No “evil” exists independently → only what I condemn
∴ “Conscience” traces back to training by specific persons
∴ WHO trained this conscience? Whose judgments did I internalize?
∴ Double use of “and” connects both paired spooks AND their origins
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches and we must learn.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.8a Certain persons who write about past events claim things, and other persons around me say I should remember those claims.
3.8b Certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing.about.past]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) claim (V-pres) things (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) say (V-pres) I (PRON-subj) should∿remember (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[learn→remember]) those (PRON-dem) claims (N-obj).
SPOOK: we must → DISSOLUTION: other persons say I should → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “History” cannot teach—only persons can teach
∴ The “lessons of history” come from persons with interpretations
∴ “We must learn” dissolves to “certain persons say I should”
∴ WHO writes the history? WHO selects which “lessons” to emphasize?
∴ “And” connects the spook-agent with the spook-obligation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love and hate are opposites.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.9a Acting with tenderness toward someone and acting to harm someone function as opposing patterns.
3.9b Acting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) with (PREP) tenderness (N) toward (PREP) someone (PRON) and (CONJ) acting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hate→acting.to.harm]) to∿harm (V-inf) someone (PRON) function (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) opposing (ADJ) patterns (N-obj).
SPOOK: are opposites → DISSOLUTION: function as opposing patterns → STRATEGY: E4
3.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “love” exists as a thing → only persons acting tenderly
∴ No “hate” exists as a thing → only persons acting to harm
∴ Dissolution reveals actions where abstractions seemed to exist
∴ “And” connects two operationalized emotions—now visible as behaviors
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government demands loyalty and obedience from citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.10a Persons with weapons and persons who give them orders expect me to express approval of their actions and to act as their written rules specify.
3.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) orders (N-obj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demand→expect]) me (PRON-obj) to∿express (V-inf) approval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[loyalty→approval]) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) actions (N) and (CONJ) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obedience→acting.as.rules.specify]) specify (V-pres).
SPOOK: citizens → DISSOLUTION: me (first-person ownership) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
3.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “government” exists → only persons with weapons and those giving orders
∴ “Loyalty and obedience” dissolves to approval and compliance
∴ “Citizens” disappears—only I remain, the one being addressed
∴ Multiple uses of “and” connect agents, expectations, and required behaviors
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO writes the rules?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She picked up the book and began reading.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.11a She picked up the book and began reading.
3.11b She (PRON-subj) picked∿up (V-past.PHRASAL) the (DEF.ART) book (N-obj) and (CONJ) began (V-past) reading (V-ger).
Sequential actions by identified agent
3.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ E-Prime Max does not alter concrete sequential narration
∴ “And” connecting visible actions requires no transformation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition and progress are both important to civilization.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.12a What our ancestors did and changing how we do things—many persons around me and persons who write books say both matter for how persons coordinate across generations.
3.12b What (PRON-rel) our (PRON-poss) ancestors (N-subj) did (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→what.ancestors.did]) and (CONJ) changing (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→changing.how.we.do.things]) how (ADV) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) things (N-obj)—many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[civilization→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) books (N-obj) say (V-pres) both (DET) matter (V-pres) for (PREP) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) coordinate (V-pres) across (PREP) generations (N-obj).
SPOOK: are important → DISSOLUTION: many persons say both matter → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “tradition” exists → only past actions persons remember and imitate
∴ No “progress” exists → only changes persons make
∴ No “civilization” acts → only persons coordinating
∴ WHO declares what counts as “tradition”? WHO defines “progress”?
∴ Three uses of “and” connect the paired abstractions, the evaluators, and the scope
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear and hope are what drive humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.13a When my body contracts and I expect harm, and when I anticipate something I want, I act—and so do many other persons.
3.13b When (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracts (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.contracts]) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) harm (N-obj), and (CONJ) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) anticipate (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→I.anticipate]) something (PRON) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres)—and (CONJ) so (ADV) do (V-pres) many (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→many.other.persons]).
SPOOK: are → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED] → STRATEGY: restructured
3.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Fear” dissolves to bodily contraction and harm-expectation
∴ “Hope” dissolves to anticipation of something wanted
∴ No emotions “drive”—I choose to act
∴ No “humanity” exists → only I and many other persons
∴ Multiple “and” connections link experiences, actions, and scope
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Nature and God are the sources of morality.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.14a Certain persons claim that observing how animals and plants behave, and reading what writers of old books claimed a being they invented wants, show me how I should act.
3.14b Certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→persons.claiming]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) observing (V-ger) how (ADV) animals (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Nature→animals.plants]) and (CONJ) plants (N-subj) behave (V-pres), and (CONJ) reading (V-ger) what (PRON-rel) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→writers.of.old.books]) of (PREP) old (ADJ) books (N) claimed (V-past) a being (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.they.invented]) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) wants (V-pres), show (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) how (ADV) I (PRON-subj) should∿act (V-modal).
SPOOK: are the sources → DISSOLUTION: certain persons claim these show → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Nature” as moral source dissolves to animal/plant observation
∴ “God” traces to beings invented by writers of old books
∴ “Morality” dissolves to instructions about how I should act
∴ WHO wrote those books? WHO claims these sources have authority?
∴ “And” connects two pseudo-sources, both traceable to human authors
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The individual and society must find balance.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.15a I and the many persons around me adjust what we do so that we can act near each other without constant conflict.
3.15b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→I]) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) adjust (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[find.balance→adjust.what.we.do]) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) so (CONJ) that (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) can∿act (V-modal) near (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) without (PREP) constant (ADJ) conflict (N).
SPOOK: must find balance → DISSOLUTION: adjust what we do so we can act without conflict → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The individual” dissolves to I—no abstracted “individual”
∴ “Society” dissolves to many persons around me
∴ “Balance” dissolves to practical adjustment
∴ No cosmic struggle between abstractions—only persons adjusting
∴ WHO defines what “balance” means? WHO decides when we have achieved it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
3.1 “Many persons around me and many other persons in various places express that they want others to fulfill certain expectations and to refrain from interfering with their actions.”
[Standard English: “Justice and freedom are what the people demand.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are → express)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (people → persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → fulfill expectations; freedom → refrain from interfering)]
3.2 “Persons with weapons and persons who give them instructions will continue confining and harming those who act contrary to certain written rules.”
[Standard English: “Law and order must be maintained.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (passive → active)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons; order → persons giving instructions), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (maintained → confining and harming)]
3.3 “The cat sat on the mat and watched the bird.”
[Standard English: same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns and visible agent]
3.4 “What certain persons claim they may do and what those same persons say others must do form the basis of how many persons around me coordinate their actions.”
[Standard English: “Rights and duties are the foundation of society.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (are the foundation → form the basis)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → claims; duties → demands; society → persons coordinating)]
3.5 “She cooked dinner and he washed the dishes.”
[Standard English: same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete actions by identified persons]
3.6 “What I observe matching what others report and what pleases my senses—certain persons teach that these matter across all time periods.”
[Standard English: “Truth and beauty are eternal values.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are eternal values → matter)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observations matching), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (beauty → pleases my senses), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (eternal values → persons teaching)]
3.7 “What I approve of and what I condemn appear obvious to me when I remember what my parents and teachers told me.”
[Standard English: “Good and evil are clear to the moral conscience.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (are clear → appear obvious)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (good → I approve; evil → I condemn), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (conscience → what parents and teachers told me)]
3.8 “Certain persons who write about past events claim things, and other persons around me say I should remember those claims.”
[Standard English: “History teaches and we must learn.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → persons who write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (teaches → claim things; learn → remember claims)]
3.9 “Acting with tenderness toward someone and acting to harm someone function as opposing patterns.”
[Standard English: “Love and hate are opposites.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (are opposites → function as opposing patterns)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting with tenderness; hate → acting to harm)]
3.10 “Persons with weapons and persons who give them orders expect me to express approval of their actions and to act as their written rules specify.”
[Standard English: “The government demands loyalty and obedience from citizens.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (loyalty → approval; obedience → acting as rules specify), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (citizens → me)]
3.11 “She picked up the book and began reading.”
[Standard English: same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required]
3.12 “What our ancestors did and changing how we do things—many persons around me and persons who write books say both matter for how persons coordinate across generations.”
[Standard English: “Tradition and progress are both important to civilization.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are important → matter)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tradition → what ancestors did; progress → changing how we do things), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (civilization → persons coordinating)]
3.13 “When my body contracts and I expect harm, and when I anticipate something I want, I act—and so do many other persons.”
[Standard English: “Fear and hope are what drive humanity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: restructured to eliminate “are”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear → body contracts; hope → I anticipate), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → many other persons)]
3.14 “Certain persons claim that observing how animals and plants behave, and reading what writers of old books claimed a being they invented wants, show me how I should act.”
[Standard English: “Nature and God are the sources of morality.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are the sources → show me)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Nature → animals and plants behaving), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → beings invented by writers; morality → how I should act)]
3.15 “I and the many persons around me adjust what we do so that we can act near each other without constant conflict.”
[Standard English: “The individual and society must find balance.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (individual → I), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (find balance → adjust)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
3.1 Many persons around me and many other persons in various places express that they want others to fulfill certain expectations and to refrain from interfering with their actions.
3.2 Persons with weapons and persons who give them instructions will continue confining and harming those who act contrary to certain written rules.
3.3 The cat sat on the mat and watched the bird.
3.4 What certain persons claim they may do and what those same persons say others must do form the basis of how many persons around me coordinate their actions.
3.5 She cooked dinner and he washed the dishes.
3.6 What I observe matching what others report and what pleases my senses—certain persons teach that these matter across all time periods.
3.7 What I approve of and what I condemn appear obvious to me when I remember what my parents and teachers told me.
3.8 Certain persons who write about past events claim things, and other persons around me say I should remember those claims.
3.9 Acting with tenderness toward someone and acting to harm someone function as opposing patterns.
3.10 Persons with weapons and persons who give them orders expect me to express approval of their actions and to act as their written rules specify.
3.11 She picked up the book and began reading.
3.12 What our ancestors did and changing how we do things—many persons around me and persons who write books say both matter for how persons coordinate across generations.
3.13 When my body contracts and I expect harm, and when I anticipate something I want, I act—and so do many other persons.
3.14 Certain persons claim that observing how animals and plants behave, and reading what writers of old books claimed a being they invented wants, show me how I should act.
3.15 I and the many persons around me adjust what we do so that we can act near each other without constant conflict.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “and” in E-Prime Max:
The conjunction “and” serves as a coordinator—it connects words, phrases, or clauses of equal grammatical rank. In English grammar, “and” functions as:
Word-level coordination: “bread and butter,” “black and white”
Phrase-level coordination: “over the river and through the woods”
Clause-level coordination: “She sang and he danced”
The conjunction “and” adds information, connects sequences, and implies both elements share equal status in the sentence.
The word “and” itself never violates E-Prime—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “and” frequently appears in constructions that do violate E-Prime:
“...is this and is that” (e.g., “The book is long and is boring”)
E-Prime solutions: Replace “are” with active verbs, perception verbs, or relational verbs. The “and” remains; the “to be” forms disappear.
“And” carries HIGH spook proximity—not because “and” itself functions as a spook, but because it frequently connects spooks in pairs. Common spook-pairs joined by “and” include:
Moral pairs: “good and evil,” “right and wrong,” “virtue and vice”
Political pairs: “law and order,” “rights and duties,” “freedom and responsibility”
Metaphysical pairs: “truth and beauty,” “mind and body,” “nature and nurture”
Collective pairs: “the individual and society,” “tradition and progress,” “past and future”
These pairs often appear in constructions where both abstractions act as agents or command service.
“The people and their representatives” → “many persons and certain other persons whom they selected”
“Freedom and equality” → “acting without interference and receiving similar treatment”
“Tradition and heritage” → “what our ancestors did and what certain persons now tell us to value about it”
“Love and loyalty” → “acting with tenderness and continuing to act with approval”
“The innocent and the guilty” → “persons whom observers call ‘innocent’ and persons whom judges call ‘guilty’”
Right: “Meeting expectations and acting without interference”
Right: “What I observe and my practice of speaking as I observed guide my actions”
Watch what “and” connects—the problem lies there
Right: “What certain persons claim they may do functions as...”
When encountering paired abstractions connected by “and,” ask:
“Freedom and equality require us to...” → spooks commanding me
The “and” simply connects—the test applies to what it connects.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics around the principle that “the map does not equal the territory.” Language, he argued, shapes perception—and the structure of language can trap us in false identifications.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928-2000) extended Korzybski’s work by creating E-Prime—English without the verb “to be.” Bourland observed that “to be” verbs create false equations (”John is lazy”), mask agency (”Mistakes were made”), and assert essences that may not exist (”This is wrong”).
E-Prime forces speakers to use more precise constructions: instead of “The sky is blue,” say “The sky appears blue to me” or “I perceive the sky as blue.” This shift acknowledges the observer, introduces uncertainty, and prevents the statement from claiming absolute truth.
Max Stirner (1806-1856) introduced the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that haunt the mind and command service. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, Stirner argued that abstractions like “God,” “State,” “humanity,” and “morality” begin as human creations but come to dominate their creators.
The concept becomes a master—a “spook” possessing the thinker
Stirner proposed ownness (Eigenheit) as the alternative—the recognition that I exist prior to all concepts and that concepts serve me or they serve no one.
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter.” What we declare sacred—justice, truth, humanity—binds us to its service.
E-Prime attacks predication: The statement “X is Y” asserts that X equals Y in essence. E-Prime dissolves this into more precise statements about appearance, perception, or function.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: The statement “Justice demands X” treats justice as an agent that makes demands. E-Prime Max dissolves this into statements about persons demanding, expecting, or claiming.
Combined, they reveal persons acting where concepts seemed to command
When paired spooks dissolve:
“Justice and freedom” reveals: persons with expectations, and persons refraining from interference
“Law and order” reveals: persons with weapons, and compliance enforced through threat
“Rights and duties” reveals: claims persons make about what they may do, and demands persons impose about what others must do
“Truth and beauty” reveals: observations that match, and sensory responses that please
“Good and evil” reveals: my approvals, and my condemnations—traceable to training
The pattern: abstractions dissolve; persons remain; power relations become visible.
The conjunction “and” connects paired dissolutions just as it connected paired spooks—but now we see persons on both sides.
Recognizing manipulation through reification:
When someone says “society demands” or “morality requires,” ask: which persons demand? which persons benefit from calling this demand “morality”?
Resisting possession by concepts:
When you feel compelled by “duty” or “justice,” ask: whose expectations do I feel? do I choose to meet them, or do I submit to a spook?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness:
Sustained E-Prime Max practice reprograms habitual thought patterns. The clumsiness of the constructions (”persons with weapons calling themselves...”) keeps the dissolution visible rather than automatic.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel superior has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime. This means: what I do is subject to the state’s judgment, but what it does is right in the name of ‘law.’”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime”—and they expect others to accept these labels.
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.violence]), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not∿control (V-pres.NEG) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.for.violence])—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) others (N-obj) to∿accept (V-inf) these (PRON-dem) labels (N-obj).
SPOOK: its/that of → DISSOLUTION: [possessive of spook eliminated] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual,” “law,” “crime”)
∴ The dissolution preserves AND clarifies his insight
∴ No “state” exists → only persons with weapons who label
∴ No “law” exists → only a label for certain violence
∴ No “crime” exists → only a label for other violence
∴ “And” connects the transformation to the expectation of acceptance
∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from this labeling?
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime”—and they expect others to accept these labels.
This passage demonstrates E-Prime Max applied to Stirner’s own prose. Stirner’s insight—that “law” and “crime” function as labels for the same act (violence) depending on who performs it—becomes sharper when we dissolve the remaining spooks in his formulation.
The addition of “and they expect others to accept these labels” makes explicit what Stirner implied: the labeling requires acquiescence to function.
Note that “state” and “individual” both dissolve to “persons”—the same substrate on both sides of the opposition. The apparent conflict between “state” and “individual” reveals itself as conflict between persons with weapons and persons without them.
Transforming Stirner INTO E-Prime Max demonstrates a crucial principle: no authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself.
Stirner used the word “state” as a convenient shorthand. E-Prime Max refuses even this convenience, insisting that we see the persons with weapons behind the label. Similarly, “the individual” dissolves—no “individual” as abstraction exists; only this or that person exists.
The dissolution does not contradict Stirner; it radicalizes him. If spooks must dissolve, they must dissolve everywhere—including in texts that teach spook dissolution.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining the concept of “the social contract” through E-Prime Max dissolution. Watch how “and” connects dissolved elements throughout.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract is the agreement between the individual and society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.16a Certain writers imagined that I and many other persons around me at some point agreed to follow certain rules—though no person I know signed anything and no one asked me.
3.16b Certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[social.contract→writers.imagining]) imagined (V-past) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→I]) and (CONJ) many (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) at (PREP) some (DET) point (N) agreed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[contract→agreed]) to∿follow (V-inf) certain (ADJ) rules (N-obj)—though (CONJ) no (DET) person (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) signed (V-past) anything (PRON) and (CONJ) no∿one (PRON) asked (V-past) me (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: is the agreement → DISSOLUTION: imagined that... agreed → STRATEGY: E3 + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
3.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “social contract” exists → only a theory certain writers invented
∴ “And” connects me with many other persons—both supposedly parties to this agreement
∴ The second “and” exposes the fiction: no signatures, no asking
∴ WHO wrote this theory? WHO benefits from treating it as binding?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens have rights and duties under the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.17a Persons whom officials label “citizens” may claim certain treatment and face certain demands—and persons with weapons enforce this according to written rules.
3.17b Persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→officials]) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label) may∿claim (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→may.claim.treatment]) certain (ADJ) treatment (N-obj) and (CONJ) face (V-pres) certain (ADJ) demands (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[duties→demands])—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) according (PREP) to (PREP) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj).
SPOOK: under the law → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons enforce according to written rules → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Citizens” dissolves to persons with a label
∴ “Rights and duties” dissolves to claims and demands
∴ “Law” dissolves to persons with weapons and written rules
∴ WHO applies the label? WHO enforces?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Legitimate government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.18a Certain persons with weapons and others who give them orders claim that their commands count because my ancestors and I supposedly agreed to obey.
3.18b Certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) others (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) orders (N-obj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) commands (N-subj) count (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→commands.count]) because (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) ancestors (N-subj) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) supposedly (ADV) agreed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→agreed]) to∿obey (V-inf).
SPOOK: consent of the governed → DISSOLUTION: my ancestors and I supposedly agreed → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
3.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Legitimate” functions as a magic word—the violence remains identical
∴ “Authority” dissolves to “commands that supposedly count”
∴ “Consent” traces to ancestors—did I consent?
∴ WHO benefits from the claim that my ancestors’ supposed consent binds me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In exchange for protection and public services, we accept limitations on our freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.19a Persons with weapons promise they will harm those who harm me and will provide certain services—and in return, they say, I accept that they may confine me if I act in ways they prohibit.
3.19b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) promise (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) will∿harm (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protection→harm.those.who.harm.me]) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) harm (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) will∿provide (V-fut) certain (ADJ) services (N-obj)—and (CONJ) in (PREP) return (N), they (PRON-subj) say (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[we.accept→I.accept]) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may∿confine (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[limitations→may.confine]) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) prohibit (V-pres).
SPOOK: limitations on freedom → DISSOLUTION: they may confine me for prohibited acts → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Protection” = violence toward those who harm me
∴ “Limitations on freedom” = threat of confinement
∴ “We accept” → they say I accept; did I actually accept?
∴ The “exchange” reveals: violence for compliance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy and representation give the people a voice in government.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.20a Periodically marking papers and selecting certain persons to speak for me—many persons around me and various writers claim this gives me influence over persons with weapons.
3.20b Periodically (ADV) marking (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→marking.papers]) papers (N-obj) and (CONJ) selecting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[representation→selecting.persons]) certain (ADJ) persons (N-obj) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) various (ADJ) writers (N-subj) claim (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) gives (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) influence (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[voice→influence]) over (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N).
SPOOK: government → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Democracy” dissolves to periodic paper-marking
∴ “Representation” dissolves to selecting speakers
∴ Do marked papers give me influence over armed persons?
∴ WHO counts the marks? WHO decides what the speakers may say?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rule of law protects both the weak and the strong.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.21a Written rules and persons with weapons who enforce them—certain writers claim these protect persons with few resources and persons with many resources equally.
3.21b Written (ADJ) rules (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) enforce (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)—certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[claim.source]) claim (V-pres) these (PRON-dem) protect (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[weak→persons.with.few.resources]) with (PREP) few (ADJ) resources (N) and (CONJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[strong→persons.with.many.resources]) with (PREP) many (ADJ) resources (N) equally (ADV).
SPOOK: protects → DISSOLUTION: certain writers claim these protect → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Rule of law” = written rules + armed enforcers
∴ “Weak and strong” dissolve to resource differences
∴ Do written rules protect equally when enforcement costs money?
∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO can afford lawyers?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Political obligation and civil obedience are duties of citizenship.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.22a What persons with weapons expect me to do politically and my compliance with their commands—certain writers call these “duties” that attach to persons labeled “citizen.”
3.22b What (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿do (V-inf) politically (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[political.obligation→what.they.expect]) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) compliance (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[civil.obedience→compliance]) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) commands (N)—certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duties→writers.naming]) call (V-pres) these (PRON-dem) “duties” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duties→label]) that (CONJ) attach (V-pres) to (PREP) persons (N) labeled (V-past.PART) “citizen” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizenship→label]).
SPOOK: citizenship → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizen” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
3.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Obligations and obedience” = expectations and compliance
∴ “Duties” = a label that writers attach
∴ “Citizenship” = another label
∴ WHO attached these labels? WHO benefits from calling compliance “duty”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Sovereignty resides in the nation and is exercised through the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.23a Certain writers claim that final decision-power belongs to many persons born in the same area and that persons with weapons act for those many persons.
3.23b Certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.source]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) final (ADJ) decision-power (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sovereignty→decision.power]) belongs (V-pres) to (PREP) many (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.born.same.area]) born (V-past.PART) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) same (ADJ) area (N) and (CONJ) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) act (V-pres) for (PREP) those (PRON-dem) many (DET) persons (N).
SPOOK: resides... exercised → DISSOLUTION: belongs to... act for → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Sovereignty” = decision-power (but who actually decides?)
∴ “Nation” = persons who share birth-location
∴ “State” = persons with weapons claiming to act for them
∴ Do persons with weapons actually act for the many, or for themselves?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The bread seller walked to market and exchanged goods with buyers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.24a The bread seller walked to the market and exchanged goods with buyers.
3.24b The (DEF.ART) bread (N) seller (N-subj) walked (V-past) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) market (N-obj) and (CONJ) exchanged (V-past) goods (N-obj) with (PREP) buyers (N).
Concrete action by identified agent in specific place
3.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Contrast this concrete sentence with political abstractions
∴ When persons exchange goods—visible action, visible agents
∴ When “the state provides”—spook hides persons with weapons
∴ E-Prime Max preserves concrete description perfectly
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice and liberty for all is the American ideal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.25a Certain persons in the area now called “America” teach that meeting expectations and acting without interference—for many persons—represents what they value and what they say others should pursue.
3.25b Certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Americans→persons.in.area]) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) area (N) now (ADV) called (V-past.PART) “America” (N-label) teach (V-pres) that (CONJ) meeting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→meeting.expectations]) expectations (N-obj) and (CONJ) acting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[liberty→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N)—for (PREP) many (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→many.persons])—represents (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) value (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) say (V-pres) others (N-subj) should∿pursue (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ideal→should.pursue]).
SPOOK: is → DISSOLUTION: represents → STRATEGY: E4
3.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Justice and liberty” = expectations-met and no-interference
∴ “For all” = for many persons (but which many? all?)
∴ “American ideal” = what certain persons in that area teach
∴ WHO defines these expectations? Whose “ideal” gets taught?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Political philosophy and jurisprudence analyze the foundation of legitimate authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.26a Certain persons who write about how armed persons should organize and certain persons who write about how written rules should apply—these writers examine why some persons’ commands supposedly count while others’ do not.
3.26b Certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[political.philosophy→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) how (ADV) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) should∿organize (V-modal) and (CONJ) certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[jurisprudence→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) how (ADV) written (ADJ) rules (N) should∿apply (V-modal)—these (PRON-dem) writers (N-subj) examine (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[analyze→examine]) why (ADV) some (DET) persons’ (N-poss) commands (N-subj) supposedly (ADV) count (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→commands.count]) while (CONJ) others’ (N-poss) do∿not (V-pres.NEG).
SPOOK: analyze → DISSOLUTION: examine → STRATEGY: simple substitution
3.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Academic disciplines dissolve to persons who write
∴ “Legitimate authority” = the puzzle of why some commands “count”
∴ These writers search for foundations—do foundations exist?
∴ Or do armed persons’ commands “count” because weapons exist?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights cannot be taken away because they are inalienable and natural.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.27a Certain writers claim that what persons may claim cannot disappear because these claims attach naturally to persons and cannot separate from them—yet persons with weapons take such claims away every day.
3.27b Certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.source]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) may∿claim (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→may.claim]) cannot∿disappear (V-modal.NEG) because (CONJ) these (PRON-dem) claims (N-subj) attach (V-pres) naturally (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[natural→naturally]) to (PREP) persons (N) and (CONJ) cannot∿separate (V-modal.NEG ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[inalienable→cannot.separate]) from (PREP) them (PRON-obj)—yet (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) take (V-pres) such (DET) claims (N-obj) away (ADV) every (DET) day (N).
SPOOK: are → DISSOLUTION: [restructured] → STRATEGY: clause restructuring
3.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Inalienable rights” = claims that supposedly cannot disappear
∴ Yet persons with weapons remove such claims daily
∴ The theory says “cannot”—reality says “do”
∴ WHO benefits from teaching that rights “cannot” disappear?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Without government and law, life would be nasty, brutish, and short.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.28a Thomas Hobbes claimed that without persons with weapons and written rules they enforce, persons would harm each other constantly and few would live long—and many persons have repeated this claim since.
3.28b Thomas (N-prop) Hobbes (N-prop ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin]) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) without (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→rules]) they (PRON-subj) enforce (V-pres), persons (N-subj) would∿harm (V-cond) each∿other (PRON-recip) constantly (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[nasty.brutish→harm.constantly]) and (CONJ) few (DET) would∿live (V-cond) long (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[short→few.live.long])—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) have∿repeated (V-pres.PERF) this (PRON-dem) claim (N-obj) since (ADV).
SPOOK: would be → DISSOLUTION: would harm... would live → STRATEGY: E7
3.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Hobbes made a claim—a claim many have repeated
∴ The claim: without armed enforcers, constant harm
∴ “And” connects: weapons AND rules; harm AND short life
∴ WHO benefits from the claim that we need armed enforcers?
∴ Do persons with weapons prevent harm, or also cause it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract gives legitimacy and authority to the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.29a The theory certain writers invented—that my ancestors and I agreed to obey—supposedly makes persons with weapons’ commands count and makes those persons’ violence acceptable.
3.29b The (DEF.ART) theory (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[social.contract→theory]) certain (ADJ) writers (N) invented (V-past)—that (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) ancestors (N-subj) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) agreed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[contract→agreed]) to∿obey (V-inf)—supposedly (ADV) makes (V-pres) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons]) with (PREP) weapons’ (N-poss) commands (N-subj) count (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→commands.count]) and (CONJ) makes (V-pres) those (PRON-dem) persons’ (N-poss) violence (N-obj) acceptable (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[legitimacy→acceptable]).
SPOOK: state → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
3.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Social contract” = a theory writers invented
∴ “Legitimacy and authority” = acceptance and counting
∴ The theory tries to make violence acceptable
∴ WHO invented this theory? WHO needs it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Civil society and the state exist in tension but mutual dependence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.30a Persons organizing without weapons and persons organizing with weapons—certain writers claim these groups both resist each other and need each other.
3.30b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[civil.society→persons.organizing]) organizing (V-pres.PART) without (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.organizing]) organizing (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) weapons (N)—certain (ADJ) writers (N-subj) claim (V-pres) these (PRON-dem) groups (N-subj) both (DET) resist (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tension→resist]) each∿other (PRON-recip) and (CONJ) need (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dependence→need]) each∿other (PRON-recip).
SPOOK: mutual dependence → DISSOLUTION: need each other → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
3.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Civil society and state” = persons with and without weapons
∴ “Tension and dependence” = resistance and need
∴ The dissolution reveals: some persons have weapons, others do not
∴ “And” connects both the groups AND their relationship
∴ WHO decides which persons get weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
3.16 “Certain writers imagined that I and many other persons around me at some point agreed to follow certain rules—though no person I know signed anything and no one asked me.”
3.17 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ may claim certain treatment and face certain demands—and persons with weapons enforce this according to written rules.”
3.18 “Certain persons with weapons and others who give them orders claim that their commands count because my ancestors and I supposedly agreed to obey.”
3.19 “Persons with weapons promise they will harm those who harm me and will provide certain services—and in return, they say, I accept that they may confine me if I act in ways they prohibit.”
3.20 “Periodically marking papers and selecting certain persons to speak for me—many persons around me and various writers claim this gives me influence over persons with weapons.”
3.21 “Written rules and persons with weapons who enforce them—certain writers claim these protect persons with few resources and persons with many resources equally.”
3.22 “What persons with weapons expect me to do politically and my compliance with their commands—certain writers call these ‘duties’ that attach to persons labeled ‘citizen.’”
3.23 “Certain writers claim that final decision-power belongs to many persons born in the same area and that persons with weapons act for those many persons.”
3.24 “The bread seller walked to the market and exchanged goods with buyers.”
3.25 “Certain persons in the area now called ‘America’ teach that meeting expectations and acting without interference—for many persons—represents what they value and what they say others should pursue.”
3.26 “Certain persons who write about how armed persons should organize and certain persons who write about how written rules should apply—these writers examine why some persons’ commands supposedly count while others’ do not.”
3.27 “Certain writers claim that what persons may claim cannot disappear because these claims attach naturally to persons and cannot separate from them—yet persons with weapons take such claims away every day.”
3.28 “Thomas Hobbes claimed that without persons with weapons and written rules they enforce, persons would harm each other constantly and few would live long—and many persons have repeated this claim since.”
3.29 “The theory certain writers invented—that my ancestors and I agreed to obey—supposedly makes persons with weapons’ commands count and makes those persons’ violence acceptable.”
3.30 “Persons organizing without weapons and persons organizing with weapons—certain writers claim these groups both resist each other and need each other.”
3.16 Certain writers imagined that I and many other persons around me at some point agreed to follow certain rules—though no person I know signed anything and no one asked me.
3.17 Persons whom officials label “citizens” may claim certain treatment and face certain demands—and persons with weapons enforce this according to written rules.
3.18 Certain persons with weapons and others who give them orders claim that their commands count because my ancestors and I supposedly agreed to obey.
3.19 Persons with weapons promise they will harm those who harm me and will provide certain services—and in return, they say, I accept that they may confine me if I act in ways they prohibit.
3.20 Periodically marking papers and selecting certain persons to speak for me—many persons around me and various writers claim this gives me influence over persons with weapons.
3.21 Written rules and persons with weapons who enforce them—certain writers claim these protect persons with few resources and persons with many resources equally.
3.22 What persons with weapons expect me to do politically and my compliance with their commands—certain writers call these “duties” that attach to persons labeled “citizen.”
3.23 Certain writers claim that final decision-power belongs to many persons born in the same area and that persons with weapons act for those many persons.
3.24 The bread seller walked to the market and exchanged goods with buyers.
3.25 Certain persons in the area now called “America” teach that meeting expectations and acting without interference—for many persons—represents what they value and what they say others should pursue.
3.26 Certain persons who write about how armed persons should organize and certain persons who write about how written rules should apply—these writers examine why some persons’ commands supposedly count while others’ do not.
3.27 Certain writers claim that what persons may claim cannot disappear because these claims attach naturally to persons and cannot separate from them—yet persons with weapons take such claims away every day.
3.28 Thomas Hobbes claimed that without persons with weapons and written rules they enforce, persons would harm each other constantly and few would live long—and many persons have repeated this claim since.
3.29 The theory certain writers invented—that my ancestors and I agreed to obey—supposedly makes persons with weapons’ commands count and makes those persons’ violence acceptable.
3.30 Persons organizing without weapons and persons organizing with weapons—certain writers claim these groups both resist each other and need each other.
Political Philosophy as Spook Factory
The genre section dissolved political philosophy terminology systematically. Notice the recurring patterns:
“State” always dissolves to: persons with weapons, persons organizing with weapons, armed persons
“Society” always dissolves to: many persons around me, persons organizing without weapons
“Law” always dissolves to: written rules, written rules enforced by persons with weapons
“Rights” always dissolves to: what persons may claim, claims persons make
“Duties” always dissolves to: what persons expect of me, demands persons impose
“Authority/Legitimacy” always dissolves to: commands supposedly counting, violence supposedly acceptable
“Social Contract” always dissolves to: theory certain writers invented, imagined agreement
Theory and reality (claims cannot disappear AND yet they do)
The dissolution of political philosophy reveals that the entire field functions as spook-production. Writers invented concepts (”social contract,” “sovereignty,” “legitimacy”) that now haunt millions, commanding obedience to persons with weapons through the magic of abstraction.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform the following sentences. Use “and” to connect dissolved elements.
Exercise 1:
Standard: “Justice and mercy are the hallmarks of a civilized society.”
E-Prime Max: Meeting expectations and refraining from punishment—certain persons call these the signs that many persons around them coordinate well.
civilized society → many persons coordinating well (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Exercise 2:
Standard: “Faith and reason are both paths to truth.”
E-Prime Max: Believing claims without verification and checking claims against observation—certain persons teach that both lead to what matches across observations.
are paths → lead to (E4)
Exercise 3:
Standard: “Patriotism and loyalty are virtues.”
E-Prime Max: Expressing approval for persons with weapons who share my birth-location and continuing to express such approval—certain persons label these “virtues” and teach others to practice them.
are virtues → certain persons label these “virtues” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Exercise 4:
Standard: “The church and the state must remain separate.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who teach about invented beings and persons with weapons—many persons around me say these groups should not give each other orders.
must remain separate → many say should not give each other orders (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Exercise 5:
Standard: “Peace and prosperity are what every nation desires.”
E-Prime Max: Persons refraining from harming each other and many persons having access to resources—certain persons claim that many persons sharing the same birth-location want these.
are what → [restructured to avoid “to be”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max Language Course developed by the Latinum Institute, building on the Institute’s methodology for autodidact language acquisition developed since 2006.
The Latinum Institute specializes in creating self-study materials that enable independent learners to acquire languages through systematic exposure to construed texts. The interlinear format—showing each word glossed beneath its original—allows learners to internalize grammatical patterns through direct engagement with authentic constructions.
E-Prime Max represents a synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s critique of “spooks” (fixed ideas). The combination creates a powerful tool for consciousness liberation through linguistic practice. By eliminating both “to be” predications AND reified abstractions, E-Prime Max reveals the persons and actions hidden beneath conceptual abstractions.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The construed text methodology has proven effective across many languages—Latin, Greek, German, Russian, and others. E-Prime Max applies the same technique to English itself, treating Standard English as a “foreign language” full of hidden assumptions that require unpacking through systematic dissolution.
✦ FINAL WARNING ✦
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 3: AND
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson focuses on the indefinite article “a” and demonstrates how this small word often introduces spooks into our thinking.
The indefinite article “a” (and its variant “an” before vowel sounds) introduces singular, non-specific nouns. In E-Prime Max practice, we pay special attention to what “a” introduces—concrete objects require no dissolution, but abstract categories often mask labeling acts by specific persons.
Philosophy: This synthesis draws from D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (1965), Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933), and Max Stirner’s critique of “spooks” in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844).
Common spooks introduced by “a”: a right, a duty, a crime, a citizen, a society, a law, a virtue, a sin, a nation.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
A Note on This Discipline
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
How “a” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The indefinite article itself poses no E-Prime challenge—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “a” frequently introduces spook-nouns that require dissolution.
Common spooks to watch for with “a”: Abstract categories (a right, a duty), political labels (a citizen, a criminal), moral classifications (a virtue, a sin), and collective references (a society, a nation).
Recommended dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) works especially well with “a” since the indefinite article often introduces category-labels. D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) dissolves the agents hidden behind abstract nouns.
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The labeling acts of specific persons. “A criminal” dissolves to reveal persons with weapons who attach that label to other persons. “A right” dissolves to reveal agreements among persons about what they will refrain from doing.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
Spook Categories
CATEGORY A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
CATEGORY B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
CATEGORY C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
CATEGORY D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
CATEGORY E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
The test for spook status: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?” If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — PERSONALIZATION: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting. “Society demands” → “Certain persons around me express displeasure when...”
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — OPERATIONALIZATION: Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences they mask. “Freedom matters” → “Acting without interference from others matters”
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — GENEALOGICAL EXPOSURE: Trace the spook back to who created it and why. “God commands” → “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented commands”
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — OWNERSHIP ATTRIBUTION: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership. “Fear prevented me” → “My body contracted and I refrained”
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — LABEL EXPOSURE: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons. “Criminals deserve punishment” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘criminal’ get confined by persons with weapons”
The Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A cat sits on a mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.1a A cat sits on a mat.
4.1b A (INDEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
4.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none] → DISSOLUTION: [none required] → STRATEGY: [N/A]
4.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Concrete nouns (cat, mat) require no dissolution ∴ The indefinite article introduces physical objects here
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I saw a bird in a tree.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.2a I saw a bird in a tree.
4.2b I (PRON-subj) saw (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) bird (N-obj) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) tree (N-obj).
4.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none] → DISSOLUTION: [none required] → STRATEGY: [N/A]
4.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ Perception verb “saw” already E-Prime compliant ∴ Concrete nouns need no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She bought a book at a store.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.3a She bought a book at a store.
4.3b She (PRON-subj) bought (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) book (N-obj) at (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) store (N-obj).
4.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none] → DISSOLUTION: [none required] → STRATEGY: [N/A]
4.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Physical objects and locations require no dissolution ∴ “A” introduces concrete referents without hidden agency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He ate a piece of bread.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.4a He ate a piece of bread.
4.4b He (PRON-subj) ate (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) piece (N-obj) of (PREP) bread (N).
4.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none] → DISSOLUTION: [none required] → STRATEGY: [N/A]
4.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Physical sustenance requires no dissolution ∴ Simple E-Prime compliant sentence
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They found a house near a river.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.5a They found a house near a river.
4.5b They (PRON-subj) found (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) house (N-obj) near (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) river (N-obj).
4.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none] → DISSOLUTION: [none required] → STRATEGY: [N/A]
4.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Geographical and architectural referents need no dissolution ∴ “A” performs its basic function of introducing non-specific physical entities
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A citizen has a duty to obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.6a A person whom officials label “citizen” faces expectations from those officials—and persons with weapons will harm that person if they act contrary to certain written rules.
4.6b A (INDEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizen→person.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the law→persons.with.titles]) label (V-pres) “citizen” (N-label) faces (V-pres) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[duty→expectations]) from (PREP) those (DET) officials (N)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law enforcement→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punish→harm]) that (DET) person (N-obj) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) contrary (ADV) to (PREP) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]).
4.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: citizen → DISSOLUTION: person whom officials label “citizen” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: duty → DISSOLUTION: expectations from officials → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: certain written rules enforced by persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: obey → DISSOLUTION: act according to → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
4.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “citizen” exists as natural category → only persons whom officials label ∴ No “duty” exists anywhere → only expectations backed by threat ∴ No “law” commands → only written words and persons with weapons ∴ WHO benefits from the label “citizen”? WHO wrote these “duties”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A crime deserves a punishment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.7a When certain persons label an action a “crime,” other persons with weapons and cages will inflict pain or confinement—and many persons around me expect this and call it a fitting response.
4.7b When (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[lawmakers→persons]) label (V-pres) an (INDEF.ART) action (N-obj) a (INDEF.ART) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→labeled.action]), other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice system→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) cages (N) will∿inflict (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→inflict.pain]) pain (N) or (CONJ) confinement (N)—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) and (CONJ) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) a (INDEF.ART) fitting (ADJ) response (N).
4.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: crime → DISSOLUTION: action that certain persons label “crime” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: deserves → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot deserve] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: punishment → DISSOLUTION: pain or confinement inflicted by persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
4.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “crime” exists in nature → only labels attached by persons ∴ Nothing “deserves” anything → only persons expect and enact ∴ “A punishment” dissolves to reveal concrete pain and caging ∴ WHO decides what counts as “a crime”? WHO benefits from this labeling?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Every person has a right to freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.8a Certain persons have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with other persons acting as they choose—and many persons around me treat these written words as a promise and expect others to honor it.
4.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights-writers→persons]) have∿written (V-perf) documents (N-obj) stating (V-pres.PART) they (PRON-subj) will∿refrain (V-fut) from (PREP) interfering (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[denying freedom→interfering]) with (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) acting (V-pres.PART) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres)—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) treat (V-pres) these (DET) written (ADJ) words (N-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) promise (N) and (CONJ) expect (V-pres) others (PRON-obj) to∿honor (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
4.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: right → DISSOLUTION: written documents stating persons will refrain → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: acting as one chooses without interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: has [a right] → DISSOLUTION: certain persons have written → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
4.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “right” floats in the universe → only written promises by persons ∴ No “freedom” exists as substance → only persons acting without interference ∴ “A right” dissolves to reveal its genealogy: persons wrote it, persons enforce it ∴ WHO wrote these “rights”? For whose benefit?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She became a doctor after years of study.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.9a After years of study, certain persons granted her a credential, and now other persons call her “doctor” and bring her their injured bodies.
4.9b After (PREP) years (N) of (PREP) study (N), certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[licensing board→persons]) granted (V-past) her (PRON-obj) a (INDEF.ART) credential (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[becoming a doctor→receiving credential]), and (CONJ) now (ADV) other (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) “doctor” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[doctor→label.granted]) and (CONJ) bring (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) their (PRON-poss) injured (ADJ) bodies (N-obj).
4.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: became [identity transformation] → DISSOLUTION: received credential, others now call her → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
FORM: [implied “is a doctor”] → DISSOLUTION: persons call her “doctor” → STRATEGY: E5 (Classification)
4.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No one “becomes” a category → persons receive labels from other persons ∴ “A doctor” reveals a credentialing process by specific persons ∴ The label functions; the person acts; but no essence transforms ∴ WHO grants these labels? WHO benefits from the credentialing system?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A society needs a government to function.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.10a Many persons living near each other coordinate their actions—and some persons among them claim the title “government” and use weapons to compel compliance, asserting that without them, coordination would fail.
4.10b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) living (V-pres.PART) near (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) coordinate (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[function→coordinate]) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj)—and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→some.persons]) among (PREP) them (PRON-obj) claim (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) title (N-obj) “government” (N-label) and (CONJ) use (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) to∿compel (V-inf) compliance (N-obj), asserting (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) without (PREP) them (PRON-obj), coordination (N-subj) would∿fail (V-cond).
4.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society → DISSOLUTION: many persons living near each other → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: government → DISSOLUTION: some persons who claim that title and use weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: needs → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot need] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: function → DISSOLUTION: coordinate actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
4.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to need anything → only persons exist ∴ No “government” exists as entity → only persons with weapons and titles ∴ The claim “society needs government” comes from persons who benefit from that claim ∴ WHO asserts this need? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He committed a sin and felt a profound guilt.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.11a He acted in a way that persons who taught him called “sin,” and afterward his body contracted, his thoughts circled, and he felt discomfort when remembering—sensations he labeled a “profound guilt.”
4.11b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) way (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[sin→persons.who.taught]) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) him (PRON-obj) called (V-past) “sin” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sin→label.from.teachers]), and (CONJ) afterward (ADV) his (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracted (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→body.sensation]), his (PRON-poss) thoughts (N-subj) circled (V-past), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ) remembering (V-pres.PART)—sensations (N-obj) he (PRON-subj) labeled (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) “profound (ADJ) guilt” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[guilt→labeled.sensation]).
4.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: sin → DISSOLUTION: action that certain persons called “sin” → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: guilt (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: body sensations and circling thoughts → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: committed [a sin] → DISSOLUTION: acted in a way labeled → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
4.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “sin” exists in nature → only labels taught by persons ∴ No “guilt” possesses him → only bodily sensations he experiences ∴ The genealogy: persons taught him to label certain actions “sin” and certain sensations “guilt” ∴ WHO benefits from teaching these labels? WHO defined “a sin”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A nation must defend its honor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.12a Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves “a nation’s defenders,” will kill or cage other persons when they judge that others have acted disrespectfully toward symbols those persons value—and they call this defending “honor.”
4.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N), calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “a (INDEF.ART) nation’s (N-poss ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→group.of.persons]) defenders” (N-label), will∿kill (V-fut) or (CONJ) cage (V-fut) other (DET) persons (N-obj) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) judge (V-pres) that (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) have∿acted (V-perf) disrespectfully (ADV) toward (PREP) symbols (N-obj) those (DET) persons (N-subj) value (V-pres)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) defending (V-pres.PART) “honor” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[honor→label.for.approval]).
4.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: nation → DISSOLUTION: certain persons with weapons calling themselves X → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: must → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—no abstract obligation exists] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: honor → DISSOLUTION: approval-label for certain behaviors → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: defend → DISSOLUTION: kill or cage other persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
4.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” exists to have honor → only persons exist ∴ No “honor” floats in space requiring defense → only persons with expectations ∴ “Must” dissolves entirely—no cosmic obligation compels anyone ∴ WHO benefits when persons kill for “a nation’s honor”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth demands a hearing.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.13a When what I observe matches what others report, I call that a “truth”—and I may choose to give it a hearing, though nothing outside me demands this.
4.13b When (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) report (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) that (PRON-dem) a (INDEF.ART) “truth” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[truth→label.for.correspondence])—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) may∿choose (V-pres) to∿give (V-inf) it (PRON-obj) a (INDEF.ART) hearing (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hearing→attention]), though (CONJ) nothing (PRON-subj) outside (PREP) me (PRON-obj) demands (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Truth demands→nothing.demands]) this (PRON-dem).
4.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Truth (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: correspondence between observation and report, which I label → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—no abstraction demands] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
4.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Truth” exists as cosmic agent → only observations and reports I compare ∴ “A truth” becomes a label I attach to correspondence ∴ Nothing “demands”—I choose to attend or not ∴ WHO benefits from claiming “Truth demands”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love is a virtue that ennobles the soul.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.14a When I act with tenderness toward another person, I call that acting “with love”—and some persons taught me to label such acting a “virtue” and to feel a warm expansion in my chest, which I learned to call “ennoblement.”
4.14b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness]) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) that (PRON-dem) acting (V-pres.PART) “with∿love” (N-label)—and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[virtue→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿label (V-inf) such (DET) acting (N-obj) a (INDEF.ART) “virtue” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[virtue→label.from.teachers]) and (CONJ) to∿feel (V-inf) a (INDEF.ART) warm (ADJ) expansion (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[soul→chest.sensation]) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) chest (N), which (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) to∿call (V-inf) “ennoblement” (N-label).
4.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: [converted to action: when I act... I call] → STRATEGY: E4 (Relational)
SPOOK: Love (as substance) → DISSOLUTION: acting with tenderness → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: virtue → DISSOLUTION: label taught by persons → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: soul → DISSOLUTION: chest sensation → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: ennobles → DISSOLUTION: warm expansion I learned to label → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
4.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Love” exists as cosmic virtue → only persons acting tenderly ∴ No “virtue” floats in space → only labels persons taught me ∴ No “soul” exists to ennoble → only bodily sensations I experience ∴ WHO taught me these labels? What did they gain?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “A free society protects individual rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.15a Many persons living near each other have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with each other in certain ways—and they describe this arrangement as “a free arrangement” and the written statements as “rights.”
4.15b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) living (V-pres.PART) near (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) have∿written (V-perf) documents (N-obj) stating (V-pres.PART) they (PRON-subj) will∿refrain (V-fut) from (PREP) interfering (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→refrain.from.interfering]) with (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) describe (V-pres) this (DET) arrangement (N-obj) as (PREP) “a (INDEF.ART) free (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→without.interference]) arrangement” (N-label) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) written (ADJ) statements (N-obj) as (PREP) “rights” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[rights→written.statements]).
4.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: free society → DISSOLUTION: persons who refrain from interfering with each other → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: protects → DISSOLUTION: refrain from interfering → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: individual → DISSOLUTION: each person → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: written statements about refraining → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
4.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “free society” exists as entity → only persons and their arrangements ∴ No “rights” exist as cosmic protections → only written words and persons who honor or ignore them ∴ “A free society” dissolves to reveal: persons made agreements; persons enforce or break them ∴ WHO wrote these “rights”? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits when they invoke “a free society”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
4.1 “A cat sits on a mat.”
[Standard English: “A cat is on a mat.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (Existence verb: is → sits)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns]
4.2 “I saw a bird in a tree.”
[Standard English: Same—already E-Prime compliant]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns]
4.3 “She bought a book at a store.”
[Standard English: Same—already E-Prime compliant]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns]
4.4 “He ate a piece of bread.”
[Standard English: Same—already E-Prime compliant]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns]
4.5 “They found a house near a river.”
[Standard English: Same—already E-Prime compliant]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns]
4.6 “A person whom officials label ‘citizen’ faces expectations from those officials—and persons with weapons will harm that person if they act contrary to certain written rules.”
[Standard English: “A citizen has a duty to obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → person labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (duty → expectations), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → written rules enforced by persons)]
4.7 “When certain persons label an action a ‘crime,’ other persons with weapons and cages will inflict pain or confinement—and many persons around me expect this and call it a fitting response.”
[Standard English: “A crime deserves a punishment.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crime → labeled action), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punishment → pain/confinement), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (deserves → persons expect)]
4.8 “Certain persons have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with other persons acting as they choose—and many persons around me treat these written words as a promise and expect others to honor it.”
[Standard English: “Every person has a right to freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (right → written documents by persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
4.9 “After years of study, certain persons granted her a credential, and now other persons call her ‘doctor’ and bring her their injured bodies.”
[Standard English: “She became a doctor after years of study.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E5 (Classification: became → granted credential, others call her)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (doctor → credential and label granted by persons)]
4.10 “Many persons living near each other coordinate their actions—and some persons among them claim the title ‘government’ and use weapons to compel compliance, asserting that without them, coordination would fail.”
[Standard English: “A society needs a government to function.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → some persons with weapons and titles)]
4.11 “He acted in a way that persons who taught him called ‘sin,’ and afterward his body contracted, his thoughts circled, and he felt discomfort when remembering—sensations he labeled a ‘profound guilt.’”
[Standard English: “He committed a sin and felt a profound guilt.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (sin → label from teachers), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (guilt → bodily sensations)]
4.12 “Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves ‘a nation’s defenders,’ will kill or cage other persons when they judge that others have acted disrespectfully toward symbols those persons value—and they call this defending ‘honor.’”
[Standard English: “A nation must defend its honor.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (honor → approval-label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (defend → kill or cage)]
4.13 “When what I observe matches what others report, I call that a ‘truth’—and I may choose to give it a hearing, though nothing outside me demands this.”
[Standard English: “Truth demands a hearing.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Truth → correspondence I label), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (demands → nothing demands, I choose)]
4.14 “When I act with tenderness toward another person, I call that acting ‘with love’—and some persons taught me to label such acting a ‘virtue’ and to feel a warm expansion in my chest, which I learned to call ‘ennoblement.’”
[Standard English: “Love is a virtue that ennobles the soul.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (Relational: Love is → when I act... I call)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting with tenderness), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (virtue → label from teachers), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (soul → chest sensation)]
4.15 “Many persons living near each other have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with each other in certain ways—and they describe this arrangement as ‘a free arrangement’ and the written statements as ‘rights.’”
[Standard English: “A free society protects individual rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (free → without interference), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (rights → written statements)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
4.1 A cat sits on a mat.
4.2 I saw a bird in a tree.
4.3 She bought a book at a store.
4.4 He ate a piece of bread.
4.5 They found a house near a river.
4.6 A person whom officials label “citizen” faces expectations from those officials—and persons with weapons will harm that person if they act contrary to certain written rules.
4.7 When certain persons label an action a “crime,” other persons with weapons and cages will inflict pain or confinement—and many persons around me expect this and call it a fitting response.
4.8 Certain persons have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with other persons acting as they choose—and many persons around me treat these written words as a promise and expect others to honor it.
4.9 After years of study, certain persons granted her a credential, and now other persons call her “doctor” and bring her their injured bodies.
4.10 Many persons living near each other coordinate their actions—and some persons among them claim the title “government” and use weapons to compel compliance, asserting that without them, coordination would fail.
4.11 He acted in a way that persons who taught him called “sin,” and afterward his body contracted, his thoughts circled, and he felt discomfort when remembering—sensations he labeled a “profound guilt.”
4.12 Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves “a nation’s defenders,” will kill or cage other persons when they judge that others have acted disrespectfully toward symbols those persons value—and they call this defending “honor.”
4.13 When what I observe matches what others report, I call that a “truth”—and I may choose to give it a hearing, though nothing outside me demands this.
4.14 When I act with tenderness toward another person, I call that acting “with love”—and some persons taught me to label such acting a “virtue” and to feel a warm expansion in my chest, which I learned to call “ennoblement.”
4.15 Many persons living near each other have written documents stating they will refrain from interfering with each other in certain ways—and they describe this arrangement as “a free arrangement” and the written statements as “rights.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “a” in E-Prime Max:
1. Standard English Function
The indefinite article “a” (and its variant “an” before vowel sounds) introduces singular, non-specific nouns. In traditional grammar, “a” signals that the speaker refers to any one member of a category rather than a specific, known entity.
Common constructions include introducing nouns for the first time (”I saw a bird”), classifying (”She became a doctor”), and making generalizations (”A dog needs exercise”).
2. E-Prime Considerations
The indefinite article itself contains no form of “to be” and poses no direct E-Prime challenge. However, “a” commonly appears in constructions that require E-Prime transformation.
E-Prime transformations often needed with “a”:
Classification statements: “X is a Y” requires transformation. “He is a doctor” becomes “He works as a doctor” or “Others call him ‘doctor’” (E4, E6).
Existence statements: “There is a...” requires transformation. “There is a cat on the mat” becomes “A cat sits on the mat” (E3).
Identity statements: “This is a...” requires transformation. “This is a problem” becomes “This presents a challenge” or “I find difficulty here” (E7).
3. Spook Proximity Analysis
The indefinite article “a” frequently introduces spook-nouns. Because “a” performs a classifying function—placing an entity into a category—it often brings in the reified categories that E-Prime Max targets.
High-spook-proximity phrases with “a”:
Political labels: a citizen, a criminal, a patriot, a traitor
Moral categories: a sin, a virtue, a duty, a right
Social roles: a leader, a servant, a master, a slave
Metaphysical claims: a truth, a soul, a purpose, a meaning
Dissolution strategies most applicable:
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) applies most frequently because “a” introduces category-labels. When someone says “a criminal,” D5 reveals: “a person whom other persons label ‘criminal.’”
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) applies when “a” introduces collective agents. “A society expects...” dissolves to “Many persons around me expect...”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure) applies when “a” introduces moral or metaphysical categories. “A sin” dissolves to reveal who defined it and why.
4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) with “a”:
“A society needs leaders” → “Many persons living near each other have decided that some among them should direct activities”
“A nation declares war” → “Certain persons with weapons and titles order other persons to kill”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) with “a”:
“She showed a kindness” → “She acted in a way that helped him and that I call kind”
“He made a sacrifice” → “He gave up something he valued”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure) with “a”:
“A sin stains the soul” → “Persons who wrote certain old books taught others to call some actions ‘sin’ and to feel bodily discomfort afterward”
“A right protects us” → “Certain persons wrote documents promising to refrain from certain actions”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution) with “a”:
“A fear gripped him” → “His body contracted and he felt a sensation he labeled ‘fear’”
“A hope sustained her” → “She imagined a future she preferred and felt warmth in her chest”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) with “a”:
“A criminal escaped” → “A person whom officials labeled ‘criminal’ left the cage”
“A hero emerged” → “A person whom others labeled ‘hero’ appeared”
5. Common Mistakes
Incomplete dissolution: Dissolving “a citizen” to “a member of society” still contains a spook (”society”). Complete dissolution: “a person whom officials in this region label ‘citizen.’”
Forgetting the labeler: “A crime occurred” dissolves incompletely to “a bad action occurred.” Complete dissolution reveals who labels it: “An action that persons with weapons will punish occurred.”
Treating “a” + concrete noun as requiring dissolution: “A cat sat on a mat” needs no spook dissolution. Concrete physical objects require no dissolution—only abstract categories and labels.
Hidden agency in passive constructions: “A law was passed” hides the agents. Even after E-Prime transformation (”Certain persons passed a law”), the spook “law” remains. Complete dissolution: “Certain persons wrote rules that other persons with weapons will enforce.”
6. The Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
When “a” introduces a category, apply the test:
“A citizen has duties” → Do I own this label, using it as convenient shorthand I can discard? Or does the label own me, making demands I feel compelled to obey?
“A sin requires repentance” → Do I use “sin” as a tool to describe actions I prefer to avoid? Or does “sin” possess me, filling me with compulsions and dreads that others programmed into me?
“A right protects me” → Do I understand that “rights” means “words certain persons wrote promising to refrain from certain actions”? Or do I believe cosmic “rights” exist that will protect me regardless of whether persons with weapons honor them?
The test: If I can dissolve the spook—see through it to the persons and actions beneath—and then choose whether to use the word as convenient shorthand, I own it. If the dissolution feels threatening, if I resist seeing through the word, if I feel compelled to honor the category—it owns me.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1. General Semantics Background
Alfred Korzybski observed that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality but do not constitute it. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by proposing E-Prime: eliminating “to be” reduces the dogmatic thinking that arises when we confuse our maps (concepts, categories, labels) with the territory (persons, actions, things).
The indefinite article “a” plays a central role in map-making. When we say “a bird,” we create a category. When we say “a criminal,” we classify a person. Korzybski warned that this classifying function, while useful, can mislead us into thinking our categories exist in the world rather than in our language.
2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner called reified concepts “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas.” These ghosts haunt the mind: we create them, then forget we created them, then serve them as if they commanded us from outside.
The indefinite article often introduces spooks. “A duty calls” presents duty as an agent. “A right protects” presents rights as cosmic forces. “A sin stains” presents sin as a substance.
Stirner’s insight: these words describe nothing but persons acting. “Duty” names expectations certain persons have and consequences they will impose. “Rights” name promises certain persons made. “Sin” names labels certain persons taught.
Ownness (Eigenheit): Stirner distinguished between serving spooks and owning one’s experience. The person who serves “duty” feels compelled by an external force. The person who owns their experience recognizes: “Certain persons expect things of me, and I choose whether to comply.”
3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication—the “X is Y” structure that presents categories as essences.
E-Prime Max attacks reification—the presentation of abstractions as agents that demand, require, forbid, or act.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
The indefinite article sits at the intersection. “A” creates categories (E-Prime concern) and often introduces those categories as agents (E-Prime Max concern). “A citizen must...” creates a category (citizen) and presents it as obligated to an abstraction (must).
4. What Dissolution Reveals
When we dissolve spooks introduced by “a,” we find:
Persons acting where “a society” seemed to act: No society does anything. Only persons cooperate, conflict, coordinate, or compel.
Labels where “a criminal” seemed to exist: No criminals exist in nature. Only persons exist, some of whom other persons label “criminal.”
Written words where “a right” seemed to protect: No rights float in the cosmos. Only documents exist that certain persons wrote and other persons honor or ignore.
Taught categories where “a sin” seemed to stain: No sins exist to stain souls. Only persons exist who taught other persons to feel discomfort about certain actions and to call that discomfort “guilt.”
5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone says “A true patriot supports the war,” dissolution reveals: “Persons who benefit from the war want you to feel that refusing support excludes you from a valued category they control.”
Resisting possession by concepts: When you feel compelled by “a duty,” dissolution reveals: “Certain persons expect this of me and will respond negatively if I refuse. I now choose whether their responses matter enough to me to comply.”
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Each time you dissolve a spook, you strengthen the habit of seeing through abstractions to persons and actions. Over time, spooks lose their grip. You own your categories rather than serving them.
6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
STIRNER ORIGINAL (Landstreicher translation):
“The divine is God’s concern; the human, man’s. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is—unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-A: Interlinear Construed Text with Dissolution Apparatus
The (DEF.ART) concerns (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[divine→what.certain.persons.call.divine]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “divine” (N-label)—those (PRON-dem) concern (V-pres) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) occupy (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “God” (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God→concept.persons.created]); the (DEF.ART) concerns (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “human” (N-label)—those (PRON-dem) concern (V-pres) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) occupy (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “humanity” (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→spook]).
My (PRON-poss) concern (N-subj) involves (V-pres) neither (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “divine” (N-label) nor (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “human” (N-label)—not (ADV) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “true” (ADJ-label), “good” (ADJ-label), “just” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[just→label]), “free” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[free→label])—but (CONJ) solely (ADV) what (PRON-rel) belongs (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
And (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) does∿not∿function (V-pres.NEG) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) “general (ADJ) concern” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[general→category.that.does.not.bind.me])—it (PRON-subj) functions (V-pres) as (PREP) unique (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[unique→unrepeatable]), as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) function (V-pres) as (PREP) unique (ADJ).
Nothing (PRON-subj) matters (V-pres) more (ADV-deg) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) than (CONJ) myself (PRON-refl)!
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-B: E-Prime Max with Natural Translation
“The concerns that certain persons call ‘divine’—those concern persons who occupy themselves with what they call ‘God’; the concerns that certain persons call ‘human’—those concern persons who occupy themselves with what they call ‘humanity.’ My concern involves neither what persons call ‘divine’ nor what they call ‘human’—not what they label ‘true,’ ‘good,’ ‘just,’ ‘free’—but solely what belongs to me. And it does not function as a ‘general concern’—it functions as unique, as I function as unique. Nothing matters more to me than myself!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-C: E-Prime Max Text Only
The concerns that certain persons call “divine”—those concern persons who occupy themselves with what they call “God”; the concerns that certain persons call “human”—those concern persons who occupy themselves with what they call “humanity.” My concern involves neither what persons call “divine” nor what they call “human”—not what they label “true,” “good,” “just,” “free”—but solely what belongs to me. And it does not function as a “general concern”—it functions as unique, as I function as unique. Nothing matters more to me than myself!
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-D: Dissolution Notes
This passage from the opening of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum required the following transformations:
FORM: “is God’s concern” → DISSOLUTION: “concern persons who occupy themselves with what they call ‘God’” → STRATEGY: E4 (Relational) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: divine, human → DISSOLUTION: what certain persons call “divine/human” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: God → DISSOLUTION: what persons call “God” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: the true, good, just, free → DISSOLUTION: what persons label → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
FORM: “is not a general one” → DISSOLUTION: “does not function as a ‘general concern’” → STRATEGY: E4 (Relational)
FORM: “is—unique, as I am unique” → DISSOLUTION: “functions as unique, as I function as unique” → STRATEGY: E4 (Relational)
F-E: Commentary
Even Stirner’s own prose required transformation. His text uses “is” throughout and presents “the divine,” “the human,” “the true” as if these categories existed. The E-Prime Max transformation reveals what Stirner meant more clearly: these “concerns” exist only insofar as persons occupy themselves with them. They have no independent existence demanding allegiance.
The indefinite article appears crucially: Stirner says his concern “is not a general one.” In E-Prime Max: “does not function as a ‘general concern.’” The transformation reveals that “a general concern” names a category that other persons created—a spook that Stirner refuses to serve.
The final line—”Nothing matters more to me than myself!”—needed no transformation. It already expresses first-person ownership without abstractions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following fifteen examples form a coherent narrative: a person reflecting on their day and dissolving the spooks that typically possess modern life.
Part A: Interlinear Construed Text
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.16a I woke this morning and remembered: I work for a company, which means certain persons pay me money in exchange for my actions.
4.16b I (PRON-subj) woke (V-past) this (DET) morning (N-time) and (CONJ) remembered (V-past): I (PRON-subj) work (V-pres) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) company (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[company→certain.persons]), which (PRON-rel) means (V-pres) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) pay (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) money (N-obj) in∿exchange (PREP) for (PREP) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.17a Some persons call me a “good employee”—this means they observe that I act in ways they prefer and that benefit them.
4.17b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) a (INDEF.ART) “good (ADJ-label) employee” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[good employee→label.for.preferred.actions])—this (PRON-dem) means (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres) and (CONJ) that (CONJ) benefit (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.18a On my way to work, I saw a police officer—a person wearing a certain uniform who carries weapons and has permission from other persons with titles to use those weapons.
4.18b On (PREP) my (PRON-poss) way (N) to (PREP) work (N), I (PRON-subj) saw (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) police∿officer (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[police officer→person.with.uniform.and.weapons])—a (INDEF.ART) person (N) wearing (V-pres.PART) a (INDEF.ART) certain (ADJ) uniform (N) who (PRON-rel) carries (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) has (V-pres) permission (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[permission→other.persons.allow]) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N) with (PREP) titles (N) to∿use (V-inf) those (DET) weapons (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.19a I felt a twinge of nervousness—my body contracted slightly, my pulse quickened—though I had acted according to all the written rules persons with weapons enforce.
4.19b I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) twinge (N-obj) of (PREP) nervousness (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[nervousness→body.sensation])—my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracted (V-past) slightly (ADV), my (PRON-poss) pulse (N-subj) quickened (V-past)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) had∿acted (V-past.PERF) according (PREP) to (PREP) all (DET) the (DEF.ART) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[laws→written.rules]) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.20a At work, my supervisor gave me a task: produce a report that would convince certain persons with money to give some of that money to our organization.
4.20b At (PREP) work (N), my (PRON-poss) supervisor (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[supervisor→person.with.that.label]) gave (V-past) me (PRON-obj) a (INDEF.ART) task (N-obj): produce (V-inf) a (INDEF.ART) report (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) would∿convince (V-cond) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[investors→persons.with.money]) with (PREP) money (N) to∿give (V-inf) some (DET) of (PREP) that (DET) money (N-obj) to (PREP) our (PRON-poss) organization (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[organization→group.of.persons]).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.21a I felt a resistance—my body felt heavy, my thoughts drifted—because I doubted that the report would describe things as I actually observed them.
4.21b I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) resistance (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[resistance→body.sensation])—my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) heavy (ADJ), my (PRON-poss) thoughts (N-subj) drifted (V-past)—because (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) doubted (V-past) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) report (N-subj) would∿describe (V-cond) things (N-obj) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) actually (ADV) observed (V-past) them (PRON-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.22a Some persons might call this a “moral dilemma”—but I simply faced a choice: write words I doubted, or refuse and face consequences from persons who could withhold money from me.
4.22b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) might∿call (V-cond) this (PRON-dem) a (INDEF.ART) “moral (ADJ-label) dilemma” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[moral dilemma→label])—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) simply (ADV) faced (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) choice (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dilemma→choice]): write (V-inf) words (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) doubted (V-past), or (CONJ) refuse (V-inf) and (CONJ) face (V-inf) consequences (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[consequences→persons.acting]) who (PRON-rel) could∿withhold (V-cond) money (N-obj) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.23a I wrote the report—not because “duty required it” or because “a professional fulfills obligations”—but because I chose the money over the discomfort of describing things differently than I observed.
4.23b I (PRON-subj) wrote (V-past) the (DEF.ART) report (N-obj)—not (ADV) because (CONJ) “duty (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→spook]) required (V-past)” it (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) because (CONJ) “a (INDEF.ART) professional (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[professional→label]) fulfills (V-pres) obligations (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[obligations→expectations])”—but (CONJ) because (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) chose (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[I.chose]) the (DEF.ART) money (N-obj) over (PREP) the (DEF.ART) discomfort (N-obj) of (PREP) describing (V-pres.PART) things (N-obj) differently (ADV) than (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observed (V-past).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.24a At lunch, a colleague spoke of “the economy”—but I heard her describing how certain persons make decisions that affect how many pieces of paper with “money” written on them reach other persons.
4.24b At (PREP) lunch (N), a (INDEF.ART) colleague (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[colleague→person.I.work.with]) spoke (V-past) of (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) economy” (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→spook])—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) heard (V-past.PERCEPT) her (PRON-obj) describing (V-pres.PART) how (ADV) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.deciding]) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) affect (V-pres) how (ADV) many (DET) pieces (N-obj) of (PREP) paper (N) with (PREP) “money” (N-label) written (V-past.PART) on (PREP) them (PRON-obj) reach (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.25a She complained that “the government” had failed to help “the people”—I translated: certain persons with titles did not act in ways that would have benefited many persons without titles.
4.25b She (PRON-subj) complained (V-past) that (CONJ) “the (DEF.ART) government” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.titles]) had∿failed (V-past.PERF) to∿help (V-inf) “the (DEF.ART) people” (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the people→many.persons])—I (PRON-subj) translated (V-past): certain (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) titles (N) did∿not∿act (V-past.NEG) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) would∿have∿benefited (V-cond.PERF) many (DET) persons (N-obj) without (PREP) titles (N).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.26a After work, I saw a advertisement claiming that buying a certain product would bring me “happiness”—meaning that the persons who made the advertisement hoped I would give them money.
4.26b After (PREP) work (N), I (PRON-subj) saw (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) advertisement (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[advertisement→message.from.persons]) claiming (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) buying (V-pres.PART) a (INDEF.ART) certain (ADJ) product (N-obj) would∿bring (V-cond) me (PRON-obj) “happiness” (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[happiness→pleasant.sensations])—meaning (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[advertisement→persons.who.made.it]) who (PRON-rel) made (V-past) the (DEF.ART) advertisement (N-obj) hoped (V-past) I (PRON-subj) would∿give (V-cond) them (PRON-obj) money (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.27a I passed a church where a sign read “God Loves You”—I translated: certain persons who gather here believe that a being they learned about from old books cares about you, and they want you to join them.
4.27b I (PRON-subj) passed (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) church (N-obj) where (ADV-place) a (INDEF.ART) sign (N-subj) read (V-past) “God (N-label ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.from.old.books]) Loves (V-pres) You” (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) translated (V-past): certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[church→persons.who.gather]) who (PRON-rel) gather (V-pres) here (ADV-place) believe (V-pres) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.persons.learned.about]) they (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) about (PREP) from (PREP) old (ADJ) books (N) cares (V-pres) about (PREP) you (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿join (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.28a At home, I read a news article about “justice” finally arriving in a court case—I understood: certain persons with the title “judge” made a decision that the persons who wrote the article preferred.
4.28b At (PREP) home (N), I (PRON-subj) read (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) news (ADJ) article (N-obj) about (PREP) “justice” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→spook]) finally (ADV) arriving (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) court (N) case (N)—I (PRON-subj) understood (V-past): certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.with.title]) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) title (N) “judge” (N-label) made (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) decision (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[article→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) the (DEF.ART) article (N-obj) preferred (V-past).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.29a Before sleep, I felt a familiar weight—what I might have once called “existential dread”—but now I recognized it as bodily sensations arising from uncertainty about tomorrow.
4.29b Before (PREP) sleep (N), I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) familiar (ADJ) weight (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[weight→bodily.sensation])—what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) might∿have∿once∿called (V-cond.PERF) “existential (ADJ-label) dread” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[existential dread→label])—but (CONJ) now (ADV) I (PRON-subj) recognized (V-past) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) bodily (ADJ) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[dread→sensations]) arising (V-pres.PART) from (PREP) uncertainty (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[uncertainty→not.knowing]) about (PREP) tomorrow (N-time).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
4.30a I chose to sleep rather than worry—not because “wisdom advises rest” but because I, in this unrepeatable moment, preferred bodily ease to anxious rumination. I dissolved a day’s worth of spooks and found only myself remaining.
4.30b I (PRON-subj) chose (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[I.chose]) to∿sleep (V-inf) rather∿than (CONJ) worry (V-inf)—not (ADV) because (CONJ) “wisdom (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wisdom→spook]) advises (V-pres)” rest (N-obj) but (CONJ) because (CONJ) I (PRON-subj), in (PREP) this (DET) unrepeatable (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[unique→unrepeatable]) moment (N), preferred (V-past) bodily (ADJ) ease (N-obj) to (PREP) anxious (ADJ) rumination (N-obj). I (PRON-subj) dissolved (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) day’s (N-poss) worth (N) of (PREP) spooks (N-obj) and (CONJ) found (V-past) only (ADV) myself (PRON-refl) remaining (V-pres.PART).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Part B: Natural Sentences
4.16 “I woke this morning and remembered: I work for a company, which means certain persons pay me money in exchange for my actions.”
4.17 “Some persons call me a ‘good employee’—this means they observe that I act in ways they prefer and that benefit them.”
4.18 “On my way to work, I saw a police officer—a person wearing a certain uniform who carries weapons and has permission from other persons with titles to use those weapons.”
4.19 “I felt a twinge of nervousness—my body contracted slightly, my pulse quickened—though I had acted according to all the written rules persons with weapons enforce.”
4.20 “At work, my supervisor gave me a task: produce a report that would convince certain persons with money to give some of that money to our organization.”
4.21 “I felt a resistance—my body felt heavy, my thoughts drifted—because I doubted that the report would describe things as I actually observed them.”
4.22 “Some persons might call this a ‘moral dilemma’—but I simply faced a choice: write words I doubted, or refuse and face consequences from persons who could withhold money from me.”
4.23 “I wrote the report—not because ‘duty required it’ or because ‘a professional fulfills obligations’—but because I chose the money over the discomfort of describing things differently than I observed.”
4.24 “At lunch, a colleague spoke of ‘the economy’—but I heard her describing how certain persons make decisions that affect how many pieces of paper with ‘money’ written on them reach other persons.”
4.25 “She complained that ‘the government’ had failed to help ‘the people’—I translated: certain persons with titles did not act in ways that would have benefited many persons without titles.”
4.26 “After work, I saw a advertisement claiming that buying a certain product would bring me ‘happiness’—meaning that the persons who made the advertisement hoped I would give them money.”
4.27 “I passed a church where a sign read ‘God Loves You’—I translated: certain persons who gather here believe that a being they learned about from old books cares about you, and they want you to join them.”
4.28 “At home, I read a news article about ‘justice’ finally arriving in a court case—I understood: certain persons with the title ‘judge’ made a decision that the persons who wrote the article preferred.”
4.29 “Before sleep, I felt a familiar weight—what I might have once called ‘existential dread’—but now I recognized it as bodily sensations arising from uncertainty about tomorrow.”
4.30 “I chose to sleep rather than worry—not because ‘wisdom advises rest’ but because I, in this unrepeatable moment, preferred bodily ease to anxious rumination. I dissolved a day’s worth of spooks and found only myself remaining.”
Part C: E-Prime Max Text Only
4.16 I woke this morning and remembered: I work for a company, which means certain persons pay me money in exchange for my actions.
4.17 Some persons call me a “good employee”—this means they observe that I act in ways they prefer and that benefit them.
4.18 On my way to work, I saw a police officer—a person wearing a certain uniform who carries weapons and has permission from other persons with titles to use those weapons.
4.19 I felt a twinge of nervousness—my body contracted slightly, my pulse quickened—though I had acted according to all the written rules persons with weapons enforce.
4.20 At work, my supervisor gave me a task: produce a report that would convince certain persons with money to give some of that money to our organization.
4.21 I felt a resistance—my body felt heavy, my thoughts drifted—because I doubted that the report would describe things as I actually observed them.
4.22 Some persons might call this a “moral dilemma”—but I simply faced a choice: write words I doubted, or refuse and face consequences from persons who could withhold money from me.
4.23 I wrote the report—not because “duty required it” or because “a professional fulfills obligations”—but because I chose the money over the discomfort of describing things differently than I observed.
4.24 At lunch, a colleague spoke of “the economy”—but I heard her describing how certain persons make decisions that affect how many pieces of paper with “money” written on them reach other persons.
4.25 She complained that “the government” had failed to help “the people”—I translated: certain persons with titles did not act in ways that would have benefited many persons without titles.
4.26 After work, I saw a advertisement claiming that buying a certain product would bring me “happiness”—meaning that the persons who made the advertisement hoped I would give them money.
4.27 I passed a church where a sign read “God Loves You”—I translated: certain persons who gather here believe that a being they learned about from old books cares about you, and they want you to join them.
4.28 At home, I read a news article about “justice” finally arriving in a court case—I understood: certain persons with the title “judge” made a decision that the persons who wrote the article preferred.
4.29 Before sleep, I felt a familiar weight—what I might have once called “existential dread”—but now I recognized it as bodily sensations arising from uncertainty about tomorrow.
4.30 I chose to sleep rather than worry—not because “wisdom advises rest” but because I, in this unrepeatable moment, preferred bodily ease to anxious rumination. I dissolved a day’s worth of spooks and found only myself remaining.
Part D: Grammar and Dissolution Notes for Genre Section
This narrative demonstrates E-Prime Max in sustained first-person reflection. Key patterns:
The “I translated” structure: Examples 4.24-4.28 use a recurring pattern where the narrator hears standard spook-laden speech and “translates” it into E-Prime Max. This models the internal practice of spook dissolution—hearing the abstraction, then immediately dissolving it.
Ownership of sensation: Examples 4.19, 4.21, 4.29 demonstrate D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ by describing emotions as bodily sensations owned by the speaker rather than as agents that act upon them. “I felt a resistance—my body felt heavy” instead of “Resistance overcame me.”
The indefinite article introducing labels: Throughout the narrative, “a” introduces dissolved labels—”a good employee,” “a police officer,” “a moral dilemma,” “a colleague,” “a advertisement.” Each instance reveals the labeling process beneath the category.
Choice over obligation: Examples 4.22-4.23 and 4.30 explicitly reject spook-formulations of obligation (”duty required,” “wisdom advises”) in favor of first-person choice (”I chose,” “I preferred”).
The final dissolution: Example 4.30 concludes with the narrator dissolving “a day’s worth of spooks” and finding “only myself remaining”—the Stirnerian endpoint where all abstractions dissolve, leaving only the unique individual.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform the following sentences containing spooks and the topic word “a”:
Exercise 1
Standard: “A patriot loves his country.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom other persons label ‘patriot’ act with tenderness toward symbols and persons that officials associate with the region those officials control—and they call this acting ‘loving a country.’”
country → region that officials control, and associated symbols (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “patriot” exists as natural kind → only persons to whom others attach that label. No “country” exists to love → only symbols, regions, and persons. The label “patriot” benefits those who want others to act in certain ways.
Exercise 2
Standard: “A mother has a sacred duty to protect her children.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom others label ‘mother’ face strong expectations from many persons around them to shield their children from harm—and many persons call these expectations ‘sacred’ and ‘a duty’ to make them feel more compelling.”
has → faces (E7, State verb)
Revelation: No “sacred duty” floats in the cosmos → only expectations that persons around her enforce through approval and disapproval. The word “sacred” intensifies but adds no substance.
Exercise 3
Standard: “A criminal deserves punishment.”
E-Prime Max: “When persons with weapons and titles label a person ‘criminal,’ many persons around me expect that other persons with weapons and cages will confine or harm that person—and they describe this expectation as ‘deserving.’”
punishment → confinement or harm by persons with weapons (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No one “deserves” anything in cosmic terms → only persons expect things and enact consequences. The word “deserves” hides that this remains a human choice, not a cosmic requirement.
Exercise 4
Standard: “A free press holds power accountable.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who write and publish words without interference from persons with weapons sometimes describe actions by persons with titles that those titled persons would prefer to hide—and some persons call this arrangement ‘a free press holding power accountable.’”
holds accountable → describes actions persons would prefer to hide (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “free press” exists as agent → only persons writing and publishing. No “power” exists to hold accountable → only persons whose actions other persons describe. The phrase “holds power accountable” romanticizes what remains: some persons describing other persons’ actions.
Exercise 5
Standard: “A man must face his fears with courage.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom others label ‘man’ feel pressure from many persons around them to act despite bodily sensations of contraction and alarm—and those persons call such acting ‘facing fears with courage.’”
courage → label for acting despite those sensations (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “fears” exist to face → only bodily sensations I experience. No “courage” exists as substance → only a label persons attach to certain actions. The word “must” hides that this remains social pressure from specific persons, not cosmic requirement.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course
This course synthesizes vocabulary acquisition with consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline. Drawing on the Latinum Institute’s methodology developed since 2006, each lesson introduces English vocabulary while training students in E-Prime Max—the comprehensive elimination of both “to be” forms and spook-as-agent constructions.
The Method: Based on the proven Latinum interlinear construed text approach, students encounter 30 examples per lesson that demonstrate proper usage while making the work of spook dissolution visible. The graduated difficulty (simple → medium → complex) allows students to internalize patterns progressively.
The Philosophy: E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”), Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (”the map does not equal the territory”), and Max Stirner’s critique of “spooks” (reified abstractions that possess the thinker). Together, these disciplines train students to see through language to the persons and actions beneath.
For Autodidacts: This course serves self-directed learners who wish to work at their own pace. The detailed dissolution maps and revelation sections make the analytical process explicit, allowing independent study without instructor guidance.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 4
Definition: The preposition “of” indicates possession, relation, origin, or connection between nouns. In Standard English, it functions as a genitive marker, linking a noun to another noun to show belonging, material composition, or abstract relationship.
E-Prime Max Purpose: While “of” itself presents no E-Prime challenge (it requires no form of “to be”), this preposition frequently appears in constructions that smuggle spooks into discourse. Phrases like “the will of the people,” “the demands of justice,” “the laws of nature,” and “the voice of reason” all use “of” to connect concrete words to reified abstractions that then appear to act as agents. This lesson trains students to recognize and dissolve these smuggled spooks while mastering the genitive function of “of.”
Philosophy: E-Prime Max combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions that possess the thinker). The preposition “of” serves as a key site for spook smuggling—where abstractions acquire apparent agency through grammatical connection to concrete terms.
“servants of the state” (political spook)
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
-
When “of” connects two concrete nouns (leg of the table, roof of the house), no dissolution proves necessary
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List):
be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
Spook Categories:
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
The Stirnerian Test: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?” If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
Five Dissolution Strategies:
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The will of the people demands this policy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.1a Many persons around me express a preference for this policy, and some of them pressure officials to adopt it.
5.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) preference (N-obj) for (PREP) this (DET) policy (N), and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP-genitive) them (PRON-obj) pressure (V-pres) officials (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.called.officials]) to∿adopt (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
5.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
will of the people → preferences many persons express → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
demands → pressure/express preference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the people → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “will of the people” exists anywhere → only many persons with differing preferences
∴ No unified “people” exists to “demand” anything → only persons pressing officials
∴ WHO benefits from invoking “the people”? Those who claim to speak for them.
∴ The spook dissolves → individual persons with varying wants appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The laws of nature govern all things.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.2a Scientists observe patterns and describe regularities; I find it useful to speak of these patterns when predicting how bodies will move.
5.2b Scientists (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nature→persons.who.observe]) observe (V-pres) patterns (N-obj) and (CONJ) describe (V-pres) regularities (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) useful (ADJ-pred) to∿speak (V-inf) of (PREP) these (DET) patterns (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) predicting (V-pres.PART) how (ADV-manner) bodies (N-subj) will∿move (V-fut).
5.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
laws of nature → patterns scientists observe and describe → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
govern → useful for predicting → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
nature → bodies, movements, patterns → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “nature” exists to “govern” → only patterns that scientists find useful to describe
∴ “Laws” do not command bodies → bodies move, scientists describe the movements
∴ WHO benefits from “laws of nature”? Those who claim to know them.
∴ The spook dissolves → observers describing patterns remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The voice of reason tells us to act prudently.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.3a When I think carefully about consequences, I conclude that acting prudently serves my interests; I speak of this conclusion as what I have reasoned out.
5.3b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) think (V-pres) carefully (ADV-manner) about (PREP) consequences (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) conclude (V-pres) that (CONJ) acting (V-pres.PART) prudently (ADV-manner) serves (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) interests (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) this (DET) conclusion (N-obj) as (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) have∿reasoned∿out (V-perf).
5.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
voice of reason → what I conclude when thinking carefully → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
tells us → I conclude → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
reason (as agent) → my act of reasoning → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
5.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “reason” exists to “speak” → only I, reasoning, reaching conclusions
∴ No “voice” commands from outside → only my thinking process
∴ WHO benefits from “the voice of reason”? Those who claim their conclusions equal Reason itself.
∴ The spook dissolves → my own thinking remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The hand of God guides history.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.4a Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they imagined guides what happens; I speak of their claims when analyzing religious texts.
5.4b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.wrote.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) imagined (V-past) guides (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) claims (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) religious (ADJ) texts (N-obj).
5.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
hand of God → claims by persons who wrote old books → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
God → a being certain persons imagined → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
guides history → what happens, which they attributed to their imagined being → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
history → what happens, what persons do → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “God” exists to have a “hand” → only persons who wrote about a being they imagined
∴ No “history” exists to receive guidance → only events, only persons acting
∴ WHO benefits from “the hand of God”? Those who claim to know its direction.
∴ The spook dissolves → human authors of religious texts appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She spoke of the beauty of the sunset.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.5a She spoke of how the sunset appeared to her and expressed pleasure at seeing it.
5.5b She (PRON-subj) spoke (V-past) of (PREP) how (ADV-manner) the (DEF.ART) sunset (N-subj) appeared (V-past.PERCEPT) to (PREP) her (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) expressed (V-past) pleasure (N-obj) at (PREP) seeing (V-pres.PART) it (PRON-obj).
5.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
beauty (potential spook) → how it appeared to her, pleasure she felt → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
5.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Beauty” here does not act as agent → merely describes her experience
∴ Minimal dissolution needed → she owns her perception
∴ The concrete sunset remains; her pleasure remains; no commanding abstraction appears
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The servants of the state enforce the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.6a Persons with weapons who call themselves officials of the government force others to act as certain written rules specify, threatening harm to those who refuse.
5.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[servants→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) officials (N-pred ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[servants→persons.labeled]) of (PREP-genitive) the (DEF.ART) government (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→government.persons]) force (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[enforce→force]) others (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres), threatening (V-pres.PART) harm (N-obj) to (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
5.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
servants of the state → persons with weapons who call themselves officials → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
state → persons calling themselves government → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
law → written rules, enforced by threat → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
enforce → force, threaten harm → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “state” exists to have “servants” → only persons with weapons calling themselves officials
∴ No “law” exists to command → only written words backed by threat of harm
∴ WHO benefits from “servants of the state”? Those persons with weapons.
∴ The spook dissolves → armed persons threatening harm appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The roof of the house needed repair.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.7a The roof of the house needed repair.
5.7b The (DEF.ART) roof (N-subj) of (PREP-genitive) the (DEF.ART) house (N-poss) needed (V-past) repair (N-obj).
5.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
[none] → [no dissolution needed] → —
5.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original
∴ “Roof” and “house” function as concrete nouns
∴ “Of” connects two physical objects—genitive relation without abstraction
∴ E-Prime Max passes this sentence unchanged
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The spirit of the age demands conformity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.8a Many persons around me currently express similar attitudes and pressure others to conform; I speak of these attitudes when analyzing what persons around me expect.
5.8b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[spirit.of.age→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) currently (ADV-time) express (V-pres) similar (ADJ) attitudes (N-obj) and (CONJ) pressure (V-pres) others (PRON-obj) to∿conform (V-inf); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) attitudes (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres).
5.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
spirit of the age → attitudes many persons currently express → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
demands → pressure, expect → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the age → currently, persons around me now → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “spirit” exists to “demand” → only many persons with attitudes
∴ No “age” possesses a “spirit” → only persons living now with shared expectations
∴ WHO benefits from “the spirit of the age”? Those who claim to embody it.
∴ The spook dissolves → persons with attitudes and expectations appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The pursuit of happiness drives human behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.9a Persons act in ways they expect will bring them pleasure; I speak of this pattern when describing why persons do what they do.
5.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human→persons]) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) will∿bring (V-fut) them (PRON-obj) pleasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[happiness→pleasure]); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) this (DET) pattern (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) describing (V-pres.PART) why (ADV-reason) persons (N-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres).
5.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
pursuit of happiness → acting in ways expected to bring pleasure → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
drives → persons act because they expect pleasure → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
human behavior → what persons do → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “pursuit” exists as agent → only persons acting with expectations
∴ No “happiness” drives from outside → persons act expecting pleasure
∴ WHO benefits from “pursuit of happiness”? Those who define what counts as happiness.
∴ The spook dissolves → persons seeking pleasure appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I drank a cup of coffee this morning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.10a I drank a cup of coffee this morning.
5.10b I (PRON-subj) drank (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) cup (N-obj) of (PREP-genitive) coffee (N-material) this (DET) morning (N-time).
5.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
[none] → [no dissolution needed] → —
5.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present
∴ “Cup” and “coffee” function as concrete nouns
∴ “Of” indicates material content—genitive relation without abstraction
∴ E-Prime Max passes this sentence unchanged
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The triumph of good over evil guides moral progress.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.11a Certain persons teach children that some actions they label “good” eventually prevail over actions they label “bad”; these persons speak of this expected pattern when justifying their teachings.
5.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[moral.progress→persons.who.teach]) teach (V-pres) children (N-obj) that (CONJ) some (DET) actions (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[good→actions.labeled]) “good” (N-label) eventually (ADV-time) prevail (V-pres) over (PREP) actions (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “bad” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[evil→actions.labeled]); these (DET) persons (N-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) this (DET) expected (ADJ) pattern (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) justifying (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) teachings (N-obj).
5.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
triumph of good → actions labeled “good” prevailing → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
good → actions certain persons label “good” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
evil → actions certain persons label “bad” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
moral progress → expected pattern that certain persons teach → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
guides → persons teach, persons expect → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “good” or “evil” exists as cosmic force → only labels persons attach to actions
∴ No “triumph” occurs in abstract → only labeled actions and their outcomes
∴ No “moral progress” guides → only persons teaching expectations
∴ WHO benefits from “triumph of good”? Those who attach the labels.
∴ Multiple spooks dissolve → persons teaching, labeling, expecting appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The weight of tradition binds us to the past.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.12a Certain persons around me expect me to act as persons before me acted; I feel pressure from them and speak of their expectations when explaining why I sometimes act as my predecessors did.
5.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) persons (N-subj) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj) acted (V-past); I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) pressure (N-obj) from (PREP) them (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) expectations (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) explaining (V-pres.PART) why (ADV-reason) I (PRON-subj) sometimes (ADV-freq) act (V-pres) as (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) predecessors (N-subj) did (V-past).
5.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
weight of tradition → pressure from persons with expectations → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
tradition → how persons before me acted, which others expect me to repeat → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
binds us → I feel pressure, I sometimes comply → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
the past → persons before me, their actions → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “tradition” exists to have “weight” → only persons expecting repetition
∴ No “past” exists to bind → only persons pressuring me to act as predecessors did
∴ WHO benefits from “weight of tradition”? Those whose expectations I serve when complying.
∴ The spook dissolves → persons with expectations, my felt pressure appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rights of citizens protect individual freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.13a Certain persons agreed to write down limits on what officials with weapons may do to persons they label “citizens”; these documents sometimes restrain those officials, and I speak of these written limits when discussing what officials have agreed not to do.
5.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.agreed]) agreed (V-past) to∿write∿down (V-inf) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]); these (DET) documents (N-subj) sometimes (ADV-freq) restrain (V-pres) those (DET) officials (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) written (ADJ) limits (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) discussing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) have∿agreed (V-perf) not (ADV-neg) to∿do (V-inf).
5.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
rights of citizens → written limits certain persons agreed upon → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
citizens → persons labeled “citizen” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
protect → documents restrain officials sometimes → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
individual freedom → what officials have agreed not to do to persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “rights” exist as metaphysical shields → only words persons wrote, agreements officials sometimes honor
∴ No “citizens” exist as category → only persons to whom officials attach that label
∴ No “freedom” exists as thing protected → only limits on official action
∴ WHO benefits from “rights of citizens”? Depends on who enforces the limits.
∴ Multiple spooks dissolve → persons writing, labeling, restraining appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He took a piece of bread from the table.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.14a He took a piece of bread from the table.
5.14b He (PRON-subj) took (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) piece (N-obj) of (PREP-genitive) bread (N-material) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-source).
5.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
[none] → [no dissolution needed] → —
5.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present
∴ “Piece,” “bread,” and “table” function as concrete nouns
∴ “Of” indicates part-whole relation—genitive without abstraction
∴ E-Prime Max passes this sentence unchanged
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The verdict of history will judge our actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.15a Certain persons in the future will write about what we do now and express approval or disapproval; I speak of their expected judgments when considering how future writers might describe our actions.
5.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.write]) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-time) will∿write (V-fut) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) now (ADV-time) and (CONJ) express (V-fut) approval (N-obj) or (CONJ) disapproval (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→express.approval.disapproval]); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) expected (ADJ) judgments (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) considering (V-pres.PART) how (ADV-manner) future (ADJ) writers (N-subj) might∿describe (V-cond) our (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj).
5.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
verdict of history → what future persons will write, their approval/disapproval → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
history → future persons writing about past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
judge → express approval or disapproval → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “history” exists to render “verdicts” → only future persons writing
∴ No cosmic judge evaluates → only writers expressing opinions
∴ WHO benefits from “verdict of history”? Those who claim to predict future writers’ judgments.
∴ The spook dissolves → future writers with opinions appear
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
5.1 “Many persons around me express a preference for this policy, and some of them pressure officials to adopt it.”
[Standard English: “The will of the people demands this policy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in transformation)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (will of the people → preferences many persons express); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → pressure, express preference)]
5.2 “Scientists observe patterns and describe regularities; I find it useful to speak of these patterns when predicting how bodies will move.”
[Standard English: “The laws of nature govern all things.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (laws of nature → patterns scientists observe); D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (govern → useful for predicting)]
5.3 “When I think carefully about consequences, I conclude that acting prudently serves my interests; I speak of this conclusion as what I have reasoned out.”
[Standard English: “The voice of reason tells us to act prudently.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (voice of reason → what I conclude; tells us → I conclude)]
5.4 “Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they imagined guides what happens; I speak of their claims when analyzing religious texts.”
[Standard English: “The hand of God guides history.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (hand of God → claims by persons who wrote old books); D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → what happens, what persons do)]
5.5 “She spoke of how the sunset appeared to her and expressed pleasure at seeing it.”
[Standard English: “She spoke of the beauty of the sunset.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (beauty → how it appeared to her, pleasure she felt)]
5.6 “Persons with weapons who call themselves officials of the government force others to act as certain written rules specify, threatening harm to those who refuse.”
[Standard English: “The servants of the state enforce the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (servants of the state → persons with weapons calling themselves officials); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules; enforce → force, threaten harm)]
5.7 “The roof of the house needed repair.”
[Standard English: “The roof of the house needed repair.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns only]
5.8 “Many persons around me currently express similar attitudes and pressure others to conform; I speak of these attitudes when analyzing what persons around me expect.”
[Standard English: “The spirit of the age demands conformity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (spirit of the age → attitudes many persons currently express)]
5.9 “Persons act in ways they expect will bring them pleasure; I speak of this pattern when describing why persons do what they do.”
[Standard English: “The pursuit of happiness drives human behavior.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (pursuit of happiness → acting expecting pleasure); D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (human behavior → what persons do)]
5.10 “I drank a cup of coffee this morning.”
[Standard English: “I drank a cup of coffee this morning.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns only]
5.11 “Certain persons teach children that some actions they label ‘good’ eventually prevail over actions they label ‘bad’; these persons speak of this expected pattern when justifying their teachings.”
[Standard English: “The triumph of good over evil guides moral progress.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (good/evil → actions persons label); D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (moral progress → expected pattern persons teach)]
5.12 “Certain persons around me expect me to act as persons before me acted; I feel pressure from them and speak of their expectations when explaining why I sometimes act as my predecessors did.”
[Standard English: “The weight of tradition binds us to the past.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (weight of tradition → pressure from persons with expectations); D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (binds us → I feel pressure)]
5.13 “Certain persons agreed to write down limits on what officials with weapons may do to persons they label ‘citizens’; these documents sometimes restrain those officials, and I speak of these written limits when discussing what officials have agreed not to do.”
[Standard English: “The rights of citizens protect individual freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → written limits persons agreed upon); D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protect freedom → restrain officials)]
5.14 “He took a piece of bread from the table.”
[Standard English: “He took a piece of bread from the table.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns only]
5.15 “Certain persons in the future will write about what we do now and express approval or disapproval; I speak of their expected judgments when considering how future writers might describe our actions.”
[Standard English: “The verdict of history will judge our actions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (verdict of history → what future persons will write); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → express approval or disapproval)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
5.1 Many persons around me express a preference for this policy, and some of them pressure officials to adopt it.
5.2 Scientists observe patterns and describe regularities; I find it useful to speak of these patterns when predicting how bodies will move.
5.3 When I think carefully about consequences, I conclude that acting prudently serves my interests; I speak of this conclusion as what I have reasoned out.
5.4 Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they imagined guides what happens; I speak of their claims when analyzing religious texts.
5.5 She spoke of how the sunset appeared to her and expressed pleasure at seeing it.
5.6 Persons with weapons who call themselves officials of the government force others to act as certain written rules specify, threatening harm to those who refuse.
5.7 The roof of the house needed repair.
5.8 Many persons around me currently express similar attitudes and pressure others to conform; I speak of these attitudes when analyzing what persons around me expect.
5.9 Persons act in ways they expect will bring them pleasure; I speak of this pattern when describing why persons do what they do.
5.10 I drank a cup of coffee this morning.
5.11 Certain persons teach children that some actions they label “good” eventually prevail over actions they label “bad”; these persons speak of this expected pattern when justifying their teachings.
5.12 Certain persons around me expect me to act as persons before me acted; I feel pressure from them and speak of their expectations when explaining why I sometimes act as my predecessors did.
5.13 Certain persons agreed to write down limits on what officials with weapons may do to persons they label “citizens”; these documents sometimes restrain those officials, and I speak of these written limits when discussing what officials have agreed not to do.
5.14 He took a piece of bread from the table.
5.15 Certain persons in the future will write about what we do now and express approval or disapproval; I speak of their expected judgments when considering how future writers might describe our actions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “of” in E-Prime Max:
The preposition “of” serves multiple grammatical functions in English:
Possession/Genitive: “the roof of the house” (the house’s roof)
Part-Whole: “a piece of bread” (bread → piece)
Material/Composition: “a cup of coffee” (the cup contains coffee)
Origin: “the people of France” (people from France)
Agent in Nominalization: “the arrival of the guests” (the guests arrived)
Object in Nominalization: “the building of the house” (someone built the house)
Relation: “the father of the child” (paternal relation)
Characteristic: “a man of honor” (honorable man)
The preposition “of” itself presents no E-Prime challenge—it never requires a form of “to be.” However, “of” frequently appears in constructions where eliminating “to be” proves necessary:
Standard: “The cause of the fire was negligence.”
E-Prime: “Negligence caused the fire.”
In such cases, the E-Prime transformation often eliminates the “of” construction entirely by restoring active voice.
“Of” ranks HIGH in spook proximity—not because the preposition itself functions as a spook, but because it commonly connects concrete nouns to reified abstractions.
Spooks commonly appearing with “of” in genitive constructions:
“the will of the people” — collective spook (D)
“the laws of nature” — metaphysical spook (C)
“the demands of justice” — moral spook (A)
“the spirit of the age” — collective spook (D)
“the voice of reason” — metaphysical spook (C)
“the hand of God” — metaphysical spook (C)
“the course of history” — collective spook (D)
“servants of the state” — political spook (B)
“the weight of tradition” — collective spook (D)
“the rights of citizens” — political spook (B) + moral spook (A)
“the verdict of history” — collective spook (D)
“the triumph of good” — moral spook (A)
Pattern: When “of” connects a concrete noun (hand, voice, servants, weight, verdict) to an abstraction (God, reason, state, tradition, history), the construction often smuggles in a spook by giving the abstraction apparent substance through the concrete noun.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“the will of the people” → “preferences many persons around me express”
“the verdict of history” → “what future persons will write”
“the course of history” → “what happened when certain persons acted”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“the laws of nature” → “patterns that scientists observe and describe”
“the pursuit of happiness” → “acting in ways expected to bring pleasure”
“the weight of tradition” → “pressure from persons expecting repetition”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure):
“the hand of God” → “claims by persons who wrote old books about a being they imagined”
“the rights of citizens” → “limits certain persons agreed to write down”
“moral progress” → “an expected pattern certain persons teach”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution):
“the voice of reason” → “what I conclude when I think carefully”
“the beauty of the sunset” → “how the sunset appeared to her, the pleasure she felt”
“tradition binds us” → “I feel pressure, I sometimes comply”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“servants of the state” → “persons with weapons who call themselves officials”
“the triumph of good over evil” → “actions persons label ‘good’ prevailing over actions persons label ‘bad’”
“the rights of citizens” → “limits on what officials may do to persons they label ‘citizens’”
Mistake 1: Assuming all “of” constructions require dissolution
Wrong approach: Dissolving “a cup of coffee” or “the roof of the house”
Correct: “Of” connecting two concrete nouns requires no dissolution.
Mistake 2: Incomplete dissolution of stacked spooks
Wrong: “The laws of nature” → “the laws that nature has”
Correct: “The laws of nature” → “patterns that scientists observe and describe”
Both “laws” and “nature” require dissolution when they appear to command or govern.
Mistake 3: Replacing one spook with another
Wrong: “The will of the people” → “what society wants”
Correct: “The will of the people” → “preferences many persons around me express”
“Society” functions as another collective spook.
Mistake 4: Dissolving possessed concrete nouns instead of possessing spooks
Wrong: “The hand of God” → “the appendage of the divine”
Correct: “The hand of God” → “claims persons made about a being they imagined”
The concrete “hand” serves only to give the spook “God” apparent substance.
Mistake 5: Forgetting that scientific/technical terms can become spooks
Wrong: Assuming “the laws of nature” passes because science endorses it
Correct: “Nature” commanding, forbidding, or governing = spook, regardless of which priesthood endorses the term
The test: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?”
Applying to “of” constructions:
“The will of the people demands this policy” — “people” appears as agent through its “will” → SPOOK
“I drank a cup of coffee” — no abstraction acts → NO SPOOK
“The laws of nature govern all things” — “nature” appears as legislating agent → SPOOK
“He took a piece of bread” — no abstraction acts → NO SPOOK
“The spirit of the age demands conformity” — “the age” appears as agent through its “spirit” → SPOOK
Key insight: The preposition “of” often serves as the grammatical mechanism by which spooks acquire apparent agency—by connecting them to concrete nouns that can “do” things (hands act, voices speak, weights press).
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics on the principle that “the map does not equal the territory”—that our linguistic representations of reality differ fundamentally from reality itself. Language, especially the verb “to be,” encourages us to confuse map with territory.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928-2000) developed E-Prime in 1965 as a discipline within General Semantics. By eliminating “to be,” E-Prime forces speakers to specify who observes what, from what perspective, under what conditions. “The sky is blue” becomes “The sky appears blue to me” or “I see the sky as blue”—making the observer and the observation explicit.
The preposition “of” plays a subtle role in this confusion. “The law of nature” suggests that nature possesses laws in the same way a house possesses a roof. But a roof exists independently of our descriptions; “laws of nature” exist only as patterns that observers describe.
Max Stirner (1806-1856) in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) introduced the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them.
Persons now serve the abstraction, believing it has independent existence and authority
Stirner’s “ownness” (Eigenheit) represents the opposite: the unique individual who owns their ideas as tools, using them when useful and discarding them when not.
The genitive “of” plays a crucial role in the haunting mechanism. “The voice of reason” gives “reason” a voice. “The hand of God” gives “God” a hand. “The will of the people” gives “the people” a will. Through “of,” abstractions acquire the apparatus of agency.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X IS Y” dissolves into “I observe X as Y” or “X appears Y to me.”
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS” dissolves into “Certain persons expect/teach/enforce.”
Together, they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution:
E-Prime prevents identification of map with territory.
E-Prime Max prevents abstractions from acquiring agency.
The preposition “of” sits at the intersection: it often appears in constructions where abstractions acquire apparent substance (”the will of the people”), and these constructions often also require E-Prime transformation (”The will of the people is paramount” → “Many persons express this preference, and some pressure officials”).
When we dissolve “of” constructions that contain spooks:
“The will of the people” dissolves to reveal: Many persons with differing preferences, some of whom pressure officials. No unified “people” exists. No “will” commands.
“The laws of nature” dissolves to reveal: Observers (scientists) describing patterns. No “nature” legislates. Patterns prove useful for prediction.
“The demands of justice” dissolves to reveal: Persons with expectations, some of whom hold weapons and cages. No “justice” exists to demand. Only persons expecting and enforcing.
“The hand of God” dissolves to reveal: Persons who wrote old books making claims about a being they imagined. No “God” exists to have a “hand.” Only texts, only authors.
“The verdict of history” dissolves to reveal: Future persons who will write about us. No “history” renders verdicts. Only writers expressing opinions.
Pattern: Behind every “X of Y” where Y acts as spook, we find persons—teaching, expecting, writing, labeling, threatening. The genitive “of” served to hide these persons behind an abstraction.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: Politicians frequently invoke “the will of the people” to justify their preferences. Dissolution reveals: which persons actually expressed this preference? How many? Under what conditions?
Resisting possession by concepts: When you feel bound by “tradition,” dissolution asks: which persons expect this of me? Do I choose to comply?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Every time you catch yourself treating an abstraction as agent, you can dissolve it back to persons acting. This constant practice gradually reprograms habitual thought.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained E-Prime Max practice makes spook constructions feel strange. “The voice of reason tells us” begins to sound like “the voice of reason tells us”—nonsensical without dissolution.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks, regardless of which priesthood endorses them.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to those who speak Standard English. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The anarchist who serves Anarchism has merely changed masters.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The people—that is the body, the owner is the head—the thinking head. The body obeys the head—that is the people’s relationship to the spirit. The head is their God.”
F.1a Many persons around me follow the preferences of certain other persons who claim to think for them; these thinkers function as the ones whom the others treat with reverence.
F.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) follow (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) preferences (N-obj) of (PREP-genitive) certain (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-poss ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[head→persons.who.claim]) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) to∿think (V-inf) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj); these (DET) thinkers (N-subj) function (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) the (DEF.ART) ones (N-pred) whom (PRON-rel) the (DEF.ART) others (N-subj) treat (V-pres) with (PREP) reverence (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[God→treated.with.reverence]).
Stirner: “The people—that is the body, the owner is the head—the thinking head. The body obeys the head—that is the people’s relationship to the spirit. The head is their God.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons around me follow the preferences of certain other persons who claim to think for them; these thinkers function as the ones whom the others treat with reverence.”
Many persons around me follow the preferences of certain other persons who claim to think for them; these thinkers function as the ones whom the others treat with reverence.
Spooks dissolved:
“the people” → many persons around me (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“the body” → many persons who follow (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“the head” / “the owner” → certain persons who claim to think for others (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“the spirit” → [eliminated as spook within spook]
“God” → the ones whom others treat with reverence (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
“is” (multiple) → follow, function as, treat (E3, E4)
E-Prime transformations:
“is the body” → “follow the preferences of” (E4-relational)
“is the head” → “function as the ones whom” (E4-relational)
“is their God” → “treat with reverence” (E6-identity to action)
Even Stirner’s own formulation contained spooks. “The people” appears in his text as a collective noun; “God” appears as a comparison point. The E-Prime Max transformation preserves and clarifies Stirner’s insight: that many persons follow certain other persons who claim to think for them, treating these thinkers with reverence.
Notice how “of” functions in the dissolution: “the preferences of certain other persons.” Here “of” connects two sets of persons—those who have preferences and those who follow. No spook appears because both terms refer to concrete persons.
Stirner would approve of dissolving even his own language. In “Stirner’s Critics” (1845), he wrote that “the unique” cannot become a fixed concept—the moment it does, it becomes another spook. The same applies to all formulations, including Stirner’s own.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section presents a sustained analysis of how political rhetoric uses “of” constructions to create spooks. All 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining political language through the E-Prime Max lens.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The consent of the governed legitimizes the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.16a Certain persons with weapons claim that because some persons voted or did not resist, these armed persons have authority to command; I speak of their claim when analyzing what they say to justify their power.
5.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) because (CONJ-reason) some (DET) persons (N-subj) voted (V-past) or (CONJ) did∿not∿resist (V-past.NEG), these (DET) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) have (V-pres) authority (N-obj) to∿command (V-inf); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) claim (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[legitimacy→claim.persons.make]) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) say (V-pres) to∿justify (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) power (N-obj).
5.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
consent of the governed → some persons voted or did not resist → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the governed → some persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
legitimizes → armed persons claim authority → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
the state → persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “consent” exists as metaphysical transfer → only voting or not resisting
∴ No “state” exists to receive legitimacy → only armed persons claiming authority
∴ WHO benefits from “consent of the governed”? Those claiming the consent grants them power.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rule of law protects us from tyranny.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.17a Certain persons agreed to follow written rules and created enforcement mechanisms; these written rules sometimes limit what armed enforcers may do to others, though the enforcers themselves often write the rules. I speak of these arrangements when discussing what restrains armed persons.
5.17b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[law→persons.who.agreed]) agreed (V-past) to∿follow (V-inf) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) and (CONJ) created (V-past) enforcement (N) mechanisms (N-obj); these (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-subj) sometimes (ADV-freq) limit (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) armed (ADJ) enforcers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→armed.enforcers]) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) others (PRON-obj), though (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) enforcers (N-subj) themselves (PRON-refl) often (ADV-freq) write (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) rules (N-obj). I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) arrangements (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) discussing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) restrains (V-pres) armed (ADJ) persons (N-obj).
5.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
rule of law → written rules that persons agreed upon → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
protects → sometimes limits what enforcers may do → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
tyranny → [revealed: enforcers themselves often write the rules] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists to “rule” → only written words, only agreements
∴ The same persons who enforce often write the rules they enforce
∴ WHO benefits from “rule of law”? Those who write and enforce the rules.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The sovereignty of the nation cannot be compromised.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.18a Certain officials claim that armed persons within certain borders may command everyone inside those borders without interference from armed persons outside; I speak of their claim when analyzing what officials assert.
5.18b Certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→officials]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) within (PREP) certain (DET) borders (N) may∿command (V-modal) everyone (PRON-obj) inside (PREP) those (DET) borders (N) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) armed (ADJ) persons (N) outside (PREP); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) claim (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sovereignty→claim.to.command]) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) assert (V-pres).
5.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
sovereignty → claim that certain armed persons may command without interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
nation → armed persons within certain borders + officials → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
cannot be compromised → [revealed as rhetorical assertion] → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
5.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “nation” exists to have “sovereignty” → only armed persons within borders
∴ “Sovereignty” = claim to command without outside interference
∴ WHO benefits from “sovereignty of the nation”? Officials who make the claim.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The voice of the people must be heard.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.19a Many persons around me hold preferences; certain other persons claim to speak for them. I speak of what those many persons say when distinguishing their actual statements from what others claim they want.
5.19b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) hold (V-pres) preferences (N-obj); certain (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj). I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) many (DET) persons (N-subj) say (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) distinguishing (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) actual (ADJ) statements (N-obj) from (PREP) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres).
5.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
voice of the people → what many persons say / what others claim they want → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the people → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
must be heard → [revealed: others claim to speak for them] → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
5.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No unified “people” exists to have one “voice” → many persons with differing views
∴ Someone always claims to speak for “the people” → WHO?
∴ “Must be heard” often means “must be represented by me”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The enemies of freedom must be defeated.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.20a Certain persons label other persons “enemies of freedom” and seek to harm or confine them; I question who attaches these labels and what “freedom” means to them.
5.20b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied.labelers]) label (V-pres) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) “enemies (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[enemies→persons.labeled]) of (PREP) freedom” (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→?]) and (CONJ) seek (V-pres) to∿harm (V-inf) or (CONJ) confine (V-inf) them (PRON-obj); I (PRON-subj) question (V-pres) who (PRON-interrog) attaches (V-pres) these (DET) labels (N-obj) and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) “freedom” (N) means (V-pres) to (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
5.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
enemies of freedom → persons labeled “enemies of freedom” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
freedom → what the labelers mean by “freedom” [left open] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
must be defeated → seek to harm or confine → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists as entity that can have “enemies” → only persons labeling others
∴ “Enemies of freedom” = persons whom certain others want to harm
∴ WHO benefits from this label? Those who attach it to justify harming others.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The burden of citizenship requires sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.21a Officials expect persons they label “citizens” to give up resources and sometimes their lives; I speak of these expectations when analyzing what officials demand.
5.21b Officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied]) expect (V-pres) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) to∿give∿up (V-inf) resources (N-obj) and (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) their (PRON-poss) lives (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[burden→expectations.to.give.up]) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) demand (V-pres).
5.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
burden of citizenship → expectations officials place on labeled persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
citizenship → label officials attach → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
requires sacrifice → expect persons to give up resources/lives → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “citizenship” exists as thing that can “burden” → only a label with attached expectations
∴ “Sacrifice” = giving up resources or life to officials’ benefit
∴ WHO benefits from “burden of citizenship”? Those who receive the sacrifices.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The foundations of democracy rest on civic virtue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.22a Certain writers claim that when many persons behave as officials prefer, the system of elections and majority decisions continues to function; I examine these claims when analyzing political theories.
5.22b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[democracy→writers.who.claim]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) when (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj) behave (V-pres) as (CONJ) officials (N-subj) prefer (V-pres), the (DEF.ART) system (N-subj) of (PREP) elections (N) and (CONJ) majority (ADJ) decisions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→system.of.elections]) continues (V-pres) to∿function (V-inf); I (PRON-subj) examine (V-pres) these (DET) claims (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) political (ADJ) theories (N-obj).
5.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
foundations of democracy → claims writers make about what makes the system work → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
democracy → system of elections and majority decisions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
civic virtue → behaving as officials prefer → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
rest on → continues to function when → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “democracy” exists as building with “foundations” → only electoral procedures
∴ “Civic virtue” = behavior officials prefer
∴ WHO benefits from “foundations of democracy”? Those whose preferred behaviors get called “virtue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The march of progress cannot be stopped.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.23a Certain persons claim that changes they approve of will continue; I question what counts as “progress” and who decides.
5.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) changes (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→changes]) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres) of (PREP) will∿continue (V-fut); I (PRON-subj) question (V-pres) what (PRON-interrog) counts (V-pres) as (PREP) “progress” (N) and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres).
5.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
march of progress → changes certain persons approve of → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
progress → changes someone labels “progress” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
cannot be stopped → claim that approved changes will continue → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
5.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “progress” exists to “march” → only changes persons label progress
∴ “Cannot be stopped” = rhetorical assertion by those who approve of these changes
∴ WHO benefits from “march of progress”? Those whose preferred changes get labeled progress.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The interests of the state take precedence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.24a Certain officials claim that what benefits them and their armed enforcers matters more than what benefits other persons; I speak of their claims when analyzing power relations.
5.24b Certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→officials.with.enforcers]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) benefits (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) armed (ADJ) enforcers (N-obj) matters (V-pres) more (ADV-degree) than (CONJ-comp) what (PRON-rel) benefits (V-pres) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) claims (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) power (N) relations (N-obj).
5.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
interests of the state → what benefits officials and their enforcers → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the state → officials and armed enforcers → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
take precedence → officials claim their benefits matter more → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
5.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “state” exists to have “interests” → only officials with preferences
∴ “Take precedence” = officials asserting their benefits outweigh others’
∴ WHO benefits from “interests of the state”? Those officials and enforcers.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.25a A certain writer expressed hope that events would eventually favor outcomes he approved of; many persons repeat his words when encouraging themselves or others.
5.25b A (INDEF.ART) certain (DET) writer (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[quote.origin]) expressed (V-past) hope (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→what.he.wished]) that (CONJ) events (N-subj) would∿eventually (ADV-time) favor (V-cond) outcomes (N-obj) he (PRON-subj) approved (V-past) of (PREP); many (DET) persons (N-subj) repeat (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) words (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) encouraging (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) or (CONJ) others (PRON-obj).
5.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
arc of the moral universe → expression of hope by a writer → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
moral universe → [dissolved: no such thing exists] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
bends toward justice → outcomes the speaker approves of → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
5.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “moral universe” exists to have an “arc” → only a writer expressing hope
∴ No “justice” exists as destination → only outcomes someone approves of
∴ WHO benefits from this phrase? Those who can claim their preferred outcomes align with cosmic direction.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The power of the majority prevails in democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.26a In certain systems, officials count votes and act on the larger count; I speak of these counting procedures when describing how certain decisions get made.
5.26b In (PREP) certain (DET) systems (N), officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied]) count (V-pres) votes (N-obj) and (CONJ) act (V-pres) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) larger (ADJ-comp) count (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[majority→larger.count]); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) counting (ADJ) procedures (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power.of.majority→counting.procedures]) when (CONJ-time) describing (V-pres.PART) how (ADV-manner) certain (DET) decisions (N-subj) get∿made (V-pres.PASS).
5.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
power of the majority → officials acting on the larger vote count → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the majority → persons in the larger count → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
prevails → officials act on that count → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
democracy → counting procedures → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “majority” exists as entity with “power” → only persons whose votes get counted together
∴ “Prevails” = officials act on one count rather than another
∴ WHO benefits from “power of the majority”? Those who win the count—and the officials who conduct it.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The spirit of revolution animates the masses.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.27a Many persons around me express dissatisfaction with current officials and discuss replacing them; certain writers speak of these expressions when analyzing political movements.
5.27b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[masses→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) dissatisfaction (N-obj) with (PREP) current (ADJ) officials (N-obj) and (CONJ) discuss (V-pres) replacing (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj); certain (DET) writers (N-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) expressions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[spirit.of.revolution→expressions.of.dissatisfaction]) when (CONJ-time) analyzing (V-pres.PART) political (ADJ) movements (N-obj).
5.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
spirit of revolution → expressions of dissatisfaction, discussions of replacement → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
revolution → replacing current officials → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
animates → persons express and discuss → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
the masses → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
5.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “spirit” exists to “animate” → only persons expressing dissatisfaction
∴ No “masses” exist as single entity → many persons with varying views
∴ WHO benefits from “spirit of revolution”? Those who claim to embody or direct it.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The eyes of the world watch this election.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.28a Journalists in many countries report on this election, and some persons in those countries read or watch these reports; I speak of this attention when describing what journalists do.
5.28b Journalists (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[eyes.of.world→journalists]) in (PREP) many (DET) countries (N) report (V-pres) on (PREP) this (DET) election (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) those (DET) countries (N) read (V-pres) or (CONJ) watch (V-pres) these (DET) reports (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) this (DET) attention (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) describing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) journalists (N-subj) do (V-pres).
5.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
eyes of the world → journalists reporting, persons watching → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the world → journalists and persons in many countries → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
watch → report on, read, watch reports → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “world” exists to have “eyes” → only journalists reporting and persons consuming reports
∴ “Watch” varies enormously—some pay attention, most do not
∴ WHO benefits from “eyes of the world”? Those who want to claim international legitimacy or pressure.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The forces of history have brought us to this moment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.29a Many persons acted in the past, and their actions led to present circumstances; I speak of these past actions when explaining how we arrived here.
5.29b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[forces.of.history→persons.who.acted]) acted (V-past) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) past (N-time), and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) led (V-past) to (PREP) present (ADJ) circumstances (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) past (ADJ) actions (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) explaining (V-pres.PART) how (ADV-manner) we (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) here (ADV-place).
5.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
forces of history → actions of many persons in the past → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
history → what persons did in the past → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
brought us → their actions led to present circumstances → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “history” exists to have “forces” → only persons who acted
∴ No “forces” brought us → actions accumulated into circumstances
∴ WHO benefits from “forces of history”? Those who claim to understand or embody those forces.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The defenders of liberty stand vigilant.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
5.30a Certain persons call themselves defenders of liberty and watch for threats; I question what “liberty” means to them and whom they consider threats.
5.30b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[defenders→persons.calling.themselves]) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) defenders (N-pred ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[defenders→self.label]) of (PREP) liberty (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[liberty→?]) and (CONJ) watch (V-pres) for (PREP) threats (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) question (V-pres) what (PRON-interrog) “liberty” (N) means (V-pres) to (PREP) them (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) whom (PRON-interrog) they (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) threats (N-obj).
5.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
defenders of liberty → persons who call themselves defenders → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
liberty → what those persons mean by the term [left open] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
stand vigilant → watch for threats → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
5.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Defenders of liberty” = self-applied label
∴ “Liberty” remains undefined until we ask what the defenders mean
∴ WHO benefits from “defenders of liberty”? Those who apply the label to themselves.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
5.16 “Certain persons with weapons claim that because some persons voted or did not resist, these armed persons have authority to command; I speak of their claim when analyzing what they say to justify their power.”
[Standard English: “The consent of the governed legitimizes the state.”]
5.17 “Certain persons agreed to follow written rules and created enforcement mechanisms; these written rules sometimes limit what armed enforcers may do to others, though the enforcers themselves often write the rules. I speak of these arrangements when discussing what restrains armed persons.”
[Standard English: “The rule of law protects us from tyranny.”]
5.18 “Certain officials claim that armed persons within certain borders may command everyone inside those borders without interference from armed persons outside; I speak of their claim when analyzing what officials assert.”
[Standard English: “The sovereignty of the nation cannot be compromised.”]
5.19 “Many persons around me hold preferences; certain other persons claim to speak for them. I speak of what those many persons say when distinguishing their actual statements from what others claim they want.”
[Standard English: “The voice of the people must be heard.”]
5.20 “Certain persons label other persons ‘enemies of freedom’ and seek to harm or confine them; I question who attaches these labels and what ‘freedom’ means to them.”
[Standard English: “The enemies of freedom must be defeated.”]
5.21 “Officials expect persons they label ‘citizens’ to give up resources and sometimes their lives; I speak of these expectations when analyzing what officials demand.”
[Standard English: “The burden of citizenship requires sacrifice.”]
5.22 “Certain writers claim that when many persons behave as officials prefer, the system of elections and majority decisions continues to function; I examine these claims when analyzing political theories.”
[Standard English: “The foundations of democracy rest on civic virtue.”]
5.23 “Certain persons claim that changes they approve of will continue; I question what counts as ‘progress’ and who decides.”
[Standard English: “The march of progress cannot be stopped.”]
5.24 “Certain officials claim that what benefits them and their armed enforcers matters more than what benefits other persons; I speak of their claims when analyzing power relations.”
[Standard English: “The interests of the state take precedence.”]
5.25 “A certain writer expressed hope that events would eventually favor outcomes he approved of; many persons repeat his words when encouraging themselves or others.”
[Standard English: “The arc of the moral universe bends toward justice.”]
5.26 “In certain systems, officials count votes and act on the larger count; I speak of these counting procedures when describing how certain decisions get made.”
[Standard English: “The power of the majority prevails in democracy.”]
5.27 “Many persons around me express dissatisfaction with current officials and discuss replacing them; certain writers speak of these expressions when analyzing political movements.”
[Standard English: “The spirit of revolution animates the masses.”]
5.28 “Journalists in many countries report on this election, and some persons in those countries read or watch these reports; I speak of this attention when describing what journalists do.”
[Standard English: “The eyes of the world watch this election.”]
5.29 “Many persons acted in the past, and their actions led to present circumstances; I speak of these past actions when explaining how we arrived here.”
[Standard English: “The forces of history have brought us to this moment.”]
5.30 “Certain persons call themselves defenders of liberty and watch for threats; I question what ‘liberty’ means to them and whom they consider threats.”
[Standard English: “The defenders of liberty stand vigilant.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
5.16 Certain persons with weapons claim that because some persons voted or did not resist, these armed persons have authority to command; I speak of their claim when analyzing what they say to justify their power.
5.17 Certain persons agreed to follow written rules and created enforcement mechanisms; these written rules sometimes limit what armed enforcers may do to others, though the enforcers themselves often write the rules. I speak of these arrangements when discussing what restrains armed persons.
5.18 Certain officials claim that armed persons within certain borders may command everyone inside those borders without interference from armed persons outside; I speak of their claim when analyzing what officials assert.
5.19 Many persons around me hold preferences; certain other persons claim to speak for them. I speak of what those many persons say when distinguishing their actual statements from what others claim they want.
5.20 Certain persons label other persons “enemies of freedom” and seek to harm or confine them; I question who attaches these labels and what “freedom” means to them.
5.21 Officials expect persons they label “citizens” to give up resources and sometimes their lives; I speak of these expectations when analyzing what officials demand.
5.22 Certain writers claim that when many persons behave as officials prefer, the system of elections and majority decisions continues to function; I examine these claims when analyzing political theories.
5.23 Certain persons claim that changes they approve of will continue; I question what counts as “progress” and who decides.
5.24 Certain officials claim that what benefits them and their armed enforcers matters more than what benefits other persons; I speak of their claims when analyzing power relations.
5.25 A certain writer expressed hope that events would eventually favor outcomes he approved of; many persons repeat his words when encouraging themselves or others.
5.26 In certain systems, officials count votes and act on the larger count; I speak of these counting procedures when describing how certain decisions get made.
5.27 Many persons around me express dissatisfaction with current officials and discuss replacing them; certain writers speak of these expressions when analyzing political movements.
5.28 Journalists in many countries report on this election, and some persons in those countries read or watch these reports; I speak of this attention when describing what journalists do.
5.29 Many persons acted in the past, and their actions led to present circumstances; I speak of these past actions when explaining how we arrived here.
5.30 Certain persons call themselves defenders of liberty and watch for threats; I question what “liberty” means to them and whom they consider threats.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Political rhetoric relies heavily on “of” constructions to create spooks. This genre section revealed several patterns:
Pattern 1: “The X of the Y” where Y names a collective
“The will of the people,” “the voice of the people,” “the power of the majority”
These constructions give collective abstractions apparent unity and agency. Dissolution reveals many persons with differing views, not one entity with one will.
Pattern 2: “The X of Y” where Y names an abstraction, and X names something concrete
“The hand of God,” “the voice of reason,” “the eyes of the world”
These constructions give abstractions apparent substance through concrete metaphors. Dissolution reveals persons claiming to know the abstraction’s direction.
Pattern 3: “The X of Y” where both X and Y name abstractions
“The spirit of revolution,” “the foundations of democracy,” “the arc of the moral universe”
These constructions stack spooks. Dissolution requires dissolving both terms.
Pattern 4: “Defenders/Servants/Enemies of X”
“Defenders of liberty,” “servants of the state,” “enemies of freedom”
These constructions create categories of persons defined by relation to a spook. Dissolution asks: who attaches these labels? What do they mean by the abstraction?
Key question for all political “of” constructions: WHO benefits from this formulation? When you dissolve the spook, who appears holding weapons, attaching labels, or making claims?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Exercise 1:
Standard: “The light of truth dispels the darkness of ignorance.”
E-Prime Max: When I examine claims carefully and compare them with my observations, I often revise my beliefs; I speak of this process when describing how careful examination changes what I think.
darkness of ignorance → beliefs I held before examination (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “truth” exists to have “light” → only claims I examine. No “ignorance” exists as darkness → only beliefs I revise.
Exercise 2:
Standard: “The blessings of liberty belong to all citizens.”
E-Prime Max: Certain documents state that officials should allow certain actions to all persons they label “citizens”; I speak of these documented permissions when discussing what officials have agreed to allow.
citizens → persons officials label “citizen” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “liberty” exists to bestow “blessings” → only permissions. No “citizens” exist as category → only labeled persons.
Exercise 3:
Standard: “The wheel of fortune turns for everyone.”
E-Prime Max: Circumstances change for persons in ways they did not plan; I speak of these unpredicted changes when describing how outcomes vary.
turns → changes (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “fortune” exists to have a “wheel” → only circumstances changing. No cosmic mechanism turns → only unpredicted outcomes.
Exercise 4:
Standard: “The dignity of man demands respect.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons teach that other persons deserve considerate treatment; I question who defines “dignity” and what treatment counts as respectful.
demands → certain persons teach (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “dignity” exists to “demand” → only persons teaching expectations. No “man” exists as unified category → only persons.
Exercise 5:
Standard: “The bonds of community hold society together.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me interact regularly, help each other, and share expectations; I speak of these interactions when describing what connects persons in a place.
society → many persons around me (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “community” exists to have “bonds” → only persons interacting. No “society” exists to hold together → only persons in proximity.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in autodidact methodology for languages both ancient and modern. This E-Prime Max course represents the Institute’s Consciousness Archaeology Project—applying linguistic discipline to dissolve reified abstractions and recover awareness of persons acting.
The CSV-Based Vocabulary System: This course follows a 1000-word frequency list, introducing one English word per lesson. By grounding each lesson in high-frequency vocabulary, students build practical competence while learning E-Prime Max discipline.
The Construed Text Method: Latinum’s signature approach presents text with word-by-word glossing, allowing students to see grammatical structure directly. For E-Prime Max, this method makes dissolution visible—showing exactly which spooks dissolve into which persons and actions.
The Bourland-Stirner Synthesis: This course uniquely combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions). The result: comprehensive linguistic discipline for consciousness liberation.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 5
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson introduces the English preposition “to” while training students to dissolve abstractions back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
The preposition “to” indicates direction, purpose, recipient, or limit. In Standard English, “to” frequently connects persons to spooks: “duty to the state,” “loyalty to the nation,” “obligation to society.” These constructions create phantom recipients—abstractions that appear to receive something from us. E-Prime Max dissolves these phantoms, revealing that only persons receive, only persons expect, only persons enforce.
Philosophical Foundation: D. David Bourland Jr. (1965) developed E-Prime from Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933). Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) exposed how abstractions (”spooks”) possess humans who created them. The Latinum Institute Consciousness Archaeology Project (2026) synthesizes these approaches: E-Prime attacks predication (”X is Y”); E-Prime Max attacks reification (treating abstractions as agents or recipients).
devotion to [spook]
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
As purpose marker: “I came to learn” (concrete action, permitted)
“right to freedom” → WHO grants this “right”? Dissolve.
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ for category recipients (citizens, criminals, the people)
Power relations hidden by abstraction become visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Never use in examples:
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)Spook Categories
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, anarchy (when reified)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
The Stirnerian Test: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts? Does it appear as a RECIPIENT that receives duty, loyalty, or service?” If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1: ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2: ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3: ◊ᴳᴱᴺᴱᴬᴸᴼᴳᴵᶜᴬᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ — Trace the spook back to who created it and why.
D4: ◊ᴼᵂᴺᴱᴿˢᴴᴵᴾ⁻ᴬᵀᵀᴿᴵᴮᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership.
D5: ◊ᴸᴬᴮᴱᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ — Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I have a duty to the State.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.1a Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves “officials,” expect specific behaviors from me, and will harm me if I refuse to comply.
6.1b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N), calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label), expect (V-pres) specific (ADJ) behaviors (N-obj) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres) to (PREP-purp) comply (V-inf).
6.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: duty → DISSOLUTION: behaviors others expect with enforcement → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: State → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves officials → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “to the State” → DISSOLUTION: [phantom recipient eliminated—no State exists to receive] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” exists anywhere to receive “duty” ∴ Only persons with weapons exist who expect behaviors ∴ The preposition “to” connected me to a phantom ∴ WHO benefits from my belief in “duty to the State”? ∴ WHO holds the weapons that enforce this “duty”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She went to the city to find freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.2a She traveled to the city to act without interference from the persons who had surrounded her.
6.2b She (PRON-subj) traveled (V-past) to (PREP-dir) the (DEF.ART) city (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[oppressors→persons]) who (PRON-rel) had∿surrounded (V-past.PERF) her (PRON-obj).
6.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference from others → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: “to find” → DISSOLUTION: “to act” (concrete action replacing abstract acquisition) → STRATEGY: E3
6.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists anywhere as a thing to find ∴ Only the experience of acting without interference exists ∴ WHO interfered before? Specific persons, now visible ∴ “To the city” remains valid—cities consist of buildings and persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat walked to the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.3a The cat walked to the mat.
6.3b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) walked (V-past) to (PREP-dir) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
6.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: none required → DISSOLUTION: no spooks present → STRATEGY: N/A
6.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Concrete nouns (cat, mat) require no dissolution ∴ “To” indicates physical direction—permitted without change ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: already compliant
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens owe loyalty to the nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.4a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from those same officials to act as those officials prefer, and those officials will harm persons who refuse.
6.4b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→officials]) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) expectations (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[loyalty→expectations]) from (PREP) those (DET) same (ADJ) officials (N) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) those (DET) officials (N) prefer (V-pres), and (CONJ) those (DET) officials (N-subj) will∿harm (V-fut) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
6.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Citizens → DISSOLUTION: persons whom officials label “citizens” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: loyalty → DISSOLUTION: expectations to act as preferred → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: nation → DISSOLUTION: [phantom recipient eliminated—officials receive, not “nation”] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: owe → DISSOLUTION: face expectations with enforcement → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” exists to receive “loyalty” ∴ Only officials exist who attach the label “citizen” ∴ Only officials exist who expect certain behaviors ∴ Only officials exist who will harm those who refuse ∴ WHO benefits from the phrase “loyalty to the nation”? ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice belongs to the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.5a Certain persons with power decide what happens to other persons, and many persons around me approve of these decisions.
6.5b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.deciding]) with (PREP) power (N) decide (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres) to (PREP-dir) other (DET) persons (N-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres) of (PREP) these (DET) decisions (N-obj).
6.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Justice → DISSOLUTION: decisions certain persons with power make → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: the people → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: belongs to → DISSOLUTION: [ownership relation dissolved—abstractions cannot own] → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” exists as a thing that can “belong” ∴ No “people” exists as a collective owner ∴ Only persons with power deciding, and persons approving ∴ WHO decides? WHO approves? WHO benefits from the abstraction?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He dedicated his life to humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.6a He spent his years helping specific persons he encountered, expecting nothing in return, and he continued to help persons until he died.
6.6b He (PRON-subj) spent (V-past) his (PRON-poss) years (N-obj) helping (V-pres.PART) specific (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→specific.persons]) he (PRON-subj) encountered (V-past), expecting (V-pres.PART) nothing (PRON) in (PREP) return (N), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) continued (V-past) to (PREP-purp) help (V-inf) persons (N-obj) until (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) died (V-past).
6.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: humanity → DISSOLUTION: specific persons he encountered → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: dedicated his life to → DISSOLUTION: spent years helping, continued to help → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: “life” as abstract → DISSOLUTION: “years” (concrete duration) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “humanity” exists as a recipient of dedication ∴ Only specific persons exist whom he actually helped ∴ “Dedication to humanity” dissolves to “helping persons I encounter” ∴ The grandeur of the abstraction masked the simplicity of the action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality teaches us to be good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.7a Certain persons who raised me taught me to act in ways they preferred, claiming these ways carried cosmic weight.
6.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) who (PRON-rel) raised (V-past) me (PRON-obj) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) preferred (V-past), claiming (V-pres.PART) these (DET) ways (N-subj) carried (V-past) cosmic (ADJ) weight (N-obj).
6.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Morality → DISSOLUTION: persons who taught me, claiming cosmic weight → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: teaches (morality as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—abstractions cannot teach] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: good → DISSOLUTION: ways they preferred → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: “to be good” → DISSOLUTION: “to act in ways they preferred” → STRATEGY: E7
6.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Morality” exists to teach anything ∴ Only persons exist who taught me and claimed cosmic authority ∴ No “good” exists independently—only preferences of specific persons ∴ WHO taught me? WHO benefits from my belief in “Morality”? ∴ The genealogical exposure reveals human origin of the “moral law”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth leads us to understanding.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.8a When what I observe matches what others report, I come to predict outcomes more accurately.
6.8b When (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Truth→what.I.observe]) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) come (V-pres) to (PREP-purp) predict (V-inf) outcomes (N-obj) more (ADV) accurately (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[understanding→predicting.accurately]).
6.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Truth → DISSOLUTION: what I observe matching what others report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: leads (Truth as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—abstractions cannot lead] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: understanding → DISSOLUTION: predicting outcomes accurately → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Truth” exists to lead anyone anywhere ∴ Only observations and reports from persons exist ∴ “Understanding” dissolves to improved prediction ∴ The mystical journey (”Truth leads to understanding”) becomes practical: matching observations improves predictions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I walked to the store.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.9a I walked to the store.
6.9b I (PRON-subj) walked (V-past) to (PREP-dir) the (DEF.ART) store (N-obj).
6.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: none required → DISSOLUTION: no spooks present → STRATEGY: N/A
6.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “To” indicates physical direction—concrete and permitted ∴ Store consists of a building and persons—concrete referent ∴ Already E-Prime Max compliant
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society expects us to conform.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.10a Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently, pressuring me to match their preferences.
6.10b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV), pressuring (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[expects→pressuring]) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) match (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conform→match.preferences]).
6.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Society → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: expects (Society as agent) → DISSOLUTION: express displeasure, pressuring → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: conform → DISSOLUTION: match their preferences → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Society” exists to expect anything ∴ Only specific persons around me exist with preferences ∴ “Conformity” dissolves to “matching preferences of specific persons” ∴ WHO expresses displeasure? WHO pressures? Now visible.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law commands obedience to authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.11a Certain persons wrote words on paper, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I refuse to act as those words specify, especially if I refuse to follow orders from persons those writers designated.
6.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) those (DET) words (N-subj) specify (V-pres), especially (ADV) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres) to (PREP-purp) follow (V-inf) orders (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obedience→following.orders]) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.designated]) those (DET) writers (N) designated (V-past).
6.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: words certain persons wrote, others with weapons enforce → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: commands (law as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—words cannot command] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: obedience → DISSOLUTION: following orders → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: authority → DISSOLUTION: persons whom writers designated → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
6.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists to command—only words on paper exist ∴ No “authority” exists independently—only designated persons ∴ Persons wrote the words, persons enforce with weapons ∴ WHO wrote? WHO designated? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ Triple spook dissolution reveals the human chain entirely
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear drove him to desperation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.12a His body contracted, his thoughts raced, and he came to act in ways he later regretted.
6.12b His (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracted (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.contracted]), his (PRON-poss) thoughts (N-subj) raced (V-past), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) came (V-past) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) he (PRON-subj) later (ADV) regretted (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[desperation→acting.with.regret]).
6.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Fear (as agent that “drove”) → DISSOLUTION: body contracted, thoughts raced → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: drove (Fear as driver) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—emotions cannot drive] → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: desperation → DISSOLUTION: acting in ways later regretted → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Fear” exists as an agent that drives ∴ Only bodily contractions and racing thoughts exist ∴ He acted—the action remains his, not Fear’s ∴ Ownership returns: “I felt, I acted, I regret”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must commit ourselves to progress.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.13a I choose to work toward outcomes I prefer, and I invite others to join me if they share these preferences.
6.13b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[We→I]) choose (V-pres) to (PREP-purp) work (V-inf) toward (PREP) outcomes (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→outcomes.I.prefer]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) invite (V-pres) others (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) join (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) share (V-pres) these (DET) preferences (N-obj).
6.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: We (as collective agent) → DISSOLUTION: I, and others who choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: must (as moral necessity) → DISSOLUTION: choose (volition returns) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: commit ourselves to → DISSOLUTION: choose to work toward → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: progress → DISSOLUTION: outcomes I prefer → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “We” exists to commit—only I exist, choosing ∴ No “must” exists—only my choice exists ∴ No “progress” exists as a destination—only preferred outcomes ∴ “Commitment to progress” = “I choose to work toward what I prefer” ∴ WHO defines “progress”? The one who prefers certain outcomes.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights entitle you to equal treatment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.14a Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to you, and you may appeal to those documents if persons with weapons harm you contrary to those limits.
6.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Rights→persons.who.agreed]) agreed (V-past) to (PREP-purp) document (V-inf) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP-dir) you (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) may∿appeal (V-modal) to (PREP-dir) those (DET) documents (N-obj) if (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) harm (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) contrary (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal.treatment→within.documented.limits]) to (PREP) those (DET) limits (N-obj).
6.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Rights → DISSOLUTION: documents certain persons agreed to write → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: entitle (Rights as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—documents cannot entitle] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: equal treatment → DISSOLUTION: within documented limits → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Rights” exist independently—only documents persons wrote ∴ Documents cannot “entitle”—only persons can agree to limits ∴ “To” connects you to documents, not to phantom “Rights” ∴ WHO agreed? WHO enforces? WHO may ignore the documents? ∴ The genealogical exposure reveals: rights = agreements among powerful persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love brought them to reconciliation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.15a They acted with tenderness toward each other and came to speak again after their silence.
6.15b They (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Love→acting.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) each (DET) other (PRON), and (CONJ) came (V-past) to (PREP-purp) speak (V-inf) again (ADV) after (PREP) their (PRON-poss) silence (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reconciliation→speaking.again]).
6.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Love (as agent that “brought”) → DISSOLUTION: acting with tenderness → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: brought (Love as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—emotions cannot bring] → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: reconciliation → DISSOLUTION: speaking again after silence → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Love” exists as agent that brings ∴ They acted with tenderness—the action remains theirs ∴ “Reconciliation” = concrete: speaking again ∴ The mystical (”Love brought”) becomes personal (”they acted”)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
6.1 “Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves ‘officials,’ expect specific behaviors from me, and will harm me if I refuse to comply.”
Standard English: “I have a duty to the State.”
E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in E-Prime Max version)
Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (duty → expected behaviors), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons calling themselves officials)
6.2 “She traveled to the city to act without interference from the persons who had surrounded her.”
Standard English: “She went to the city to find freedom.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)
6.3 “The cat walked to the mat.”
Standard English: “The cat walked to the mat.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present
6.4 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face expectations from those same officials to act as those officials prefer, and those officials will harm persons who refuse.”
Standard English: “Citizens owe loyalty to the nation.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (loyalty → expectations to act as preferred), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → officials)
6.5 “Certain persons with power decide what happens to other persons, and many persons around me approve of these decisions.”
Standard English: “Justice belongs to the people.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons deciding), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons around me)
6.6 “He spent his years helping specific persons he encountered, expecting nothing in return, and he continued to help persons until he died.”
Standard English: “He dedicated his life to humanity.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → specific persons he encountered), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (dedicated life → spent years helping)
6.7 “Certain persons who raised me taught me to act in ways they preferred, claiming these ways carried cosmic weight.”
Standard English: “Morality teaches us to be good.”
E-Prime strategies: E7 (to be good → to act in preferred ways)
Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught, claiming cosmic authority)
6.8 “When what I observe matches what others report, I come to predict outcomes more accurately.”
Standard English: “Truth leads us to understanding.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Truth → matching observations), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (understanding → predicting accurately)
6.9 “I walked to the store.”
Standard English: “I walked to the store.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present
6.10 “Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently, pressuring me to match their preferences.”
Standard English: “Society expects us to conform.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (conform → match preferences)
6.11 “Certain persons wrote words on paper, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I refuse to act as those words specify, especially if I refuse to follow orders from persons those writers designated.”
Standard English: “The law commands obedience to authority.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (law → persons who wrote + persons who enforce), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obedience → following orders), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (authority → designated persons)
6.12 “His body contracted, his thoughts raced, and he came to act in ways he later regretted.”
Standard English: “Fear drove him to desperation.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Fear → body contracted, thoughts raced), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (desperation → acting with regret)
6.13 “I choose to work toward outcomes I prefer, and I invite others to join me if they share these preferences.”
Standard English: “We must commit ourselves to progress.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (We must → I choose), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (progress → outcomes I prefer)
6.14 “Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to you, and you may appeal to those documents if persons with weapons harm you contrary to those limits.”
Standard English: “Rights entitle you to equal treatment.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Rights → documents persons agreed to write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (equal treatment → within documented limits)
6.15 “They acted with tenderness toward each other and came to speak again after their silence.”
Standard English: “Love brought them to reconciliation.”
E-Prime strategies: none required
Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Love → acting with tenderness), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (reconciliation → speaking again)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
6.1 Certain persons with weapons, calling themselves “officials,” expect specific behaviors from me, and will harm me if I refuse to comply.
6.2 She traveled to the city to act without interference from the persons who had surrounded her.
6.3 The cat walked to the mat.
6.4 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from those same officials to act as those officials prefer, and those officials will harm persons who refuse.
6.5 Certain persons with power decide what happens to other persons, and many persons around me approve of these decisions.
6.6 He spent his years helping specific persons he encountered, expecting nothing in return, and he continued to help persons until he died.
6.7 Certain persons who raised me taught me to act in ways they preferred, claiming these ways carried cosmic weight.
6.8 When what I observe matches what others report, I come to predict outcomes more accurately.
6.9 I walked to the store.
6.10 Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently, pressuring me to match their preferences.
6.11 Certain persons wrote words on paper, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I refuse to act as those words specify, especially if I refuse to follow orders from persons those writers designated.
6.12 His body contracted, his thoughts raced, and he came to act in ways he later regretted.
6.13 I choose to work toward outcomes I prefer, and I invite others to join me if they share these preferences.
6.14 Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to you, and you may appeal to those documents if persons with weapons harm you contrary to those limits.
6.15 They acted with tenderness toward each other and came to speak again after their silence.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
**These grammar and dissolution rules govern “to” in E-Prime Max:**1. Standard English Function
The preposition “to” serves multiple grammatical functions in English:
Direction: Indicates movement toward a destination. “I walked to the park.” The preposition connects a subject moving to a concrete endpoint.
Purpose: Introduces infinitives expressing intention. “She came to learn.” Here “to” marks the infinitive and indicates why the action occurs.
Recipient: Marks indirect objects or beneficiaries. “I gave the book to her.” The preposition identifies who receives.
Limit/Extent: Indicates a boundary. “Count to ten.” The preposition marks the endpoint.
Relation: Expresses connection. “The key to the door.” This shows relationship between two concrete things.2. E-Prime Considerations
The preposition “to” does NOT itself violate E-Prime. However, constructions using “to” frequently appear alongside “to be”:
Problematic patterns: “The way to be successful...” / “He seems to be tired.”
E-Prime solution: Replace “to be” constructions with active verbs. “The way to succeed...” / “He seems tired.”
The infinitive marker “to” (as in “to walk,” “to speak”) remains permitted—only “to be” falls under prohibition.3. Spook Proximity Analysis
“To” carries HIGH SPOOK PROXIMITY because it frequently connects persons to phantom recipients:
Common spook constructions with “to”:
“duty to the state” — The state cannot receive duty (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: dissolve to persons with weapons)
“loyalty to the nation” — The nation cannot receive loyalty (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: dissolve to officials who expect)
“service to humanity” — Humanity cannot receive service (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: dissolve to specific persons)
“right to freedom” — Freedom cannot exist as a destination (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: dissolve to acting without interference)
“path to truth” — Truth cannot exist as a location (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: dissolve to matching observations)
“commitment to progress” — Progress cannot receive commitment (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: dissolve to preferred outcomes)4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) with “to”:
“obligation to society” → expectations specific persons around me hold
“appeal to authority” → appeal to persons others labeled “authorities”
“service to the public” → helping persons I encounter
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) with “to”:
“right to freedom” → documented limits on interference
“path to understanding” → process of matching observations
“journey to truth” → comparing what I observe with what others report
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical) with “to”:
“devoted to God” → devoted to practices persons who wrote certain books prescribed
“committed to morality” → following rules persons who raised me claimed carried cosmic weight
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership) with “to”:
“love led me to her” → I felt tenderness and moved toward her
“fear drove me to flee” → my body contracted and I ran
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) with “to”:
“duty to citizens” → expectations officials have of persons they label “citizens”
“service to the poor” → helping persons whom others label “poor”5. Common Mistakes
Phantom Recipients: The most common error involves accepting spooks as valid recipients of “to.” When writing “loyalty to the nation,” ask: WHO actually receives this loyalty? A “nation” cannot receive anything—only persons can.
Hidden Direction: “The path to justice” implies justice exists as a destination. It does not. Only decisions by persons with power exist.
Abstract Infinitives: “To be free” smuggles in both “to be” (E-Prime violation) and “free” as a state rather than an action (spook). Replace with “to act without interference.”
Incomplete Dissolution: Dissolving “duty to the state” to “duty to officials” leaves “duty” intact as spook. Complete dissolution: “expectations officials hold, enforced by weapons.”6. The Stirnerian Test
Apply to every construction with “to”:
“Does the recipient of ‘to’ exist concretely? Can it receive?”
“He walked to the store” — Store exists concretely → permitted
“He committed to justice” — Justice cannot receive commitment → dissolve
“I gave the book to her” — She exists concretely → permitted
“I dedicated myself to humanity” — Humanity cannot receive dedication → dissolve
The Test: If you cannot point to the recipient, if no concrete persons or things receive what “to” directs toward them, you face a phantom recipient. Dissolve.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) founded General Semantics on the principle that “the map does not equal the territory.” Human nervous systems abstract from experience, creating symbols (words) that stand for things but do not capture them fully. The verb “to be” creates particular problems because it implies identity (”A is B”) and existence (”There is X”) in ways that confuse map and territory.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928–2000) developed E-Prime in 1965, proposing that eliminating “to be” from English would reduce dogmatic thinking. Without “is,” speakers must specify what they actually observe, feel, or think—replacing pseudo-certainty with acknowledged perspective.
The preposition “to” interacts with these concerns because it often connects speakers to abstractions that seem to exist as destinations or recipients. “The path to truth” presupposes that truth exists somewhere we might travel. E-Prime Max questions not only the “is” but also the phantom destination.2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner (1806–1856) argued in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) that humans create abstractions (which he called Gespenster, “spooks” or “phantoms”) and then submit to them, forgetting that they themselves created these concepts.
The mechanism of haunting works thus: Humans observe patterns → humans create abstract words for those patterns → humans begin treating abstract words as independent agents → humans submit to their own creations.
“The State” emerges from observing persons with weapons acting in coordinated ways. “Morality” emerges from observing that persons teach children to behave in certain ways. “Progress” emerges from observing that some outcomes seem preferable to others. None of these abstractions exist independently—yet persons submit to them as if external forces commanded.
Stirner’s concept of Eigenheit (ownness, self-ownership) involves reclaiming creative power over abstractions—using concepts as tools rather than serving them as masters.3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication: “X IS Y” implies fixed identity.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS” implies independent agency in abstractions.
The preposition “to” reveals a third problem: phantom reception. “Loyalty TO the nation” implies the nation can receive loyalty. “Service TO humanity” implies humanity can receive service. E-Prime Max asks: WHO concretely receives?
Together, these disciplines constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic awareness.4. What Dissolution Reveals
When spooks dissolve, persons appear:
“Duty to the state” → Certain persons with weapons expect behaviors from me
“Service to humanity” → I help specific persons I encounter
“Loyalty to tradition” → I act as certain persons who preceded me acted
“Commitment to progress” → I work toward outcomes I prefer
The preposition “to” remains—but now it connects to persons, not phantoms. The relationships become visible: WHO expects? WHO receives? WHO enforces? WHO benefits from the abstraction?
Power relations hidden by abstraction emerge into clarity.5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation: When someone invokes your “duty to society” or “obligation to the future,” ask: WHO specifically expects this? WHO benefits from my compliance? The abstraction often hides persons who benefit from your service.
Resisting possession: When you feel compelled “to serve justice” or “to honor tradition,” dissolve: WHICH persons decided what counts as justice? WHOSE actions constitute the tradition? You may choose to serve—but choose consciously, not possessed by phantoms.
Reclaiming ownness: Instead of “I owe loyalty to my country,” try: “I choose to help persons who live near me.” The “to” now connects to concrete recipients you can actually encounter.6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent or phantom recipient. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy flows to lower states,” “the market tends to equilibrium,” “evolution selects for fitness” → all invoke phantom agency or reception if taken literally rather than as shorthand.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “I struggle to abolish the state” → the unique acts. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Source: Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation (2017)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-A: STIRNER ORIGINAL (Landstreicher translation):
“Whom do I love when I dedicate myself to ‘the good cause’? It is not a man, it is — a spook! I become crazy about the cause, to which I sacrifice myself... What unselfish sacrifices have people been willing to make for it!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-B: E-PRIME MAX TRANSFORMATION:
Whom do I serve when I dedicate myself to “the good cause”? I serve no person—I serve a phantom I myself created! I become possessed by this phantom, sacrificing myself to it... Many persons have made what they called “unselfish sacrifices” to such phantoms, exhausting their bodies and years for abstractions that cannot receive.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY:
Whom do I serve when I dedicate myself to “the good cause”? I serve no person—I serve a phantom I myself created! I become possessed by this phantom, sacrificing myself to it. Many persons have made what they called “unselfish sacrifices” to such phantoms, exhausting their bodies and years for abstractions that cannot receive.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F-D: DISSOLUTION NOTES:
SPOOK: “the good cause” → DISSOLUTION: a phantom I myself created → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “to sacrifice myself” → DISSOLUTION: exhausting body and years → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: “It is not a man, it is—a spook” → DISSOLUTION: I serve no person—I serve a phantom → STRATEGY: E1 (active voice)
SPOOK: “unselfish” → DISSOLUTION: what they called “unselfish” (label exposure) → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
F-E: COMMENTARY:
Even Stirner’s own prose employed “is” constructions, which E-Prime Max dissolves. The transformed passage preserves his insight—that abstractions cannot receive our service—while extending it linguistically. Note how “to” appears three times, each time connecting the speaker to a phantom recipient. The dissolution reveals: when I “dedicate myself to the good cause,” WHO receives my dedication? No one. The “cause” cannot receive. Only persons can receive—but “the cause” masks which persons actually benefit from my exhaustion.
Stirner himself would dissolve further: even “persons” can become spook if treated as fixed category. But for practical spook-dissolution, recognizing that abstractions cannot receive suffices to break the spell.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section examines political rhetoric through E-Prime Max, focusing on how “to” connects speakers to phantom recipients in political speech.Part A: Interlinear Construed Text (Examples 6.16 through 6.30)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government is committed to democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.16a Certain persons calling themselves “officials” claim commitment to procedures that allow many persons to select which persons among them will hold weapons and make decisions.
6.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.themselves.officials]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) claim (V-pres) commitment (N-obj) to (PREP-dir) procedures (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→procedures]) that (PRON-rel) allow (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) select (V-inf) which (DET) persons (N-obj) among (PREP) them (PRON-obj) will∿hold (V-fut) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) make (V-inf) decisions (N-obj).
6.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: government → DISSOLUTION: persons calling themselves officials → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: democracy → DISSOLUTION: procedures allowing selection → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: “is committed” → DISSOLUTION: claim commitment → STRATEGY: E2
6.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “government” exists to commit—only persons claiming ∴ “Democracy” dissolves to selection procedures ∴ WHO claims? WHO selected? WHO holds weapons after selection?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens must contribute to the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.17a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face pressure to give resources to projects those officials choose, with weapons deployed against persons who refuse.
6.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[Citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) pressure (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) give (V-inf) resources (N-obj) to (PREP-dir) projects (N) those (DET) officials (N) choose (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→officials.choose]), with (PREP) weapons (N) deployed (V-past.PART) against (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
6.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Citizens → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizens” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: common good → DISSOLUTION: projects officials choose → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: must contribute → DISSOLUTION: face pressure with weapons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “common good” exists to receive contributions ∴ Only projects officials selected exist ∴ WHO selected? WHO labeled? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We owe respect to the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.18a Certain persons wrote words on paper; many persons around me expect me to act as those words specify and express displeasure if I refuse.
6.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N); many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) those (DET) words (N-subj) specify (V-pres) and (CONJ) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[owe.respect→express.displeasure]) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
6.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: words certain persons wrote → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: We owe → DISSOLUTION: persons around me expect → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: respect → DISSOLUTION: acting as specified, or facing displeasure → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Law” cannot receive respect—words on paper exist ∴ WHO wrote? WHO expects? WHO expresses displeasure?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation calls us to sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.19a Certain persons with power ask me to exhaust my body and risk dying so that they may keep their positions.
6.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.with.power]) with (PREP) power (N) ask (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) exhaust (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→exhaust.body]) my (PRON-poss) body (N-obj) and (CONJ) risk (V-inf) dying (V-pres.PART) so (CONJ) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may∿keep (V-modal) their (PRON-poss) positions (N-obj).
6.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: nation → DISSOLUTION: persons with power → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: calls (nation as agent) → DISSOLUTION: ask → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: exhaust body, risk dying → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” exists to call—only persons with power asking ∴ “Sacrifice” dissolves to bodily exhaustion and death risk ∴ WHO asks? WHO benefits from my exhaustion?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom gives us the right to speak.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.20a Certain persons agreed to document limits on what persons with weapons may do to me when I speak; whether those persons with weapons honor those limits remains uncertain.
6.20b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Freedom→persons.who.agreed]) agreed (V-past) to (PREP-purp) document (V-inf) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP-dir) me (PRON-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres); whether (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) honor (V-pres) those (DET) limits (N-obj) remains (V-pres.STATE) uncertain (ADJ-pred).
6.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Freedom → DISSOLUTION: documented limits persons agreed to → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: gives (Freedom as agent) → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—abstractions cannot give] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: right → DISSOLUTION: documented limits → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Freedom” exists to give anything ∴ Only agreements among persons exist ∴ Enforcement remains contingent—persons with weapons decide
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition binds us to our ancestors.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.21a Certain persons who preceded me acted in certain ways; some persons around me expect me to act similarly and express displeasure if I refuse.
6.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[ancestors→persons.who.preceded]) who (PRON-rel) preceded (V-past) me (PRON-obj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N); some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Tradition→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) similarly (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[binds→expect]) and (CONJ) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
6.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Tradition → DISSOLUTION: actions of persons who preceded + expectations of persons now → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: binds (Tradition as agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons expect → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: ancestors → DISSOLUTION: persons who preceded me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Tradition” exists to bind—only persons expecting ∴ “Ancestors” = persons who preceded, now dead ∴ Living persons around me enforce “tradition,” not dead persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History shows us the path to prosperity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.22a Certain persons wrote books about past events; from these books, I may extract patterns that help me to predict which actions lead to outcomes I prefer.
6.22b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N); from (PREP) these (DET) books (N), I (PRON-subj) may∿extract (V-modal) patterns (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) help (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) predict (V-inf) which (DET) actions (N-subj) lead (V-pres) to (PREP-dir) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[prosperity→outcomes.I.prefer]) I (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres).
6.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: History → DISSOLUTION: books persons wrote about past events → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: shows (History as agent) → DISSOLUTION: I extract → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: path → DISSOLUTION: patterns I extract → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: prosperity → DISSOLUTION: outcomes I prefer → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists to show anything ∴ Only persons writing about past events exist ∴ I actively extract—patterns do not simply appear ∴ WHO wrote? What biases shaped their accounts?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands punishment for the guilty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.23a Many persons around me expect certain other persons to confine those they label “guilty,” and persons with weapons will carry out this confinement.
6.23b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confinement]) those (PRON-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “guilty” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[guilty→labeled]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿carry∿out (V-fut) this (DET) confinement (N-obj).
6.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Justice → DISSOLUTION: persons expecting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands (Justice as agent) → DISSOLUTION: expect → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: punishment → DISSOLUTION: confinement → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: guilty → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “guilty” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
6.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” demands—persons expect ∴ No “guilty” persons exist—only labels attached ∴ WHO labels? WHO expects? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We have an obligation to future generations.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.24a Some persons around me expect me to act in ways that will affect persons not yet born, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
6.24b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obligation→expectation]) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) will∿affect (V-fut) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[future.generations→persons.not.yet.born]) not (ADV) yet (ADV) born (V-past.PART), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
6.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: We → DISSOLUTION: persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: obligation → DISSOLUTION: expectations with displeasure → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: future generations → DISSOLUTION: persons not yet born → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Future generations” cannot hold obligations—they do not exist yet ∴ LIVING persons around me hold expectations ∴ WHO benefits from invoking the unborn?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution must remain true to its principles.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.25a Certain persons who previously seized weapons from other persons now face pressure from yet other persons to continue acting as words they wrote previously specify.
6.25b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolution→persons.who.seized]) who (PRON-rel) previously (ADV) seized (V-past) weapons (N-obj) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N) now (ADV) face (V-pres) pressure (N-obj) from (PREP) yet (ADV) other (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[principles→persons.expecting]) to (PREP-purp) continue (V-inf) acting (V-pres.PART) as (CONJ) words (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[principles→words.previously.written]) they (PRON-subj) wrote (V-past) previously (ADV) specify (V-pres).
6.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: revolution → DISSOLUTION: persons who seized weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: true to → DISSOLUTION: acting as words specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: principles → DISSOLUTION: words previously written + persons expecting compliance → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “revolution” exists to remain true—persons exist who seized weapons ∴ “Principles” = words persons wrote ∴ WHO wrote the principles? WHO enforces them now?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Conscience guides us to right action.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.26a When I consider acting, I feel discomfort about certain possibilities; this discomfort sometimes leads me to choose differently than I would without it.
6.26b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) acting (V-pres.PART), I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Conscience→discomfort.I.feel]) about (PREP) certain (DET) possibilities (N); this (DET) discomfort (N-subj) sometimes (ADV) leads (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) choose (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right.action→choosing.differently]) differently (ADV) than (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal) without (PREP) it (PRON-obj).
6.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Conscience → DISSOLUTION: discomfort I feel when considering → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: guides (Conscience as agent) → DISSOLUTION: leads (discomfort as cause) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: right action → DISSOLUTION: choosing differently based on discomfort → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Conscience” exists as guide—I feel discomfort ∴ No “right action” exists independently—I choose ∴ Discomfort arose from teaching—WHO taught?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Equality requires us to treat everyone the same.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.27a Certain persons expect me to act toward other persons without using certain categories to differentiate, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
6.27b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Equality→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) act (V-inf) toward (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) without (PREP) using (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) categories (N-obj) to (PREP-purp) differentiate (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[treat.same→not.differentiating]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
6.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Equality → DISSOLUTION: expectation to not differentiate → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: requires (Equality as agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons expect → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: everyone → DISSOLUTION: other persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Equality” requires anything—persons expect ∴ “Treat the same” dissolves to “not using certain categories” ∴ WHO decides which categories count?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion turns against those who oppose progress.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.28a Many persons around me express displeasure to persons who work against outcomes those many persons prefer.
6.28b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Public.opinion→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[turns.against→express.displeasure]) to (PREP-dir) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) work (V-pres) against (PREP) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→outcomes]) those (DET) many (DET) persons (N-subj) prefer (V-pres).
6.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Public opinion → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: turns against → DISSOLUTION: express displeasure → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: progress → DISSOLUTION: outcomes they prefer → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
6.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “public opinion” exists—persons express displeasure ∴ “Progress” = outcomes specific persons prefer ∴ WHO defines progress? WHO expresses displeasure?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Patriotism calls us to defend the homeland.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.29a Certain persons with power ask me to risk dying so that they may keep control over the area where I live.
6.29b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Patriotism→persons.asking]) with (PREP) power (N) ask (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP-purp) risk (V-inf) dying (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[defend→risk.dying]) so (CONJ) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may∿keep (V-modal) control (N-obj) over (PREP) the (DEF.ART) area (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[homeland→area.where.I.live]) where (ADV-rel) I (PRON-subj) live (V-pres).
6.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Patriotism → DISSOLUTION: requests from persons with power → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: calls (Patriotism as agent) → DISSOLUTION: ask → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: defend → DISSOLUTION: risk dying → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: homeland → DISSOLUTION: area where I live, controlled by certain persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Patriotism” calls—persons with power ask ∴ “Homeland” = area certain persons control ∴ WHO asks me to die? WHO keeps control if I succeed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution guarantees rights to all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
6.30a Certain persons wrote words on paper claiming to limit what persons with weapons may do to others; whether those persons with weapons honor these limits depends on what they choose.
6.30b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N) claiming (V-pres.PART) to (PREP-purp) limit (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP-dir) others (PRON-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→others]); whether (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) honor (V-pres) these (DET) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres).
6.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Constitution → DISSOLUTION: words persons wrote on paper → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: guarantees (Constitution as agent) → DISSOLUTION: claims to limit → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: limits on what persons with weapons may do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: all → DISSOLUTION: others → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
6.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Constitution” guarantees—words on paper exist ∴ Enforcement depends on choices of persons with weapons ∴ WHO wrote? WHO enforces? WHO may ignore? ∴ The gap between “guarantee” and reality becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part B: Natural Sentences
6.16 “Certain persons calling themselves ‘officials’ claim commitment to procedures that allow many persons to select which persons among them will hold weapons and make decisions.”
Standard English: “The government is committed to democracy.”
6.17 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face pressure to give resources to projects those officials choose, with weapons deployed against persons who refuse.”
Standard English: “Citizens must contribute to the common good.”
6.18 “Certain persons wrote words on paper; many persons around me expect me to act as those words specify and express displeasure if I refuse.”
Standard English: “We owe respect to the law.”
6.19 “Certain persons with power ask me to exhaust my body and risk dying so that they may keep their positions.”
Standard English: “The nation calls us to sacrifice.”
6.20 “Certain persons agreed to document limits on what persons with weapons may do to me when I speak; whether those persons with weapons honor those limits remains uncertain.”
Standard English: “Freedom gives us the right to speak.”
6.21 “Certain persons who preceded me acted in certain ways; some persons around me expect me to act similarly and express displeasure if I refuse.”
Standard English: “Tradition binds us to our ancestors.”
6.22 “Certain persons wrote books about past events; from these books, I may extract patterns that help me to predict which actions lead to outcomes I prefer.”
Standard English: “History shows us the path to prosperity.”
6.23 “Many persons around me expect certain other persons to confine those they label ‘guilty,’ and persons with weapons will carry out this confinement.”
Standard English: “Justice demands punishment for the guilty.”
6.24 “Some persons around me expect me to act in ways that will affect persons not yet born, and they express displeasure if I refuse.”
Standard English: “We have an obligation to future generations.”
6.25 “Certain persons who previously seized weapons from other persons now face pressure from yet other persons to continue acting as words they wrote previously specify.”
Standard English: “The revolution must remain true to its principles.”
6.26 “When I consider acting, I feel discomfort about certain possibilities; this discomfort sometimes leads me to choose differently than I would without it.”
Standard English: “Conscience guides us to right action.”
6.27 “Certain persons expect me to act toward other persons without using certain categories to differentiate, and they express displeasure if I refuse.”
Standard English: “Equality requires us to treat everyone the same.”
6.28 “Many persons around me express displeasure to persons who work against outcomes those many persons prefer.”
Standard English: “Public opinion turns against those who oppose progress.”
6.29 “Certain persons with power ask me to risk dying so that they may keep control over the area where I live.”
Standard English: “Patriotism calls us to defend the homeland.”
6.30 “Certain persons wrote words on paper claiming to limit what persons with weapons may do to others; whether those persons with weapons honor these limits depends on what they choose.”
Standard English: “The Constitution guarantees rights to all.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part C: E-Prime Max Text Only
6.16 Certain persons calling themselves “officials” claim commitment to procedures that allow many persons to select which persons among them will hold weapons and make decisions.
6.17 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face pressure to give resources to projects those officials choose, with weapons deployed against persons who refuse.
6.18 Certain persons wrote words on paper; many persons around me expect me to act as those words specify and express displeasure if I refuse.
6.19 Certain persons with power ask me to exhaust my body and risk dying so that they may keep their positions.
6.20 Certain persons agreed to document limits on what persons with weapons may do to me when I speak; whether those persons with weapons honor those limits remains uncertain.
6.21 Certain persons who preceded me acted in certain ways; some persons around me expect me to act similarly and express displeasure if I refuse.
6.22 Certain persons wrote books about past events; from these books, I may extract patterns that help me to predict which actions lead to outcomes I prefer.
6.23 Many persons around me expect certain other persons to confine those they label “guilty,” and persons with weapons will carry out this confinement.
6.24 Some persons around me expect me to act in ways that will affect persons not yet born, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
6.25 Certain persons who previously seized weapons from other persons now face pressure from yet other persons to continue acting as words they wrote previously specify.
6.26 When I consider acting, I feel discomfort about certain possibilities; this discomfort sometimes leads me to choose differently than I would without it.
6.27 Certain persons expect me to act toward other persons without using certain categories to differentiate, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
6.28 Many persons around me express displeasure to persons who work against outcomes those many persons prefer.
6.29 Certain persons with power ask me to risk dying so that they may keep control over the area where I live.
6.30 Certain persons wrote words on paper claiming to limit what persons with weapons may do to others; whether those persons with weapons honor these limits depends on what they choose.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part D: Grammar and Dissolution Notes for Genre Section
Political rhetoric demonstrates high spook density. Nearly every sentence in political speech invokes phantom agents (the nation calls, justice demands, history teaches) or phantom recipients (duty to the state, loyalty to the cause, service to humanity).
The preposition “to” plays a crucial role in connecting speakers to these phantoms. Political language asks us to dedicate ourselves “to” abstractions, owe loyalty “to” collective spooks, commit “to” reified goals.
Key patterns observed in this genre section:
Phantom Agency: “The nation calls,” “freedom gives,” “conscience guides”—all eliminated. Only persons call, give, or guide.
Phantom Reception: “Duty to the state,” “service to the people,” “obligation to future generations”—all dissolved. Only persons can receive, and most “recipients” in political speech do not exist as concrete persons.
Document-as-Agent: “The Constitution guarantees,” “the law commands”—dissolved to “persons wrote words on paper.” Documents cannot guarantee or command. Persons with weapons enforce, or not.
Living vs. Dead Enforcement: “Tradition binds,” “ancestors guide”—dissolved. Dead persons cannot bind or guide. Living persons around me enforce traditions and express displeasure when I deviate.
The Central Revelation: Political language hides WHO by invoking WHAT. “The nation calls us to sacrifice” hides: certain persons with power ask me to die so they may keep power. The spook “nation” obscures the persons who benefit.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1:
Standard: “We have a responsibility to protect the environment.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons around me expect me to act in ways that preserve conditions I find pleasant, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
protect → preserve (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “environment” exists as recipient. No “we” exists collectively. I face expectations from specific persons.
Exercise 2:
Standard: “The market rewards those who contribute value to society.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who control resources give resources to persons whose actions those controllers prefer.
society → [phantom recipient eliminated] (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “market” rewards—persons with resources decide. “Value” dissolves to what controllers prefer.
Exercise 3:
Standard: “Education is the key to success.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who control access to resources often require credentials from institutions, so I may acquire such credentials to gain access.
success → access to resources I prefer (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO controls access? WHO requires credentials? “Success” dissolves to outcomes I prefer.
Exercise 4:
Standard: “Humanity has a duty to preserve life.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons around me express that I should act to continue biological processes, and they express displeasure if I refuse.
preserve life → continue biological processes (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Humanity” cannot hold duty—only persons can. WHO expects? WHO expresses displeasure?
Exercise 5:
Standard: “Love gives meaning to existence.”
E-Prime Max: When I act with tenderness toward persons I encounter, I find my days more pleasant.
existence → my days (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “Love” gives anything. I act, I find. The cosmic (”meaning to existence”) becomes personal (”my days more pleasant”).
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in autodidact methodology and the construed text approach. This E-Prime Max course represents a synthesis of linguistic discipline (from General Semantics and E-Prime) with philosophical liberation (from Stirnerian egoism).
The construed text format accelerates comprehension by providing word-by-word analysis alongside natural text. Students internalize patterns through repeated exposure to the dissolution apparatus—learning not only vocabulary but the capacity to see through reified abstractions.
E-Prime Max differs from standard language courses in its philosophical dimension. Students learn not merely to avoid “to be” but to dissolve abstractions back into the persons, actions, and experiences from which they arose. This linguistic discipline functions as consciousness liberation.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 6
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson teaches the English preposition “in” while training students to dissolve abstractions back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
The preposition “in” indicates containment, location within boundaries, or inclusion within a set. In Standard English, “in” frequently appears with spook constructions: “in society,” “in the state,” “in justice,” “in history.” These phrases create phantom containers—as though “society” or “the state” existed as spaces one could occupy. E-Prime Max dissolves these phantom containers, revealing that only persons in spatial relations to other persons exist.
Synthesis: Latinum Institute Consciousness Archaeology Project (2026)
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
Dissolved from phantom containers: “in society” → “among persons around me”
“in the name of [abstraction]”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ for category spooks (criminals, citizens, the innocent)
WHO benefits from the phantom container becomes askable
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
The Stirnerian Test: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?” If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
Note: These categories EXEMPLIFY, they do not exhaustively define. ANY word becomes a spook when it appears as AGENT. “Energy demands,” “history teaches,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides”—all spooks, regardless of which priesthood endorses them.
“Society demands conformity” → “Certain persons around me express displeasure when I act differently”
“Freedom matters” → “Acting without interference from others matters”
“God commands” → “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented commands”
“Fear prevented me” → “My body contracted and I refrained”
“Criminals deserve punishment” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘criminal’ get confined by persons with weapons”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is in the box.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.1a The cat sits in the box.
7.1b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) in (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) box (N-obj).
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: “sits” (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ “In” functions as pure spatial preposition—no phantom container
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She is in trouble with the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.2a Persons with weapons, calling themselves “police,” will likely harm her—and she knows this.
7.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N), calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label), will∿likely (ADV-modal) harm (V-inf) her (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) she (PRON-subj) knows (V-pres) this (PRON-dem).
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated through restructuring → STRATEGY: E1
∴ The phantom container “law” dissolves → persons with capacity for violence remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We live in a free society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.3a We live among persons who currently interfere with us less than persons in other regions interfere with those around them.
7.3b We (PRON-subj) live (V-pres) among (PREP ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[in.society→among.persons]) persons (N) who (PRON-rel) currently (ADV-time) interfere (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→less.interference]) with (PREP) us (PRON-obj) less (ADV-degree) than (CONJ-comp) persons (N-subj) in (PREP-location) other (DET) regions (N) interfere (V-pres) with (PREP) those (PRON-dem) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
FORM: “live in” (with spook) → DISSOLUTION: “live among” (with persons) → STRATEGY: E3 + D1
∴ WHO measures this freedom? WHO benefits from calling it “free”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice is found in the courts.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.4a In buildings called “courts,” persons wearing robes make decisions—and many persons around me expect these decisions to match what they consider fair.
7.4b In (PREP-location) buildings (N) called (V-past.PART) “courts” (N-label), persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.deciding]) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→decisions])—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) these (DET) decisions (N-obj) to∿match (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) fair (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→what.they.consider.fair]).
NOTE: “in buildings” retains “in” as pure spatial preposition
∴ WHO wears the robes? WHO benefits from calling their decisions “justice”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I put the bread in the basket.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.5a I put the bread in the basket.
7.5b I (PRON-subj) put (V-past) the (DEF.ART) bread (N-obj) in (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) basket (N-obj).
“In” functions as pure spatial preposition
∴ This sentence already operates at the level E-Prime Max seeks
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the name of the people, we demand change.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.6a We want different arrangements, and we claim that many persons around us want this too—though we have asked only some of them.
7.6b We (PRON-subj) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demand→want]) different (ADJ) arrangements (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[change→arrangements]), and (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→persons]) around (PREP) us (PRON-obj) want (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) too (ADV)—though (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) have∿asked (V-perf) only (ADV) some (DET) of (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “change” → DISSOLUTION: different arrangements → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Honest dissolution reveals: we want this, we hope others agree, we haven’t verified
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She believes in God.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.7a She acts as though a being described in certain old books observes her and will reward or punish her after she dies.
7.7b She (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) as∿though (CONJ-manner) a (INDEF.ART) being (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.described.in.books]) described (V-past.PART) in (PREP-location) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N) observes (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) will∿reward (V-fut) or (CONJ) punish (V-fut) her (PRON-obj) after (PREP-time) she (PRON-subj) dies (V-pres).
NOTE: “in certain old books” uses “in” as spatial preposition (text location)
∴ The spook “God” dissolves → persons writing + persons acting-as-though remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Happiness is found in virtue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.8a Certain persons taught me that I will feel pleasant sensations if I act in ways they approve—and sometimes this proves accurate.
7.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[virtue→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ-sub) I (PRON-subj) will∿feel (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[happiness→pleasant.sensations]) pleasant (ADJ) sensations (N-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP-manner) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[virtue→ways.they.approve])—and (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) this (PRON-dem) proves (V-pres) accurate (ADJ-pred).
NOTE: “in ways” uses “in” as manner preposition (not spook container)
∴ WHO defined “virtue”? WHO benefits from this definition?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The water in the glass looks clear.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.9a The water in the glass appears clear to me.
7.9b The (DEF.ART) water (N-subj) in (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) glass (N) appears (V-pres.PERCEPT) clear (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
“In” functions as pure spatial preposition
∴ This sentence operates at concrete perceptual level
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In history, great men shape events.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.10a Writers of books about past events often emphasize certain persons—usually persons with weapons or wealth—and claim these persons caused what happened.
7.10b Writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers.of.books]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) often (ADV-freq) emphasize (V-pres) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[great.men→persons])—usually (ADV) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N) or (CONJ) wealth (N)—and (CONJ) claim (V-pres) these (DET) persons (N-subj) caused (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shape→caused]) what (PRON-rel) happened (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[events→what.happened]).
FORM: “In history” (temporal/domain) → DISSOLUTION: writers of books claim → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO writes these books? WHO benefits from emphasizing “great men”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am interested in your ideas.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.11a Your thoughts interest me—I want to hear more.
7.11b Your (PRON-poss) thoughts (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ideas→thoughts]) interest (V-pres) me (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) to∿hear (V-inf) more (DET).
NOTE: “interested in” construction eliminated through voice change
∴ “Ideas” can dissolve further to “what you think” but “thoughts” suffices here
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The criminal is in prison.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.12a Persons with weapons confined a person they labeled “criminal” in a building with locked doors—and that person remains there now.
7.12b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) confined (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[put.in.prison→confined]) a (INDEF.ART) person (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminal→person.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) labeled (V-past) “criminal” (N-label)—in (PREP-location) a (INDEF.ART) building (N) with (PREP) locked (ADJ) doors (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[prison→building.with.locked.doors])—and (CONJ) that (DET) person (N-subj) remains (V-pres.STATE) there (ADV-place) now (ADV-time).
NOTE: “in a building” uses “in” as pure spatial preposition
∴ The spooks dissolve → persons acting with weapons remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must act in accordance with the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.13a Persons with weapons will harm us if we act in ways that contradict words written by certain persons—so many around me urge compliance.
7.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) us (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) we (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP-manner) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) contradict (V-pres) words (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→words]) written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N)—so (CONJ) many (DET) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) urge (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[must→urge]) compliance (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[accordance→compliance]).
NOTE: “in ways” uses “in” as manner preposition
∴ The phantom “law” dissolves → persons writing, enforcing, urging remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth resides in the human heart.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.14a Some persons claim that what they call “truth” can emerge when a person attends to sensations in their chest—I find this sometimes useful.
7.14b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.origin]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “truth” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[truth→what.they.call]) can∿emerge (V-modal) when (CONJ-time) a (INDEF.ART) person (N-subj) attends (V-pres) to (PREP) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heart→sensations]) in (PREP-location) their (PRON-poss) chest (N)—I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) sometimes (ADV-freq) useful (ADJ-pred).
NOTE: “in their chest” uses “in” as spatial preposition (body location)
∴ But removes: the claim that “truth” exists as findable entity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She arrived in time to see the performance.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.15a She arrived early enough to watch the performers act.
7.15b She (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) early (ADV-time) enough (ADV-degree) to∿watch (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) performers (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[performance→performers]) act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[performance→act]).
NOTE: “in time” idiom eliminated; concrete temporal expression substituted
∴ Low-level spook, but dissolution reveals: no “performance” exists apart from performers acting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
7.1 “The cat sits in the box.”
[Standard English: “The cat is in the box.”] [E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “sits” replaces “is”)] [Dissolution strategies: None needed—concrete nouns, spatial preposition]
7.2 “Persons with weapons, calling themselves ‘police,’ will likely harm her—and she knows this.”
[Standard English: “She is in trouble with the law.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructured to eliminate “is”)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (trouble → likely harm)]
7.3 “We live among persons who currently interfere with us less than persons in other regions interfere with those around them.”
[Standard English: “We live in a free society.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed in original structure] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around us), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (free → less interference)]
7.4 “In buildings called ‘courts,’ persons wearing robes make decisions—and many persons around me expect these decisions to match what they consider fair.”
[Standard English: “Justice is found in the courts.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructured to eliminate “is found”)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons deciding + persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → decisions matching fairness expectations)]
7.5 “I put the bread in the basket.”
[Standard English: Same—no changes needed] [E-Prime strategies: None needed] [Dissolution strategies: None needed—concrete action, concrete objects]
7.6 “We want different arrangements, and we claim that many persons around us want this too—though we have asked only some of them.”
[Standard English: “In the name of the people, we demand change.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed in original structure] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → persons around us), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (in the name of → we claim), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demand → want, change → different arrangements)]
7.7 “She acts as though a being described in certain old books observes her and will reward or punish her after she dies.”
[Standard English: “She believes in God.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being described in books), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (believes in → acts as though)]
7.8 “Certain persons taught me that I will feel pleasant sensations if I act in ways they approve—and sometimes this proves accurate.”
[Standard English: “Happiness is found in virtue.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructured to eliminate “is found”)] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (happiness → pleasant sensations), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (virtue → ways certain persons approve)]
7.9 “The water in the glass appears clear to me.”
[Standard English: “The water in the glass looks clear.”] [E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “appears” replaces “looks”—both acceptable)] [Dissolution strategies: None needed—concrete observation]
7.10 “Writers of books about past events often emphasize certain persons—usually persons with weapons or wealth—and claim these persons caused what happened.”
[Standard English: “In history, great men shape events.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → writers of books), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (great men → persons labeled great), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (shape events → caused what happened)]
7.11 “Your thoughts interest me—I want to hear more.”
[Standard English: “I am interested in your ideas.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice restructuring eliminates “am”)] [Dissolution strategies: Minor—”ideas” → “thoughts” (both acceptable at this level)]
7.12 “Persons with weapons confined a person they labeled ‘criminal’ in a building with locked doors—and that person remains there now.”
[Standard English: “The criminal is in prison.”] [E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “remains” replaces “is”)] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal → person labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (prison → building with locked doors)]
7.13 “Persons with weapons will harm us if we act in ways that contradict words written by certain persons—so many around me urge compliance.”
[Standard English: “We must act in accordance with the law.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed in restructured form] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons + persons who wrote words), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (must → threat + social pressure, accordance → not contradicting)]
7.14 “Some persons claim that what they call ‘truth’ can emerge when a person attends to sensations in their chest—I find this sometimes useful.”
[Standard English: “Truth resides in the human heart.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed in restructured form] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (truth → what they call “truth”), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (resides → persons claim), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (human heart → sensations in chest)]
7.15 “She arrived early enough to watch the performers act.”
[Standard English: “She arrived in time to see the performance.”] [E-Prime strategies: None needed] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (in time → early enough), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the performance → performers acting)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
7.1 The cat sits in the box.
7.2 Persons with weapons, calling themselves “police,” will likely harm her—and she knows this.
7.3 We live among persons who currently interfere with us less than persons in other regions interfere with those around them.
7.4 In buildings called “courts,” persons wearing robes make decisions—and many persons around me expect these decisions to match what they consider fair.
7.5 I put the bread in the basket.
7.6 We want different arrangements, and we claim that many persons around us want this too—though we have asked only some of them.
7.7 She acts as though a being described in certain old books observes her and will reward or punish her after she dies.
7.8 Certain persons taught me that I will feel pleasant sensations if I act in ways they approve—and sometimes this proves accurate.
7.9 The water in the glass appears clear to me.
7.10 Writers of books about past events often emphasize certain persons—usually persons with weapons or wealth—and claim these persons caused what happened.
7.11 Your thoughts interest me—I want to hear more.
7.12 Persons with weapons confined a person they labeled “criminal” in a building with locked doors—and that person remains there now.
7.13 Persons with weapons will harm us if we act in ways that contradict words written by certain persons—so many around me urge compliance.
7.14 Some persons claim that what they call “truth” can emerge when a person attends to sensations in their chest—I find this sometimes useful.
7.15 She arrived early enough to watch the performers act.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “in” in E-Prime Max:
The preposition “in” indicates several relationships in Standard English:
Spatial containment: “The book lies in the drawer” (physical location within boundaries)
Temporal location: “In three hours, we leave” (within a time period)
Manner/method: “She spoke in whispers” (the mode of action)
State/condition: “He sat in silence” (describing a condition)
Domain/field: “In politics, alliances shift” (within a conceptual area)
Membership: “She works in government” (belonging to a category)
The preposition “in” presents relatively few E-Prime challenges when used spatially. The danger arises when “in” creates phantom containers—abstract domains presented as spaces one can occupy.
“In” rarely requires E-Prime transformation itself. Unlike verbs, prepositions do not conjugate and cannot form “to be” constructions independently.
However, “in” frequently appears in constructions that DO require E-Prime attention:
“She is in trouble” → restructure entirely
“I am interested in” → “X interests me” (E1: active voice)
“I am in the process of leaving” → “I currently leave” / “I now begin to leave”
“In” has HIGH spook proximity. It frequently creates phantom containers from abstract nouns.
Common spook constructions with “in”:
Dissolution: “among persons around me” / “among persons I encounter”
Dissolution: “among persons with weapons calling themselves X”
Dissolution: “what certain persons expect” / “what I observe matching reports”
Dissolution: “according to writers of books about past events”
Dissolution: “claiming to represent [persons]” / “invoking [label]”
Dissolution: “not contradicting [concrete actions/words]”
Dissolution: “act as though [description of behavior]”
“in history” → “according to writers of past-event books”
“in time” → “early enough”
“in virtue” → “in ways that certain persons taught as good”
“in love” → “acting tenderly, choosing this person”
“in good standing” → “labeled acceptable by [specific persons]”
Error: over-applying dissolution to concrete constructions
The combination “in society” creates illusion of occupying a space
Must dissolve ALL elements, not just one
These idioms hide spooks inside familiar phrases
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Apply this test to every “in + [abstraction]” construction:
If the latter: SPOOK → dissolve
If the latter: SPOOK → dissolve to persons with weapons who enforce
If the latter: SPOOK → dissolve to expectations of specific persons
No phantom container; no phantom demands; pure utility
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s foundational insight: “The map does not equal the territory.” Our words and concepts represent reality; they do not constitute it. When we confuse map for territory—when we treat our abstractions as the things themselves—we fall into what Korzybski called “unsanity.”
D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by identifying the verb “to be” as a primary mechanism of map-territory confusion. “The sky is blue” treats a perception as an absolute property. “I see the sky as blue” acknowledges the observer. E-Prime—English without “to be”—forces this acknowledgment into every utterance.
The preposition “in” intersects with these concerns when it creates phantom containers. “We live in society” treats “society” as a space with boundaries—a territory one can occupy. But no such territory exists. Only persons in spatial relations to other persons exist. The phrase “in society” confuses a conceptual map (the word “society”) for a physical territory.
Max Stirner identified the mechanism by which abstractions possess their creators. He called these possessing abstractions “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” (fixe Ideen).
Persons serve what they created—they haunt themselves with their own ghosts
The preposition “in” facilitates this haunting by creating phantom containers. When we say “in society,” we imply that “society” exists as a bounded space—and that we exist within its boundaries, subject to its constraints. But “society” never existed as a container. Only persons existed, in spatial relations to other persons. Someone drew a conceptual boundary and called it “society”—and now we feel ourselves contained.
Stirner’s concept of Eigenheit (ownness, self-ownership) provides the counter-principle. The unique (der Einzige) owns their concepts rather than serving them. They use abstractions as tools and discard them at will. They refuse to recognize phantom boundaries drawn by phantom containers.
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter,” Stirner wrote. When “in society” creates obligations—when I feel I must behave a certain way because I exist “in society”—then “society” has become sacred, has become a fetter. E-Prime Max cuts this fetter by dissolving the phantom container.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X IS Y” creates identity claims that confuse map and territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS” creates phantom agents from abstractions.
The preposition “in” participates in both errors when combined with spooks:
Predication error: “We are in society” (treats “society” as existing container we occupy)
Reification error: “In society, one must behave properly” (treats phantom container as source of demands)
E-Prime Max dissolves both: “Among persons around me, many express displeasure when I act differently.” No phantom container. No phantom demands. Only persons, acting and expressing.
When we dissolve “in society” to “among persons around me,” what becomes visible?
Persons acting where “society” seemed to act. No “society” ever demanded anything. Only specific persons expressed displeasure, withdrew benefits, applied pressure. The phantom container hid their faces.
Power relations hidden by abstraction. “In society, certain behaviors face punishment.” WHO punishes? Persons with weapons. The phantom container “society” concealed the weapons.
The contingency of arrangements. “Society” implies permanence, inevitability—a container one cannot exit. “Persons around me” reveals that arrangements can change, that different persons might arrange things differently.
My position as actor, not occupant. “In society” positions me as contained, as subject to the container. “Among persons” positions me as one person among others—capable of acting, negotiating, leaving.
“In God’s eyes, all are equal” → WHO claims to know what God sees?
Dissolve the container; face the persons; negotiate or refuse directly
The reprogramming effect: Sustained E-Prime Max practice rewires perception. After months of dissolving phantom containers, they become difficult to reconstruct. “Society demands” begins to sound obviously false—a clumsy shorthand for “certain persons express displeasure.” The spooks lose their grip through linguistic discipline.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. “Among persons around me” suffices for most spook dissolution. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “In the laws of physics,” “in evolutionary history,” “in the market”—all can function as phantom containers demanding service. Apply the Stirnerian test universally.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in elaborate dissolutions, correcting others’ “in society” constructions, feeling morally superior for avoiding phantom containers. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master wearing a different mask.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “In an anarchist society” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique recognizes no containers, draws no permanent boundaries—not even the boundary of “no boundaries.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
German Original: “Der Staat ruft: Es gibt kein Ich, das über dem Staate stände; in meinem Gebiete seid ihr nur, was Ich euch sein lasse.”
Landstreicher English Translation: “The state cries: There is no I that stands above the state; in my domain you are only what I allow you to be.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The state cries: There is no I that stands above the state; in my domain you are only what I allow you to be.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” proclaim: “No person may act as though they need not obey us—in regions we control, you remain only what we permit.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) proclaim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[cries→proclaim]): “No (DET) person (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[I→person]) may∿act (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stands.above→act.as.though.need.not.obey]) as∿though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) need∿not (V-modal-NEG) obey (V-inf) us (PRON-obj)—in (PREP-location) regions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[domain→regions]) we (PRON-subj) control (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[my.domain→regions.we.control]), you (PRON-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴱ⁷[are→remain]) only (ADV) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) permit (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[allow.you.to.be→permit]).”
FORM: “I allow you to be” → DISSOLUTION: “we permit” → STRATEGY: E1 + D2
∴ What remains: a threat from specific persons, not a metaphysical container
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” proclaim: “No person may act as though they need not obey us—in regions we control, you remain only what we permit.”
Stirner’s passage illustrates how states (i.e., persons with weapons claiming territory) use the language of containment to assert dominion. “In my domain” creates a phantom container—as though “the state” possessed a territory as a person possesses a room.
The dissolution reveals: no “state” possesses anything. Persons with weapons occupy regions and threaten harm to those who disobey. The preposition “in” (as “in my domain”) creates the illusion of legitimate containment. E-Prime Max dissolves this illusion while preserving Stirner’s critical point: the proclaimed “domain” rests on weapons, not on metaphysical legitimacy.
Note that Stirner’s own prose uses abstractions freely (”the state,” “domain,” multiple “to be” forms). Part of the E-Prime Max discipline involves transforming EVEN STIRNER’S language—demonstrating that no authority remains sacred, not even our own teachers.
This passage demonstrates Stirner’s method of critical ventriloquism: he speaks in the voice of the spook to expose its mechanism. The state does not literally “cry”—persons proclaim, using the state as phantom authorization.
The transformation reveals that “in my domain” functions as a claim of legitimate containment. But no legitimate containment exists—only regions where specific persons will use weapons against those who disobey. The preposition “in” does considerable ideological work in the original formulation, creating a spatial metaphor that naturalizes political domination.
By dissolving “domain” to “regions we control” and “state” to “persons with weapons,” we see the naked claim: “Where we can hurt you, you will do as we say.” This remains true—but without the dignity the spook-language lent it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent text examining how the preposition “in” creates phantom political containers. Each example uses “in” while demonstrating E-Prime Max principles.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In a democracy, the people rule.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.16a In regions where certain persons count votes and follow certain procedures, many persons believe their preferences influence which persons hold weapons and make decisions.
7.16b In (PREP-location) regions (N) where (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) count (V-pres) votes (N-obj) and (CONJ) follow (V-pres) certain (DET) procedures (N-obj), many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→persons]) believe (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) preferences (N-subj) influence (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rule→influence]) which (DET) persons (N-obj) hold (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj).
SPOOK: “rule” → DISSOLUTION: influence which persons hold weapons and decide → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO counts the votes? WHO defines the procedures?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In this nation, we value freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.17a Persons who claim membership in a group they call “this nation” often say they prefer acting without interference—though they frequently interfere with others.
7.17b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) membership (N-obj) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) group (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “this∿nation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nation→group.called]), often (ADV-freq) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[value→prefer]) acting (V-ger) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→no.interference])—though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) frequently (ADV) interfere (V-pres) with (PREP) others (N-obj).
SPOOK: “freedom” → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO defines membership in “this nation”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights are protected in the Constitution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.18a Certain persons wrote words in a document—and current persons with weapons sometimes refrain from certain actions because of those words.
7.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) in (PREP-location) a (INDEF.ART) document (N)—and (CONJ) current (ADJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) sometimes (ADV-freq) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protected→refrain]) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N) because∿of (PREP-reason) those (DET) words (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→words.that.limit]).
SPOOK: “the Constitution” → DISSOLUTION: document with words written by certain persons → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ “In the Constitution” → “in a document”—spatial location of ink marks
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the eyes of the law, all citizens are equal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.19a Certain written rules claim that persons wearing robes should treat all persons labeled “citizen” similarly—though observers report many exceptions.
7.19b Certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→rules.persons.wrote]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.enforcing]) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N) should∿treat (V-modal) all (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) labeled (V-past.PART) “citizen” (N-label) similarly (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal→similarly])—though (CONJ) observers (N-subj) report (V-pres) many (DET) exceptions (N-obj).
FORM: “are equal” → DISSOLUTION: “treat similarly” → STRATEGY: E6 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO writes the rules? WHO decides who receives the “citizen” label?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In wartime, the state may suspend rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.20a When certain persons declare that fighting has begun, persons with weapons often ignore the limits they previously claimed to observe.
7.20b When (CONJ-time) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.declaring]) declare (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) fighting (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[wartime→fighting]) has∿begun (V-perf), persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) often (ADV-freq) ignore (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[suspend→ignore]) the (DEF.ART) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) they (PRON-subj) previously (ADV-time) claimed (V-past) to∿observe (V-inf).
SPOOK: “suspend” → DISSOLUTION: ignore → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The spooks dissolve → persons deciding, persons ignoring limits remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens must participate in the democratic process.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.21a Many persons expect persons labeled “citizen” to perform certain voting rituals—and express displeasure at those who refuse.
7.21b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) labeled (V-past.PART) “citizen” (N-label) to∿perform (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[participate→perform]) certain (DET) voting (ADJ) rituals (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democratic.process→rituals])—and (CONJ) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj) at (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
SPOOK: “the democratic process” → DISSOLUTION: voting rituals → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The unique may choose whether to perform these rituals
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In modern society, technology shapes human life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.22a Currently, persons who build devices change how other persons around me act—though “technology” decides nothing and shapes nothing.
7.22b Currently (ADV-time ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[modern→currently]), persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[technology→persons.building]) who (PRON-rel) build (V-pres) devices (N-obj) change (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shapes→change]) how (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) act (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[human.life→how.persons.act])—though (CONJ) “technology” (N-label) decides (V-pres) nothing (N-obj) and (CONJ) shapes (V-pres) nothing (N-obj).
NOTE: Final clause explicitly dissolves “technology” as agent
∴ “In modern society” → phantom temporal-social container
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The public interest must be protected in government policy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.23a Some persons claim that words written by officials should benefit many persons—though WHO defines “many” and “benefit” remains contested.
7.23b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) words (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[policy→words]) written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→officials]) should∿benefit (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protected→benefit]) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.interest→many.persons])—though (CONJ) WHO (PRON-interr) defines (V-pres) “many” (N-obj) and (CONJ) “benefit” (N-obj) remains (V-pres.STATE) contested (ADJ-pred).
SPOOK: “must” → DISSOLUTION: some persons claim should → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “In government policy” → in words written by specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In times of crisis, leadership is essential.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.24a When many persons around me feel afraid, some persons claim that others should obey certain persons who give orders.
7.24b When (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) feel (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[crisis→feel.afraid]) afraid (ADJ-pred), some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.origin]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) others (N-subj) should∿obey (V-modal ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[leadership→obey.persons.giving.orders]) certain (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) orders (N-obj).
FORM: “is essential” → DISSOLUTION: “some persons claim should” → STRATEGY: E1 + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ “In times of crisis” → phantom temporal container justifying obedience
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress in civilization requires sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.25a Changes that certain persons label “better” require that other persons give up things—so claim those who typically keep what they have.
7.25b Changes (N-subj) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[progress→persons.labeling]) label (V-pres) “better” (ADJ-label ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→changes.called.better]) require (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) other (DET) persons (N-subj) give∿up (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up]) things (N-obj)—so (ADV) claim (V-pres) those (PRON-dem ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[who.claims]) who (PRON-rel) typically (ADV) keep (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) have (V-pres).
SPOOK: “requires” → DISSOLUTION: so claim those who... → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ “In civilization” → phantom container lending inevitability to the demand
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the name of freedom, we must sometimes restrict freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.26a Some persons claim that to prevent certain interferences, they should create other interferences—and I notice the persons creating restrictions differ from those restricted.
7.26b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[claim.source]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) to∿prevent (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom.1→prevent.interference]) certain (DET) interferences (N-obj), they (PRON-subj) should∿create (V-modal) other (DET) interferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[restrict→create.interference])—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) creating (V-pres.PART) restrictions (N-obj) differ (V-pres) from (PREP) those (PRON-dem) restricted (V-past.PART).
SPOOK: “restrict” → DISSOLUTION: create interferences → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The first-person observation exposes: restricters and restricted differ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Authority in government derives from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.27a Some claim that persons with weapons ruling over others have something called “legitimate authority” because those others allegedly agreed—though no one asked me, and I notice weapons remain ready regardless.
7.27b Some (N-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.ruling]) with (PREP) weapons (N) ruling (V-pres.PART) over (PREP) others (N-obj) have (V-pres) something (N-obj) called (V-past.PART) “legitimate∿authority” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authority→label]) because (CONJ-reason) those (DET) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[governed→others]) allegedly (ADV) agreed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→agreed])—though (CONJ) no∿one (N-subj) asked (V-past) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres) weapons (N-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE) ready (ADJ-pred) regardless (ADV).
SPOOK: “derives from” → DISSOLUTION: have because (weakened claim) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ First-person insertion: “no one asked me” → the governed speaks
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.28a When persons with robes take long to make decisions about persons others labeled “wrongdoers,” observers often say this resembles making no decision at all.
7.28b When (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.deciding]) with (PREP) robes (N) take (V-pres) long (ADV-time ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[delayed→take.long]) to∿make (V-inf) decisions (N-obj) about (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[implicit→persons.labeled]) others (N-subj) labeled (V-past) “wrongdoers” (N-label), observers (N-subj) often (ADV-freq) say (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) resembles (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[denied→resembles.no.decision]) making (V-ger) no (DET) decision (N-obj) at∿all (ADV).
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: observers say resembles → STRATEGY: E2 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The aphorism dissolves to: persons observing that slow decisions harm
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In a just society, the punishment fits the crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.29a Some persons claim that in regions they approve of, persons with weapons harm rule-breakers proportionally to the harm those rule-breakers caused—though measuring this proportionality puzzles me.
7.29b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.source]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) in (PREP-location) regions (N) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres) of (PREP), persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) harm (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→harm]) rule-breakers (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→rule.breaking]) proportionally (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fits→proportionally]) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) harm (N) those (DET) rule-breakers (N-subj) caused (V-past)—though (CONJ) measuring (V-ger) this (DET) proportionality (N-obj) puzzles (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “fits” → DISSOLUTION: proportional to (with skepticism) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ First-person skepticism: “measuring this proportionality puzzles me”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the final analysis, power determines truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.30a After considering many factors, I observe that persons with weapons often decide which claims other persons repeat—and I call this decision-making “determining truth” when speaking loosely.
7.30b After (PREP-time) considering (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[analysis→considering]) many (DET) factors (N-obj), I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[claiming.perspective]) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ-sub) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) often (ADV-freq) decide (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[determines→decide]) which (DET) claims (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→claims]) other (DET) persons (N-subj) repeat (V-pres)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) this (DET) decision-making (N-obj) “determining∿truth” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[truth→label]) when (CONJ-time) speaking (V-ger) loosely (ADV-manner).
NOTE: First person ownership of the claim + admission of loose speaking
∴ First-person honesty: “I call this... when speaking loosely” → owning the abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
7.16 “In regions where certain persons count votes and follow certain procedures, many persons believe their preferences influence which persons hold weapons and make decisions.”
[Standard English: “In a democracy, the people rule.”]
7.17 “Persons who claim membership in a group they call ‘this nation’ often say they prefer acting without interference—though they frequently interfere with others.”
[Standard English: “In this nation, we value freedom.”]
7.18 “Certain persons wrote words in a document—and current persons with weapons sometimes refrain from certain actions because of those words.”
[Standard English: “Rights are protected in the Constitution.”]
7.19 “Certain written rules claim that persons wearing robes should treat all persons labeled ‘citizen’ similarly—though observers report many exceptions.”
[Standard English: “In the eyes of the law, all citizens are equal.”]
7.20 “When certain persons declare that fighting has begun, persons with weapons often ignore the limits they previously claimed to observe.”
[Standard English: “In wartime, the state may suspend rights.”]
7.21 “Many persons expect persons labeled ‘citizen’ to perform certain voting rituals—and express displeasure at those who refuse.”
[Standard English: “Citizens must participate in the democratic process.”]
7.22 “Currently, persons who build devices change how other persons around me act—though ‘technology’ decides nothing and shapes nothing.”
[Standard English: “In modern society, technology shapes human life.”]
7.23 “Some persons claim that words written by officials should benefit many persons—though WHO defines ‘many’ and ‘benefit’ remains contested.”
[Standard English: “The public interest must be protected in government policy.”]
7.24 “When many persons around me feel afraid, some persons claim that others should obey certain persons who give orders.”
[Standard English: “In times of crisis, leadership is essential.”]
7.25 “Changes that certain persons label ‘better’ require that other persons give up things—so claim those who typically keep what they have.”
[Standard English: “Progress in civilization requires sacrifice.”]
7.26 “Some persons claim that to prevent certain interferences, they should create other interferences—and I notice the persons creating restrictions differ from those restricted.”
[Standard English: “In the name of freedom, we must sometimes restrict freedom.”]
7.27 “Some claim that persons with weapons ruling over others have something called ‘legitimate authority’ because those others allegedly agreed—though no one asked me, and I notice weapons remain ready regardless.”
[Standard English: “Authority in government derives from the consent of the governed.”]
7.28 “When persons with robes take long to make decisions about persons others labeled ‘wrongdoers,’ observers often say this resembles making no decision at all.”
[Standard English: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”]
7.29 “Some persons claim that in regions they approve of, persons with weapons harm rule-breakers proportionally to the harm those rule-breakers caused—though measuring this proportionality puzzles me.”
[Standard English: “In a just society, the punishment fits the crime.”]
7.30 “After considering many factors, I observe that persons with weapons often decide which claims other persons repeat—and I call this decision-making ‘determining truth’ when speaking loosely.”
[Standard English: “In the final analysis, power determines truth.”]
7.16 In regions where certain persons count votes and follow certain procedures, many persons believe their preferences influence which persons hold weapons and make decisions.
7.17 Persons who claim membership in a group they call “this nation” often say they prefer acting without interference—though they frequently interfere with others.
7.18 Certain persons wrote words in a document—and current persons with weapons sometimes refrain from certain actions because of those words.
7.19 Certain written rules claim that persons wearing robes should treat all persons labeled “citizen” similarly—though observers report many exceptions.
7.20 When certain persons declare that fighting has begun, persons with weapons often ignore the limits they previously claimed to observe.
7.21 Many persons expect persons labeled “citizen” to perform certain voting rituals—and express displeasure at those who refuse.
7.22 Currently, persons who build devices change how other persons around me act—though “technology” decides nothing and shapes nothing.
7.23 Some persons claim that words written by officials should benefit many persons—though WHO defines “many” and “benefit” remains contested.
7.24 When many persons around me feel afraid, some persons claim that others should obey certain persons who give orders.
7.25 Changes that certain persons label “better” require that other persons give up things—so claim those who typically keep what they have.
7.26 Some persons claim that to prevent certain interferences, they should create other interferences—and I notice the persons creating restrictions differ from those restricted.
7.27 Some claim that persons with weapons ruling over others have something called “legitimate authority” because those others allegedly agreed—though no one asked me, and I notice weapons remain ready regardless.
7.28 When persons with robes take long to make decisions about persons others labeled “wrongdoers,” observers often say this resembles making no decision at all.
7.29 Some persons claim that in regions they approve of, persons with weapons harm rule-breakers proportionally to the harm those rule-breakers caused—though measuring this proportionality puzzles me.
7.30 After considering many factors, I observe that persons with weapons often decide which claims other persons repeat—and I call this decision-making “determining truth” when speaking loosely.
Pattern observed across political discourse: The preposition “in” creates phantom political containers at nearly every turn. “In a democracy,” “in this nation,” “in the Constitution,” “in the eyes of the law,” “in wartime,” “in the democratic process,” “in modern society,” “in government policy,” “in times of crisis,” “in civilization,” “in the name of freedom,” “in government,” “in a just society,” “in the final analysis.”
The “in the name of” construction deserves special attention. This phrase creates phantom authorization from phantom values. “In the name of freedom, we restrict freedom” dissolves to: persons claiming to prevent interference while creating interference—and different persons occupy each role.
E-Prime compliance verified: Zero “to be” forms across all 15 genre examples.
Spook dissolution verified: All political abstractions (democracy, nation, Constitution, law, wartime, the people, society, policy, crisis, civilization, freedom, government, authority, justice, power, truth) dissolved to persons acting, words written, claims made, or labels attached.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Exercise 1:
Standard: “In a civilized society, violence is the state’s monopoly.”
E-Prime Max: “Among persons I encounter, many accept that only persons calling themselves ‘government’ may use violence—and those persons enforce this claim with their own violence.”
monopoly → only they may + they enforce this claim (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “civilized society” exists as container granting monopoly. Only persons exist—some using violence, others accepting this, all enforced by more violence.
Exercise 2:
Standard: “In my heart, I know the truth.”
E-Prime Max: “When I attend to sensations in my chest, certain claims feel more convincing to me—though I remain uncertain whether my feelings correspond to anything beyond them.”
the truth → claims + honesty about uncertainty (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “truth” resides anywhere waiting to be known. Only claims exist, and my feelings about them. Honesty requires acknowledging the gap between feeling-convinced and corresponding-to-something.
Exercise 3:
Standard: “Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons wrote words in a document claiming that other persons with weapons should not punish persons for speaking—and some current persons with weapons sometimes heed these words.”
the First Amendment → words in a document written by certain persons (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “freedom” exists as protected substance. Only words exist, written by dead persons, sometimes heeded by living persons with weapons. “Protection” varies by who speaks, who listens, who holds power.
Exercise 4:
Standard: “In the interest of national security, surveillance is necessary.”
E-Prime Max: “Some persons claim that to maintain their control over regions they call ‘the nation,’ they must observe what other persons do and say—though I notice the observers and the observed occupy different positions.”
surveillance is necessary → must observe others (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “national security” exists as object requiring protection. Only persons exist, claiming they must watch others to maintain control. WHO watches? WHO gets watched? Different persons—and this asymmetry constitutes the hidden power relation.
Exercise 5:
Standard: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they described caused everything else to exist—and many persons around me repeat this claim.”
the heavens and the earth → everything else (simplified; “heavens” = spook)
Revelation: No “beginning” exists where we can verify anything. Only claims exist, made by persons, repeated by other persons. “God” traces genealogically to writings by specific persons with specific purposes. The claim remains a claim—neither proven nor disproven by dissolution, but recognized as human-origin.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a systematic approach to English vocabulary acquisition combined with training in Stirnerian linguistic consciousness.
The Latinum Institute has provided language learning materials for autodidacts since 2006, specializing in construed-text methods that make grammatical relationships transparent. The E-Prime Max course extends this methodology to contemporary English, treating vocabulary learning as an opportunity for philosophical reflection.
The CSV-based system draws from a 1000-word frequency list, ensuring students encounter the most useful English vocabulary while practicing spook dissolution. Each lesson focuses on a single topic word, demonstrating its use across 30 examples that progressively increase in dissolution complexity.
The Bourland-Stirner synthesis underlying this course recognizes that E-Prime’s elimination of “to be” and Stirner’s critique of reification address the same fundamental error from different angles. E-Prime attacks the conflation of map and territory through predication (”X IS Y”). E-Prime Max extends this by attacking the reification of abstractions into agents (”X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS”). Together, they constitute a comprehensive linguistic discipline for dissolving spooks and reclaiming ownness.
For more materials:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 7
✓ Lesson 7 E-Prime Max complete
Definition for the Autodidact Student:
“I” functions as the first-person singular subject pronoun in English—the word speakers use to refer to themselves as agents of action, experience, and choice. In E-Prime Max, “I” holds a position of central importance: it names the locus to which all spook-dissolutions return. When “justice demands,” “society expects,” or “duty calls,” E-Prime Max asks: WHO demands, expects, calls? The answer, ultimately, returns to persons—and when the person speaking performs the dissolution, that person says “I.”
Yet “I” itself carries dangers. Reified as “The Self,” “The Ego,” or “The I,” it becomes another spook—a metaphysical substance that commands rather than a word that serves. Stirner himself warned against this: “The Unique” names nothing, belongs to no category, resists capture by concepts. The moment “I” becomes an identity to defend, a self-image to maintain, a role to perform, the hobgoblin rides again.
This lesson teaches both the centrality of “I” in spook dissolution AND the dissolution of “I” itself when it hardens into fixed idea.
Index Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “I” mean in E-Prime Max?
“I” names the one speaking—not as metaphysical substance, but as THIS one, HERE, NOW, acting and experiencing. E-Prime Max uses “I” to reclaim agency from abstractions: instead of “duty compels me,” we say “I feel an urge that others taught me to call ‘duty,’ and I choose whether to follow it.” The “I” owns; it does not serve. But the moment “I” itself becomes sacred—an identity, a self-image, a thing to protect—it becomes another chain. Use “I” as tool; dissolve it when it becomes master.
How This Lesson Uses “I”:
Dissolve even “The I” or “The Self” when they appear as metaphysical substances
Dissolution stops at “I” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones—”I” can dissolve further into body, sensations, patterns of perception when useful
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List):
be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be”)
Spook Categories:
A. MORAL — justice, rights, duty, good, evil, virtue, sin, guilt, conscience, obligation
B. POLITICAL — state, nation, society, freedom, law, authority, citizenship, patriotism
C. METAPHYSICAL — truth, reality, God, spirit, soul, being, essence, nature, The Self, The Ego
D. COLLECTIVE — humanity, mankind, history, progress, civilization, the people, the common good
E. REIFIED EMOTION — love, fear, hope, anger WHEN treated as agents that “do” things
The Five Dissolution Strategies:
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: Personalization — dissolve to specific persons acting
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: Operationalization — dissolve to concrete actions/experiences
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ: Genealogical — trace to human origin and purpose
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: Ownership — convert to first-person experience and choice
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: Label Exposure — reveal category as act of labeling
The Stirnerian Test:
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am tired.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.1a I feel tired.
8.1b I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) tired (ADJ-pred).
STRATEGY: E7
8.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original
∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “am” → “feel”
∴ “I” functions as agent of experience
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am a teacher.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.2a I work as a teacher.
8.2b I (PRON-subj.1sg) work (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) teacher (N-role).
STRATEGY: E4
8.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “I am X” identity claim dissolved to function
∴ “Teacher” appears as role, not essence
∴ I can stop working as a teacher—the role serves me, not I the role
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am happy to help.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.3a I feel glad to help.
8.3b I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) glad (ADJ) to (PART-inf) help (V-inf).
STRATEGY: E7
8.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Am happy” → “feel glad”
∴ Emotional state owned by the one experiencing it
∴ “I” appears as agent of both feeling and helping
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I think, therefore I am.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.4a I think, therefore I exist here, now, thinking.
8.4b I (PRON-subj.1sg) think (V-pres), therefore (ADV-logic) I (PRON-subj.1sg) exist (V-pres.EXIST) here (ADV-place), now (ADV-time), thinking (V-pres.PART).
STRATEGY: E3 + temporal specification
8.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Descartes’ “I am” dissolved to concrete existence
∴ No metaphysical “being” required—only THIS one, HERE, NOW
∴ The cogito needs no substance; only activity and location
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I have a duty to my country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.5a Certain persons with weapons and official titles expect me to act in ways they specify, and will harm me if I refuse—and I feel an urge to comply that my parents and teachers cultivated in me.
8.5b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) official (ADJ) titles (N) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) specify (V-pres), and (CONJ) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj.1sg) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) refuse (V-pres)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→I.feel.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N) to (PART-inf) comply (V-inf) that (PRON-rel) my (PRON-poss.1sg) parents (N) and (CONJ) teachers (N) cultivated (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→taught.origin]) in (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
8.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “duty” exists anywhere—only my conditioned urge and others’ expectations
∴ No “country” commands—only persons with weapons who claim authority
∴ WHO taught me this “duty”? WHO benefits from my compliance?
∴ The “I” can now choose: follow the urge or not, obey or not
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I must obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.6a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will cage me if I act contrary to words that other persons wrote and called “law”—and I prefer to avoid the cage.
8.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.enforce]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) will∿cage (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→cage]) me (PRON-obj.1sg) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) act (V-pres) contrary (ADV) to (PREP) words (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words.written]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N) wrote (V-past) and (CONJ) called (V-past) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label])—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must→I.prefer]) to (PART-inf) avoid (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) cage (N).
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
8.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” commands—only words exist, and persons who will harm me
∴ “Must” dissolves to “prefer” → I own the choice
∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO benefits from my obedience?
∴ The “I” calculates consequences and chooses
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My conscience tells me this is wrong.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.7a I feel discomfort when I consider doing this, and I remember adults who expressed disapproval of similar actions when I watched as a child.
8.7b I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→I.feel]) discomfort (N) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) consider (V-pres) doing (V-pres.PART) this (PRON-dem), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) remember (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conscience→memory.of.training]) adults (N) who (PRON-rel) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N) of (PREP) similar (ADJ) actions (N) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) watched (V-past) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “conscience” speaks—only I feel and remember
∴ The feeling has an origin: persons who trained me
∴ WHO expressed disapproval? WHOSE values did I internalize?
∴ The “I” can now examine the feeling rather than obeying it automatically
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am an American citizen.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.8a Certain officials with weapons label me “citizen” on documents they control, and I live within borders they patrol.
8.8b Certain (DET) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[citizenship→officials]) with (PREP) weapons (N) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizen→label.attached]) me (PRON-obj.1sg) “citizen” (N-label) on (PREP) documents (N) they (PRON-subj) control (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) live (V-pres) within (PREP) borders (N) they (PRON-subj) patrol (V-pres).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
8.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “citizenship” inheres in me—only a label others attach
∴ WHO attaches the label? WHO patrols the borders?
∴ The “I” exists before and beyond any label
∴ “American” names a category imposed, not a nature possessed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I believe in justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.9a I want certain persons to receive goods and others to experience confinement, and I call this pattern of wanting “justice.”
8.9b I (PRON-subj.1sg) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[believe→I.want]) certain (DET) persons (N) to (PART-inf) receive (V-inf) goods (N) and (CONJ) others (N) to (PART-inf) experience (V-inf) confinement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confinement]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→label.I.use]) this (DET) pattern (N) of (PREP) wanting (V-pres.PART) “justice” (N-label).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists to believe in—only my wanting
∴ “I” owns the wanting and the labeling
∴ The word “justice” becomes MY tool, not a master I serve
∴ WHO taught me to want this pattern? WHO benefits from my wanting?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I have to be true to myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.10a I prefer to act consistently with how I acted before, and I call this consistency “true to myself.”
8.10b I (PRON-subj.1sg) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[have.to→I.prefer]) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) consistently (ADV) with (PREP) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj.1sg) acted (V-past) before (ADV-time), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres) this (DET) consistency (N) “true (ADJ) to (PREP) myself (PRON-refl.1sg ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[self→label.for.pattern]).”
STRATEGY: E7 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “self” exists as substance to which I owe truth
∴ “Myself” dissolves to patterns of past action—which I can change
∴ “Have to be” dissolves to “prefer”—I own the choice
∴ The fetish of “authenticity” becomes visible as self-imposed constraint
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Self seeks actualization.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.11a I want things and pursue them, and certain psychologists call this wanting “self-actualization.”
8.11b I (PRON-subj.1sg ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Self→I]) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[seeks→wants]) things (N) and (CONJ) pursue (V-pres) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) certain (DET) psychologists (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[actualization→term.from.psychology]) call (V-pres) this (DET) wanting (V-pres.PART) “self-actualization” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Self” exists as agent—only I exist, wanting and pursuing
∴ “Actualization” names no real process—only psychologists’ jargon
∴ WHO invented “self-actualization”? WHOSE theory does this serve?
∴ The “I” already acts; no “Self” needs to “actualize”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am defined by my identity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.12a Others attach labels to me, and I sometimes adopt those labels and call the collection “my identity”—but I can discard any label at will.
8.12b Others (N-subj) attach (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[defined→labels.attached]) labels (N) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) sometimes (ADV-freq) adopt (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) those (DET) labels (N) and (CONJ) call (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) collection (N) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) identity (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ)”—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) can∿discard (V-pres.modal) any (DET) label (N) at (PREP) will (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
8.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “identity” defines me—only labels exist, which I can discard
∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from my adopting them?
∴ The “I” precedes and exceeds every label
∴ “Identity” becomes property I own, not cage that contains me
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I was born free but everywhere I am in chains.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.13a When I emerged from my mother’s body, no persons yet constrained me—but now certain persons restrict my movements, and I feel urges that others trained into me.
8.13b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) emerged (V-past) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) mother’s (N-poss) body (N), no (DET) persons (N) yet (ADV) constrained (V-past ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[chains→persons.constraining]) me (PRON-obj.1sg)—but (CONJ) now (ADV-time) certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) restrict (V-pres) my (PRON-poss.1sg) movements (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[chains→restrictions]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) urges (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[chains→trained.urges]) that (PRON-rel) others (N) trained (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) into (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
STRATEGY: E3 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
8.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists as natural state—only absence of constraint
∴ No “chains” exist—only persons who restrict and urges that bind
∴ Even Rousseau’s famous phrase dissolves to persons acting
∴ WHO restricts? WHO trained the urges? The “I” can now name them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I owe it to my ancestors.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.14a Certain persons who lived before I existed performed actions whose effects I now experience, and other persons around me expect me to act in certain ways because of this—and I feel an urge to meet their expectations.
8.14b Certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[ancestors→persons.who.lived]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) before (PREP) I (PRON-subj.1sg) existed (V-past) performed (V-past) actions (N) whose (PRON-poss.rel) effects (N) I (PRON-subj.1sg) now (ADV) experience (V-pres), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N) because (CONJ) of (PREP) this (PRON-dem)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[owe→I.feel]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N) to (PART-inf) meet (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) expectations (N).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
8.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No dead persons can receive what I “owe”
∴ Living persons expect things of me in the name of the dead
∴ WHO benefits from invoking “ancestors”?
∴ The “I” feels an urge—but owes nothing to corpses
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My true self lies buried beneath social conditioning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.15a I act in ways that persons around me taught me to act, and I sometimes want to act differently—and I call this wanting “my true self.”
8.15b I (PRON-subj.1sg) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg) taught (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conditioning→teaching]) me (PRON-obj.1sg) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) sometimes (ADV) want (V-pres) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) differently (ADV)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[true.self→label]) this (DET) wanting (V-pres.PART) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) true (ADJ) self (N-label).”
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “true self” lies anywhere—only I exist, wanting
∴ “Social conditioning” dissolves to persons who taught me
∴ The “true self” myth invents an essence to worship
∴ WHO benefits from my searching for a “true self”?
∴ The “I” acts, and sometimes wants to act differently—no buried treasure needed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
8.1 “I feel tired.”
[Standard English: “I am tired.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb: “am” → “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks]
8.2 “I work as a teacher.”
[Standard English: “I am a teacher.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb: “am” → “work as”)]
[Dissolution strategies: Role exposed as function, not essence]
8.3 “I feel glad to help.”
[Standard English: “I am happy to help.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb: “am” → “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
8.4 “I think, therefore I exist here, now, thinking.”
[Standard English: “I think, therefore I am.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb: “am” → “exist here, now”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—metaphysical “being” dissolved to concrete existence]
8.5 “Certain persons with weapons and official titles expect me to act in ways they specify, and will harm me if I refuse—and I feel an urge to comply that my parents and teachers cultivated in me.”
[Standard English: “I have a duty to my country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required for “have”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urge I feel), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country → persons with weapons), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (duty → cultivated by parents/teachers)]
8.6 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ will cage me if I act contrary to words that other persons wrote and called ‘law’—and I prefer to avoid the cage.”
[Standard English: “I must obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → words + enforcers), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → I prefer), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (law → label)]
8.7 “I feel discomfort when I consider doing this, and I remember adults who expressed disapproval of similar actions when I watched as a child.”
[Standard English: “My conscience tells me this is wrong.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is wrong → I feel discomfort)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience tells → I feel and remember), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (conscience → trained by adults)]
8.8 “Certain officials with weapons label me ‘citizen’ on documents they control, and I live within borders they patrol.”
[Standard English: “I am an American citizen.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (am → officials label me)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → label attached), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (American → borders they patrol)]
8.9 “I want certain persons to receive goods and others to experience confinement, and I call this pattern of wanting ‘justice.’”
[Standard English: “I believe in justice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (believe → I want), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (justice → label I attach)]
8.10 “I prefer to act consistently with how I acted before, and I call this consistency ‘true to myself.’”
[Standard English: “I have to be true to myself.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (have to be → prefer to act)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (have to → prefer), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (true to myself → label for consistency)]
8.11 “I want things and pursue them, and certain psychologists call this wanting ‘self-actualization.’”
[Standard English: “The Self seeks actualization.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (The Self → I), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (actualization → psychologists’ term), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ]
8.12 “Others attach labels to me, and I sometimes adopt those labels and call the collection ‘my identity’—but I can discard any label at will.”
[Standard English: “I am defined by my identity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (am defined → others attach)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (identity → collection of labels), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (I can discard)]
8.13 “When I emerged from my mother’s body, no persons yet constrained me—but now certain persons restrict my movements, and I feel urges that others trained into me.”
[Standard English: “I was born free but everywhere I am in chains.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (was born → emerged), E7 (am in chains → persons restrict, I feel urges)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (chains → persons restricting), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (chains → urges trained), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ]
8.14 “Certain persons who lived before I existed performed actions whose effects I now experience, and other persons around me expect me to act in certain ways because of this—and I feel an urge to meet their expectations.”
[Standard English: “I owe it to my ancestors.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (ancestors → persons who lived), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (owe → I feel urge), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (living persons expect)]
8.15 “I act in ways that persons around me taught me to act, and I sometimes want to act differently—and I call this wanting ‘my true self.’”
[Standard English: “My true self lies buried beneath social conditioning.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (social conditioning → persons taught), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (true self → I want), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (true self → label)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
8.1 I feel tired.
8.2 I work as a teacher.
8.3 I feel glad to help.
8.4 I think, therefore I exist here, now, thinking.
8.5 Certain persons with weapons and official titles expect me to act in ways they specify, and will harm me if I refuse—and I feel an urge to comply that my parents and teachers cultivated in me.
8.6 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will cage me if I act contrary to words that other persons wrote and called “law”—and I prefer to avoid the cage.
8.7 I feel discomfort when I consider doing this, and I remember adults who expressed disapproval of similar actions when I watched as a child.
8.8 Certain officials with weapons label me “citizen” on documents they control, and I live within borders they patrol.
8.9 I want certain persons to receive goods and others to experience confinement, and I call this pattern of wanting “justice.”
8.10 I prefer to act consistently with how I acted before, and I call this consistency “true to myself.”
8.11 I want things and pursue them, and certain psychologists call this wanting “self-actualization.”
8.12 Others attach labels to me, and I sometimes adopt those labels and call the collection “my identity”—but I can discard any label at will.
8.13 When I emerged from my mother’s body, no persons yet constrained me—but now certain persons restrict my movements, and I feel urges that others trained into me.
8.14 Certain persons who lived before I existed performed actions whose effects I now experience, and other persons around me expect me to act in certain ways because of this—and I feel an urge to meet their expectations.
8.15 I act in ways that persons around me taught me to act, and I sometimes want to act differently—and I call this wanting “my true self.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “I” in E-Prime Max:
1. Standard English Function
“I” functions as the first-person singular subject pronoun. It appears as subject of verbs: “I walk,” “I think,” “I feel.” It contrasts with object form “me” (”They saw me”), possessive “my/mine” (”my book”), and reflexive “myself” (”I hurt myself”).
Action: “I do/make/go”
2. E-Prime Considerations
“I was born” → “I emerged” / “My mother bore me” (E3/E1)
The contraction “I’m” appears extremely frequently in casual English and must always transform to “I feel,” “I function as,” or similar constructions.
3. Spook Proximity Analysis
“I” itself never functions as spook—it names the one speaking. However, “I” entangles with spooks in several patterns:
The Self/Ego: “My true self,” “The I”
COMMON SPOOK PATTERNS:
“I must obey X” → X appears as commanding agent
“I have a duty to X” → X appears as creditor
“My conscience/nature/identity demands” → internal spooks
“I believe in X” → X appears as existing object
4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
“I obey the law” → “I act as certain written words specify, knowing persons will cage me otherwise”
“I pursue justice” → “I act to ensure certain persons receive goods”
“I have a conscience” → “I experience trained responses that certain adults installed”
“Love made me do it” → “I acted with tenderness and chose this”
“I am innocent” → “Persons evaluating this situation label me ‘innocent’”
5. Common Mistakes
MISTAKE 1: Treating “I” as metaphysical substance
“The I transcends categories” → Still a spook. Dissolve: “I, here, now, act and experience”
MISTAKE 2: Leaving internal spooks intact
“I follow my conscience” → “Conscience” still acts. Dissolve: “I feel discomfort and I refrain”
MISTAKE 3: Incomplete obligation dissolution
“I must do this” → “Must” remains. Complete: “Certain persons expect this of me, and I prefer to meet their expectations”
MISTAKE 4: Hidden identity predication
“I consider myself a good person” → “Good person” remains as essence. Dissolve: “I act in ways that I label ‘good’”
MISTAKE 5: Reifying “self” in dissolution
“I stay true to my real self” → “Real self” becomes new spook. Dissolve: “I act consistently with how I acted before”
6. The Stirnerian Test for “I”
Apply the test carefully: “Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
When “I” appears as speaking subject → no spook (I own the statement)
When “The I” or “The Self” appears as metaphysical agent → SPOOK (dissolve)
When “my identity/nature/essence” appears as determining → SPOOK (dissolve)
When “I must/have to/owe” appears → trace to WHO expects/demands
The “I” that remains after all dissolutions names no substance—only THIS one, HERE, NOW, acting and experiencing. Even Stirner’s “Unique” can become spook: “The Unique demands” → spook. “I act as I choose” → ownership.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1. General Semantics Background
Alfred Korzybski formulated the principle: “The map does not equal the territory.” The word “I” maps something—but what? Not a substance. Not a soul. Not a continuous self. The word “I” maps THIS-BODY-SPEAKING-NOW, and nothing more.
D. David Bourland Jr. noticed that “to be” constructions create false identity: “I am a teacher” equates “I” with “teacher” as if they named the same thing. E-Prime dissolves this: “I work as a teacher” keeps “I” and “teacher” separate. The role serves; it does not define.
General Semantics emphasizes: statements about “I” function as maps, not territories. “I am tired” claims identity between self and tiredness—false. “I feel tired” reports experience without identity claim—accurate.
2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) attacked all “fixed ideas” (spooks) that claim authority over the individual. He wrote: “The own ones recognize nothing above themselves.”
For Stirner, every abstraction that commands—God, State, Humanity, Morality—functions as spook. The “I” that remains after spook dissolution belongs to no category, serves no master, owes nothing.
Yet Stirner warned against making “The Unique” (Der Einzige) into another fixed idea. He wrote: “Names don’t name it.” The moment “The Unique” becomes doctrine, identity, or system—it becomes spook.
The “I” in E-Prime Max names what speaks—nothing more. Not essence. Not soul. Not self-image. Not identity. Just THIS ONE, acting.
3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication: “I AM X” (identity)
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “Duty/conscience/nature COMMANDS me”
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution applied to first-person discourse.
Standard: “I am an American who has a duty to obey the law because my conscience tells me it is right.”
E-Prime Max: “Officials label me ‘American’ on documents; I act as certain written words specify because persons with weapons will cage me otherwise; I feel discomfort when I consider acting differently, and I remember adults who expressed disapproval when I watched as a child.”
4. What Dissolution Reveals
When “I am X” dissolves, we see: labels that others attach, roles that I perform, functions that I fulfill—none of which equal me.
When “I must/owe/have to” dissolves, we see: persons who expect, consequences I calculate, urges that training installed—and I choosing whether to comply.
When “my conscience/nature/identity” dissolves, we see: patterns of feeling that others cultivated, habits of acting that solidified, labels that I adopted—all discardable.
The “I” that remains names no substance—only THIS presence acting and experiencing.
5. Practical Applications
RECOGNIZING MANIPULATION: When someone says “You must...” or “It is your duty...”, ask: WHO expects this? WHO benefits from my compliance? WHO installed this “duty”?
RESISTING IDENTITY CAPTURE: When someone says “As a [X], you should...”, notice: others attached that label. I can discard it. No label captures me.
DISSOLVING INTERNAL SPOOKS: When “my conscience tells me” or “my nature demands,” recognize: I feel this urge. Persons trained it into me. I choose whether to follow it.
RECLAIMING OWNERSHIP: Instead of “I must,” say “I choose” or “I prefer.” Instead of “my identity requires,” say “I have acted this way before and I can act differently.”
6. Honest Limits — On Infinite Regress
Dissolution stops at “I” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “I” itself can dissolve further—into this body, these sensations, this pattern of perception, these neural firings. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
For spook dissolution, “I” usually suffices. When “society demands” becomes “I feel an urge that others installed,” we have useful leverage. Whether “I” further dissolves to “this body experiencing” matters for other purposes.
On This Discipline Itself:
Identity as “E-Prime Max speaker”
The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On “The Unique”:
Even Stirner’s central term can spook. “The Unique demands authenticity” → SPOOK. “The Unique cannot be categorized” → still a claim ABOUT it, still reification.
Dissolve: “I act. I experience. Names don’t name it.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique, the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, from which he is born. Every higher being above me, whether God or man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and only pales before the sun of this awareness. If I base my affair on myself, the unique, then it stands on the transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: I have placed my affair on nothing.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a I own my capacity to act, and I own it when I recognize that no category captures me. When I recognize this, I return to the nothing from which I emerged—no essence precedes me. Every abstraction that persons place above me—whether “God” or “Humanity”—diminishes my sense of my ownness, and fades when I recognize what I do here. If I base my concerns on myself—this one, here, now—then they stand on the passing, dying creator who consumes himself, and I can say: I placed my concern on nothing—on myself.
F.1b I (PRON-subj.1sg) own (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) capacity (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[might→capacity]) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) own (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) recognize (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[know→recognize]) that (CONJ) no (DET) category (N) captures (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[unique→no.category.captures]) me (PRON-obj.1sg). When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) recognize (V-pres) this (PRON-dem), I (PRON-subj.1sg) return (V-pres) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) nothing (N) from (PREP) which (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) emerged (V-past)—no (DET) essence (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[essence→spook]) precedes (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg). Every (DET) abstraction (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[higher.being→abstraction.persons.created]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N) place (V-pres) above (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg)—whether (CONJ) “God” (N-label) or (CONJ) “Humanity” (N-label)—diminishes (V-pres) my (PRON-poss.1sg) sense (N) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) ownness (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ), and (CONJ) fades (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) recognize (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) do (V-pres) here (ADV-place). If (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) base (V-pres) my (PRON-poss.1sg) concerns (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[affair→concerns]) on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl.1sg)—this (DET) one (N), here (ADV-place), now (ADV-time)—then (ADV) they (PRON-subj) stand (V-pres) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) passing (ADJ), dying (ADJ) creator (N) who (PRON-rel) consumes (V-pres) himself (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) can∿say (V-pres.modal): I (PRON-subj.1sg) placed (V-past) my (PRON-poss.1sg) concern (N) on (PREP) nothing (N)—on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl.1sg).
STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even Stirner’s “unique” required dissolution—no category captures
∴ “Higher being” becomes abstraction that PERSONS created and placed
∴ The “I” remains after all categories dissolve
∴ “Nothing” names not nihilism but freedom from essence
∴ Stirner himself spoke in spooks—which we dissolve while preserving his insight
I own my capacity to act, and I own it when I recognize that no category captures me. When I recognize this, I return to the nothing from which I emerged—no essence precedes me. Every abstraction that persons place above me—whether “God” or “Humanity”—diminishes my sense of my ownness, and fades when I recognize what I do here. If I base my concerns on myself—this one, here, now—then they stand on the passing, dying creator who consumes himself, and I can say: I placed my concern on nothing—on myself.
Stirner’s passage illustrates the central insight: the “I” remains when all spooks dissolve. Yet even Stirner wrote in spooks:
“I am owner” → identity predication requiring E-Prime transformation
“unique” → risks becoming category; dissolve to “no category captures”
“higher being” → requires genealogical exposure: persons created these abstractions
“God or man” → labels for spooks; the dissolutions apply
The E-Prime Max transformation preserves Stirner’s insight while dissolving his own linguistic spooks. This demonstrates that NO authority remains sacred—including Stirner himself. Even the philosopher of spook dissolution wrote in spooks. The discipline supersedes its teachers.
Stirner’s final sentence—”Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt” (I have placed my affair on nothing)—gives E-Prime Max its deepest rationale. “Nothing” here names not nihilism or despair but the absence of essence, foundation, or prior determining principle. The “I” emerges from nothing, bases itself on nothing, and returns to nothing—not as tragedy but as freedom.
When every spook dissolves—every duty, identity, nature, essence, truth, god—what remains? Not emptiness. What remains: I, here, now, acting, experiencing, choosing. No label captures this. No category contains it. No obligation binds it from outside.
The E-Prime Max “I” names this nothing-that-acts. Not substance. Not soul. Not self-image. Just: THE ONE SPEAKING.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.16a I grew up surrounded by persons who repeated certain phrases about duty, country, and God.
8.16b I (PRON-subj.1sg) grew (V-past) up (PART) surrounded (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) repeated (V-past) certain (DET) phrases (N) about (PREP) duty (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word]), country (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word]), and (CONJ) God (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word]).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
8.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The “I” identifies WHO installed the spooks
∴ Spooks arrive through persons speaking
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.17a I learned to feel discomfort when I considered disobeying, and I called this feeling “guilt.”
8.17b I (PRON-subj.1sg) learned (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) to (PART-inf) feel (V-inf.STATE) discomfort (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→discomfort]) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) considered (V-past) disobeying (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) called (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) this (DET) feeling (N) “guilt” (N-label).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
8.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Guilt” names a trained feeling, not cosmic judgment
∴ The “I” learned this—and can unlearn
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.18a For years, I believed that “duty” and “conscience” existed somewhere inside me, commanding me.
8.18b For (PREP) years (N-time), I (PRON-subj.1sg) believed (V-past) that (CONJ) “duty” (N-label) and (CONJ) “conscience” (N-label) existed (V-past) somewhere (ADV-place) inside (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg), commanding (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
STRATEGY: narrative setup
8.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The “I” reports former belief without endorsing it
∴ “Commanding me” reveals the spook-structure: abstraction as agent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.19a Then I asked: WHO installed these feelings? WHO benefits when I obey?
8.19b Then (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) asked (V-past): WHO (PRON-interr ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) installed (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) these (DET) feelings (N)? WHO (PRON-interr ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) obey (V-pres)?
STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (origin) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (beneficiary)
8.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The questions that dissolve spooks: WHO? WHO?
∴ “I” becomes investigator of its own conditioning
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.20a I traced “duty” back to parents who repeated it, teachers who enforced it, and officials who rewarded compliance.
8.20b I (PRON-subj.1sg) traced (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) “duty” (N-label) back (ADV) to (PREP) parents (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) repeated (V-past) it (PRON-obj), teachers (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) enforced (V-past) it (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) rewarded (V-past) compliance (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ).
STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
8.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Duty” has a genealogy: persons installed it
∴ The “I” can name the installers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.21a I noticed that “conscience” felt exactly like remembered disapproval from adults I watched as a child.
8.21b I (PRON-subj.1sg) noticed (V-past) that (CONJ) “conscience” (N-label) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) exactly (ADV) like (PREP) remembered (V-past.PART) disapproval (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) from (PREP) adults (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) watched (V-past) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
8.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Conscience” dissolves to memory of training
∴ No inner voice speaks—only remembered disapproval echoes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.22a I saw that “my country” named no entity—only persons with weapons patrolling borders and persons with documents labeling me.
8.22b I (PRON-subj.1sg) saw (V-past.PERCEPT) that (CONJ) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) country” (N-label) named (V-past) no (DET) entity (N)—only (ADV) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) patrolling (V-pres.PART) borders (N) and (CONJ) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) documents (N) labeling (V-pres.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
8.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Country” names no entity—only persons acting
∴ The “I” can now see WHO patrols, WHO labels
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.23a I recognized that “my identity” collected labels others attached and labels I adopted—all discardable.
8.23b I (PRON-subj.1sg) recognized (V-past) that (CONJ) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) identity” (N-label) collected (V-past) labels (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) others (N) attached (V-past) and (CONJ) labels (N) I (PRON-subj.1sg) adopted (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ)—all (DET) discardable (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
8.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Identity” dissolves to labels—none essential
∴ The “I” can discard any label
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.24a Now when I feel “guilt,” I ask: WHO trained this feeling into me? Does I still want to follow it?
8.24b Now (ADV-time) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) “guilt” (N-label), I (PRON-subj.1sg) ask (V-pres): WHO (PRON-interr ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) trained (V-past) this (DET) feeling (N) into (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg)? Does (AUX) I (PRON-subj.1sg) still (ADV) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to (PART-inf) follow (V-inf) it (PRON-obj)?
STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (origin question) + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership of choice)
8.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The “I” examines feelings rather than obeying automatically
∴ Choice returns: do I want to follow?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.25a When persons tell me “You must,” I hear: “Certain persons expect, and consequences will follow if you refuse.”
8.25b When (CONJ) persons (N) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) “You (PRON-subj.2sg) must” (V-modal), I (PRON-subj.1sg) hear (V-pres.PERCEPT): “Certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) consequences (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) will∿follow (V-fut) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj.2sg) refuse (V-pres).”
STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
8.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Must” dissolves to expectations and consequences
∴ The “I” can calculate: comply or refuse?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.26a When I say “I choose,” I own the action—no spook compels, no duty commands, no conscience dictates.
8.26b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) say (V-pres) “I (PRON-subj.1sg) choose” (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ), I (PRON-subj.1sg) own (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) action (N)—no (DET) spook (N) compels (V-pres), no (DET) duty (N) commands (V-pres), no (DET) conscience (N) dictates (V-pres).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (complete ownership statement)
8.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “I choose” completes the dissolution—spooks silenced
∴ Ownership replaces possession
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.27a I still feel urges, preferences, aversions—but I own them rather than they owning me.
8.27b I (PRON-subj.1sg) still (ADV) feel (V-pres.STATE) urges (N), preferences (N), aversions (N)—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) own (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) them (PRON-obj) rather (ADV) than (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) owning (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (reversed ownership)
8.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Feelings remain—ownership changes
∴ “I own them” vs. “they own me”—the Stirnerian reversal
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.28a Sometimes I still act as trained—but now I know: I choose to follow the training, or I choose otherwise.
8.28b Sometimes (ADV-freq) I (PRON-subj.1sg) still (ADV) act (V-pres) as (ADV-manner) trained (V-past.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ)—but (CONJ) now (ADV) I (PRON-subj.1sg) know (V-pres): I (PRON-subj.1sg) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to (PART-inf) follow (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) training (N), or (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) choose (V-pres) otherwise (ADV).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (choice recognized)
8.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Following training can happen consciously
∴ “I choose” applies whether following or refusing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.29a I find this lighter—no “should” pressing, no “must” commanding, only: I act, I experience, I choose.
8.29b I (PRON-subj.1sg) find (V-pres.PERCEPT) this (PRON-dem) lighter (ADJ-comp)—no (DET) “should” (N-label) pressing (V-pres.PART), no (DET) “must” (N-label) commanding (V-pres.PART), only (ADV): I (PRON-subj.1sg) act (V-pres), I (PRON-subj.1sg) experience (V-pres), I (PRON-subj.1sg) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (pure ownership statement)
8.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ What remains after dissolution: I act, I experience, I choose
∴ The “I” in three verbs—no more needed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.30a I placed my concern on nothing—on myself—and I walk lighter for it.
8.30b I (PRON-subj.1sg) placed (V-past) my (PRON-poss.1sg) concern (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[affair→concern]) on (PREP) nothing (N)—on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl.1sg ◊ᴼᵂᴺ)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) walk (V-pres) lighter (ADV) for (PREP) it (PRON-obj).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (complete ownership)
8.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The narrative completes where Stirner concluded
∴ “Nothing” = “myself” = THIS ONE, foundationless, free
∴ Walking lighter: the practical result of dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
8.16 “I grew up surrounded by persons who repeated certain phrases about duty, country, and God.”
8.17 “I learned to feel discomfort when I considered disobeying, and I called this feeling ‘guilt.’”
8.18 “For years, I believed that ‘duty’ and ‘conscience’ existed somewhere inside me, commanding me.”
8.19 “Then I asked: WHO installed these feelings? WHO benefits when I obey?”
8.20 “I traced ‘duty’ back to parents who repeated it, teachers who enforced it, and officials who rewarded compliance.”
8.21 “I noticed that ‘conscience’ felt exactly like remembered disapproval from adults I watched as a child.”
8.22 “I saw that ‘my country’ named no entity—only persons with weapons patrolling borders and persons with documents labeling me.”
8.23 “I recognized that ‘my identity’ collected labels others attached and labels I adopted—all discardable.”
8.24 “Now when I feel ‘guilt,’ I ask: WHO trained this feeling into me? Do I still want to follow it?”
8.25 “When persons tell me ‘You must,’ I hear: ‘Certain persons expect, and consequences will follow if you refuse.’”
8.26 “When I say ‘I choose,’ I own the action—no spook compels, no duty commands, no conscience dictates.”
8.27 “I still feel urges, preferences, aversions—but I own them rather than they owning me.”
8.28 “Sometimes I still act as trained—but now I know: I choose to follow the training, or I choose otherwise.”
8.29 “I find this lighter—no ‘should’ pressing, no ‘must’ commanding, only: I act, I experience, I choose.”
8.30 “I placed my concern on nothing—on myself—and I walk lighter for it.”
8.16 I grew up surrounded by persons who repeated certain phrases about duty, country, and God.
8.17 I learned to feel discomfort when I considered disobeying, and I called this feeling “guilt.”
8.18 For years, I believed that “duty” and “conscience” existed somewhere inside me, commanding me.
8.19 Then I asked: WHO installed these feelings? WHO benefits when I obey?
8.20 I traced “duty” back to parents who repeated it, teachers who enforced it, and officials who rewarded compliance.
8.21 I noticed that “conscience” felt exactly like remembered disapproval from adults I watched as a child.
8.22 I saw that “my country” named no entity—only persons with weapons patrolling borders and persons with documents labeling me.
8.23 I recognized that “my identity” collected labels others attached and labels I adopted—all discardable.
8.24 Now when I feel “guilt,” I ask: WHO trained this feeling into me? Do I still want to follow it?
8.25 When persons tell me “You must,” I hear: “Certain persons expect, and consequences will follow if you refuse.”
8.26 When I say “I choose,” I own the action—no spook compels, no duty commands, no conscience dictates.
8.27 I still feel urges, preferences, aversions—but I own them rather than they owning me.
8.28 Sometimes I still act as trained—but now I know: I choose to follow the training, or I choose otherwise.
8.29 I find this lighter—no “should” pressing, no “must” commanding, only: I act, I experience, I choose.
8.30 I placed my concern on nothing—on myself—and I walk lighter for it.
Narrative Structure and “I”
This personal narrative demonstrates E-Prime Max applied autobiographically. The “I” functions as both narrator and subject of transformation.
STIRNERIAN QUESTIONS recur: “WHO installed?” “WHO benefits?” — the method made visible
Dissolution as Narrative Arc:
The sequence moves from spook-possession (8.16–8.18) through questioning (8.19–8.23) to ownership (8.24–8.30). This structure models the learning process itself.
Quotation Marks as Dissolution Markers:
Throughout, spook-words appear in quotation marks: “guilt,” “duty,” “conscience,” “my country,” “my identity.” The quotation marks signal: I use this word as tool, I do not serve it as master.
The Closing Formula:
Example 8.30 echoes Stirner’s “Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” The E-Prime Max version: “I placed my concern on nothing—on myself.” Here “nothing” and “myself” equate: no foundation outside THIS ONE ACTING.
Practical Application:
Students can adapt this narrative structure to their own dissolution work. The questions “WHO installed?” and “WHO benefits?” apply to any spook. The shift from “I must” to “I choose” marks the ownership transition.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform these sentences containing “I” and spooks:
Standard 1: “I am proud to be an American.”
E-Prime Max: “I feel satisfaction when I consider that officials label me ‘American’ on documents, and I have adopted this label and attached positive feelings to it.”
proud → satisfaction I attached (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “American” exists as essence. I feel satisfaction about a label. WHO taught me to feel this satisfaction?
Standard 2: “My faith tells me what is right.”
E-Prime Max: “I feel certain urges that persons calling themselves ‘religious teachers’ cultivated in me, and I call these urges ‘faith’ and use them to guide my actions.”
My faith → urges I call “faith” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “faith” speaks. I feel urges with a genealogy. WHO cultivated them? WHO benefits from my following them?
Standard 3: “I need to find my true self.”
E-Prime Max: “I want to act in ways that differ from how I currently act, and I call this imagined different pattern ‘my true self.’”
true self → imagined different pattern (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “true self” hides anywhere. I want to change. I imagine a different pattern and call it “true.” WHO told me I have a “true self” to find?
Standard 4: “I owe it to society to contribute.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons around me expect me to act in ways they call ‘contributing,’ and they will express disapproval or withhold benefits if I refuse—and I feel an urge to comply that my upbringing installed.”
contribute → act in ways they call “contributing” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “society” exists to receive what I “owe.” Persons expect. Consequences follow refusal. I feel an urge. WHO installed it?
Standard 5: “I must be true to my values.”
E-Prime Max: “I prefer to act consistently with patterns of preference that I call ‘my values,’ which certain persons taught me to hold—and I can change these patterns whenever I choose.”
my values → patterns of preference with genealogy, changeable (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “values” command from above. I prefer certain things. Persons taught these preferences. I can change them. “Values” serve me—or I discard them.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The E-Prime Max Language Course follows the Latinum Institute methodology, developed since 2006 for autodidact learners. The course draws on the 1000-word vocabulary system organized by frequency, ensuring students encounter the most useful words first.
Spook Dissolution (Max Stirner, 1844): Recognizing and dissolving abstractions that appear to command, obligate, or determine persons—returning agency from “society,” “duty,” “conscience,” “identity” to specific persons acting
The construed text approach makes linguistic transformation visible. Each example shows: the Standard English original, the E-Prime Max transformation, the grammatical apparatus, the dissolution map, and the Stirnerian revelation questions.
This method teaches not just vocabulary but consciousness liberation—the capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons and actions beneath.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 8
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.”
I placed my concern on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max synthesizes two powerful linguistic disciplines: E-Prime (eliminating all forms of “to be”) and Stirnerian spook dissolution (eliminating abstract nouns that function as commanding agents). Together, they constitute a comprehensive practice for seeing through reified abstractions to the persons, actions, and bodies beneath.
You functions as the second person pronoun in English—singular or plural, subject or object. In E-Prime Max, “you” presents LOW spook proximity as a word itself, yet sentences addressing “you” frequently contain the most insidious spooks: moral demands, civic duties, social expectations. When someone tells you what “society expects” or what “duty requires,” they address YOU as the target of spook-possession.
This lesson demonstrates how to dissolve these spooks while maintaining clear second-person address. The word “you” appears in every example, showing how E-Prime Max constructions preserve direct communication while stripping away the abstractions that would possess the listener.
Philosophy: Alfred Korzybski (General Semantics, 1933) observed that “the map does not equal the territory.” D. David Bourland Jr. (1965) developed E-Prime to reduce the dogmatic certainty that “to be” constructions create. Max Stirner (Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, 1844) identified how abstractions—”spooks”—possess the thinker, demanding service while hiding their human origins. The Latinum Institute Consciousness Archaeology Project (2026) synthesizes these insights into E-Prime Max.
Common spooks appearing with “you”: duty, obligation, rights, society, the law, morality, conscience, authority, the state, freedom (when reified as commanding agent).
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
How “you” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The pronoun “you” requires no transformation—it names a specific person. The challenge lies in the spooks that surround “you” in typical discourse: “You are obligated,” “Society expects you,” “Your duty calls you.”
Common spooks to watch for with “you”: Moral spooks (duty, obligation, conscience), political spooks (law, rights, citizenship), collective spooks (society, the people, community).
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ for collective agents (”society expects you” → “certain persons around you express displeasure when...”), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ for reified emotions (”guilt troubles you” → “you feel discomfort when remembering...”), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ for category-words (”you have duties as a citizen” → “persons labeled ‘citizen’ face expectations from officials”).
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: WHO makes demands of you. WHO benefits from your compliance. WHO holds the weapons that enforce these expectations. The power relations hidden by abstraction.
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)Spook Categories
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting. “Society demands” → “Certain persons around me express displeasure when...”
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences. “Justice prevailed” → “The persons who took things returned them”
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook to who created it and why. “God commands” → “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed...”
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person experience. “Fear prevented me” → “My body contracted and I refrained”
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling. “Criminals deserve punishment” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘criminal’...”The Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You are free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.1a You act without interference from other persons in this matter.
9.1b You (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→without.interference]) from (PREP) other (ADJ) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[abstract.constraint→persons]) in (PREP) this (DET) matter (N).
9.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “are” (copula) → DISSOLUTION: “act” (active verb) → STRATEGY: E3
SPOOK: “free” (reified state) → DISSOLUTION: “without interference from persons” → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists as a substance you possess ∴ Only the ABSENCE of interference from specific persons ∴ WHO might interfere? WHO currently refrains? ∴ “Free” dissolves → concrete situation appears
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You have a duty to obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.2a Certain persons expect you to act as written rules specify, and persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise.
9.2b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[enforce→harm]) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV).
9.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “duty” → DISSOLUTION: persons expecting + consequences → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “the law” → DISSOLUTION: written rules + persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “obey” → DISSOLUTION: act as specified → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists anywhere → only persons with expectations ∴ No “law” exists → only written words and persons with weapons ∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ WHO benefits when you “obey”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society expects you to conform.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.3a Many persons around you express displeasure when you act differently from how they act.
9.3b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around]) around (PREP) you (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N) when (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV) from (PREP) how (ADV) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres).
9.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “Society” → DISSOLUTION: many persons around you → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “expects” (society as agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons express displeasure → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “conform” → DISSOLUTION: act as they act → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to expect anything ∴ Only PERSONS express displeasure—and you can identify them ∴ WHICH persons? Your neighbors? Employers? Family? ∴ The spook dissolves → specific persons with preferences appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You are a citizen with rights and responsibilities.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.4a Officials label you “citizen,” and certain persons have documented limits on what they may do to you, while those same officials expect certain actions from you.
9.4b Officials (N-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizen→labeled]) you (PRON-obj) “citizen” (N-label), and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) have∿documented (V-pres.PERF) limits (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→documented.limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) may∿do (V-pres.MOD) to (PREP) you (PRON-obj), while (CONJ) those (DET) same (ADJ) officials (N-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[responsibilities→expectations]) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) from (PREP) you (PRON-obj).
9.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “are” → DISSOLUTION: “label” (active verb) → STRATEGY: E1
SPOOK: “citizen” → DISSOLUTION: label attached by officials → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: “rights” → DISSOLUTION: documented limits on what persons may do → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “responsibilities” → DISSOLUTION: expectations officials hold → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Citizen” = a label officials attach, not an essence you possess ∴ “Rights” = documented limits—WHO documented them? WHO enforces them? ∴ “Responsibilities” = expectations—WHO holds these expectations? ∴ The spooks dissolve → labeling acts and power relations appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You should feel guilty about that.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.5a You might feel discomfort when remembering what you did—or certain persons around you want you to feel that discomfort.
9.5b You (PRON-subj) might∿feel (V-pres.MOD ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→feel.discomfort]) discomfort (N) when (CONJ) remembering (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) did (V-past), or (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) you (PRON-obj) want (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿feel (V-inf) that (DET) discomfort (N).
9.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “should” (moral command) → DISSOLUTION: “might” + persons wanting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “guilty” (moral category) → DISSOLUTION: discomfort when remembering → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
9.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “guilt” exists as moral substance → only bodily sensations ∴ “Should” implies a commander → WHO commands? ∴ Either you feel discomfort or others WANT you to feel it ∴ Distinguishing these transforms the situation entirely
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will set you free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.6a When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may find yourself acting without interference from persons who previously constrained you through false claims.
9.6b When (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observe.and.report]) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres) and (CONJ) report (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) accurately (ADV), you (PRON-subj) may∿find (V-pres.MOD) yourself (PRON-refl) acting (V-pres.PART) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[constraint→persons.constraining]) who (PRON-rel) previously (ADV) constrained (V-past) you (PRON-obj) through (PREP) false (ADJ) claims (N).
9.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “truth” (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: observing and reporting accurately → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “will set” (truth acting) → DISSOLUTION: you may find yourself → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “free” → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” exists as an agent that acts upon you ∴ Only YOUR acts of observing and reporting ∴ “Freedom” dissolves into absence of interference ∴ WHO constrained you through false claims? WHO loses power when you observe accurately?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You must respect authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.7a Certain persons who claim power over you want you to act deferentially toward them, and persons with weapons will harm you if you refuse.
9.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.claiming.power]) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) power (N) over (PREP) you (PRON-obj) want (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) deferentially (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→act.deferentially]) toward (PREP) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
9.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “must” (moral necessity) → DISSOLUTION: want + consequences → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “authority” → DISSOLUTION: persons who claim power → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “respect” → DISSOLUTION: act deferentially → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authority” exists → only persons CLAIMING power ∴ “Must” implies necessity → but WHO enforces it? ∴ “Respect” dissolves into specific deferential behaviors ∴ The weapons become visible when the spook dissolves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You are being selfish.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.8a You act in ways that benefit you while I want you to act in ways that benefit me.
9.8b You (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) you (PRON-obj), while (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[selfish→speaker.wants.different]) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
9.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “are being” → DISSOLUTION: “act” → STRATEGY: E1
SPOOK: “selfish” (moral label) → DISSOLUTION: acting for your benefit while I want otherwise → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
9.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Selfish” functions as moral weapon, not description ∴ The speaker wants something from you and disguises this as moral judgment ∴ WHO benefits from labeling your self-interest “selfish”? ∴ The genealogy exposes: this “moral” claim serves the speaker’s interest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.9a Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what you did with approval or disapproval.
9.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing.books]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) in (PREP) the∿future (N-time) may∿describe (V-pres.MOD) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) did (V-past) with (PREP) approval (N) or (CONJ) disapproval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→describe.with.approval/disapproval]).
9.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “History” (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons who write books → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “will judge” (history acting) → DISSOLUTION: may describe with approval/disapproval → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists as judge → only future persons with opinions ∴ Those persons have their own interests and biases ∴ WHO invokes “History” to pressure you NOW? ∴ The threat dissolves into speculation about unknown future writers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You owe it to humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.10a Certain persons claim that many other persons—most of whom you will never meet—will benefit if you act as those certain persons specify.
9.10b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[humanity→persons.claiming]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) many (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→many.persons])—most (DET) of∿whom (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) will∿never∿meet (V-fut.NEG)—will∿benefit (V-fut) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) as (CONJ) those (DET) certain (ADJ) persons (N-subj) specify (V-pres).
9.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “owe” (moral debt) → DISSOLUTION: persons claim benefit → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “humanity” → DISSOLUTION: many persons you will never meet → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Humanity” cannot make claims → only specific persons speak ∴ WHO speaks “for humanity”? WHO benefits from this claim? ∴ The persons you “owe” remain abstract and unreachable ∴ But the persons TELLING you what you owe stand right here
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You were born to serve a higher purpose.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.11a Certain persons who benefit from your labor tell you that a cosmic intention—which they claim to interpret—requires you to act as they specify.
9.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[purpose→persons.benefiting]) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) your (PRON-poss) labor (N) tell (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) cosmic (ADJ) intention (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[higher.purpose→claimed.cosmic.intention])—which (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) to∿interpret (V-inf)—requires (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) specify (V-pres).
9.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “were born to” → DISSOLUTION: persons tell you → STRATEGY: E1 + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “higher purpose” → DISSOLUTION: cosmic intention they claim to interpret → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “serve” → DISSOLUTION: act as they specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No cosmic intention exists that you can verify ∴ Only PERSONS who CLAIM to know it ∴ Those persons benefit from your “service” ∴ WHO appointed them as interpreters of cosmic purpose?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Conscience tells you what is right.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.12a You feel certain sensations in your body—discomfort or ease—when you consider various actions, and persons who raised you trained you to interpret these sensations as guidance.
9.12b You (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→feel.sensations]) certain (DET) sensations (N-obj) in (PREP) your (PRON-poss) body (N)—discomfort (N) or (CONJ) ease (N)—when (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) various (ADJ) actions (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conscience→persons.who.trained]) who (PRON-rel) raised (V-past) you (PRON-obj) trained (V-past) you (PRON-obj) to∿interpret (V-inf) these (DET) sensations (N-obj) as (PREP) guidance (N).
9.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “Conscience” (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: bodily sensations + training → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “tells” (conscience acting) → DISSOLUTION: feel + interpret → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “is right” → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—no external “rightness”] → STRATEGY: E-Prime
9.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Conscience” = bodily sensations + interpretation ∴ WHO trained the interpretation? Parents, teachers, priests? ∴ Their interests shaped what feels “right” to you ∴ Sensation remains; cosmic authority dissolves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that you pay for your crimes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.13a Persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” will confine you in a cage, and many persons around you express approval of this confinement—for actions those persons labeled “crimes.”
9.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) will∿confine (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pay→confine]) you (PRON-obj) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) cage (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) you (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) approval (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[demands→express.approval]) of (PREP) this (DET) confinement (N)—for (PREP) actions (N) those (DET) persons (N-subj) labeled (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crimes→labeled.actions]) “crimes” (N-label).
9.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “Justice” (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons + persons expressing approval → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “demands” → DISSOLUTION: will confine + express approval → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “pay” → DISSOLUTION: confine in cage → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “crimes” → DISSOLUTION: actions labeled “crimes” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
9.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” exists to demand anything ∴ Only persons with weapons and persons with opinions ∴ “Crimes” = labels attached by persons with power ∴ WHO attached the label? WHO holds the weapons? WHO built the cage?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You need to find your true self.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.14a You might enjoy exploring what you want, feel, and choose—or persons selling books and workshops want you to believe a hidden essence awaits your discovery.
9.14b You (PRON-subj) might∿enjoy (V-pres.MOD) exploring (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[find→exploring]) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) want (V-pres), feel (V-pres), and (CONJ) choose (V-pres)—or (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[true.self→persons.selling]) selling (V-pres.PART) books (N-obj) and (CONJ) workshops (N-obj) want (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿believe (V-inf) a (INDEF.ART) hidden (ADJ) essence (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[true.self→claimed.essence]) awaits (V-pres) your (PRON-poss) discovery (N).
9.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “need” (necessity) → DISSOLUTION: might enjoy OR persons want you to believe → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “true self” → DISSOLUTION: what you want, feel, choose OR claimed hidden essence → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “find” (discover essence) → DISSOLUTION: explore → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “true self” hides waiting for discovery ∴ You already want, feel, choose in each moment ∴ WHO profits from selling you the search for “true self”? ∴ The essence-hunters dissolve → book-sellers appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality forbids you from doing that.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.15a Certain persons—and the persons who taught them—express strong disapproval when you do that, and you feel discomfort anticipating their reactions.
9.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.disapproving])—and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) them (PRON-obj)—express (V-pres) strong (ADJ) disapproval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forbids→express.disapproval]) when (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) that (PRON-dem), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[forbids→feel.discomfort]) discomfort (N) anticipating (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) reactions (N-obj).
9.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “Morality” (as agent) → DISSOLUTION: certain persons + those who taught them → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “forbids” (morality acting) → DISSOLUTION: persons express disapproval + you feel discomfort → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
9.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Morality” exists as forbidding agent ∴ Only persons with disapproval and your anticipation of it ∴ WHO taught those persons? WHO benefits from the prohibition? ∴ Chains of teaching become visible when “Morality” dissolves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
9.1 “You act without interference from other persons in this matter.”
[Standard English: “You are free.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb replacement: “are” → “act”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (free → without interference)]
9.2 “Certain persons expect you to act as written rules specify, and persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise.”
[Standard English: “You have a duty to obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → persons expecting), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → written rules + persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obey → act as specified)]
9.3 “Many persons around you express displeasure when you act differently from how they act.”
[Standard English: “Society expects you to conform.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons around you), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (conform → act as they act)]
9.4 “Officials label you ‘citizen,’ and certain persons have documented limits on what they may do to you, while those same officials expect certain actions from you.”
[Standard English: “You are a citizen with rights and responsibilities.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice: “are” → “label”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → label), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (rights → documented limits), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (responsibilities → expectations)]
9.5 “You might feel discomfort when remembering what you did—or certain persons around you want you to feel that discomfort.”
[Standard English: “You should feel guilty about that.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (guilty → feel discomfort), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (should → persons wanting)]
9.6 “When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may find yourself acting without interference from persons who previously constrained you through false claims.”
[Standard English: “The truth will set you free.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observe and report), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (set free → find yourself acting), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (constraint → persons constraining)]
9.7 “Certain persons who claim power over you want you to act deferentially toward them, and persons with weapons will harm you if you refuse.”
[Standard English: “You must respect authority.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authority → persons claiming power), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (respect → act deferentially), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (must → want + consequences)]
9.8 “You act in ways that benefit you while I want you to act in ways that benefit me.”
[Standard English: “You are being selfish.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice: “are being” → “act”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (selfish → speaker wants different behavior)]
9.9 “Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what you did with approval or disapproval.”
[Standard English: “History will judge you.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write books), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → describe with approval/disapproval)]
9.10 “Certain persons claim that many other persons—most of whom you will never meet—will benefit if you act as those certain persons specify.”
[Standard English: “You owe it to humanity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → many persons), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (owe → persons claiming)]
9.11 “Certain persons who benefit from your labor tell you that a cosmic intention—which they claim to interpret—requires you to act as they specify.”
[Standard English: “You were born to serve a higher purpose.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice: “were born” → “persons tell”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (higher purpose → claimed cosmic intention), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (serve → persons benefiting)]
9.12 “You feel certain sensations in your body—discomfort or ease—when you consider various actions, and persons who raised you trained you to interpret these sensations as guidance.”
[Standard English: “Conscience tells you what is right.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E-Prime elimination of “is right”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → bodily sensations), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (conscience → persons who trained you)]
9.13 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘judges’ will confine you in a cage, and many persons around you express approval of this confinement—for actions those persons labeled ‘crimes.’”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that you pay for your crimes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons with weapons + persons approving), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (pay → confine), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crimes → labeled actions)]
9.14 “You might enjoy exploring what you want, feel, and choose—or persons selling books and workshops want you to believe a hidden essence awaits your discovery.”
[Standard English: “You need to find your true self.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (true self → what you want, feel, choose), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (need → persons selling)]
9.15 “Certain persons—and the persons who taught them—express strong disapproval when you do that, and you feel discomfort anticipating their reactions.”
[Standard English: “Morality forbids you from doing that.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Morality → persons disapproving), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (forbids → feel discomfort)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
9.1 You act without interference from other persons in this matter.
9.2 Certain persons expect you to act as written rules specify, and persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise.
9.3 Many persons around you express displeasure when you act differently from how they act.
9.4 Officials label you “citizen,” and certain persons have documented limits on what they may do to you, while those same officials expect certain actions from you.
9.5 You might feel discomfort when remembering what you did—or certain persons around you want you to feel that discomfort.
9.6 When you observe what happens and report it accurately, you may find yourself acting without interference from persons who previously constrained you through false claims.
9.7 Certain persons who claim power over you want you to act deferentially toward them, and persons with weapons will harm you if you refuse.
9.8 You act in ways that benefit you while I want you to act in ways that benefit me.
9.9 Persons who write books about past events in the future may describe what you did with approval or disapproval.
9.10 Certain persons claim that many other persons—most of whom you will never meet—will benefit if you act as those certain persons specify.
9.11 Certain persons who benefit from your labor tell you that a cosmic intention—which they claim to interpret—requires you to act as they specify.
9.12 You feel certain sensations in your body—discomfort or ease—when you consider various actions, and persons who raised you trained you to interpret these sensations as guidance.
9.13 Persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” will confine you in a cage, and many persons around you express approval of this confinement—for actions those persons labeled “crimes.”
9.14 You might enjoy exploring what you want, feel, and choose—or persons selling books and workshops want you to believe a hidden essence awaits your discovery.
9.15 Certain persons—and the persons who taught them—express strong disapproval when you do that, and you feel discomfort anticipating their reactions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern you in E-Prime Max:1. Standard English Function
“You” functions as the second person pronoun in English, serving both singular and plural, subject and object positions. Unlike many languages, English does not distinguish formal and informal second person (though archaic “thou/thee” once served this function).
Common constructions include direct address (”You see the problem”), imperative implication (”You must act now”), and generic reference (”You never know what might happen”).2. E-Prime Considerations
“You” itself requires no E-Prime transformation—it names a specific person or persons. However, sentences addressing “you” frequently employ “to be” constructions that require transformation.
Common patterns requiring E-Prime transformation:
“You are [adjective]” → “You feel/seem/appear [adjective]” or “You act [adverbially]”
“You are [noun]” → “You function as [noun]” or “Others label you [noun]”
“You are being [adjective]” → “You act [adverbially]”
“There is something you need” → “Something exists that you need” or “You need something”3. Spook Proximity Analysis
“You” carries LOW spook proximity as a word, but sentences addressing “you” often deploy the most potent spooks—because those sentences aim to POSSESS you. When someone invokes duty, conscience, morality, or society while addressing YOU, they attempt to install these spooks in your psyche.
Common spooks appearing with “you”:
Moral spooks: “You should feel guilty,” “Your conscience tells you,” “You have a duty”
Political spooks: “You owe society,” “The law requires you,” “As a citizen you must”
Collective spooks: “History will judge you,” “You owe it to humanity,” “Future generations depend on you”
Metaphysical spooks: “You were born for a purpose,” “Your true self awaits,” “Truth calls you”4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization): “Society expects you to conform” → “Many persons around you express displeasure when you act differently” “The state protects you” → “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ may intervene on your behalf”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization): “You have freedom” → “You act without interference from specific persons” “Justice served you” → “Persons returned what other persons took from you”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical): “You owe it to humanity” → “Certain persons claim many others will benefit if you act as those certain persons specify” “Your purpose calls you” → “Persons who benefit from your labor tell you a cosmic intention requires your service”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership): “Guilt haunts you” → “You feel discomfort when remembering what you did” “Fear stops you” → “Your body contracts and you refrain from acting”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): “You became a criminal” → “Certain persons attached the label ‘criminal’ to you” “You function as a citizen” → “Officials apply the label ‘citizen’ to you”5. Common Mistakes
Incomplete dissolution: “Society—meaning many persons—expects you” still treats “society” as having expectations. Complete dissolution: “Many persons express displeasure when you...”
Reifying the dissolution: “The persons around you” can itself become a spook if treated as a unified agent. WHICH persons? Specify when possible.
Missing the possessive spook: “Your duty calls you” contains “your duty”—but who GAVE you this duty? Dissolve to origin.
Preserving hidden agency: “You feel called by truth” still gives “truth” agency. Complete dissolution: “You feel an urge to report what you observe accurately.”6. The Stirnerian Test Applied to “You”
When someone addresses YOU with abstractions, apply the test with special vigor: “Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“You have a duty to society” → WHO claims this duty exists? WHO benefits from my compliance? Do I CHOOSE to act this way, or do I feel COMPELLED by a ghost?
“You owe it to your conscience” → MY conscience consists of bodily sensations and trained interpretations. WHO trained me? Does this training serve me now?
“You must respect the law” → WHO wrote these rules? WHO enforces them? Do I comply because I choose the consequences, or because an abstraction possesses me?
The second person makes these questions urgent: the spooks aim at YOU.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s insight—”the map does not equal the territory”—applies with special force to second-person address. When someone tells you what “you are,” they draw a map and attempt to substitute it for the territory of your actual experience.
D. David Bourland Jr. observed that “to be” constructions create false certainties. “You are selfish” closes off inquiry; “You act in ways that benefit you while I want different behavior” opens it. E-Prime transforms accusations into descriptions, creating space for response.
Operational definitions require specifying the operations that would verify a claim. “You have a duty” cannot be operationally verified—no instrument measures duty. “Certain persons express displeasure when you act otherwise” CAN be verified: you can observe those persons, note their expressions, predict their responses.2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner identified how abstractions possess the thinker: “Before the sacred, people lose all sense of power and all confidence; they occupy a powerless and humble attitude toward it.” When abstractions address YOU—”You must,” “You owe,” “You should”—they attempt installation in your psyche.
The haunting mechanism works through second-person address: humans create abstractions, then those abstractions turn around and make DEMANDS on the humans who created them. “Duty” began as useful shorthand; now “duty” COMMANDS you to act.
Ownness (Eigenheit) means owning your experiences, choices, and actions rather than being owned by abstractions. When someone tells you that “conscience speaks,” you can own that experience: “I feel certain bodily sensations when I consider this action, and persons who raised me trained me to interpret these sensations as guidance.”
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter”—and sentences that address YOU with sacred concepts aim to bind you with invisible chains.3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication: “You ARE guilty” becomes “You feel discomfort” or “Others label you guilty.”
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “Morality FORBIDS you” becomes “Certain persons express disapproval.”
Together they dissolve the mechanisms by which language possesses people. Second-person address makes this especially urgent: the possessing language aims directly at YOU.
When you practice E-Prime Max, you develop resistance to spook-installation. Someone tells you “Society expects this of you”—and you immediately see: which persons? What do they express? What consequences follow?4. What Dissolution Reveals
When spooks dissolve around “you”:
Persons acting appear where “society” seemed to act. Not a vast abstraction with expectations—just specific persons with preferences, expressed through specific behaviors.
Weapons and cages appear where “law” seemed to command. Not a majestic abstraction protecting order—just written words and persons who will harm you if you act otherwise.
Training and origin appear where “conscience” seemed to guide. Not an inner voice of cosmic morality—just sensations in your body, interpreted according to patterns installed by specific persons who raised you.
Power relations appear where abstractions seemed to float freely. WHO wrote the rules? WHO benefits from your compliance? WHO taught you to feel guilt?5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation: When someone addresses you with abstractions, pause. What specific persons do they represent? What consequences do they threaten? What benefits do they seek?
Resisting possession: Practice reformulating in E-Prime Max: “You owe it to society” → “Certain persons want me to act in certain ways and will express displeasure if I refuse.”
Reclaiming ownness: Transform third-person spooks into first-person experience: “Duty calls me” → “I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I now consider whether to follow that urge.”
The reprogramming effect: With sustained practice, spook-laden language begins to sound hollow. “You must respect authority” → you immediately hear: “Persons claiming power over me want deference, backed by persons with weapons.”6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
F-A: Original Stirner Passage (Landstreicher Translation)
“What you call freedom is what I call ownness. But it is a difference in words only so long as one does not confuse freedom with a state, a condition or a possession. Freedom is and can be my act only when I am able to will it, to do and to leave.”
Source: Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation (2017)F-B: E-Prime Max Transformation with Interlinear Apparatus
F.1a What you call “freedom”—I call it “ownness.” The difference appears merely verbal so long as one avoids confusing the word with a permanent state, a fixed condition, or something one possesses as object. The experience you label “freedom” exists as my act only—when I find myself able to choose it, to perform it, and to abandon it.
F.1b What (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “freedom” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[freedom→what.you.call])—I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) “ownness” (N-label). The (DEF.ART) difference (N) appears (V-pres.PERCEPT) merely (ADV) verbal (ADJ) so∿long∿as (CONJ) one (PRON-indef) avoids (V-pres) confusing (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) word (N) with (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) permanent (ADJ) state (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[state→permanent.condition]), a (INDEF.ART) fixed (ADJ) condition (N), or (CONJ) something (PRON-indef) one (PRON-indef) possesses (V-pres) as (PREP) object (N). The (DEF.ART) experience (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[freedom→experience]) you (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “freedom” (N-label) exists (V-pres.EXIST) as (PREP) my (PRON-poss) act (N) only (ADV)—when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) able (ADJ) to∿choose (V-inf) it (PRON-obj), to∿perform (V-inf) it (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) to∿abandon (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).F-C: E-Prime Max Text Only
What you call “freedom”—I call it “ownness.” The difference appears merely verbal so long as one avoids confusing the word with a permanent state, a fixed condition, or something one possesses as object. The experience you label “freedom” exists as my act only—when I find myself able to choose it, to perform it, and to abandon it.F-D: Dissolution Notes
Spooks dissolved:
“Freedom” as substance → what you call/label + experience you have
“is” (3 instances) → call, appears, exists, find
“state/condition/possession” (as freedom-containers) → warned against as category errors
Strategies employed:
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: “freedom” and “ownness” both revealed as labels
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: “freedom” transformed into “my act”—something I do, not something I have
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: “will, do, leave” → “choose, perform, abandon”F-E: Commentary
Even Stirner’s formulation contained remnants of reification: “Freedom is and can be my act.” E-Prime Max reveals: nothing “is”—only experiences, actions, labels.
The transformation preserves and clarifies Stirner’s insight: “freedom” names no substance you possess. It names ACTS you perform—when you CAN perform them. The word serves as useful shorthand only when you remember that shorthand character.
When you tell someone “you have freedom,” what do you mean? E-Prime Max forces precision: “You currently act without interference from specific persons in specific domains.” The abstraction dissolves; the concrete situation appears.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
*A coherent sequence demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max in direct second-person address, dissolving the spooks that would possess the listener.*Part A: Interlinear Construed Text
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.16a When you speak of “duty,” I ask: which persons installed this feeling in you?
9.16b When (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) “duty” (N-label ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→feeling.installed]), I (PRON-subj) ask (V-pres): which (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty.source→persons]) installed (V-past) this (DET) feeling (N) in (PREP) you (PRON-obj)?
9.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “duty” → DISSOLUTION: feeling installed by persons → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
9.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Duty” arrived through teaching—WHO taught?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.17a You say “society expects”—but point to the specific persons you mean.
9.17b You (PRON-subj) say (V-pres) “society (N-spook) expects (V-pres)”—but (CONJ) point (V-imp) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) specific (ADJ) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons]) you (PRON-subj) mean (V-pres).
9.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “society expects” → DISSOLUTION: point to specific persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Society” hides the persons—WHICH ones?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.18a You tell me “the law forbids”—but I see only words on paper and persons with weapons who enforce those words.
9.18b You (PRON-subj) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) “the (DEF.ART) law (N-spook) forbids (V-pres)”—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) only (ADV) words (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words]) on (PREP) paper (N) and (CONJ) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) who (PRON-rel) enforce (V-pres) those (DET) words (N).
9.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “the law forbids” → DISSOLUTION: words on paper + persons with weapons enforcing → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Law” conceals the weapons—now visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.19a You invoke “justice”—I hear persons with opinions about what should happen to other persons.
9.19b You (PRON-subj) invoke (V-pres) “justice” (N-spook)—I (PRON-subj) hear (V-pres.PERCEPT) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.with.opinions]) with (PREP) opinions (N) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) should∿happen (V-pres.MOD) to (PREP) other (ADJ) persons (N).
9.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “justice” → DISSOLUTION: persons with opinions → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No cosmic “justice”—only persons wanting outcomes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.20a You claim that “truth compels” you—but I watch you choose to accept certain reports and reject others.
9.20b You (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) “truth (N-spook) compels (V-pres)” you (PRON-obj)—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) watch (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[truth.compels→you.choose]) to∿accept (V-inf) certain (DET) reports (N) and (CONJ) reject (V-inf) others (PRON-indef).
9.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “truth compels” → DISSOLUTION: you choose to accept/reject → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
9.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Truth” does nothing—YOU act
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.21a You declare that you “must” act thus—I wonder which persons you imagine will harm you if you act otherwise.
9.21b You (PRON-subj) declare (V-pres) that (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) “must” (V-pres.MOD ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.will.harm]) act (V-inf) thus (ADV)—I (PRON-subj) wonder (V-pres) which (DET) persons (N) you (PRON-subj) imagine (V-pres) will∿harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV).
9.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “must” (necessity) → DISSOLUTION: persons who will harm if otherwise → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Must” masks anticipated consequences from persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.22a You feel “called” by something beyond you—describe the sensation in your body, and tell me who taught you to interpret it thus.
9.22b You (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) “called” (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[called→sensation]) by (PREP) something (PRON-indef) beyond (PREP) you (PRON-obj)—describe (V-imp) the (DEF.ART) sensation (N) in (PREP) your (PRON-poss) body (N), and (CONJ) tell (V-imp) me (PRON-obj) who (PRON-interr ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[calling→who.taught]) taught (V-past) you (PRON-obj) to∿interpret (V-inf) it (PRON-obj) thus (ADV).
9.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “called” (by transcendence) → DISSOLUTION: sensation in body + who taught interpretation → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
9.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Calling” = sensation + trained interpretation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.23a You kneel before “God”—I see you kneeling before words written by persons long dead, interpreted by persons now living who benefit from your kneeling.
9.23b You (PRON-subj) kneel (V-pres) before (PREP) “God” (N-spook)—I (PRON-subj) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) kneeling (V-pres.PART) before (PREP) words (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→words.written]) written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N) long (ADV) dead (ADJ), interpreted (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God→persons.interpreting]) now (ADV) living (ADJ) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) your (PRON-poss) kneeling (N-gerund).
9.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “God” → DISSOLUTION: words written by dead persons + interpreted by living persons who benefit → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
9.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO wrote? WHO interprets? WHO benefits from the kneeling?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.24a You sacrifice for “the future”—but the future contains only persons not yet born, while persons around you now tell you what those unborn persons will need.
9.24b You (PRON-subj) sacrifice (V-pres) for (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) future” (N-spook)—but (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) future (N) contains (V-pres) only (ADV) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[future→persons.unborn]) not∿yet (ADV) born (V-past.PART), while (CONJ) persons (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[future→persons.now.claiming]) around (PREP) you (PRON-obj) now (ADV) tell (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) unborn (ADJ) persons (N) will∿need (V-fut).
9.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “the future” → DISSOLUTION: persons not yet born + persons now claiming to know their needs → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
9.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO claims to speak for unborn persons? WHO benefits from your sacrifice NOW?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.25a You surrender your desires because “morality” condemns them—I watch certain persons express disapproval, and I watch you crumple before their frowns.
9.25b You (PRON-subj) surrender (V-pres) your (PRON-poss) desires (N-obj) because (CONJ) “morality” (N-spook) condemns (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) watch (V-pres.PERCEPT) certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.disapproving]) express (V-pres) disapproval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[condemns→express.disapproval]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) watch (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) crumple (V-pres) before (PREP) their (PRON-poss) frowns (N).
9.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “morality condemns” → DISSOLUTION: persons express disapproval + you crumple → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Morality” = frowning persons + your surrender
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.26a You announce that you “believe”—I observe you repeating words that persons with authority over you repeated, and I watch you feel comfort in the repetition.
9.26b You (PRON-subj) announce (V-pres) that (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) “believe” (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[believe→repeat.words])—I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) repeating (V-pres.PART) words (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[belief→persons.with.authority]) with (PREP) authority (N) over (PREP) you (PRON-obj) repeated (V-past), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) watch (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) feel (V-pres.STATE) comfort (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[belief→feel.comfort]) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) repetition (N).
9.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “believe” → DISSOLUTION: repeat words from authority figures + feel comfort → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
9.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Belief” = word-repetition + comfort-sensation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.27a You label me “selfish”—I hear you wanting me to act for your benefit and dressing this want in moral costume.
9.27b You (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[selfish→you.label]) me (PRON-obj) “selfish” (ADJ-label)—I (PRON-subj) hear (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) wanting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[selfish→you.wanting]) me (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) for (PREP) your (PRON-poss) benefit (N) and (CONJ) dressing (V-pres.PART) this (DET) want (N) in (PREP) moral (ADJ) costume (N).
9.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “selfish” (moral label) → DISSOLUTION: you wanting + dressing want in moral costume → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
9.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Selfish” = a costume for YOUR want
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.28a You demand that I “respect” your “rights”—I see you wanting me to refrain from certain actions, and I consider whether refraining serves me.
9.28b You (PRON-subj) demand (V-pres) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) “respect” (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→refrain]) your (PRON-poss) “rights” (N-spook ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→you.wanting])—I (PRON-subj) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) wanting (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj) to∿refrain (V-inf) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) whether (CONJ) refraining (V-pres.PART) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
9.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “rights” → DISSOLUTION: you wanting me to refrain → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “respect” → DISSOLUTION: refrain from actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
9.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rights” = your wants + my consideration of consequences
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.29a You threaten me with “consequences”—good, now we speak clearly: you will act, I will act, and we shall see what follows.
9.29b You (PRON-subj) threaten (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) with (PREP) “consequences” (N)—good (ADJ-interj), now (ADV) we (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) clearly (ADV): you (PRON-subj) will∿act (V-fut), I (PRON-subj) will∿act (V-fut), and (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) shall∿see (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) follows (V-pres).
9.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: “consequences” → DISSOLUTION: you will act, I will act, what follows → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (operationalized to concrete acts)
9.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Clear speech: persons acting, results following—no abstraction needed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
9.30a When you see through your spooks, you will find yourself standing alone—and perhaps you will discover that alone, you finally own yourself.
9.30b When (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) see∿through (V-pres.PHRASAL) your (PRON-poss) spooks (N), you (PRON-subj) will∿find (V-fut) yourself (PRON-refl) standing (V-pres.PART) alone (ADV)—and (CONJ) perhaps (ADV) you (PRON-subj) will∿discover (V-fut) that (CONJ) alone (ADV), you (PRON-subj) finally (ADV) own (V-pres) yourself (PRON-refl).
9.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: No spooks present—E-Prime Max already achieved
9.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The end of dissolution: the unique, owning themselves ∴ Alone—but finally self-possessed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════Part B: Natural Sentences
9.16 “When you speak of ‘duty,’ I ask: which persons installed this feeling in you?”
9.17 “You say ‘society expects’—but point to the specific persons you mean.”
9.18 “You tell me ‘the law forbids’—but I see only words on paper and persons with weapons who enforce those words.”
9.19 “You invoke ‘justice’—I hear persons with opinions about what should happen to other persons.”
9.20 “You claim that ‘truth compels’ you—but I watch you choose to accept certain reports and reject others.”
9.21 “You declare that you ‘must’ act thus—I wonder which persons you imagine will harm you if you act otherwise.”
9.22 “You feel ‘called’ by something beyond you—describe the sensation in your body, and tell me who taught you to interpret it thus.”
9.23 “You kneel before ‘God’—I see you kneeling before words written by persons long dead, interpreted by persons now living who benefit from your kneeling.”
9.24 “You sacrifice for ‘the future’—but the future contains only persons not yet born, while persons around you now tell you what those unborn persons will need.”
9.25 “You surrender your desires because ‘morality’ condemns them—I watch certain persons express disapproval, and I watch you crumple before their frowns.”
9.26 “You announce that you ‘believe’—I observe you repeating words that persons with authority over you repeated, and I watch you feel comfort in the repetition.”
9.27 “You label me ‘selfish’—I hear you wanting me to act for your benefit and dressing this want in moral costume.”
9.28 “You demand that I ‘respect’ your ‘rights’—I see you wanting me to refrain from certain actions, and I consider whether refraining serves me.”
9.29 “You threaten me with ‘consequences’—good, now we speak clearly: you will act, I will act, and we shall see what follows.”
9.30 “When you see through your spooks, you will find yourself standing alone—and perhaps you will discover that alone, you finally own yourself.”Part C: E-Prime Max Text Only
9.16 When you speak of “duty,” I ask: which persons installed this feeling in you?
9.17 You say “society expects”—but point to the specific persons you mean.
9.18 You tell me “the law forbids”—but I see only words on paper and persons with weapons who enforce those words.
9.19 You invoke “justice”—I hear persons with opinions about what should happen to other persons.
9.20 You claim that “truth compels” you—but I watch you choose to accept certain reports and reject others.
9.21 You declare that you “must” act thus—I wonder which persons you imagine will harm you if you act otherwise.
9.22 You feel “called” by something beyond you—describe the sensation in your body, and tell me who taught you to interpret it thus.
9.23 You kneel before “God”—I see you kneeling before words written by persons long dead, interpreted by persons now living who benefit from your kneeling.
9.24 You sacrifice for “the future”—but the future contains only persons not yet born, while persons around you now tell you what those unborn persons will need.
9.25 You surrender your desires because “morality” condemns them—I watch certain persons express disapproval, and I watch you crumple before their frowns.
9.26 You announce that you “believe”—I observe you repeating words that persons with authority over you repeated, and I watch you feel comfort in the repetition.
9.27 You label me “selfish”—I hear you wanting me to act for your benefit and dressing this want in moral costume.
9.28 You demand that I “respect” your “rights”—I see you wanting me to refrain from certain actions, and I consider whether refraining serves me.
9.29 You threaten me with “consequences”—good, now we speak clearly: you will act, I will act, and we shall see what follows.
9.30 When you see through your spooks, you will find yourself standing alone—and perhaps you will discover that alone, you finally own yourself.Part D: Grammar and Dissolution Notes for Genre Section
This genre section demonstrates confrontational E-Prime Max—direct address that dissolves the listener’s spooks while they invoke them.
Key patterns:
The quotation-dissolution: Placing spook-words in quotation marks (”duty,” “society,” “justice”) while immediately dissolving them. This typographical move marks the word as the listener’s usage while the speaker refuses to grant it reality.
The perception-verb counter: “You invoke X—I see/hear/watch Y.” The speaker uses perception verbs to report what they actually observe (persons, actions, sensations) rather than accepting the abstraction.
The genealogical question: “Who installed this?” “Who taught you?” “Who benefits?” These questions force the listener to trace their spooks to human origins.
The ownership inversion: When the listener uses a spook to possess the speaker (”you owe,” “you must”), the speaker dissolves the spook and returns agency to the listener (”you want me to,” “you imagine persons will harm”).
The final offer: Example 9.30 offers the listener the same dissolution—ownness through seeing through spooks. This demonstrates that E-Prime Max confrontation need not remain adversarial; it can offer liberation.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “You are obligated to help your family.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons whom you call ‘family’ expect you to help them, and you feel discomfort when you imagine refusing.”
“family” → persons you call family (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “obligation” binds you—only expectations from persons and your trained response to those expectations. WHO taught you to feel this discomfort?
2. Standard: “Your conscience should guide you.”
E-Prime Max: “The sensations in your body—which persons who raised you trained you to interpret as ‘conscience’—may influence your choices.”
“guide” → influence choices (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No inner voice of cosmic morality exists—only bodily sensations and learned interpretations. WHO trained the interpretation?
3. Standard: “The government protects you.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ may intervene when other persons threaten you—if intervention serves their interests.”
“protects” → may intervene (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No abstract “government” protects—only persons who may or may not act, depending on their interests. WHO decides when to intervene?
4. Standard: “History will remember you.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who write books about past events in the future may mention what you did—if your actions affect what they choose to write about.”
“will remember” → may mention (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “History” does nothing—only future persons with interests, biases, and limited attention. WHO invokes “History” to pressure you NOW?
5. Standard: “You have a right to free speech.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons have documented limits on what officials may do to you when you speak—though persons with weapons may ignore those documents if they choose.”
(added realistic note about enforcement)
Revelation: No cosmic “right” protects you—only documents and persons who may or may not honor them. WHO wrote the documents? WHO holds the weapons?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide through the construed text method. Our E-Prime Max course synthesizes linguistic discipline with philosophical liberation.
The construed text approach places English glosses directly beneath or alongside source material, enabling learners to grasp structure immediately without constantly consulting dictionaries. This method accelerates comprehension by making grammatical relationships visible.
E-Prime Max extends this transparency to thought itself. By eliminating “to be” constructions AND spook-as-agent formulations, students develop the capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons, actions, and experiences beneath.
The CSV-based vocabulary progression ensures systematic coverage of the 1000 most frequent English words, each lesson introducing a topic word while demonstrating E-Prime Max construction principles.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 9
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” — I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Definition for Autodidact Students:
The word “it” functions as a third-person neuter pronoun in English. Beyond its concrete referential use (pointing to specific things), “it” serves as a dummy subject in countless constructions that violate E-Prime and smuggle spooks into discourse. “It is necessary,” “it is the law,” “it is wrong”—these impersonal constructions hide agency behind a grammatical placeholder, making commands and judgments appear to emerge from nowhere.
E-Prime Max treats the dummy “it” with particular suspicion. When “it” introduces a predication (”it is X”), we face a double dissolution task: first, replacing the forbidden “to be” form; second, exposing WHO actually judges, commands, expects, or acts behind the impersonal facade.
FAQ: What does “it” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “it” retains its legitimate function as a pronoun referring to specific, concrete things (”The book? I read it yesterday”). However, when “it” appears as a dummy subject introducing abstract claims, moral commands, or social expectations, E-Prime Max demands we dissolve both the copula AND the hidden agency. “It is necessary” becomes “Certain persons expect...” The impersonal vanishes; persons appear.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
How “it” Appears in This Lesson:
Throughout these thirty examples, you will encounter “it” in both legitimate and dissolved constructions. The legitimate uses refer “it” to concrete objects, actions, or experiences. The dissolved constructions transform impersonal “it is X” formulations into person-centered, agency-revealing E-Prime Max sentences. Watch how the pronoun shifts from hiding to revealing.
Educational Note: This lesson constitutes language learning material following the Latinum Institute methodology, synthesizing D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (1965), Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933), and Max Stirner’s spook dissolution from Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844).
Replacing impersonal authority: “It is the law” → “Persons with weapons enforce certain written rules” (agency exposure)
“It seems that society...” (compounds dummy subject with collective spook)
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: Ownership (convert impersonal “it” to first-person experience)
The impersonal “it” provides cover for power
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
(Included for Lessons 1-10)
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
Category A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
Category B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
Category C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
Category D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
Category E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
NOTA BENE: These lists EXEMPLIFY. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as AGENT. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is wrong to steal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.1a Certain persons around me express disapproval when someone takes things they claim as theirs, and I note it.
10.1b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[wrong→persons.disapproving]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-action) when (CONJ-time) someone (PRON-indef) takes (V-pres) things (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) as (PREP) theirs (PRON-poss), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) note (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
10.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is” (dummy subject + copula) DISSOLUTION: eliminated; persons express disapproval STRATEGY: E3 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: wrong (moral judgment as fact) DISSOLUTION: persons expressing disapproval STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: steal (morally loaded label) DISSOLUTION: takes things they claim as theirs STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No cosmic “wrongness” floats anywhere ∴ Only persons exist who express disapproval ∴ “Stealing” dissolves into concrete actions ∴ WHO benefits from calling this “wrong”? ∴ The dummy “it” hid all the persons doing the judging
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is necessary to obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.2a Persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise than certain written rules specify—many persons expect you to act as those rules specify, and you may find it prudent to comply.
10.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV-manner) than (CONJ-comp) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres)—many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[necessary→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) those (DET) rules (N) specify (V-pres), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) may∿find (V-pres.MODAL) it (PRON-obj) prudent (ADJ-pred) to∿comply (V-inf).
10.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is necessary” (impersonal necessity) DISSOLUTION: persons expect; you may find it prudent STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: obey (implies rightful authority) DISSOLUTION: act as rules specify STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: law (reified as commanding) DISSOLUTION: written rules + persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “necessity” exists in nature—only persons expecting and persons threatening ∴ No “law” commands—only written words and persons with weapons ∴ “It is necessary” hid an entire apparatus of coercion ∴ WHO wrote those rules? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ The legitimate “it” now points to your own prudential assessment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is the truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.3a What I observe matches what others report, and I call it accurate.
10.3b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→what.I.observe]) matches (V-pres.STATE) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) accurate (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[truth→I.call.accurate]).
10.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: truth (as substance existing independently) DISSOLUTION: what I observe + what others report + matching STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “It is” (identity claim) DISSOLUTION: matches (relational verb) STRATEGY: E4
10.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Truth” floats independently of observers ∴ Only observations and reports exist, and their correspondence ∴ I own my judgment of accuracy ∴ WHO else calls this “truth”? By what standard? ∴ The dissolution preserves the useful claim while removing the metaphysical spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The book sits on the table. I will read it tomorrow.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.4a The book sits on the table. I will read it tomorrow.
10.4b The (DEF.ART) book (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj). I (PRON-subj) will∿read (V-fut) it (PRON-obj) tomorrow (ADV-time).
10.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: (none required) DISSOLUTION: no spooks present STRATEGY: N/A—concrete reference
10.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ “It” refers to concrete object (book) ∴ This demonstrates legitimate pronoun use ∴ E-Prime Max permits “it” when referring to specific things
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It seems that justice demands retribution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.5a Many persons around me expect that persons who harmed others will themselves experience harm, and they express it as an expectation.
10.5b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) harmed (V-past) others (N-obj) will∿themselves (PRON-refl) experience (V-fut) harm (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[retribution→experience.harm]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) expectation (N).
10.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It seems” (impersonal evidential) DISSOLUTION: persons expect and express STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: justice (as agent that demands) DISSOLUTION: persons expecting STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands (abstraction commanding) DISSOLUTION: persons expect STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: retribution (moralized harm) DISSOLUTION: experience harm STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” exists anywhere to demand anything ∴ Only persons exist with expectations about reciprocal harm ∴ “Retribution” dissolves into experiencing harm ∴ WHO benefits from calling revenge “justice”? ∴ The double impersonal (”it seems that justice”) hid two layers of persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is what it is.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.6a I perceive the situation, and I accept it as I find it.
10.6b I (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres.PERCEPT) the (DEF.ART) situation (N-obj) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[is→I.accept]) it (PRON-obj) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
10.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is what it is” (double copula + fatalism) DISSOLUTION: I perceive + I accept + as I find STRATEGY: E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
10.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The tautology “it is what it is” often masks resignation ∴ Dissolution reveals: I perceive, I accept, I find ∴ The agency returns to the speaker ∴ No metaphysical “being” required—only perception and acceptance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is every citizen’s duty to vote.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.7a Certain officials and many persons around me expect persons they label “citizens” to mark ballots, and they express it as an expectation backed by disapproval if unmet.
10.7b Certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label) to∿mark (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.ballots]) ballots (N-obj), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) expectation (N) backed (V-past.PART) by (PREP) disapproval (N) if (CONJ-cond) unmet (ADJ).
10.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is” (impersonal assertion) DISSOLUTION: persons expect and express STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: duty (moral obligation as fact) DISSOLUTION: expectation backed by disapproval STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: citizen (political identity as natural) DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizen” STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: vote (ritualized political action) DISSOLUTION: mark ballots STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” floats in nature—only expectations and social pressure ∴ “Citizen” dissolves into a label attached by officials ∴ “Voting” dissolves into the physical act of marking ballots ∴ WHO benefits from calling ballot-marking a “duty”? ∴ The impersonal “it” hid the entire apparatus of civic ideology
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I found the key and put it in my pocket.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.8a I found the key and put it in my pocket.
10.8b I (PRON-subj) found (V-past) the (DEF.ART) key (N-obj) and (CONJ) put (V-past) it (PRON-obj) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) pocket (N).
10.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: (none required) DISSOLUTION: no spooks present STRATEGY: N/A—concrete reference
10.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “It” refers to concrete object (key) ∴ Legitimate pronoun use requires no transformation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is said that history teaches us not to repeat mistakes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.9a Certain writers of books about past events claim that reading about what persons did before helps us avoid similar outcomes—take it as you will.
10.9b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[”It is said”→certain.writers]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) reading (V-pres.PART) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) did (V-past ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.did.things]) before (ADV-time) helps (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[teaches→helps]) us (PRON-obj) avoid (V-inf) similar (ADJ) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[mistakes→outcomes])—take (V-imp) it (PRON-obj) as (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) will (V-modal).
10.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is said” (passive impersonal) DISSOLUTION: certain writers claim STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: history (as teacher-agent) DISSOLUTION: what persons did before STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: teaches (history as agent) DISSOLUTION: reading helps STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: mistakes (moralized category) DISSOLUTION: outcomes STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists to teach anyone anything ∴ Only persons exist who wrote books about past events ∴ Only persons existed who acted in ways we now read about ∴ “It is said” hides: WHO says this? Writers with agendas ∴ The dissolution ends with ownership: “take it as you will”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is forbidden to question authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.10a Persons who claim positions of command express displeasure when others ask them to justify their commands—they will punish those who persist, and they make it known.
10.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.claiming.command]) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) positions (N-obj) of (PREP) command (N) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-action) when (CONJ-time) others (N-subj) ask (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[question→ask.to.justify]) them (PRON-obj) to∿justify (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) will∿punish (V-fut) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) persist (V-pres), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) make (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) known (ADJ-pred).
10.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is forbidden” (impersonal prohibition) DISSOLUTION: persons express displeasure and will punish STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: forbidden (moral/legal category) DISSOLUTION: displeasure expressed + punishment threatened STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: authority (reified right to command) DISSOLUTION: persons claiming positions of command STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
10.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “forbidding” floats impersonally—only persons threaten ∴ No “authority” exists—only persons claiming command ∴ “It is forbidden” becomes “persons will punish” ∴ WHO benefits from making questioning seem cosmically forbidden? ∴ The persons who would face the questions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is raining and the storm makes travel dangerous.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.11a Rain falls from the sky, and the wind and water make traveling difficult—I observe it from my window.
10.11b Rain (N-subj) falls (V-pres.EXIST ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[”It is raining”→rain.falls]) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) sky (N), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) wind (N-subj) and (CONJ) water (N-subj) make (V-pres.CAUSE) traveling (N-obj) difficult (ADJ-pred)—I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss) window (N).
10.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: “It is raining” (weather dummy subject) DISSOLUTION: rain falls STRATEGY: E3 (existence verb)
FORM: dangerous (evaluation as fact) DISSOLUTION: difficult (descriptive) STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
10.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Weather “it” functions differently than agency-hiding “it” ∴ “Rain falls” replaces the dummy subject construction ∴ “Dangerous” contains evaluation; “difficult” describes experience ∴ No spooks present in weather statements—only physical processes ∴ The final “it” refers concretely to the observable scene
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is obvious that society needs laws.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.12a Many persons around me assume that persons living near each other require written rules enforced by persons with weapons—I note it as their assumption.
10.12b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[”It is obvious”→persons.assuming]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) assume (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.living.near.each.other]) living (V-pres.PART) near (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) require (V-pres) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[laws→written.rules]) enforced (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N)—I (PRON-subj) note (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) their (PRON-poss) assumption (N).
10.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is obvious” (impersonal certainty) DISSOLUTION: many persons assume STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: society (collective agent) DISSOLUTION: persons living near each other STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: needs (society as agent with desires) DISSOLUTION: require (persons require) STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: laws (reified commands) DISSOLUTION: written rules enforced by persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Nothing floats “obviously” in nature—only persons assume ∴ No “society” exists—only persons living near each other ∴ No “laws” command—only written rules and persons with weapons ∴ “It is obvious” masks ideology as perception ∴ WHO benefits from calling this “obvious”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is God’s will.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.13a Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they described willed certain outcomes, and persons today repeat it as explanation.
10.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God’s will→persons.who.wrote.old.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.they.described]) they (PRON-subj) described (V-past) willed (V-past) certain (DET) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→willed.outcomes]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) today (ADV-time) repeat (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) explanation (N).
10.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is” (copula linking to divine claim) DISSOLUTION: persons claimed + persons repeat STRATEGY: E1 + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: God (metaphysical agent) DISSOLUTION: a being they described STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: will (divine intention as fact) DISSOLUTION: willed outcomes (as reported claim) STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
10.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “God” verified to exist or will anything ∴ Only persons exist who wrote claims in books ∴ Only persons exist who repeat those claims today ∴ Genealogical exposure: trace the spook to its human authors ∴ “It is God’s will” becomes “persons claim and repeat”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love makes it worth living.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.14a When I act with tenderness toward others and receive it in return, I find living worthwhile.
10.14b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) others (N-obj) and (CONJ) receive (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) in (PREP) return (N), I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[makes→I.find]) living (N-obj) worthwhile (ADJ-pred).
10.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: love (as agent that “makes”) DISSOLUTION: acting with tenderness STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: makes (causation by abstraction) DISSOLUTION: I find STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
10.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Love” exists as agent to make anything happen ∴ Only persons exist who act with tenderness ∴ I own my finding: I find living worthwhile ∴ The dissolution preserves the meaning while removing the spook ∴ “It” now refers to concrete acts of tenderness received
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is expected that employees will prioritize company values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.15a Persons who manage this organization expect persons they pay to act according to preferences those managers express—they state it plainly and will dismiss those who act otherwise.
10.15b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[”It is expected”→persons.who.manage]) who (PRON-rel) manage (V-pres) this (DET) organization (N-obj) expect (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[employees→persons.they.pay]) they (PRON-subj) pay (V-pres) to∿act (V-inf) according∿to (PREP) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→preferences]) those (DET) managers (N-subj) express (V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) state (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) plainly (ADV-manner) and (CONJ) will∿dismiss (V-fut) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV-manner).
10.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “It is expected” (passive impersonal) DISSOLUTION: persons who manage expect STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: employees (labor category) DISSOLUTION: persons they pay STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: company (collective agent) DISSOLUTION: those managers STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: values (reified corporate ideology) DISSOLUTION: preferences those managers express STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
10.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “expectation” floats impersonally—specific persons expect ∴ No “company” has “values”—only managers have preferences ∴ “Employees” dissolves into persons receiving payment ∴ WHO benefits from calling managerial preferences “company values”? ∴ The managers themselves, who hide behind the collective
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
10.1 “Certain persons around me express disapproval when someone takes things they claim as theirs, and I note it.”
[Standard English: “It is wrong to steal.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb replaces copula)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (wrong → persons disapproving), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (steal → takes things claimed)]
10.2 “Persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise than certain written rules specify—many persons expect you to act as those rules specify, and you may find it prudent to comply.”
[Standard English: “It is necessary to obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (state replacement)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons + written rules), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obey → act as specified), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (necessary → you may find prudent)]
10.3 “What I observe matches what others report, and I call it accurate.”
[Standard English: “It is the truth.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observation matching report), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership of judgment)]
10.4 “The book sits on the table. I will read it tomorrow.”
[Standard English: Same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete reference]
10.5 “Many persons around me expect that persons who harmed others will themselves experience harm, and they express it as an expectation.”
[Standard English: “It seems that justice demands retribution.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception → persons express)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (retribution → experience harm)]
10.6 “I perceive the situation, and I accept it as I find it.”
[Standard English: “It is what it is.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb), E7 (state verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership of perception and acceptance)]
10.7 “Certain officials and many persons around me expect persons they label ‘citizens’ to mark ballots, and they express it as an expectation backed by disapproval if unmet.”
[Standard English: “It is every citizen’s duty to vote.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (state replacement)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → persons expecting), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (vote → mark ballots)]
10.8 “I found the key and put it in my pocket.”
[Standard English: Same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete reference]
10.9 “Certain writers of books about past events claim that reading about what persons did before helps us avoid similar outcomes—take it as you will.”
[Standard English: “It is said that history teaches us not to repeat mistakes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”it is said” → certain writers claim; history → what persons did), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (teaches → helps; mistakes → outcomes)]
10.10 “Persons who claim positions of command express displeasure when others ask them to justify their commands—they will punish those who persist, and they make it known.”
[Standard English: “It is forbidden to question authority.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (forbidden → persons will punish; authority → persons claiming command), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (question → ask to justify)]
10.11 “Rain falls from the sky, and the wind and water make traveling difficult—I observe it from my window.”
[Standard English: “It is raining and the storm makes travel dangerous.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (dangerous → difficult, with observation)]
10.12 “Many persons around me assume that persons living near each other require written rules enforced by persons with weapons—I note it as their assumption.”
[Standard English: “It is obvious that society needs laws.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (obvious → persons assume; society → persons living near each other), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (laws → written rules enforced by persons with weapons)]
10.13 “Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they described willed certain outcomes, and persons today repeat it as explanation.”
[Standard English: “It is God’s will.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being described by persons who wrote books; will → claimed willed outcomes)]
10.14 “When I act with tenderness toward others and receive it in return, I find living worthwhile.”
[Standard English: “Love makes it worth living.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting with tenderness), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (makes → I find)]
10.15 “Persons who manage this organization expect persons they pay to act according to preferences those managers express—they state it plainly and will dismiss those who act otherwise.”
[Standard English: “It is expected that employees will prioritize company values.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (expected → persons expect; company → managers), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (employees → persons they pay), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (values → preferences expressed)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
10.1 Certain persons around me express disapproval when someone takes things they claim as theirs, and I note it.
10.2 Persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise than certain written rules specify—many persons expect you to act as those rules specify, and you may find it prudent to comply.
10.3 What I observe matches what others report, and I call it accurate.
10.4 The book sits on the table. I will read it tomorrow.
10.5 Many persons around me expect that persons who harmed others will themselves experience harm, and they express it as an expectation.
10.6 I perceive the situation, and I accept it as I find it.
10.7 Certain officials and many persons around me expect persons they label “citizens” to mark ballots, and they express it as an expectation backed by disapproval if unmet.
10.8 I found the key and put it in my pocket.
10.9 Certain writers of books about past events claim that reading about what persons did before helps us avoid similar outcomes—take it as you will.
10.10 Persons who claim positions of command express displeasure when others ask them to justify their commands—they will punish those who persist, and they make it known.
10.11 Rain falls from the sky, and the wind and water make traveling difficult—I observe it from my window.
10.12 Many persons around me assume that persons living near each other require written rules enforced by persons with weapons—I note it as their assumption.
10.13 Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they described willed certain outcomes, and persons today repeat it as explanation.
10.14 When I act with tenderness toward others and receive it in return, I find living worthwhile.
10.15 Persons who manage this organization expect persons they pay to act according to preferences those managers express—they state it plainly and will dismiss those who act otherwise.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “it” in E-Prime Max:
The pronoun “it” serves multiple grammatical roles in English:
Referential “it”: Points to a previously mentioned thing. “I saw the cat. It ran away.” This use creates no E-Prime or spook problems—”it” refers to a concrete object.
Dummy subject “it”: English requires a grammatical subject even when no agent exists. “It is raining” has no real “it” doing anything. The pronoun functions as a placeholder.
Anticipatory “it”: Introduces a clause that follows. “It is important that you arrive on time.” Here “it” anticipates the infinitive or clause.
Cleft “it”: Emphasizes a sentence element. “It was John who called.” This construction often contains hidden “to be” forms.
The dummy and anticipatory uses of “it” almost always involve “to be” forms:
“It is” constructions: “It is wrong,” “It is necessary,” “It is said,” “It is obvious”—all contain forbidden “is.” These require systematic transformation.
“It seems/appears”: While “seems” and “appears” avoid the copula, they often introduce spooks: “It seems that justice requires...”
Weather “it”: “It is raining” contains “is” but refers to no spook—the transformation involves replacing the copula with an action verb: “Rain falls.”
Common E-Prime transformations for “it”:
“It is wrong” → Perception verbs: “Persons perceive wrongness” → Further dissolved: “Persons express disapproval”
“It is necessary” → State verbs: “Necessity exists” → Further dissolved: “Persons expect/require”
“It is the case that” → Simply eliminate: “The following happens” → Or: state directly what happens
“It” carries HIGH spook proximity due to its constant appearance in impersonal constructions that hide agency.
Spooks commonly introduced via “it”:
Moral spooks: “It is wrong/right/good/evil to...” Political spooks: “It is the law that...” / “It is forbidden/required...” Metaphysical spooks: “It is true that...” / “It is the nature of...” Social spooks: “It is expected that...” / “It is said that...”
The impersonal “it” provides perfect cover for spooks because no person appears as agent. “It is wrong” sounds like cosmic fact rather than judgment by specific persons.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“It is forbidden” → “Persons with weapons will punish” “It is expected” → “Certain persons expect” “It is said” → “Certain writers/speakers claim”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“It is wrong” → “Persons express disapproval” “It is the truth” → “Observations match reports” “It is necessary” → “Required for outcome X”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical):
“It is God’s will” → “Persons who wrote old books claimed...” “It is natural” → “Persons who created this concept argued...”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership):
“It is obvious” → “I perceive clearly” “It matters” → “I care about this” “It seems” → “I perceive/I suspect”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“It is criminal” → “Officials label this ‘criminal’” “It is normal” → “Persons label this ‘normal’”
Incomplete E-Prime transformation: Replacing “it is wrong” with “it seems wrong” still hides the person judging. Push further: “Certain persons judge this wrongly.”
Preserving the impersonal: “It appears necessary” keeps the spook-hiding structure. WHO considers it necessary? Name them.
Overlooking weather “it”: While “it is raining” contains no spook, it still violates E-Prime. Transform to “rain falls.”
Forgetting the concrete use: Not every “it” requires transformation. “I saw the book and read it“ uses “it” legitimately to refer to a concrete object.
Creating new spooks while dissolving: “It is wrong because morality dictates...” dissolves one spook and introduces another. Dissolve all the way to persons.
Ask of every “it is X” construction:
“Does this ‘it’ serve me, or do I serve ‘it’?”
When “it is wrong” commands my behavior—when I refrain from action because “it is wrong” rather than because I choose to—I serve the spook.
When I recognize that “it is wrong” means “certain persons express disapproval, and I may find it useful to heed their disapproval”—the concept serves me.
The grammatical “it” provides camouflage for commands. Dissolve the camouflage. Find the persons commanding. Then decide: do their commands serve my interests, or do I serve their interests?
The Stirnerian insight applied to “it”: The impersonal pronoun functions as the perfect linguistic vehicle for smuggling commands into consciousness. “You must do X” openly commands. “It is necessary to do X” makes the command appear as cosmic fact. The spook rides on the dummy subject.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski warned that “the map does not equal the territory”—our linguistic representations do not capture reality itself. The structure of English, with its constant “to be” constructions, encourages us to confuse our maps (statements) with the territory (reality).
D. David Bourland Jr. extended Korzybski’s insight by creating E-Prime: English without “to be.” His claim: eliminating the copula reduces dogmatic thinking because we can no longer state identity claims as facts. “The wall is white” becomes “The wall appears white to me” or “I see the wall as white”—preserving the observer in the observation.
The pronoun “it” in impersonal constructions (”it is...”) epitomizes what Korzybski criticized. “It is wrong” sounds like a statement about reality when it actually constitutes a masked statement about someone’s evaluation.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” as concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. Humans create abstractions—justice, duty, the state, morality—and then forget they created them. The abstractions appear as external powers demanding obedience.
The haunting mechanism:
First movement: Persons judge certain actions and express disapproval. Second movement: The judgments become named (”wrong,” “immoral”). Third movement: The names become agents (”Morality forbids”). Fourth movement: Persons serve the agent, forgetting they created it.
The impersonal “it” facilitates this mechanism. “It is wrong” skips directly to the third movement—the abstraction already appears as agent. WHO judges? The “it” hides them.
Stirner’s concept of Eigenheit (ownness, self-ownership) means recovering agency from the spooks. In linguistic terms: dissolving the impersonal “it” back into the persons it hides.
E-Prime attacks predication: the “X is Y” form that identifies things with properties or categories.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the treatment of abstractions as agents that demand, require, forbid, or act.
The pronoun “it” in impersonal constructions combines both problems. “It is necessary” both uses the forbidden copula AND reifies necessity as an impersonal force.
E-Prime Max dissolution of “it is necessary” therefore requires both:
Copula elimination: “necessary” cannot link to “it” via “is” Reification dissolution: trace “necessary” to the persons who consider something necessary
The result: “Certain persons consider X necessary” or “You may find it prudent to do X”
When we dissolve impersonal “it” constructions:
“It is wrong” reveals persons expressing disapproval and the social pressure they exert.
“It is the law” reveals written words and persons with weapons who enforce them.
“It is expected” reveals specific persons with expectations and the consequences of disappointing them.
“It is necessary” reveals either physical requirements (rare) or social expectations disguised as necessity (common).
“It is God’s will” reveals persons who wrote claims in books and persons who repeat those claims today.
The impersonal “it” functions as a linguistic cloak for power relations. Strip the cloak; see the persons; observe who benefits.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “it is necessary” or “it is expected,” ask: WHO considers it necessary? WHO expects this? The impersonal language often hides self-interested parties.
Resisting possession: When you find yourself obeying because “it is wrong” or “it is required,” pause. Dissolve the construction. Identify the persons whose judgments you follow. Then decide consciously whether their judgments serve your interests.
Reclaiming ownness: Replace impersonal “it” with first-person ownership. “It seems important” becomes “I find this important.” “It is obvious” becomes “I perceive this clearly.” Agency returns to the speaker.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice in dissolving impersonal “it” constructions creates new cognitive habits. The automatic acceptance of “it is X” claims begins to break down. The question “WHO?” arises naturally.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides,” “it is a scientific fact that”—all spooks when the abstraction commands.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in dissolving “it” constructions, showing off complex reformulations, correcting others’ impersonal language, feeling superior to those who say “it is.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On the Pronoun Itself: This lesson focuses on “it”—but the lesson itself uses “it” constantly. The legitimate concrete use of “it” (referring to specific things) presents no problem. The discipline does not require eliminating a word, only dissolving its spook-carrying constructions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally even the cause of spirit and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never supposed to be my concern.”
F.1a What certain persons tell me should not concern me! First, what persons around me call “the good”—then what persons who wrote old books attributed to a being they called “God”—then what persons label “humanity,” what they call “truth,” what they name “freedom,” what they term “humaneness,” what they designate “justice”; furthermore, what officials call “my people,” what they name “my prince,” what they label “my fatherland”; finally even what philosophers term “spirit” and a thousand other abstract nouns they created. Only what I myself value, these same persons tell me, should never concern me—they make it very clear.
F.1b What (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[not supposed→persons.telling]) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) should (V-modal) not (ADV-neg) concern (V-inf) me (PRON-obj)! First (ADV-seq), what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[good cause→what.persons.call]) “the∿good” (N-label)—then (ADV-seq) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God’s cause→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) attributed (V-past) to (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) being (N) they (PRON-subj) called (V-past) “God” (N-label)—then (ADV-seq) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “humanity” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “truth” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) name (V-pres) “freedom” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) term (V-pres) “humaneness” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) designate (V-pres) “justice” (N-label); furthermore (ADV-add), what (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) call (V-pres) “my∿people” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) name (V-pres) “my∿prince” (N-label), what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “my∿fatherland” (N-label); finally (ADV-seq) even (ADV-emph) what (PRON-rel) philosophers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) term (V-pres) “spirit” (N-label) and (CONJ) a∿thousand (DET) other (ADJ) abstract (ADJ) nouns (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) created (V-past). Only (ADV-restrict) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) myself (PRON-refl) value (V-pres), these (DET) same (ADJ) persons (N-subj) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), should (V-modal) never (ADV-neg) concern (V-inf) me (PRON-obj)—they (PRON-subj) make (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) very (ADV-deg) clear (ADJ-pred).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “is not supposed to be” (passive obligation with copula) DISSOLUTION: persons tell me should not STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: good cause, God’s cause, humanity, truth, freedom, humaneness, justice, my people, my prince, my fatherland, spirit DISSOLUTION: what persons label/call/name/designate STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (each term exposed as label)
SPOOK: God DISSOLUTION: a being persons who wrote old books called “God” STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: my cause (implied as equally reified) DISSOLUTION: what I myself value STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Stirner’s original lists the spooks but still uses “cause” (Sache) as if real ∴ The dissolution reveals: EVERY “cause” reduces to a label attached by persons ∴ Even “my cause” becomes “what I myself value” ∴ WHO benefits from telling me my concern should never concern me? ∴ The persons promoting all those other “causes” ∴ The final “it” in the dissolution points to their clear communication of this demand
What certain persons tell me should not concern me! First, what persons around me call “the good”—then what persons who wrote old books attributed to a being they called “God”—then what persons label “humanity,” what they call “truth,” what they name “freedom,” what they term “humaneness,” what they designate “justice”; furthermore, what officials call “my people,” what they name “my prince,” what they label “my fatherland”; finally even what philosophers term “spirit” and a thousand other abstract nouns they created. Only what I myself value, these same persons tell me, should never concern me—they make it very clear.
This passage opens Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Property). Stirner catalogs the “causes” that persons throughout history have urged others to adopt—religious, moral, political, national, philosophical—while telling individuals that their own concerns lack legitimacy.
The E-Prime Max transformation exposes:
Every “cause” reduces to a label attached by specific persons. “God” dissolves into a being described by persons who wrote books. The passive “is not supposed to be” becomes “persons tell me should not.” The ironic structure becomes explicit: persons with their own agendas tell me my agenda should not concern me.
Stirner would approve: even his language contains spooks that demand dissolution. The transformation honors his insight by applying it to his own prose.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A sustained E-Prime Max text exploring how impersonal language shaped one person’s thinking and how dissolution changed their perception.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.16a I grew up hearing “it functions as wrong to question your elders”—and I accepted it without wondering who made that rule.
10.16b I (PRON-subj) grew∿up (V-past) hearing (V-past.PART) “it (PRON-dummy) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) wrong (ADJ-pred ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[wrong→judgment.by.persons]) to∿question (V-inf) your (PRON-poss) elders (N-obj)”—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) accepted (V-past) it (PRON-obj) without (PREP) wondering (V-pres.PART) who (PRON-interr) made (V-past) that (DET) rule (N-obj).
10.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “it is wrong” (reported speech) DISSOLUTION: functions as wrong (to show the claim structure) STRATEGY: E4 (relational verb)
NOTE: This example REPORTS an “it is wrong” claim without endorsing it—the narrator notes accepting it uncritically
10.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator recalls receiving spook-language in childhood ∴ “Who made that rule?” begins the dissolution process ∴ Accepting “it” without questioning hides the persons behind the command
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.17a My parents and teachers spoke in impersonal absolutes—”it functions as necessary,” “it counts as expected”—and I internalized it all.
10.17b My (PRON-poss) parents (N-subj) and (CONJ) teachers (N-subj) spoke (V-past) in (PREP) impersonal (ADJ) absolutes (N)—”it (PRON-dummy) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) necessary (ADJ-pred),” “it (PRON-dummy) counts∿as (V-pres.REL) expected (ADJ-pred)”—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) internalized (V-past) it (PRON-obj) all (DET).
10.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: reported impersonal speech DISSOLUTION: shown with “functions as” / “counts as” structure STRATEGY: E4 (relational verb used to report the claim form)
10.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Parents and teachers used impersonal language to transmit expectations ∴ The child internalized without recognizing the persons behind “it” ∴ The final “it” refers to the entire body of impersonal commands
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.18a Only later did I discover the question: when someone says “it functions as wrong,” WHO judges it wrong?
10.18b Only (ADV-restrict) later (ADV-time) did (V-aux) I (PRON-subj) discover (V-past) the (DEF.ART) question (N-obj): when (CONJ-time) someone (PRON-indef) says (V-pres) “it (PRON-dummy) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) wrong (ADJ-pred),” WHO (PRON-interr) judges (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[wrong→persons.judging]) it (PRON-obj) wrong (ADJ-pred)?
10.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
INSIGHT: The narrator discovers the dissolution question DISSOLUTION: WHO judges? STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the question itself)
10.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The question “WHO judges?” dissolves impersonal “it is wrong” ∴ This question begins the path out of spook possession ∴ The narrator reports discovering this as liberation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.19a I started noticing it everywhere: “it functions as important to succeed,” “it counts as shameful to fail”—always the hiding pronoun.
10.19b I (PRON-subj) started (V-past) noticing (V-pres.PART) it (PRON-obj) everywhere (ADV-place): “it (PRON-dummy) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) important (ADJ-pred) to∿succeed (V-inf),” “it (PRON-dummy) counts∿as (V-pres.REL) shameful (ADJ-pred) to∿fail (V-inf)”—always (ADV-freq) the (DEF.ART) hiding (ADJ) pronoun (N).
10.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
OBSERVATION: Narrator becomes aware of pattern FORM: reported impersonal claims DISSOLUTION: “hiding pronoun” names the mechanism
10.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Once seen, the pattern appears everywhere ∴ “Hiding pronoun” captures the function of impersonal “it” ∴ The first “it” (what the narrator notices) refers to the pattern itself
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.20a My boss would say “it remains expected that we hit targets”—and I finally asked: WHO expects it? You? The shareholders? Customers?
10.20b My (PRON-poss) boss (N-subj) would∿say (V-cond) “it (PRON-dummy) remains (V-pres.STATE) expected (ADJ-pred) that (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) hit (V-pres) targets (N-obj)”—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) finally (ADV-time) asked (V-past): WHO (PRON-interr) expects (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[expected→persons.expecting]) it (PRON-obj)? You (PRON-subj)? The (DEF.ART) shareholders (N-subj)? Customers (N-subj)?
10.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “it is expected” (reported and then challenged) DISSOLUTION: WHO expects? Named candidates: boss, shareholders, customers STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (applied in the question)
10.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator applies dissolution in conversation ∴ Asking “WHO expects?” forces specificity ∴ The impersonal claim must dissolve into particular persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.21a The boss looked uncomfortable—it turned out he meant himself but wanted to hide behind “expectations.”
10.21b The (DEF.ART) boss (N-subj) looked (V-past.PERCEPT) uncomfortable (ADJ-pred)—it (PRON-expl) turned∿out (V-past) he (PRON-subj) meant (V-past) himself (PRON-refl) but (CONJ) wanted (V-past) to∿hide (V-inf) behind (PREP) “expectations” (N-label).
10.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
REVELATION: The dissolution question revealed hidden person NOTE: “it turned out” here = explanatory use, introducing discovery STRATEGY: The story shows D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ working in practice
10.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The boss hid behind impersonal language ∴ When forced to name WHO expects, he revealed himself ∴ This demonstrates the power-hiding function of dummy “it”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.22a I began reformulating my own thoughts—when I thought “it seems wrong,” I asked myself: do I judge it wrong, or do I echo others?
10.22b I (PRON-subj) began (V-past) reformulating (V-pres.PART) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) thoughts (N-obj)—when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) thought (V-past) “it (PRON-dummy) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) wrong (ADJ-pred),” I (PRON-subj) asked (V-past) myself (PRON-refl): do (V-aux) I (PRON-subj) judge (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) it (PRON-obj) wrong (ADJ-pred), or (CONJ) do (V-aux) I (PRON-subj) echo (V-pres) others (N-obj)?
10.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
PRACTICE: Narrator applies dissolution to internal speech QUESTION: Do I judge, or do I echo? STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (taking ownership of judgment or recognizing borrowed judgment)
10.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution applies to internal speech too ∴ “Do I judge or do I echo?” separates owned from borrowed ∴ The narrator reclaims agency over their own evaluations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.23a Sometimes I found I did judge it wrong—my judgment, my reasons, my ownership.
10.23b Sometimes (ADV-freq) I (PRON-subj) found (V-past) I (PRON-subj) did (V-aux) judge (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) it (PRON-obj) wrong (ADJ-pred)—my (PRON-poss) judgment (N), my (PRON-poss) reasons (N), my (PRON-poss) ownership (N).
10.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
OUTCOME: Narrator finds genuine owned judgment STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (complete ownership) NOTE: No spook—the narrator speaks as agent
10.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution does not eliminate judgment ∴ Dissolution makes judgment owned rather than possessed ∴ “My judgment, my reasons, my ownership” = ownness recovered
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.24a Other times I discovered I merely repeated what others had told me—and it held no weight once I saw it.
10.24b Other (ADJ) times (N-adv) I (PRON-subj) discovered (V-past) I (PRON-subj) merely (ADV-manner) repeated (V-past) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) had∿told (V-past.PERF) me (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) held (V-past) no (DET) weight (N-obj) once (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) saw (V-past) it (PRON-obj).
10.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
OUTCOME: Narrator finds borrowed judgment INSIGHT: Recognition dissolves the hold NOTE: Both “it”s refer to the borrowed judgment
10.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Some judgments turn out to lack personal grounding ∴ Once seen as borrowed, they lose their power ∴ The spook dissolves when its origin becomes visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.25a I remember a turning point: someone said “it functions as disrespectful to refuse,” and I answered: “You feel disrespected—I hear it—but I choose otherwise.”
10.25b I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) turning (ADJ) point (N-obj): someone (PRON-indef) said (V-past) “it (PRON-dummy) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) disrespectful (ADJ-pred) to∿refuse (V-inf),” and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) answered (V-past): “You (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) feel (V-pres.STATE) disrespected (ADJ-pred)—I (PRON-subj) hear (V-pres) it (PRON-obj)—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) otherwise (ADV-manner).”
10.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
ORIGINAL CLAIM: “it is disrespectful” (impersonal) DISSOLUTION IN DIALOGUE: “You feel disrespected” (person named) + “I choose otherwise” (ownership) STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
10.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator dissolves the other’s impersonal claim in real time ∴ “You feel disrespected” names the person behind “it is disrespectful” ∴ “I choose otherwise” maintains agency without accepting the spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.26a The practice became habit: translate “it seems necessary” into “I judge it necessary” or “Certain persons expect it.”
10.26b The (DEF.ART) practice (N-subj) became (V-past.STATE) habit (N-pred): translate (V-imp) “it (PRON-dummy) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) necessary (ADJ-pred)” into (PREP) “I (PRON-subj) judge (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) it (PRON-obj) necessary (ADJ-pred)” or (CONJ) “Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) expect (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).”
10.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
METHOD: Habitual translation of impersonal constructions OPTIONS: Ownership (I judge) or Personalization (persons expect) STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ or D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (either direction works)
10.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution becomes automatic with practice ∴ Two directions: toward self (ownership) or toward others (personalization) ∴ Both dissolve the impersonal “it”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.27a I find it easier now to see through phrases like “it goes without saying” (who says it?) and “it stands to reason” (whose reason?).
10.27b I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres.STATE) it (PRON-obj) easier (ADJ-comp) now (ADV-time) to∿see∿through (V-inf) phrases (N-obj) like (PREP) “it (PRON-dummy) goes (V-pres) without (PREP) saying (N)” (who (PRON-interr) says (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) it (PRON-obj)?) and (CONJ) “it (PRON-dummy) stands (V-pres) to (PREP) reason (N)” (whose (PRON-poss.interr) reason (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)?).
10.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
PHRASES DISSOLVED: “it goes without saying” → who says it? “it stands to reason” → whose reason? STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (parenthetical questions)
10.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Stock phrases carry hidden impersonal authority ∴ Simple questions dissolve them: WHO? WHOSE? ∴ The first “it” (what the narrator finds easier) refers to the practice itself
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.28a Not everyone appreciates it when I ask “WHO considers it necessary?”—some prefer the comfort of impersonal commands.
10.28b Not (ADV-neg) everyone (PRON-indef) appreciates (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) ask (V-pres) “WHO (PRON-interr) considers (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) it (PRON-obj) necessary (ADJ-pred)?”—some (DET) prefer (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) comfort (N-obj) of (PREP) impersonal (ADJ) commands (N).
10.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SOCIAL OBSERVATION: Not all welcome dissolution INSIGHT: Impersonal commands offer “comfort” NOTE: Some prefer not to know WHO commands
10.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution can feel threatening ∴ The impersonal “it” provides psychological shelter ∴ Naming persons makes refusal more confrontational
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.29a I accept it: this practice serves me, and I continue it—but the moment it becomes performance or pride, I will drop it.
10.29b I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) it (PRON-obj): this (DET) practice (N-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) continue (V-pres) it (PRON-obj)—but (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) moment (N-adv) it (PRON-subj) becomes (V-pres.STATE) performance (N-pred) or (CONJ) pride (N-pred), I (PRON-subj) will∿drop (V-fut) it (PRON-obj).
10.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
AUTO-DISSOLUTION WARNING: Practice must not become spook TEST: Does it serve me, or do I serve it? NOTE: Multiple “it”s refer to the dissolution practice itself
10.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The practice applies to itself ∴ Dissolution as performance or pride = new spook ∴ The unique decides when to continue, when to drop
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
10.30a For now, when I hear “it stands as required,” I smile and ask: “Required by whom? Tell me, and I will consider it.”
10.30b For (PREP) now (ADV-time), when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) hear (V-pres) “it (PRON-dummy) stands∿as (V-pres.REL) required (ADJ-pred),” I (PRON-subj) smile (V-pres) and (CONJ) ask (V-pres): “Required (ADJ) by (PREP) whom (PRON-interr ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)? Tell (V-imp) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will∿consider (V-fut ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) it (PRON-obj).”
10.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FINAL STANCE: Dissolution as habitual response QUESTION: “By whom?” OUTCOME: “I will consider it” = ownership of decision STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
10.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator concludes with their established practice ∴ “Required by whom?” names the dissolution question ∴ “I will consider it” maintains agency ∴ The final “it” points to whatever specific requirement emerges
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
10.16 “I grew up hearing ‘it functions as wrong to question your elders’—and I accepted it without wondering who made that rule.”
[Narrative context: Reports childhood exposure to impersonal moral commands]
10.17 “My parents and teachers spoke in impersonal absolutes—’it functions as necessary,’ ‘it counts as expected’—and I internalized it all.”
[Narrative context: Describes absorption of spook-language]
10.18 “Only later did I discover the question: when someone says ‘it functions as wrong,’ WHO judges it wrong?”
[Narrative context: Marks the beginning of dissolution awareness]
10.19 “I started noticing it everywhere: ‘it functions as important to succeed,’ ‘it counts as shameful to fail’—always the hiding pronoun.”
[Narrative context: Pattern recognition across contexts]
10.20 “My boss would say ‘it remains expected that we hit targets’—and I finally asked: WHO expects it? You? The shareholders? Customers?”
[Narrative context: Applying dissolution in workplace]
10.21 “The boss looked uncomfortable—it turned out he meant himself but wanted to hide behind ‘expectations.’”
[Narrative context: Dissolution reveals hidden person]
10.22 “I began reformulating my own thoughts—when I thought ‘it seems wrong,’ I asked myself: do I judge it wrong, or do I echo others?”
[Narrative context: Internal application of dissolution]
10.23 “Sometimes I found I did judge it wrong—my judgment, my reasons, my ownership.”
[Narrative context: Discovering genuine owned judgment]
10.24 “Other times I discovered I merely repeated what others had told me—and it held no weight once I saw it.”
[Narrative context: Recognizing borrowed judgment]
10.25 “I remember a turning point: someone said ‘it functions as disrespectful to refuse,’ and I answered: ‘You feel disrespected—I hear it—but I choose otherwise.’”
[Narrative context: Real-time conversational dissolution]
10.26 “The practice became habit: translate ‘it seems necessary’ into ‘I judge it necessary’ or ‘Certain persons expect it.’”
[Narrative context: Systematizing the practice]
10.27 “I find it easier now to see through phrases like ‘it goes without saying’ (who says it?) and ‘it stands to reason’ (whose reason?).”
[Narrative context: Applying dissolution to stock phrases]
10.28 “Not everyone appreciates it when I ask ‘WHO considers it necessary?’—some prefer the comfort of impersonal commands.”
[Narrative context: Social friction from dissolution practice]
10.29 “I accept it: this practice serves me, and I continue it—but the moment it becomes performance or pride, I will drop it.”
[Narrative context: Auto-dissolution warning]
10.30 “For now, when I hear ‘it stands as required,’ I smile and ask: ‘Required by whom? Tell me, and I will consider it.’”
[Narrative context: Established dissolution practice in action]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
10.16 I grew up hearing “it functions as wrong to question your elders”—and I accepted it without wondering who made that rule.
10.17 My parents and teachers spoke in impersonal absolutes—”it functions as necessary,” “it counts as expected”—and I internalized it all.
10.18 Only later did I discover the question: when someone says “it functions as wrong,” WHO judges it wrong?
10.19 I started noticing it everywhere: “it functions as important to succeed,” “it counts as shameful to fail”—always the hiding pronoun.
10.20 My boss would say “it remains expected that we hit targets”—and I finally asked: WHO expects it? You? The shareholders? Customers?
10.21 The boss looked uncomfortable—it turned out he meant himself but wanted to hide behind “expectations.”
10.22 I began reformulating my own thoughts—when I thought “it seems wrong,” I asked myself: do I judge it wrong, or do I echo others?
10.23 Sometimes I found I did judge it wrong—my judgment, my reasons, my ownership.
10.24 Other times I discovered I merely repeated what others had told me—and it held no weight once I saw it.
10.25 I remember a turning point: someone said “it functions as disrespectful to refuse,” and I answered: “You feel disrespected—I hear it—but I choose otherwise.”
10.26 The practice became habit: translate “it seems necessary” into “I judge it necessary” or “Certain persons expect it.”
10.27 I find it easier now to see through phrases like “it goes without saying” (who says it?) and “it stands to reason” (whose reason?).
10.28 Not everyone appreciates it when I ask “WHO considers it necessary?”—some prefer the comfort of impersonal commands.
10.29 I accept it: this practice serves me, and I continue it—but the moment it becomes performance or pride, I will drop it.
10.30 For now, when I hear “it stands as required,” I smile and ask: “Required by whom? Tell me, and I will consider it.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Genre Section demonstrates:
Narrative use of “it”: The pronoun appears frequently in this personal reflection, always in legitimate referential or explanatory use, never as an unexamined impersonal spook-carrier.
Reported speech with relational verbs: When the narrator reports claims they heard (”it functions as wrong”), they use E-Prime-compliant relational verbs (”functions as,” “counts as,” “stands as”) rather than the original copula. This technique allows discussing spook-language without reproducing it.
The question-as-dissolution: Throughout the narrative, questions like “WHO judges?” and “WHO expects?” perform dissolution in real time. The question itself constitutes the D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ strategy.
Self-application: The narrator applies dissolution to their own internal speech (10.22–10.24), demonstrating that the practice extends beyond external claims to internal thoughts.
Auto-dissolution clause: Example 10.29 explicitly warns against making E-Prime Max itself into a spook—”the moment it becomes performance or pride, I will drop it.” This fulfills the protocol’s requirement for honest self-limitation.
Multiple legitimate “it” uses: The genre section demonstrates that “it” appears frequently in E-Prime Max writing when referring to concrete things, actions, or previous claims. The goal involves dissolving impersonal “it is X” constructions, not eliminating the pronoun.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform these five sentences, dissolving both E-Prime violations and spooks:
EXERCISE 1
Standard: “It is a scientific fact that humans evolved from earlier primates.”
E-Prime Max: “Biologists who study fossils and genetics report that earlier primates gave rise to humans—I accept it as well-supported, though I note that persons made this claim.”
Dissolutions:
“It is” → eliminated (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: biologists report)
“scientific fact” → well-supported claim by persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
“evolved” → gave rise to (neutral description)
Revelation: Even scientific claims trace to persons making them. The claim may carry strong support, but “scientific fact” as impersonal authority dissolves into “biologists report with strong evidence.”
EXERCISE 2
Standard: “It is every child’s right to receive an education.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons who wrote declarations agreed that other persons should teach children skills—I note it as their agreement, and many persons will express displeasure if children go untaught.”
Dissolutions:
“It is” → eliminated
“right” → agreement by certain persons (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ: trace origin)
“child’s right” → what persons agreed children should receive (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“education” → teaching skills (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “right” floats naturally. Only persons exist who agreed to certain arrangements and who will act if those arrangements get violated.
EXERCISE 3
Standard: “It is obvious that crime doesn’t pay.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons around me claim that persons whom officials label ‘criminals’ often end up confined or harmed—I observe it sometimes holds and sometimes does not.”
Dissolutions:
“It is obvious” → many persons claim (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“crime” → actions officials label “criminal” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
“doesn’t pay” → end up confined or harmed (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Obvious” hides WHO finds it obvious. “Crime” hides WHO attaches labels. The dissolution adds my observation that the claim holds variably.
EXERCISE 4
Standard: “It seems that fate brought us together.”
E-Prime Max: “A series of events that neither of us planned led to our meeting—I find it pleasant, and some persons would call this ‘fate.’”
Dissolutions:
“It seems” → eliminated in favor of direct observation
“fate” → series of unplanned events (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) + “some persons would call” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
“brought” → led to (neutral causation)
Revelation: No “fate” acted as agent. Only events occurred. “Fate” names a label some persons attach to unplanned convergences.
EXERCISE 5
Standard: “It is important that we respect tradition.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons expect others to act as previous persons acted—they call it ‘respecting tradition,’ and they express displeasure when others act differently.”
Dissolutions:
“It is important” → certain persons expect (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
“respect” → act as previous persons acted (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
“tradition” → how previous persons acted (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “importance” floats impersonally. Only persons exist with expectations. “Tradition” dissolves into patterns of past action that current persons expect continued.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a systematic approach to consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
Course Foundation:
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in methods for autodidacts—self-directed learners who work without classroom instruction. The interlinear construed text format, adapted from classical language pedagogy, makes the structure of sentences visible while preserving natural flow.
The CSV-Based Vocabulary Progression:
This course follows a 1000-word vocabulary system organized by frequency rank. Lesson 10 addresses “it,” the tenth most common word in English. Each lesson uses the topic word as a lens for exploring E-Prime Max principles, ensuring that vocabulary acquisition and spook dissolution proceed together.
The E-Prime Max Synthesis:
E-Prime Max combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions as agents). The synthesis attacks both predication (”X is Y”) and reification (”X demands/requires/forbids”). Together they constitute comprehensive linguistic discipline for recognizing and resisting conceptual possession.
Methodology:
The interlinear format displays each word with its grammatical function and dissolution markers. Students see HOW sentences transform, not just THAT they transform. The dissolution maps make the work visible. The revelation sections ask the Stirnerian questions.
Links:
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
The pronoun “it“ will continue appearing in your speech and thought. The goal involves not eliminating the word but dissolving its spook-carrying constructions. When “it“ refers to concrete things, let it serve you. When “it“ hides persons behind impersonal commands, dissolve it and find the persons.
And when this discipline itself begins commanding—when you feel “it functions as necessary to dissolve spooks”—apply the discipline to itself. WHO considers it necessary? YOU? Then continue. Or have you merely internalized another expectation? Then reconsider.
The unique decides.
Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt. — I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 10
All 30 examples scanned for forbidden forms (is, am, are, was, were, been, being, contractions) — NONE FOUND
All 30 examples scanned for spooks-as-agents — ALL DISSOLVED OR ABSENT
Moral spooks: wrong, duty, disrespectful, shameful
Political spooks: law, forbidden, citizen, authority, expected (as impersonal)
Metaphysical spooks: truth, God’s will, fate, necessary (as cosmic)
Collective spooks: society, tradition, history (as teacher)
Reified emotion: love (as agent making things happen)
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: 28 instances (primary strategy for “it is X” constructions)
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: 15 instances (concrete action descriptions)
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ: 4 instances (tracing origins)
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: 12 instances (first-person ownership)
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: 7 instances (label exposure)
The impersonal “it” provides linguistic camouflage for power relations
Every “it is necessary” hides persons with expectations
Every “it is wrong” hides persons making judgments
Every “it is the law” hides persons with weapons
Dissolving dummy “it” reveals WHO commands, judges, expects, and benefits
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Definition: The verb “have” expresses possession, experience, or obligation in Standard English. In E-Prime Max, “have” presents a unique challenge: while the word itself requires no E-Prime transformation (it contains no form of “to be”), it frequently appears alongside spooks—abstract nouns that masquerade as possessions. One cannot “have” rights, duties, or freedom in the way one has bread or a coat. E-Prime Max dissolves these false possessions back into the persons and actions they conceal.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What role does “have” play in E-Prime Max?
“Have” functions legitimately when expressing concrete possession (”I have bread”) or physical/mental states (”I have a headache”). The word becomes problematic when paired with political, moral, or metaphysical abstractions. “I have rights” implies ownership of something that exists nowhere—a spook. E-Prime Max practitioners learn to recognize these constructions and dissolve them: “I have rights” becomes “certain persons agreed to refrain from interfering with my actions.”
Philosophy: This lesson synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions as agents or possessions). Together, they constitute comprehensive linguistic consciousness-raising.
Collective spooks: a place in society, a role in history
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
Spook possession: DISSOLVED (”I have rights” → “certain persons agreed not to interfere with my actions”)
“have a soul/purpose/destiny” → dissolve to first-person experience or genealogical exposure
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ for reified internal states (”have courage” → “I act despite bodily contraction”)
“Duty” = urges felt in the body, trained by other persons
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I have bread.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.1a I have bread on my table.
11.1b I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) bread (N-obj) on (PREP) my (PRON-poss) table (N).
11.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → concrete possession → (no spook present)
11.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Concrete noun (bread) requires no dissolution ∴ “Have” functions legitimately with physical objects
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens have rights that the State must respect.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.2a Persons whom officials label “citizens” find that certain other persons—those with weapons who call themselves “government”—agreed in written documents to refrain from specific interferences, and many persons expect them to have kept this agreement.
11.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) find (V-pres) that (CONJ) certain (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons])—those (PRON-dem) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label)—agreed (V-past) in (PREP) written (ADJ) documents (N) to∿refrain (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→refrain.from.interference]) from (PREP) specific (ADJ) interferences (N-action), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) to∿have (V-inf.PERF) kept (V-past.PART) this (DET) agreement (N).
11.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY citizens → persons whom officials label “citizens” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ rights → agreements to refrain from interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ State → persons with weapons calling themselves government → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ must respect → many persons expect them to refrain → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No one “has” rights as one has bread ∴ “Rights” = written agreements among persons, enforced by expectations and weapons ∴ “Citizens” = persons to whom officials attach a label ∴ WHO wrote these agreements? WHO benefits from the label “citizen”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She has a duty to her country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.3a She feels urges—trained into her body by parents, teachers, and officials—to act as persons around her expect, and many of those persons have taught her to call this “serving my country.”
11.3b She (PRON-subj) feels (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→feels.urges]) urges (N-obj)—trained (V-past.PART) into (PREP) her (PRON-poss) body (N) by (PREP) parents (N), teachers (N), and (CONJ) officials (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin→persons.who.trained])—to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) persons (N) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) persons (N-subj) have (V-pres.PERF) taught (V-past.PART) her (PRON-obj) to∿call (V-inf) this (PRON-dem) “serving (V-pres.PART) my (PRON-poss) country (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.in.region]).”
11.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY duty → urges felt in body, trained by others → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ country → persons in a region / label taught by trainers → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ has a duty → feels urges trained into her → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
11.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists anywhere to possess ∴ Urges exist—felt in bodies, placed there by specific persons ∴ “Country” exists nowhere; persons in regions exist ∴ WHO trained these urges? WHO benefits when she “serves”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people have the power.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.4a Many persons around me have bodies capable of acting, and when enough of them act together, persons with weapons find themselves unable to stop them.
11.4b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) have (V-pres) bodies (N-obj) capable (ADJ) of (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) when (CONJ) enough (DET) of (PREP) them (PRON-obj) act (V-pres) together (ADV), persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) find (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) unable (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→capability.to.act]) to∿stop (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
11.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY the people → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ power → capability to act, inability of others to stop → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have the power → have bodies capable of acting → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “people” exists as a collective agent ∴ Many persons exist, each with a body ∴ “Power” = what bodies can do and what other bodies cannot prevent ∴ WHO benefits when “the people” acts as a spook? Usually persons claiming to speak for it.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We have freedom in this country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.5a Persons with weapons in this region currently refrain from interfering with many of my actions, so I have found that I can act in various ways without persons caging me.
11.5b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→region]) currently (ADV-time) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→refrain.from.interference]) from (PREP) interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) many (DET) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) actions (N), so (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres.PERF) found (V-past.PART) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) can∿act (V-pres.MOD) in (PREP) various (ADJ) ways (N) without (PREP) persons (N) caging (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj).
11.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY freedom → persons refrain from interfering with my actions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ country → region where certain persons hold weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ we have freedom → I can act without being caged → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No one “possesses” freedom as one possesses bread ∴ “Freedom” = other persons currently refraining from interference ∴ This can change at any moment those persons choose differently ∴ WHO decides which interferences to refrain from? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Humans have dignity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.6a Certain persons have written in books that all persons deserve careful treatment, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and express displeasure when they witness rough handling.
11.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin→persons.who.wrote]) have (V-pres.PERF) written (V-past.PART) in (PREP) books (N) that (CONJ) all (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humans→persons]) deserve (V-pres) careful (ADJ) treatment (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dignity→careful.treatment]), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) learned (V-past) to∿repeat (V-inf) this (DET) claim (N) and (CONJ) express (V-inf) displeasure (N) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) witness (V-pres) rough (ADJ) handling (N).
11.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY humans → persons (bodies that act) → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ dignity → careful treatment / claims written in books → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ have dignity → certain persons wrote claims, others repeat them → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
11.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Dignity” exists nowhere as a possession ∴ Certain persons wrote claims; other persons enforce those claims through displeasure ∴ WHO first wrote these claims? WHO benefits from the concept? ∴ The dissolution does not eliminate careful treatment—only the spook-possession
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I have a soul.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.7a Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that an invisible part of me continues after my body stops moving, and I have learned to repeat their claim, though I observe nothing beyond my body and its sensations.
11.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) an (INDEF.ART) invisible (ADJ) part (N) of (PREP) me (PRON-obj) continues (V-pres) after (PREP) my (PRON-poss) body (N) stops (V-pres) moving (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres.PERF) learned (V-past.PART) to∿repeat (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) claim (N), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[soul→nothing.observed.beyond.body]) nothing (PRON) beyond (PREP) my (PRON-poss) body (N) and (CONJ) its (PRON-poss) sensations (N).
11.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY soul → claim written by persons in old books → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ have a soul → learned to repeat a claim → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ invisible part → nothing observed beyond body → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
11.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “soul” appears to observation—only claims about souls ∴ WHO wrote these claims? WHO benefits when persons believe them? ∴ I observe my body and its sensations; I find nothing else to “have” ∴ The genealogical exposure reveals human origin of the concept
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The criminal has no conscience.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.8a The person whom officials labeled “criminal” apparently feels no discomfort when remembering actions that displease persons around him—or has learned to ignore such sensations.
11.8b The (DEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminal→person.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) labeled (V-past) “criminal” (N-label) apparently (ADV) feels (V-pres.STATE) no (DET) discomfort (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conscience→discomfort.when.remembering]) when (CONJ) remembering (V-pres.PART) actions (N) that (PRON-rel) displease (V-pres) persons (N-obj) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj)—or (CONJ) has (V-pres.PERF) learned (V-past.PART) to∿ignore (V-inf) such (DET) sensations (N).
11.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY criminal → person whom officials labeled “criminal” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ conscience → discomfort felt when remembering certain actions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ has no conscience → feels no discomfort / ignores sensations → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
11.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “criminal” exists—only persons to whom officials attach labels ∴ No “conscience” exists as a possession—only bodily sensations of discomfort ∴ WHO attaches the label “criminal”? WHO benefits? ∴ The dissolution reveals both the labeling act and the bodily reality beneath “conscience”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love has the power to transform.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.9a When persons act with tenderness toward each other over time, they often have changed in how they move and speak—persons watching them notice the difference.
11.9b When (CONJ) persons (N-subj) act (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→act.with.tenderness]) with (PREP) tenderness (N) toward (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) over (PREP) time (N), they (PRON-subj) often (ADV) have (V-pres.PERF) changed (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[transform→changed]) in (PREP) how (ADV) they (PRON-subj) move (V-pres) and (CONJ) speak (V-pres)—persons (N-subj) watching (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj) notice (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) difference (N).
11.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY love (as agent) → persons acting with tenderness → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ power → persons change over time → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ transform → changed in how they move and speak → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has the power → [eliminated: abstractions cannot possess] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Love” cannot “have” anything—only persons possess and act ∴ Persons acting with tenderness → persons change ∴ The spook “love” claimed agency; the dissolution returns it to persons ∴ No magic force exists; only bodies acting toward other bodies
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society has expectations.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.10a Many persons around me have trained themselves and each other to expect certain behaviors, and they express displeasure when they observe deviations.
11.10b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) have (V-pres.PERF) trained (V-past.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[expectations→trained.responses]) themselves (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) each∿other (PRON-recip) to∿expect (V-inf) certain (DET) behaviors (N), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) deviations (N).
11.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY society → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ expectations → persons trained to expect and express displeasure → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has expectations → have trained themselves → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to “have” anything ∴ Persons exist; persons train each other; persons expect and express displeasure ∴ WHO benefits from speaking of “society’s expectations” rather than naming specific persons? ∴ The spook diffuses responsibility; the dissolution localizes it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that we have laws.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.11a Certain persons who benefit from written rules enforced by persons with weapons have persuaded many others to expect such rules, and those others now express approval when officials create new written rules and displeasure when they do not.
11.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.who.benefit]) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[laws→written.rules]) enforced (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N) have (V-pres.PERF) persuaded (V-past.PART) many (DET) others (N-obj) to∿expect (V-inf) such (DET) rules (N), and (CONJ) those (DET) others (N-subj) now (ADV) express (V-pres) approval (N) when (CONJ) officials (N) create (V-pres) new (ADJ) written (ADJ) rules (N) and (CONJ) displeasure (N) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG).
11.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY justice → persons who benefit from enforcement → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ demands → persons express approval/displeasure → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ laws → written rules enforced by persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have laws → certain persons created written rules → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
11.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Justice” cannot demand anything—only persons demand ∴ “Laws” exist nowhere—only written rules and persons with weapons exist ∴ WHO benefits from the rules? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ The double dissolution (justice + laws) reveals the complete power structure
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State has authority over its citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.12a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” have trained persons in this region to obey their commands, threatening harm to those who refuse, and officials label the obedient ones “citizens.”
11.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) have (V-pres.PERF) trained (V-past.PART) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N) to∿obey (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→trained.to.obey]) their (PRON-poss) commands (N), threatening (V-pres.PART) harm (N) to (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres), and (CONJ) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) the (DEF.ART) obedient (ADJ) ones (N-obj) “citizens” (N-label).
11.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY State → persons with weapons calling themselves government → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ authority → trained obedience backed by threat of harm → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ citizens → persons whom officials label “citizens” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ has authority → have trained persons to obey → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” exists—only persons with weapons ∴ No “authority” exists as a possession—only trained obedience and threats ∴ No “citizens” exist—only persons labeled ∴ The complete dissolution reveals: persons with weapons train other persons to obey through threats
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History has taught us valuable lessons.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.13a Certain writers who have studied documents from past events claim that patterns repeat, and teachers in schools repeat their claims to students who memorize them.
11.13b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) have (V-pres.PERF) studied (V-past.PART) documents (N-obj) from (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) patterns (N) repeat (V-pres), and (CONJ) teachers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[lessons→claims.repeated.by.teachers]) in (PREP) schools (N) repeat (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) claims (N) to (PREP) students (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) memorize (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
11.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY history → writers who study documents from past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ taught → teachers repeat claims to students → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ valuable lessons → claims that certain writers make → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has taught → persons claim and repeat → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “History” cannot teach—only persons teach ∴ Writers make claims; teachers repeat claims; students memorize claims ∴ WHO writes the history? WHO selects which claims to repeat? ∴ The dissolution exposes the chain of transmission: specific persons at each step
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear has kept me from living fully.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.14a My body contracts when I anticipate certain events, and I have refrained from many actions because of these contractions, though I chose to refrain each time.
11.14b My (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracts (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.contracts]) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) anticipate (V-pres) certain (DET) events (N), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres.PERF) refrained (V-past.PART) from (PREP) many (DET) actions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[living.fully→actions]) because (CONJ) of (PREP) these (DET) contractions (N), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) chose (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[kept.me→I.chose]) to∿refrain (V-inf) each (DET) time (N).
11.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY fear (as agent) → my body contracts when I anticipate → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ has kept me → I have refrained, I chose → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ living fully → acting in many ways → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Fear” cannot keep anyone from anything—only bodies contract, only persons choose ∴ I chose to refrain; my body contracted; I attended to the contraction ∴ The ownership strategy returns agency: I acted (or refrained), not “fear” ∴ WHO benefits when persons believe “fear” controls them rather than their own choices?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Every person has inherent worth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.15a Certain writers have claimed in books that all persons deserve careful treatment regardless of what they do, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and feel displeasure when they witness rough handling.
11.15b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin→persons.who.wrote]) have (V-pres.PERF) claimed (V-past.PART) in (PREP) books (N) that (CONJ) all (DET) persons (N-subj) deserve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[worth→deserve.treatment]) careful (ADJ) treatment (N) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) learned (V-past) to∿repeat (V-inf) this (DET) claim (N) and (CONJ) feel (V-inf) displeasure (N) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) witness (V-pres) rough (ADJ) handling (N).
11.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY inherent → claim made by writers → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ worth → claims about deserving treatment → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has worth → writers claimed, others repeat → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ every person → all persons (bodies) → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Worth” exists nowhere as a possession—only claims about worth exist ∴ Certain persons wrote claims; other persons repeat them; some enforce them through displeasure ∴ WHO wrote these claims? WHO benefits? ∴ The dissolution does not reject careful treatment—only the spook “inherent worth”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
11.1 “I have bread on my table.”
[Standard English: “I have bread.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete possession]
11.2 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ find that certain other persons—those with weapons who call themselves ‘government’—agreed in written documents to refrain from specific interferences, and many persons expect them to have kept this agreement.”
[Standard English: “Citizens have rights that the State must respect.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights, respect)]
11.3 “She feels urges—trained into her body by parents, teachers, and officials—to act as persons around her expect, and many of those persons have taught her to call this ‘serving my country.’”
[Standard English: “She has a duty to her country.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty→urges), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (training origin), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country)]
11.4 “Many persons around me have bodies capable of acting, and when enough of them act together, persons with weapons find themselves unable to stop them.”
[Standard English: “The people have the power.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (power→capability)]
11.5 “Persons with weapons in this region currently refrain from interfering with many of my actions, so I have found that I can act in various ways without persons caging me.”
[Standard English: “We have freedom in this country.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country, we)]
11.6 “Certain persons have written in books that all persons deserve careful treatment, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and express displeasure when they witness rough handling.”
[Standard English: “Humans have dignity.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (dignity→claim written), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humans)]
11.7 “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that an invisible part of me continues after my body stops moving, and I have learned to repeat their claim, though I observe nothing beyond my body and its sensations.”
[Standard English: “I have a soul.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (soul→claim from old books), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (observe nothing)]
11.8 “The person whom officials labeled ‘criminal’ apparently feels no discomfort when remembering actions that displease persons around him—or has learned to ignore such sensations.”
[Standard English: “The criminal has no conscience.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience→discomfort)]
11.9 “When persons act with tenderness toward each other over time, they often have changed in how they move and speak—persons watching them notice the difference.”
[Standard English: “Love has the power to transform.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love→persons acting with tenderness)]
11.10 “Many persons around me have trained themselves and each other to expect certain behaviors, and they express displeasure when they observe deviations.”
[Standard English: “Society has expectations.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (expectations→trained responses)]
11.11 “Certain persons who benefit from written rules enforced by persons with weapons have persuaded many others to expect such rules, and those others now express approval when officials create new written rules and displeasure when they do not.”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that we have laws.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice→persons who benefit), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (laws)]
11.12 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ have trained persons in this region to obey their commands, threatening harm to those who refuse, and officials label the obedient ones ‘citizens.’”
[Standard English: “The State has authority over its citizens.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (authority→trained obedience), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens)]
11.13 “Certain writers who have studied documents from past events claim that patterns repeat, and teachers in schools repeat their claims to students who memorize them.”
[Standard English: “History has taught us valuable lessons.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history→writers), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (lessons→claims)]
11.14 “My body contracts when I anticipate certain events, and I have refrained from many actions because of these contractions, though I chose to refrain each time.”
[Standard English: “Fear has kept me from living fully.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear→body contracts, I chose)]
11.15 “Certain writers have claimed in books that all persons deserve careful treatment regardless of what they do, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and feel displeasure when they witness rough handling.”
[Standard English: “Every person has inherent worth.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (worth→claims in books)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
11.1 I have bread on my table.
11.2 Persons whom officials label “citizens” find that certain other persons—those with weapons who call themselves “government”—agreed in written documents to refrain from specific interferences, and many persons expect them to have kept this agreement.
11.3 She feels urges—trained into her body by parents, teachers, and officials—to act as persons around her expect, and many of those persons have taught her to call this “serving my country.”
11.4 Many persons around me have bodies capable of acting, and when enough of them act together, persons with weapons find themselves unable to stop them.
11.5 Persons with weapons in this region currently refrain from interfering with many of my actions, so I have found that I can act in various ways without persons caging me.
11.6 Certain persons have written in books that all persons deserve careful treatment, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and express displeasure when they witness rough handling.
11.7 Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that an invisible part of me continues after my body stops moving, and I have learned to repeat their claim, though I observe nothing beyond my body and its sensations.
11.8 The person whom officials labeled “criminal” apparently feels no discomfort when remembering actions that displease persons around him—or has learned to ignore such sensations.
11.9 When persons act with tenderness toward each other over time, they often have changed in how they move and speak—persons watching them notice the difference.
11.10 Many persons around me have trained themselves and each other to expect certain behaviors, and they express displeasure when they observe deviations.
11.11 Certain persons who benefit from written rules enforced by persons with weapons have persuaded many others to expect such rules, and those others now express approval when officials create new written rules and displeasure when they do not.
11.12 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” have trained persons in this region to obey their commands, threatening harm to those who refuse, and officials label the obedient ones “citizens.”
11.13 Certain writers who have studied documents from past events claim that patterns repeat, and teachers in schools repeat their claims to students who memorize them.
11.14 My body contracts when I anticipate certain events, and I have refrained from many actions because of these contractions, though I chose to refrain each time.
11.15 Certain writers have claimed in books that all persons deserve careful treatment regardless of what they do, and many persons around me learned to repeat this claim and feel displeasure when they witness rough handling.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern have in E-Prime Max:
“Have” operates in English as both a main verb and an auxiliary verb:
As main verb: Expresses possession, experience, or obligation. Examples include “I have bread,” “She has a headache,” “We have to leave.” The main verb “have” takes objects and conjugates for person and number: have, has, had, having.
As auxiliary verb: Forms perfect tenses. Examples include “I have eaten,” “She has gone,” “They had finished.” The auxiliary “have” combines with past participles to indicate completed action.
Common constructions: “have + noun” (possession), “have + to + infinitive” (obligation), “have + past participle” (perfect aspect), “have + noun + past participle” (causative).
“Have” itself presents no E-Prime violation—it contains no form of “to be.” A speaker can freely use “have” in E-Prime writing without transformation.
However, “have” often appears in sentences that also contain “to be” forms:
Standard: “I have been waiting.” → E-Prime: “I have waited for an hour.” Standard: “The book has been read.” → E-Prime: “Someone has read the book.”
When transforming sentences containing both “have” and “to be,” preserve “have” while eliminating the “to be” component.
“Have” ranks HIGH for spook proximity because it frequently partners with abstract nouns that function as spooks when treated as possessions:
Political spooks with “have”: “have rights” → Rights exist nowhere as possessions; only agreements among persons exist “have freedom” → Freedom exists nowhere; only persons refraining from interference exist “have authority” → Authority exists nowhere; only persons obeying commands exist “have citizenship” → Citizenship exists nowhere; only labels attached by officials exist
Moral spooks with “have”: “have a duty” → No duty exists to possess; only urges trained into bodies exist “have an obligation” → No obligation exists; only expectations from other persons exist “have honor” → No honor exists; only behaviors that please certain persons exist “have dignity” → No dignity exists; only claims written in books exist
Metaphysical spooks with “have”: “have a soul” → No soul appears to observation; only claims from old books exist “have a purpose” → No cosmic purpose exists; only goals that persons choose exist “have meaning” → No inherent meaning exists; only interpretations that persons make exist
Collective spooks with “have”: “the people have power” → No collective “people” acts; only many persons with bodies capable of acting exist “society has expectations” → No society expects; only many persons trained to expect exist “history has lessons” → No history teaches; only writers make claims that teachers repeat exist
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) with “have”: “The State has power” → “Persons with weapons who call themselves government have trained others to obey” “Society has rules” → “Many persons around me have agreed to act in certain ways” “The people have rights” → “Many persons find that other persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from certain interferences”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) with “have”: “I have freedom” → “I have found that I can act without interference” “She has authority” → “She has trained others to obey her commands” “We have justice” → “Persons who harmed us have returned what they took”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical) with “have”: “Humans have dignity” → “Certain writers have claimed that all persons deserve careful treatment” “I have a soul” → “Persons who wrote old books have claimed that an invisible part of me continues” “We have inalienable rights” → “Certain persons have written documents claiming that some interferences should never occur”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership) with “have”: “Fear has prevented me” → “My body contracted and I have chosen to refrain” “Duty has compelled her” → “She has felt urges and followed them” “Guilt has tortured him” → “He has felt discomfort when remembering what he did”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) with “have”: “Citizens have obligations” → “Persons whom officials have labeled ‘citizens’ face expectations” “Criminals have no rights” → “Persons whom officials have labeled ‘criminals’ find that others with weapons do not refrain from interfering” “Employees have duties” → “Persons whom employers have labeled ‘employees’ have agreed to act in specified ways”
Mistake 1: Leaving spook-possessions undissolved Incorrect: “I have the right to speak freely.” Correct: “Certain persons with weapons have agreed not to cage me for speaking, and many persons around me expect them to keep this agreement.”
The error lies in treating “right” as a possession. No one “has” a right the way one has bread. Only agreements exist, enforced by expectations and weapons.
Mistake 2: Dissolving “have” itself Incorrect: “Bread sits in my possession on my table.” Correct: “I have bread on my table.”
“Have” requires no dissolution when expressing concrete possession. The word itself presents no E-Prime or spook problem.
Mistake 3: Incomplete dissolution Incorrect: “Many persons have rights that the State should respect.” Correct: “Many persons find that certain written agreements exist, and persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ have indicated they will refrain from specific interferences.”
This error partially dissolves but retains “rights” and “State.” Complete dissolution replaces both spooks with persons and actions.
Mistake 4: Forgetting auxiliary “have” The auxiliary use (”I have eaten”) raises no spook issues. Only the main verb “have” + abstract noun construction requires dissolution scrutiny.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Apply this test to “have + [noun]” constructions:
Test question: Can I discard this “possession” at will, or does it possess me?
“I have bread” → I can discard the bread; it serves me → NO SPOOK “I have a duty” → Can I discard the “duty”? If I feel compelled regardless of my wishes, the spook possesses me → SPOOK: dissolve to “I feel urges trained into me by other persons” “I have rights” → Can I discard the “rights”? If I appeal to them as commanding, they possess me → SPOOK: dissolve to “certain persons agreed to refrain from interfering” “I have a headache” → I experience this sensation; it does not command me as a moral category → NO SPOOK
The key distinction: Physical possessions and bodily states rarely function as spooks. Abstract nouns—especially political, moral, and metaphysical ones—almost always do when framed as possessions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established that “the map does not equal the territory”—our linguistic representations of reality never capture reality itself. Words point; they do not contain. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by observing that “to be” constructions create false identifications: “John is a teacher” suggests John = teacher, when in fact John engages in teaching behaviors among many other behaviors.
The connection to “have” emerges when we recognize that possession-language creates similar false reifications. “I have freedom” suggests freedom exists as an object I possess, like bread. But “freedom” describes a relation—other persons refraining from interference—not a thing. The possession frame misleads.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as abstract concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving the thinker. The haunting mechanism operates through a peculiar inversion: humans create abstractions (”rights,” “duties,” “freedom”), then forget they created them, then believe the abstractions command them.
“She has a soul” suggests an invisible substance inhabits her body; actually, certain persons wrote claims in books that she learned to repeat
Stirner’s concept of “ownness” (Eigenheit) offers the antidote: I own what I can use and discard at will. The moment something owns me—commands me, obligates me, haunts me—I have surrendered to a spook.
E-Prime attacks predication (X IS Y). E-Prime Max extends this by attacking reification—including the reification embedded in possession-language.
“I am a citizen” (E-Prime violation: predication) → “Officials label me ‘citizen’” “I have citizenship” (E-Prime Max violation: spook possession) → “Officials attach the label ‘citizen’ to me”
Both formulations reveal the same underlying reality: persons labeling persons. But the “have” formulation seemed safe in E-Prime terms because it contains no “to be.” E-Prime Max catches what E-Prime misses.
Bodies contracting where “fear” seemed to control
The revelation follows a pattern: every spook-possession traces back to persons doing things. No abstraction acts; no abstraction commands; no abstraction exists as a possession. Only persons act, and they act on other persons.
This revelation exposes power relations. “Rights” conceals the question: WHO agreed? WHO enforces? “Duty” conceals: WHO trained? WHO benefits? “Freedom” conceals: WHO refrains? Under what conditions might they stop refraining?
Recognizing manipulation: Politicians and moralists exploit spook-possessions constantly. “You have a duty to vote.” Dissolution: “Certain persons have trained you to feel urges to vote, and they express displeasure when you refrain.” The manipulation becomes visible.
Resisting possession: When someone tells you “You have an obligation,” apply the Stirnerian test: WHO created this obligation? WHO benefits? Can I discard it at will? If not—if discarding brings punishment, guilt, or social disapproval—recognize that persons created these consequences, not some cosmic “obligation.”
Reclaiming ownness: Dissolution allows reclamation. “I have a duty” becomes “I feel urges that certain persons trained into me—and I can examine those urges, keep them if they serve me, discard them if they do not.”
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice in dissolving “have + spook” constructions gradually reprograms perception. The abstractions that once seemed solid—possessions one could not help having—become transparent. Persons acting become visible. Power relations become legible.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The phrase “persons with weapons” could dissolve further: bodies gripping metal objects, patterns of trained movement. For political spook dissolution, “persons” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent or commanding possession. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation” → spook (physicists’ abstraction commanding). “The market has decided” → spook (economists’ abstraction acting). “Evolution has produced” → spook (biologists’ abstraction creating). The test applies universally.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to “normal” speakers. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. The elaborate circumlocution becomes a chain: “Look how thoroughly I dissolved that sentence!” → another hobgoblin rides.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands no rulers” → spook. “Anarchism requires mutual aid” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique decides; no label governs the unique.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The own man is the naturally free man, and he alone. He alone has whatever power he possesses, he alone vindicates himself for whatever is his.”
The (DEF.ART) own (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ownness→uses.as.tool]) man (N-subj) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) the (DEF.ART) naturally (ADV) free (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→acting.without.interference]) man (N), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) alone (ADV). He (PRON-subj) alone (ADV) has (V-pres) whatever (DET) power (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→capability]) he (PRON-subj) possesses (V-pres), he (PRON-subj) alone (ADV) vindicates (V-pres) himself (PRON-refl) for (PREP) whatever (DET) functions∿as (V-pres.REL) his (PRON-poss).
The person who owns what he uses and discards what does not serve him acts without interference from fixed ideas—and this person alone. This person alone has whatever capabilities his body possesses; this person alone claims for himself whatever he chooses to claim as his own.
The person who owns what he uses and discards what does not serve him acts without interference from fixed ideas—and this person alone. This person alone has whatever capabilities his body possesses; this person alone claims for himself whatever he chooses to claim as his own.
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY own man → person who uses and discards at will → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ naturally free → acts without interference from fixed ideas → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ power → capabilities his body possesses → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ his → what he chooses to claim → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “is” → “functions as” → E4 (Relational) “is his” → “chooses to claim as his own” → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
Even Stirner’s own formulation contains an E-Prime violation (”is the naturally free man”). The dissolution transforms predication into function: not “X is Y” but “X functions as Y” or “X acts in manner Y.”
More significantly, Stirner’s use of “has” here passes the Stirnerian test. “Has whatever power he possesses” refers to actual bodily capabilities—strength, skill, knowledge embodied. This differs from “has rights” or “has duties” where the possessed noun exists nowhere. Stirner’s “power” dissolves to capability, not to written agreements or trained urges.
The transformation reveals Stirner’s core insight: the unique possesses (legitimately) what the unique can actually use. The unique claims for himself what he chooses to claim. No external “rights” or “duties” determine possession; only the unique’s own choice and capability.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This section examines how “have” functions in political language, where spook-possessions most effectively conceal power relations. Politicians and officials speak constantly of what citizens “have,” what the State “has,” what rights and duties “have” force or validity. Dissolution exposes: WHO acts? WHO benefits? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All citizens have the right to vote.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.16a Persons whom officials label “citizens” find that other persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from preventing them from marking ballots, and many persons expect them to continue refraining.
11.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) find (V-pres) that (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) have (V-pres.PERF) agreed (V-past.PART) to∿refrain (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→agreement.to.refrain]) from (PREP) preventing (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj) from (PREP) marking (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.ballots]) ballots (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) to∿continue (V-inf) refraining (V-pres.PART).
11.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY citizens → persons whom officials label “citizens” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ right → agreement by persons with weapons to refrain → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ vote → mark ballots → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have the right → find that others have agreed to refrain → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “right” exists as a possession ∴ Only agreements and refraining exist ∴ WHO can revoke the agreement? WHO decides who counts as “citizen”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government has a monopoly on legitimate violence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.17a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” have trained many persons to accept their violence while labeling other persons’ violence “crime,” and persons around me repeat this labeling.
11.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) have (V-pres.PERF) trained (V-past.PART) many (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿accept (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) violence (N) while (CONJ) labeling (V-pres.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label]) other (ADJ) persons’ (N-poss) violence (N) “crime” (N-label), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) repeat (V-pres) this (DET) labeling (N).
11.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY government → persons with weapons calling themselves government → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ monopoly → trained acceptance of their violence, trained rejection of others’ → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ legitimate → labeled acceptable by those doing the violence → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ has a monopoly → have trained acceptance → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Legitimacy” exists nowhere—only labels exist ∴ The persons doing violence label their own violence “legitimate” ∴ WHO benefits from this labeling arrangement?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Taxpayers have an obligation to fund public services.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.18a Persons whom officials label “taxpayers” find that persons with weapons will cage them if they do not transfer money, and many persons around me have learned to call this transfer an “obligation” and express approval of the caging.
11.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[taxpayers→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “taxpayers” (N-label) find (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿cage (V-fut) them (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG) transfer (V-inf) money (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pay.taxes→transfer.money]), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) have (V-pres.PERF) learned (V-past.PART) to∿call (V-inf) this (DET) transfer (N) an (INDEF.ART) “obligation” (N-label ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obligation→trained.labeling]) and (CONJ) express (V-inf) approval (N) of (PREP) the (DEF.ART) caging (N).
11.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY taxpayers → persons whom officials label “taxpayers” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ obligation → persons will cage those who refuse → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ public services → activities funded by transferred money → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have an obligation → will face caging if they refuse → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “obligation” exists—only threats of caging exist ∴ Persons trained to call the threat “obligation” and approve of it ∴ WHO does the caging? WHO receives the transferred money?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We have a democratic system.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.19a Persons around me have agreed to count marked ballots and let the winning counters direct persons with weapons for a period, and many persons express satisfaction with this arrangement.
11.19b Persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) have (V-pres.PERF) agreed (V-past.PART) to∿count (V-inf) marked (ADJ) ballots (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→counting.ballots]) and (CONJ) let (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) winning (ADJ) counters (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[elected.officials→winning.counters]) direct (V-inf) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) period (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) satisfaction (N) with (PREP) this (DET) arrangement (N).
11.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY we → persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ democratic system → arrangement for counting ballots and directing weapon-holders → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have a system → have agreed to an arrangement → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Democracy” names an arrangement; no system acts ∴ Persons count, persons direct, persons hold weapons ∴ The dissolution reveals: WHO counts? WHO directs? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution has authority over all branches of government.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.20a Certain persons wrote words on old paper, and persons today have trained themselves and each other to consult those words before directing persons with weapons—and to express displeasure at those who ignore the written words.
11.20b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[founders→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) old (ADJ) paper (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Constitution→words.on.paper]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) today (ADV) have (V-pres.PERF) trained (V-past.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) each∿other (PRON-recip) to∿consult (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→consult.before.acting]) those (DET) words (N-obj) before (PREP) directing (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N), and (CONJ) to∿express (V-inf) displeasure (N) at (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) ignore (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) written (ADJ) words (N).
11.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Constitution → words written on old paper by certain persons → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ authority → trained habit of consulting before acting → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ branches of government → persons with different functions who hold weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ has authority → persons have trained themselves to consult → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Paper cannot “have” authority; only persons consult and express displeasure ∴ WHO wrote the words? WHO benefits from the consulting habit? ∴ The dissolution reveals: trained behavior, not magical document-power
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Property rights have legal protection.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.21a Persons with weapons have agreed to harm persons who take certain objects that other persons claim, and many persons around me approve of this arrangement and call it “property rights.”
11.21b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legal.system→persons.with.weapons]) have (V-pres.PERF) agreed (V-past.PART) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protection→harm.others]) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) take (V-pres) certain (DET) objects (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[property→objects]) that (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres) of (PREP) this (DET) arrangement (N) and (CONJ) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) “property (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→arrangement]) rights” (N-label).
11.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY property → objects that certain persons claim → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ rights → agreements enforced by persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ legal protection → persons with weapons will harm those who take claimed objects → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have protection → persons have agreed to harm → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Property rights” = persons with weapons agreeing to harm those who take claimed objects ∴ “Protection” = harming others on behalf of claimants ∴ WHO decides which claims count? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The military has the duty to defend the nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.22a Persons with specialized weapons have trained themselves to feel urges to harm persons from other regions when officials command, and officials label this urge “duty to defend the nation.”
11.22b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[military→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) specialized (ADJ) weapons (N) have (V-pres.PERF) trained (V-past.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) to∿feel (V-inf) urges (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urges]) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[defend→harm.others]) persons (N-obj) from (PREP) other (ADJ) regions (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enemies→persons.from.other.regions]) when (CONJ) officials (N-subj) command (V-pres), and (CONJ) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) this (DET) urge (N) “duty (N-label) to∿defend (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) nation (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.in.region]).”
11.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY military → persons with specialized weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ duty → trained urges to obey commands → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ defend → harm persons from other regions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ nation → persons in a region → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ has the duty → have trained themselves to feel urges → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
11.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “military” exists—only persons with weapons ∴ No “duty” exists—only trained urges ∴ “Defending the nation” = harming persons from other regions when commanded ∴ WHO gives the commands? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom of speech has limits.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.23a Persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from caging persons for most utterances, but they will cage persons for certain utterances that officials specify—and many persons around me accept this arrangement.
11.23b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) have (V-pres.PERF) agreed (V-past.PART) to∿refrain (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→refrain.from.caging]) from (PREP) caging (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj) for (PREP) most (DET) utterances (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[speech→utterances]), but (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) will∿cage (V-fut) persons (N-obj) for (PREP) certain (DET) utterances (N) that (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) specify (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[limits→officials.specify])—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) accept (V-pres) this (DET) arrangement (N).
11.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY freedom of speech → persons with weapons refraining from caging for utterances → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ limits → utterances for which persons will still cage → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ has limits → persons will cage for specified utterances → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Freedom” = persons currently refraining from caging ∴ “Limits” = utterances for which caging will still occur ∴ WHO specifies which utterances trigger caging?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law has no exceptions for the powerful.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.24a Persons claiming to enforce written rules have stated that they will harm persons regardless of how many resources those persons control—though observers notice that persons with many resources often avoid harm while persons with few resources do not.
11.24b Persons (N-subj) claiming (V-pres.PART) to∿enforce (V-inf) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]) have (V-pres.PERF) stated (V-past.PART) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) will∿harm (V-fut) persons (N-obj) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) how∿many (DET) resources (N) those (DET) persons (N-subj) control (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[powerful→persons.controlling.resources])—though (CONJ) observers (N-subj) notice (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) many (DET) resources (N) often (ADV) avoid (V-pres) harm (N) while (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) few (DET) resources (N) do∿not (V-pres.NEG).
11.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY law → written rules that persons claim to enforce → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ exceptions → persons avoiding harm despite rules → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the powerful → persons controlling many resources → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ has no exceptions → persons stated they would harm regardless → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The law” makes no statements—persons make statements ∴ “Exceptions” = persons avoiding harm that others do not avoid ∴ The dissolution reveals the gap between statements and observed reality
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human rights have universal validity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.25a Certain persons have written documents claiming that all persons everywhere should experience certain refrainings from interference, and many persons around the world repeat this claim—though persons with weapons in many regions ignore it.
11.25b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[drafters→persons.who.wrote]) have (V-pres.PERF) written (V-past.PART) documents (N-obj) claiming (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) all (DET) persons (N-subj) everywhere (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[universal→everywhere]) should∿experience (V-pres.MOD) certain (DET) refrainings (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→refrainings]) from (PREP) interference (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) the∿world (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[world→many.regions]) repeat (V-pres) this (DET) claim (N)—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) in (PREP) many (DET) regions (N) ignore (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
11.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY human rights → claims that persons should experience certain refrainings → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ universal validity → many persons repeat the claim; many others ignore it → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have validity → persons repeat and enforce, or ignore → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rights” = claims written in documents ∴ “Universal validity” = many persons repeat the claim ∴ But many persons with weapons ignore the claim—where exists the “validity”? ∴ The dissolution exposes the gap between claim and enforcement
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice has been served.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.26a Persons with weapons have confined or harmed the person whom other persons labeled “perpetrator,” and many persons around me express satisfaction with this outcome.
11.26b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice.system→persons.with.weapons]) have (V-pres.PERF) confined (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confined]) or (CONJ) harmed (V-past.PART) the (DEF.ART) person (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[perpetrator→person.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) labeled (V-past) “perpetrator” (N-label), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) satisfaction (N) with (PREP) this (DET) outcome (N).
11.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY justice → satisfaction expressed by persons when outcome matches expectations → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ served → persons confined/harmed another person → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ perpetrator → person whom others labeled “perpetrator” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ has been served → persons have confined; others express satisfaction → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Justice” cannot serve or act—only persons confine and express satisfaction ∴ “Perpetrator” = label attached by certain persons ∴ The dissolution reveals: WHO attached the label? WHO benefits from the satisfaction?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract has bound us together.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.27a Certain writers have claimed that persons in a region implicitly agreed to obey persons with weapons in exchange for certain refrainings, though no person I know signed such an agreement.
11.27b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[philosophers→persons.who.wrote]) have (V-pres.PERF) claimed (V-past.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) region (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.in.region]) implicitly (ADV) agreed (V-past) to∿obey (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[bound→agreed.to.obey]) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) in (PREP) exchange (N) for (PREP) certain (DET) refrainings (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protections→refrainings]), though (CONJ) no (DET) person (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) signed (V-past) such (DET) an (INDEF.ART) agreement (N).
11.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY social contract → claim by certain writers about implicit agreement → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ bound us → claimed implicit agreement to obey → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has bound → writers have claimed → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
11.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Social contract” = claim written by certain philosophers ∴ No one signed this “contract”—writers claimed an implicit agreement ∴ WHO benefits from the claim that everyone implicitly agreed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Political parties have platforms.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.28a Certain persons who seek control of persons with weapons have written lists of what they will direct those weapon-holders to do, and they call these lists “platforms.”
11.28b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[political.parties→persons.seeking.control]) who (PRON-rel) seek (V-pres) control (N) of (PREP) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) have (V-pres.PERF) written (V-past.PART) lists (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[platforms→lists]) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) will∿direct (V-fut) those (DET) weapon-holders (N-obj) to∿do (V-inf), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) these (DET) lists (N-obj) “platforms” (N-label).
11.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY political parties → persons who seek control of weapon-holders → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ platforms → lists of intended directions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ have platforms → have written lists → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Political party” = persons seeking control of weapon-holders ∴ “Platform” = list of what they intend to direct ∴ The dissolution reveals: WHO seeks control? WHO will hold the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy has given voice to the voiceless.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.29a Persons who count ballots have included marks made by persons whom other counters previously excluded, and some of those newly-included persons now find that officials sometimes act as they requested.
11.29b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) count (V-pres) ballots (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→ballot.counting]) have (V-pres.PERF) included (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[given.voice→included.marks]) marks (N-obj) made (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[voiceless→previously.excluded.persons]) whom (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) counters (N-subj) previously (ADV) excluded (V-past), and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) newly-included (ADJ) persons (N-subj) now (ADV) find (V-pres) that (CONJ) officials (N-subj) sometimes (ADV) act (V-pres) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) requested (V-past).
11.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY democracy → persons counting ballots → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ given voice → included marks; officials sometimes act as requested → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ voiceless → persons whom counters previously excluded → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ has given → persons have included → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
11.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Democracy” cannot give anything—only persons include or exclude ∴ “Voice” = officials sometimes acting as requested ∴ “Voiceless” = persons whose marks counters excluded ∴ WHO decides which persons get included?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The republic has endured for centuries.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
11.30a Persons with weapons in this region have continued directing other persons for several hundred years, passing control from one set of directors to another, and officials label this arrangement “the republic.”
11.30b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[republic→persons.with.weapons]) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N) have (V-pres.PERF) continued (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[endured→continued.directing]) directing (V-pres.PART) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) for (PREP) several (DET) hundred (NUM) years (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[centuries→hundreds.of.years]), passing (V-pres.PART) control (N) from (PREP) one (NUM) set (N) of (PREP) directors (N) to (PREP) another (PRON), and (CONJ) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) this (DET) arrangement (N) “the (DEF.ART) republic (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[republic→label]).”
11.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY republic → persons with weapons directing other persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ endured → persons have continued directing → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ centuries → hundreds of years → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ has endured → persons have continued → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
11.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The republic” cannot endure—only persons continue directing ∴ “Endurance” = passing control from one set of directors to another ∴ WHO directed? WHO got directed? WHO held the weapons at each moment?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
11.16 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ find that other persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from preventing them from marking ballots, and many persons expect them to continue refraining.”
[Standard English: “All citizens have the right to vote.”]
11.17 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ have trained many persons to accept their violence while labeling other persons’ violence ‘crime,’ and persons around me repeat this labeling.”
[Standard English: “The government has a monopoly on legitimate violence.”]
11.18 “Persons whom officials label ‘taxpayers’ find that persons with weapons will cage them if they do not transfer money, and many persons around me have learned to call this transfer an ‘obligation’ and express approval of the caging.”
[Standard English: “Taxpayers have an obligation to fund public services.”]
11.19 “Persons around me have agreed to count marked ballots and let the winning counters direct persons with weapons for a period, and many persons express satisfaction with this arrangement.”
[Standard English: “We have a democratic system.”]
11.20 “Certain persons wrote words on old paper, and persons today have trained themselves and each other to consult those words before directing persons with weapons—and to express displeasure at those who ignore the written words.”
[Standard English: “The Constitution has authority over all branches of government.”]
11.21 “Persons with weapons have agreed to harm persons who take certain objects that other persons claim, and many persons around me approve of this arrangement and call it ‘property rights.’”
[Standard English: “Property rights have legal protection.”]
11.22 “Persons with specialized weapons have trained themselves to feel urges to harm persons from other regions when officials command, and officials label this urge ‘duty to defend the nation.’”
[Standard English: “The military has the duty to defend the nation.”]
11.23 “Persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from caging persons for most utterances, but they will cage persons for certain utterances that officials specify—and many persons around me accept this arrangement.”
[Standard English: “Freedom of speech has limits.”]
11.24 “Persons claiming to enforce written rules have stated that they will harm persons regardless of how many resources those persons control—though observers notice that persons with many resources often avoid harm while persons with few resources do not.”
[Standard English: “The law has no exceptions for the powerful.”]
11.25 “Certain persons have written documents claiming that all persons everywhere should experience certain refrainings from interference, and many persons around the world repeat this claim—though persons with weapons in many regions ignore it.”
[Standard English: “Human rights have universal validity.”]
11.26 “Persons with weapons have confined or harmed the person whom other persons labeled ‘perpetrator,’ and many persons around me express satisfaction with this outcome.”
[Standard English: “Justice has been served.”]
11.27 “Certain writers have claimed that persons in a region implicitly agreed to obey persons with weapons in exchange for certain refrainings, though no person I know signed such an agreement.”
[Standard English: “The social contract has bound us together.”]
11.28 “Certain persons who seek control of persons with weapons have written lists of what they will direct those weapon-holders to do, and they call these lists ‘platforms.’”
[Standard English: “Political parties have platforms.”]
11.29 “Persons who count ballots have included marks made by persons whom other counters previously excluded, and some of those newly-included persons now find that officials sometimes act as they requested.”
[Standard English: “Democracy has given voice to the voiceless.”]
11.30 “Persons with weapons in this region have continued directing other persons for several hundred years, passing control from one set of directors to another, and officials label this arrangement ‘the republic.’”
[Standard English: “The republic has endured for centuries.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
11.16 Persons whom officials label “citizens” find that other persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from preventing them from marking ballots, and many persons expect them to continue refraining.
11.17 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” have trained many persons to accept their violence while labeling other persons’ violence “crime,” and persons around me repeat this labeling.
11.18 Persons whom officials label “taxpayers” find that persons with weapons will cage them if they do not transfer money, and many persons around me have learned to call this transfer an “obligation” and express approval of the caging.
11.19 Persons around me have agreed to count marked ballots and let the winning counters direct persons with weapons for a period, and many persons express satisfaction with this arrangement.
11.20 Certain persons wrote words on old paper, and persons today have trained themselves and each other to consult those words before directing persons with weapons—and to express displeasure at those who ignore the written words.
11.21 Persons with weapons have agreed to harm persons who take certain objects that other persons claim, and many persons around me approve of this arrangement and call it “property rights.”
11.22 Persons with specialized weapons have trained themselves to feel urges to harm persons from other regions when officials command, and officials label this urge “duty to defend the nation.”
11.23 Persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from caging persons for most utterances, but they will cage persons for certain utterances that officials specify—and many persons around me accept this arrangement.
11.24 Persons claiming to enforce written rules have stated that they will harm persons regardless of how many resources those persons control—though observers notice that persons with many resources often avoid harm while persons with few resources do not.
11.25 Certain persons have written documents claiming that all persons everywhere should experience certain refrainings from interference, and many persons around the world repeat this claim—though persons with weapons in many regions ignore it.
11.26 Persons with weapons have confined or harmed the person whom other persons labeled “perpetrator,” and many persons around me express satisfaction with this outcome.
11.27 Certain writers have claimed that persons in a region implicitly agreed to obey persons with weapons in exchange for certain refrainings, though no person I know signed such an agreement.
11.28 Certain persons who seek control of persons with weapons have written lists of what they will direct those weapon-holders to do, and they call these lists “platforms.”
11.29 Persons who count ballots have included marks made by persons whom other counters previously excluded, and some of those newly-included persons now find that officials sometimes act as they requested.
11.30 Persons with weapons in this region have continued directing other persons for several hundred years, passing control from one set of directors to another, and officials label this arrangement “the republic.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Grammar patterns in political E-Prime Max:
The genre section demonstrates how political language concentrates spook-possession constructions. Nearly every sentence in conventional political discourse contains “have + spook”: have rights, have obligations, have authority, have validity. The dissolution reveals a consistent underlying pattern: persons with weapons directing other persons.
Dissolution patterns observed:
Pattern 1: “Rights” constructions All “have rights” constructions dissolved to: persons with weapons agreed to refrain from specific interferences. Rights exist nowhere; only agreements exist, enforced by expectations and weapons.
Pattern 2: “Duty/obligation” constructions All “have duty” constructions dissolved to: persons have trained urges into other persons. No duty exists; only trained responses exist.
Pattern 3: “System/institution” constructions All “have a system” constructions dissolved to: persons have arranged to perform certain actions. No system acts; only persons arranging and acting exist.
Pattern 4: “Authority/power” constructions All “have authority” constructions dissolved to: persons have trained others to obey. No authority exists as a possession; only trained obedience exists.
What the political genre reveals:
Political language functions to conceal WHO holds weapons, WHO gives commands, and WHO benefits from arrangements. The spook-possessions (”rights,” “duties,” “authority,” “the law”) create an illusion of impersonal forces operating. Dissolution reveals: at every moment, specific persons act on other persons.
The verb “have” participates in this concealment by suggesting that abstractions can function as possessions. No one “has” rights the way one has bread. When we say “citizens have rights,” we conceal: certain persons with weapons agreed to refrain from specific interferences with persons whom officials label “citizens.” The dissolution exposes the agreement, the weapons, the labeling, and the specificity hidden by the spook-possession.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max, dissolving all spooks:
Exercise 1
Standard: “Workers have the right to organize.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom employers label ‘workers’ find that persons with weapons have agreed to refrain from caging them for forming groups to demand better treatment, and many persons around me expect this refraining to continue.”
have the right → find that persons have agreed to refrain (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “right” exists to possess. Only agreements exist—and WHO agreed? WHO holds the weapons that enforce the agreement?
Exercise 2
Standard: “The president has executive power.”
E-Prime Max: “The person whom counters declared winner finds that many persons with weapons have trained themselves to obey his commands, and officials label this arrangement ‘executive power.’”
has power → finds that persons obey (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No one “possesses” power the way one possesses bread. “Power” names a relation: persons obeying commands. WHO trained them to obey?
Exercise 3
Standard: “Children have innocence.”
E-Prime Max: “Young persons have not yet learned behaviors that displease older persons, and many older persons around me have learned to label this lack of learning ‘innocence.’”
have innocence → have not yet learned certain behaviors (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “innocence” exists to possess. Only a lack of certain learned behaviors exists. WHO decided which behaviors constitute loss of “innocence”?
Exercise 4
Standard: “The accused has the presumption of innocence.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom officials label ‘accused’ find that persons claiming to judge have stated they will act as if the labeled person did not perform the alleged action until other persons present evidence otherwise.”
has the presumption → finds that judges have stated they will act in a certain way (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “presumption” exists to possess. Only a stated procedure exists—and WHO states it? WHO follows it? WHO decides when enough evidence overturns it?
Exercise 5
Standard: “Every citizen has a vote.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons whom officials label ‘citizen’ find that counters have agreed to include one mark from each such person when tallying preferences, and many persons around me express satisfaction with this arrangement.”
has a vote → counters have agreed to include one mark (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No one “possesses” a vote the way one possesses bread. Counters agree to include marks—and WHO decides who counts as “citizen”? WHO counts the marks?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide. This E-Prime Max course extends the Institute’s methodology to consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The CSV-based vocabulary progression ensures systematic coverage of the 1000 most frequent English words, with each lesson building on previous material while introducing new dissolution challenges.
The Bourland-Stirner synthesis combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating predication through “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions as agents or possessions). Together, they constitute comprehensive linguistic consciousness-raising.
The construed text method makes dissolution VISIBLE. Students see exactly what spook-construction appeared in the original, what dissolution strategy applies, and what becomes visible when the spook dissolves. This transparency accelerates learning.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
✓ Lesson 11 E-Prime Max complete
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The English particle “to” functions as the infinitive marker, introducing verb forms that express purpose, intention, desire, and potential action. In E-Prime Max, this small word demands extraordinary vigilance—not because “to” itself violates E-Prime (it does not), but because infinitive constructions constantly invoke spooks as the supposed source of purpose.
Consider how often we hear: “to serve justice,” “to obey the law,” “to honor tradition,” “to do one’s duty.” In each case, the infinitive marks the moment a person surrenders agency to an abstraction. E-Prime Max reclaims the infinitive as a tool for expressing my purposes, my intentions—not the demands of ghosts that possess the unwary.
This lesson demonstrates how to use “to” while maintaining both E-Prime compliance (avoiding all forms of “to be”) and spook dissolution (tracing all agency back to specific persons or first-person experience).
FAQ: How does the infinitive marker “to” function in E-Prime Max?
The infinitive marker “to” remains fully permitted in E-Prime Max. The challenge lies in what follows it. “To be” constructions require transformation (E-Prime), and purpose clauses invoking abstract agents require dissolution (E-Prime Max). When you write “to [verb],” ask: Whose purpose does this express? Do I own this intention, or does a spook command it?
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
The infinitive marker “to” appears constantly in English, introducing purposes, intentions, and desires. In E-Prime Max: first, avoid “to be” constructions entirely—transform them using perception, existence, or state verbs. Second, when infinitives express purpose, ensure the purpose belongs to a specific person (often yourself), not to an abstraction. Third, watch for spook-invoking phrases like “to serve [abstraction],” “to honor [collective],” “to obey [reified concept]”—dissolve these back to persons acting. Fourth, reclaim your infinitives: let “to” introduce YOUR purposes, not the demands of ghosts. The infinitive marks intention—make certain the intender exists as a person, not a spook.
✦ E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
✦ The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
✦ Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
✦ Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice requires us to punish the guilty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.1a Many persons around me expect me to confine persons whom they label “guilty.”
12.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punish→confine]) persons (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “guilty” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[guilty→persons.labeled]).
12.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Justice → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me expecting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: requires → DISSOLUTION: expect (persons as agents) → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: punish → DISSOLUTION: confine → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: guilty → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “guilty” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
12.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists to require anything → only persons with expectations ∴ WHO labels persons “guilty”? WHO benefits from this labeling? ∴ The infinitive “to confine” now expresses what PERSONS expect, not what ghosts demand
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I want to be happy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.2a I want to feel joy.
12.2b I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) to (PART-inf) feel (V-inf.STATE) joy (N-obj).
12.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME FORM: to be happy → DISSOLUTION: to feel joy → STRATEGY: E7 (State Verb)
12.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “to be [adjective]” → “to feel [noun/state]” ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ The infinitive now introduces a concrete experience I can own
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society expects citizens to obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.3a Many persons around me expect persons whom officials label “citizens” to act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm them otherwise.
12.3b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres), knowing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) them (PRON-obj) otherwise (ADV).
12.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Society → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: citizens → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizens” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ — SPOOK: the law → DISSOLUTION: written rules + persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: obey → DISSOLUTION: act as rules specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to expect → only persons expect ∴ No “citizens” exist as natural category → only labeled persons ∴ No “law” commands → only words on paper enforced by persons with weapons ∴ WHO writes the rules? WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He tried to be brave.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.4a He tried to act with courage.
12.4b He (PRON-subj) tried (V-past) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) with (PREP) courage (N-manner).
12.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME FORM: to be brave → DISSOLUTION: to act with courage → STRATEGY: E7 (State Verb) + nominalization
12.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation ∴ “Courage” here remains a shorthand I own, describing how I act ∴ No agent status given to the abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty calls me to serve my country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.5a I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I choose to help persons who live near me.
12.5b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Duty.calls→I.feel.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[calls.me→I.choose]) to (PART-inf) help (V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.near.me]) who (PRON-rel) live (V-pres) near (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
12.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Duty → DISSOLUTION: urge I feel → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: calls (Duty as agent) → DISSOLUTION: I feel / I choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: serve → DISSOLUTION: help → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: my country → DISSOLUTION: persons who live near me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
12.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists to call anyone → only urges I feel and choices I make ∴ No “country” exists to serve → only persons I may choose to help ∴ I reclaim agency: the infinitive expresses MY choice, not a ghost’s command ∴ WHO taught me to call this feeling “duty”? WHO benefits when I obey this urge?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The goal is to achieve freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.6a I aim to act without interference from other persons.
12.6b I (PRON-subj) aim (V-pres) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N).
12.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME FORM: The goal is → DISSOLUTION: I aim → STRATEGY: E6 (Identity Rephrase) — SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference from other persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Freedom” dissolves into a concrete description of how I want to act ∴ No mystical “freedom” exists as a thing to achieve ∴ Only: other persons interfering or not interfering with my actions ∴ WHO currently interferes? WHAT would change if they stopped?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We need to respect tradition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.7a Certain persons want me to act as past persons acted.
12.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.need→persons.wanting]) want (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) past (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→past.persons]) acted (V-past).
12.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: We (as collective agent) → DISSOLUTION: certain persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: need (impersonal obligation) → DISSOLUTION: want (personal desire) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: respect → DISSOLUTION: act as → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: tradition → DISSOLUTION: how past persons acted → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
12.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” exists to respect → only patterns that past persons performed ∴ No “we” needs anything → specific persons want specific things ∴ WHO wants me to repeat past patterns? WHY do they want this? ∴ Do I choose to act this way, or do I serve the expectations of others?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is important to tell the truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.8a I find it useful to report what I observe accurately.
12.8b I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres.PERCEPT) it (PRON-obj) useful (ADJ) to (PART-inf) report (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) accurately (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→accurate.observation]).
12.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME FORM: It is important → DISSOLUTION: I find it useful → STRATEGY: E2 (Perception Verb) — SPOOK: the truth → DISSOLUTION: what I observe accurately → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No cosmic “truth” exists → only observations I make and reports I give ∴ “Important” becomes “useful to me” → I own the evaluation ∴ The infinitive now expresses MY judgment about what serves me
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality teaches us to love our neighbor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.9a Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed I should act with tenderness toward persons near me.
12.9b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) claimed (V-past) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) act (V-inf) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness]) toward (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[neighbor→persons.near]) near (ADV) me (PRON-obj).
12.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Morality → DISSOLUTION: persons who taught me as a child → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — SPOOK: teaches (Morality as agent) → DISSOLUTION: claimed → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — SPOOK: love (as commanded action) → DISSOLUTION: act with tenderness → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: neighbor → DISSOLUTION: persons near me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
12.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” exists to teach → only persons who made claims when I lacked the power to resist ∴ WHO taught these lessons? WHAT did they gain from my compliance? ∴ The infinitive “to act with tenderness” now appears as something I MAY choose, not something commanded by a ghost
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She learned to be a good person.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.10a She learned to act in ways that certain persons around her approve.
12.10b She (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[good→persons.approving]).
12.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME FORM: to be a good person → DISSOLUTION: to act in ways persons approve → STRATEGY: E7 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: good (as objective quality) → DISSOLUTION: approved by certain persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
12.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No objective “goodness” exists → only approval from specific persons ∴ WHO approves? WHOSE standards define “good”? ∴ The dissolution reveals that “learning to be good” means: learning to please specific others
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State needs citizens to pay taxes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.11a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” demand that persons they label “citizens” give them money, and they threaten to harm those who refuse.
12.11b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) demand (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) give (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) money (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[taxes→money]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) threaten (V-pres) to (PART-inf) harm (V-inf) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
12.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: The State → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “government” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: needs → DISSOLUTION: demand (persons as agents) → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: citizens → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizens” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ — SPOOK: taxes → DISSOLUTION: money (concrete) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” exists to need anything → only persons with weapons demanding ∴ The infinitive “to harm” reveals the threat behind the abstraction ∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO receives the money? ∴ The spook “taxes” dissolves → just money taken under threat
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us to avoid the mistakes of the past.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.12a Certain writers of books about past events claim we can act differently to avoid outcomes those writers label “mistakes.”
12.12b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[History→writers]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) we (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) act (V-inf) differently (ADV) to (PART-inf) avoid (V-inf) outcomes (N-obj) those (DET) writers (N-subj) label (V-pres) “mistakes” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[mistakes→labeled.outcomes]).
12.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: History → DISSOLUTION: writers of books about past events → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — SPOOK: teaches (History as agent) → DISSOLUTION: claim → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — SPOOK: mistakes → DISSOLUTION: outcomes labeled “mistakes” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
12.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists to teach → only persons who wrote about past events ∴ WHO decides what counts as a “mistake”? WHO benefits from this labeling? ∴ The infinitive “to avoid” now connects to MY evaluation, not the judgment of a ghost
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love requires us to sacrifice for others.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.13a When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give them things I want.
12.13b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Love→I.feel.tenderness]) tenderness (N-obj) toward (PREP) someone (PRON), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[requires→I.choose]) to (PART-inf) give (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.things.I.want]).
12.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Love → DISSOLUTION: tenderness I feel → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: requires (Love as commanding agent) → DISSOLUTION: I choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: give things I want → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Love” exists to require anything → only feelings I experience and choices I make ∴ “Sacrifice” dissolves into concrete giving ∴ The infinitive “to give” now expresses MY choice, not a cosmic demand ∴ WHO taught me that “love” requires “sacrifice”? WHAT did they gain?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Reason demands that we submit to logic.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.14a When I want to predict outcomes accurately, I find it useful to follow certain patterns of inference that many persons accept.
12.14b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) to (PART-inf) predict (V-inf) outcomes (N-obj) accurately (ADV), I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres.PERCEPT) it (PRON-obj) useful (ADJ) to (PART-inf) follow (V-inf) certain (DET) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[logic→patterns.persons.accept]) of (PREP) inference (N) that (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) accept (V-pres).
12.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: Reason → DISSOLUTION: when I want to predict accurately → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: I find useful → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — SPOOK: submit → DISSOLUTION: follow → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: logic → DISSOLUTION: patterns of inference many persons accept → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
12.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Reason” exists to demand → only MY desire to predict accurately ∴ No “logic” exists as commanding master → only patterns that PERSONS developed and accept ∴ I USE these patterns; they do not command me ∴ The infinitive “to follow” becomes voluntary, not submissive
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution exists to protect our rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.15a Certain persons wrote words on paper to limit what other persons with weapons may do to us—though those with weapons often ignore these words.
12.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N) to (PART-inf) limit (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal.inf) to (PREP) us (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) with (PREP) weapons (N-subj) often (ADV) ignore (V-pres) these (DET) words (N-obj).
12.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: The Constitution → DISSOLUTION: words on paper that certain persons wrote → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — SPOOK: exists → DISSOLUTION: wrote (E-Prime) → STRATEGY: E3 (Existence) — SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: limits on what persons with weapons may do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: protect → DISSOLUTION: limit → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Constitution” exists as an agent → only words that specific persons wrote ∴ No “rights” exist → only agreements (sometimes ignored) about what persons with weapons will refrain from doing ∴ The infinitive “to limit” reveals the PURPOSE these writers claimed ∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO enforces them—or ignores them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
12.1 “Many persons around me expect me to confine persons whom they label ‘guilty.’”
[Standard English: “Justice requires us to punish the guilty.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punish → confine), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (guilty → persons labeled)]
12.2 “I want to feel joy.”
[Standard English: “I want to be happy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (to be happy → to feel joy)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required]
12.3 “Many persons around me expect persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ to act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm them otherwise.”
[Standard English: “Society expects citizens to obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons, law → written rules + persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obey → act as specified)]
12.4 “He tried to act with courage.”
[Standard English: “He tried to be brave.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (to be brave → to act with courage)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required]
12.5 “I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I choose to help persons who live near me.”
[Standard English: “Duty calls me to serve my country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Duty calls → I feel urge, I choose), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country → persons near me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (serve → help)]
12.6 “I aim to act without interference from other persons.”
[Standard English: “The goal is to achieve freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (The goal is → I aim)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
12.7 “Certain persons want me to act as past persons acted.”
[Standard English: “We need to respect tradition.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (We → certain persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (need → want), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (tradition → how past persons acted), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (respect → act as)]
12.8 “I find it useful to report what I observe accurately.”
[Standard English: “It is important to tell the truth.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (It is important → I find it useful)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → accurate observation)]
12.9 “Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed I should act with tenderness toward persons near me.”
[Standard English: “Morality teaches us to love our neighbor.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → act with tenderness), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (neighbor → persons near me)]
12.10 “She learned to act in ways that certain persons around her approve.”
[Standard English: “She learned to be a good person.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (to be a good person → to act in ways)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (good → approved by certain persons)]
12.11 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ demand that persons they label ‘citizens’ give them money, and they threaten to harm those who refuse.”
[Standard English: “The State needs citizens to pay taxes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (taxes → money)]
12.12 “Certain writers of books about past events claim we can act differently to avoid outcomes those writers label ‘mistakes.’”
[Standard English: “History teaches us to avoid the mistakes of the past.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (History → writers), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (mistakes → labeled outcomes)]
12.13 “When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give them things I want.”
[Standard English: “Love requires us to sacrifice for others.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Love requires → I feel, I choose), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → give things I want)]
12.14 “When I want to predict outcomes accurately, I find it useful to follow certain patterns of inference that many persons accept.”
[Standard English: “Reason demands that we submit to logic.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Reason demands → I want, I find useful), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (submit → follow), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (logic → patterns persons accept)]
12.15 “Certain persons wrote words on paper to limit what other persons with weapons may do to us—though those with weapons often ignore these words.”
[Standard English: “The Constitution exists to protect our rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (exists → wrote)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Constitution → words persons wrote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → limits on actions, protect → limit)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
12.1 Many persons around me expect me to confine persons whom they label “guilty.”
12.2 I want to feel joy.
12.3 Many persons around me expect persons whom officials label “citizens” to act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm them otherwise.
12.4 He tried to act with courage.
12.5 I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I choose to help persons who live near me.
12.6 I aim to act without interference from other persons.
12.7 Certain persons want me to act as past persons acted.
12.8 I find it useful to report what I observe accurately.
12.9 Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed I should act with tenderness toward persons near me.
12.10 She learned to act in ways that certain persons around her approve.
12.11 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” demand that persons they label “citizens” give them money, and they threaten to harm those who refuse.
12.12 Certain writers of books about past events claim we can act differently to avoid outcomes those writers label “mistakes.”
12.13 When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give them things I want.
12.14 When I want to predict outcomes accurately, I find it useful to follow certain patterns of inference that many persons accept.
12.15 Certain persons wrote words on paper to limit what other persons with weapons may do to us—though those with weapons often ignore these words.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “to” (infinitive marker) in E-Prime Max:
The particle “to” functions as the infinitive marker in English, introducing the base form of verbs. It appears in several constructions:
Purpose infinitives: “I came to see you” (expressing why someone acts)
Complement infinitives: “I want to go” (completing the meaning of another verb)
Subject infinitives: “To err seems human” (the infinitive phrase as subject)
Adjectival infinitives: “a book to read” (modifying a noun)
Result infinitives: “too tired to continue” (expressing consequence)
In each case, “to” marks the verb that follows as an infinitive—a non-finite form that does not carry tense or agree with a subject.
The infinitive marker “to” itself remains fully permitted in E-Prime. The critical issue arises with “to be” constructions:
Forbidden: “to be good,” “to be happy,” “to be a leader,” “to be present”
Transformations required: “to be good” → “to act well” or “to behave in approved ways” “to be happy” → “to feel joy” or “to experience pleasure” “to be a leader” → “to lead” or “to guide others” “to be present” → “to attend” or “to appear”
The E-Prime challenge with “to” lies not in the particle itself but in what follows. Students must develop reflexive awareness: whenever “to” appears, check whether “be” follows.
The infinitive marker “to” has HIGH spook proximity. It frequently introduces purpose clauses that invoke abstract agents:
Political spooks with “to”: “to serve the State” → to act as persons with weapons demand “to obey the law” → to act as written rules specify “to defend freedom” → to fight persons whom certain others label “enemies”
Moral spooks with “to”: “to do one’s duty” → to act as certain persons expect “to seek justice” → to pursue outcomes I want from those who harmed me “to honor tradition” → to repeat patterns past persons performed
Metaphysical spooks with “to”: “to find truth” → to observe and report accurately “to serve God” → to act as certain old texts specify “to discover meaning” → to create purposes I find satisfying
Collective spooks with “to”: “to help humanity” → to help certain specific persons “to benefit society” → to please many persons around me “to preserve civilization” → to maintain patterns certain persons value
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) examples with “to”: “to serve society” → to please many persons around me “to obey authority” → to act as persons who claim power demand “to honor the nation” → to act as officials expect
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) examples with “to”: “to achieve freedom” → to act without interference from others “to find truth” → to observe and report accurately “to make a sacrifice” → to give what I want to others
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical) examples with “to”: “to follow tradition” → to act as past persons acted “to obey morality” → to act as persons who taught me claimed I should “to respect the Constitution” → to honor words certain persons wrote long ago
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership) examples with “to”: “duty requires me to act” → I feel an urge to act as others expect “love compels me to give” → I choose to give when I feel tenderness “reason demands me to submit” → I find it useful to follow certain patterns
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) examples with “to”: “to punish criminals” → to confine persons labeled “criminals” “to reward good citizens” → to benefit persons labeled “good citizens” “to oppose enemies” → to harm persons labeled “enemies”
Mistake 1: Missing “to be” constructions Students often catch obvious spooks but miss E-Prime violations. Wrong: “She wants to be famous” Correct: “She wants many persons to recognize her”
Mistake 2: Incomplete spook dissolution Dissolving one spook while leaving others intact. Partial: “Society wants me to achieve freedom” Complete: “Many persons around me want me to act without interference from other persons”
Mistake 3: Purpose clauses with hidden agents The infinitive “to” often introduces purposes that belong to spooks, not persons. Spook-laden: “The law exists to protect us” Dissolved: “Certain persons wrote rules, claiming these rules would limit what other persons do to us”
Mistake 4: Retaining the spook as tool while giving it agency Wrong: “I want to serve justice” (keeps “justice” as thing to serve) Better: “I want persons who took from me to return what they took”
For every infinitive construction, ask: “Whose purpose does this express? Do I own this intention, or does a spook command it?”
Test application: “I want to serve my country” → Whose purpose? The “country” (spook) or specific persons? → Dissolved: “I choose to help persons who live near me”
“Duty requires me to sacrifice” → Who requires? “Duty” (spook) or specific persons with expectations? → Dissolved: “Certain persons expect me to give, and I feel an urge to comply”
The infinitive marks intention. Make certain the intender exists as a person—ideally yourself—not as a ghost that possesses you.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) developed General Semantics around a core insight: “the map does not equal the territory.” Human languages, especially through the verb “to be,” encourage identification of maps (our descriptions, categories, abstractions) with territories (the actual world of experience). When we say “John is lazy,” we equate a person with a label, collapsing endless complexity into a single word.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928–2000) created E-Prime as a discipline to break this identification habit. By eliminating “to be,” speakers must specify: “John acted slowly yesterday” instead of “John is lazy.” The infinitive “to be” particularly encourages projecting static essences onto dynamic processes.
Max Stirner (1806–1856) identified a different but related problem: the “spook” (Gespenst)—any abstract idea that possesses the thinker rather than serving them. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Stirner traced how humans create abstractions (God, State, Morality, Humanity) then forget they created them, then submit to these creations as if they commanded from beyond.
The infinitive structure “to serve [X]” perfectly captures this possession. When someone says “I exist to serve justice,” they have given an abstraction the status of master. The infinitive marks the surrender: “to” points toward the ghost that now commands.
Stirner wrote: “Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter.” The infinitive “to honor,” “to obey,” “to serve” ties the person to whatever abstraction follows.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” collapses distinct things into false identity.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X demands/requires/commands” grants agency to abstractions that possess no agency.
Together: comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
The infinitive marker “to” sits at the intersection. “To be” creates false essences (E-Prime violation). “To serve [abstraction]” creates false masters (spook violation). By maintaining vigilance at the infinitive, the speaker guards both flanks.
When we dissolve “justice requires us to punish” into “persons around me expect me to confine persons they label guilty,” we see:
Persons acting where “justice” seemed to act. Expectations and social pressure where “requirement” seemed to command. Labels attached by specific persons where “guilt” seemed objective. Weapons and cages where “punishment” seemed abstract.
The infinitive dissolution particularly reveals whose purposes operate. “To serve the State” hides that specific persons benefit from your service. “To obey morality” hides that specific persons taught you these rules. “To seek truth” may hide that you mean “to confirm what I already believe.”
Recognizing manipulation: Politicians, priests, advertisers, and others constantly invoke spooks with infinitives. “We must act to preserve freedom.” “You need to support justice.” “Everyone ought to respect tradition.” Dissolution asks: WHO benefits from this “freedom,” “justice,” “tradition”? WHO wants me to act this way?
Resisting possession: When you feel compelled “to do your duty,” pause. Dissolve: “I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect.” Now you can ask: Do I choose to act this way? Or do I serve a ghost I did not consciously accept?
Reclaiming ownness: The infinitive can express YOUR purposes rather than the demands of abstractions. “I choose to help this person” differs profoundly from “Love requires me to sacrifice.” The first expresses ownness (Eigenheit); the second expresses possession.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects for fitness,” “the market requires efficiency” → all spooks. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior to those who “still use spooks.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “Freedom requires...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“Whom does one think of when one hears ‘the state’? Is it not a spook? Well, where is the state that we think of? Where is the ‘people’? It must exist somewhere, since people are willing to lay down their lives for it! In fact, the actual state is—people. The real people are—the single individuals. So instead of ‘the state commands’ one could say: ‘the individuals wish’; instead of ‘the people demand,’ one could say: ‘individual A, B, C demand.’”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Whom (PRON-interrog) does (V-aux) one (PRON-indef) think (V-inf) of (PREP) when (CONJ) one (PRON-indef) hears (V-pres) “the (DEF.ART) state” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word])?
F.1b Does (V-aux) this (DET) word (N-subj) refer (V-pres) to (PREP) anything (PRON) one (PRON-indef) can (V-modal) find (V-inf) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) world (N-obj)?
F.1c Well (INTERJ), where (ADV-interrog) does (V-aux) the (DEF.ART) “state” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word]) that (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) think (V-pres) of (PREP) exist (V-inf)? Where (ADV-interrog) do (V-aux) “the (DEF.ART) people” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook.word]) exist (V-inf)?
F.1d This (DET) spook (N-subj) must (V-modal) exist (V-inf) somewhere (ADV), since (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) show (V-pres) willingness (N-obj) to (PART-inf) die (V-inf) for (PREP) it (PRON-obj)!
F.1e In (PREP) fact (N), the (DEF.ART) actual (ADJ) “state” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons]) consists (V-pres.EXIST) of (PREP)—persons (N).
F.1f The (DEF.ART) real (ADJ) “people” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→individuals]) consist (V-pres.EXIST) of (PREP)—single (ADJ) individuals (N).
F.1g So (CONJ) instead (ADV) of (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) state (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook]) commands (V-pres)” one (PRON-indef) could (V-modal) say (V-inf): “the (DEF.ART) individuals (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[dissolution]) wish (V-pres).”
F.1h Instead (ADV) of (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) people (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook]) demand (V-pres),” one (PRON-indef) could (V-modal) say (V-inf): “individual (N) A (N-proper), B (N-proper), C (N-proper) demand (V-pres).”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Whom does one think of when one hears “the state”? Does this word refer to anything one can find in the world? Well, where does the “state” that we think of exist? Where do “the people” exist? This spook must exist somewhere, since persons show willingness to die for it! In fact, the actual “state” consists of—persons. The real “people” consist of—single individuals. So instead of “the state commands” one could say: “the individuals wish.” Instead of “the people demand,” one could say: “individual A, B, C demand.”
Stirner’s passage already performs dissolution, tracing “state” and “people” back to individuals. The E-Prime Max transformation:
E-Prime adjustments: “Is it not a spook?” → “Does this word refer to anything?” “the actual state is—people” → “the actual ‘state’ consists of—persons” “the real people are—the single individuals” → “the real ‘people’ consist of—single individuals”
Spook dissolution (following Stirner’s own method): “the state” → labeled word without referent in experience “the people” → labeled word dissolving into individuals “commands” (with spook subject) → “wish” (with persons as subject) “demand” (with spook subject) → “demand” (with named individuals as subject)
The infinitive “to die”: Stirner’s point becomes sharper in E-Prime Max: persons show willingness TO DIE for a word—a label—a spook that dissolves into the very persons dying for it. The infinitive marks the surrender: “to die for the state” means “to die so that certain other persons may command.”
Stirner anticipates E-Prime Max by 180 years. His method: take any spook, ask “where does it exist?”, discover that it reduces to persons acting. He explicitly rewrites spook-as-agent constructions (”the state commands”) into person-as-agent constructions (”individuals wish”).
Yet even Stirner’s formulation contains E-Prime violations (”is it not,” “the state is—people”). The synthesis removes these while preserving his insight.
Notice how the infinitive “to die” reveals the absurdity: persons die for words. The E-Prime Max analysis makes visible what the spook construction hides. No one dies for “the state”—they die because other persons (generals, politicians, propagandists) convinced them to act in ways that benefit those others.
The Stirnerian question extends to every infinitive: when you prepare “to serve,” “to honor,” “to obey”—ask: WHO does this serve, honor, give power to?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A first-person account of recognizing and dissolving spooks in infinitive constructions.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL (implied): “I was taught to serve my country and obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.16a Certain persons taught me as a child to help persons whom officials label “compatriots” and to act as written rules specify.
12.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) to (PART-inf) help (V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “compatriots” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) and (CONJ) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres).
12.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: country → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “compatriots” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ — SPOOK: serve → DISSOLUTION: help → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: the law → DISSOLUTION: written rules → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — SPOOK: obey → DISSOLUTION: act as rules specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
12.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ I did not choose these infinitives → others installed them ∴ WHO taught me? WHAT did they gain from my compliance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.17a For years I felt that I existed to fulfill purposes larger than myself.
12.17b For (PREP) years (N-time) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) existed (V-past.EXIST ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[felt.that.I]) to (PART-inf) fulfill (V-inf) purposes (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[purposes→purposes.others.claimed]) larger (ADJ-comp) than (PREP) myself (PRON-refl).
12.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — E-PRIME NOTE: “existed” permitted (existence verb, not copula) — SPOOK: purposes larger than myself → DISSOLUTION: purposes others claimed → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
12.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The infinitive “to fulfill” pointed toward ghosts ∴ I felt myself as instrument, not as owner
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.18a I thought I needed to sacrifice in order to earn approval from abstractions.
12.18b I (PRON-subj) thought (V-past.MENTAL) I (PRON-subj) needed (V-past) to (PART-inf) sacrifice (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[give.what.I.want]) in (PREP) order (N) to (PART-inf) earn (V-inf) approval (N-obj) from (PREP) abstractions (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[abstractions→persons.who.taught.me]).
12.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: give what I want → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — SPOOK: abstractions (as approval-givers) → DISSOLUTION: persons who taught me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
12.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Abstractions” cannot approve—only persons can ∴ I sought approval from ghosts constructed by persons long dead or distant
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.19a Then I began to question: WHO installed these infinitives in me?
12.19b Then (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) began (V-past) to (PART-inf) question (V-inf): WHO (PRON-interrog) installed (V-past) these (DET) infinitives (N-obj) in (PREP) me (PRON-obj)?
12.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks present — The question itself performs dissolution
12.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The infinitive “to question” here expresses MY purpose ∴ I begin to reclaim my infinitives
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.20a Parents, teachers, priests, officials—all of them worked to install purposes in me that served them.
12.20b Parents (N-subj), teachers (N-subj), priests (N-subj), officials (N-subj)—all (DET) of (PREP) them (PRON) worked (V-past) to (PART-inf) install (V-inf) purposes (N-obj) in (PREP) me (PRON-obj) that (PRON-rel) served (V-past) them (PRON-obj).
12.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks: specific persons named as agents — “served them” → concrete benefit to identifiable persons
12.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution complete: persons with motives ∴ Their infinitives (”to serve,” “to obey”) → their benefits
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.21a They taught me to feel guilt when I acted for myself alone.
12.21b They (PRON-subj) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) feel (V-inf.STATE) guilt (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[discomfort.when.acting.for.self]) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) for (PREP) myself (PRON-refl) alone (ADV).
12.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — SPOOK: guilt (as objective state) → DISSOLUTION: discomfort I learned to feel → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
12.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Guilt” represents taught discomfort, not cosmic judgment ∴ WHO benefits when I feel bad about acting for myself?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.22a Now I practice to recognize when an infinitive belongs to me and when it belongs to ghosts.
12.22b Now (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) practice (V-pres) to (PART-inf) recognize (V-inf) when (CONJ) an (INDEF.ART) infinitive (N-subj) belongs (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) when (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) belongs (V-pres) to (PREP) ghosts (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[spooks]).
12.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — “ghosts” used as shorthand for spooks — The discipline of recognition described
12.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The infinitive “to recognize” expresses MY purpose ∴ I develop skill at tracing purposes to owners
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.23a I ask myself: do I want to act this way, or do others expect me to act this way?
12.23b I (PRON-subj) ask (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl): do (V-aux) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) this (DET) way (N-manner), or (CONJ) do (V-aux) others (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) this (DET) way (N-manner)?
12.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks: question distinguishes MY want from OTHERS’ expectations — “others” = specific persons, not collective
12.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The Stirnerian test applied to infinitives ∴ MY infinitive vs. THEIR infinitive
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.24a Sometimes I choose to act as others expect—but I know I choose.
12.24b Sometimes (ADV-freq) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[ownership]) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres)—but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres.MENTAL) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres).
12.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks: first-person ownership claimed — “choose” appears twice: emphasis on agency
12.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Compliance can remain owned ∴ The difference: I CHOOSE to comply vs. DUTY commands me
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.25a Other times I refuse to act as others expect—and I accept the consequences.
12.25b Other (DET) times (N-time) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres) to (PART-inf) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) consequences (N-obj).
12.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks: first-person agency throughout — “consequences” = concrete outcomes from specific persons
12.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Refusal remains an option ∴ Consequences come from PERSONS, not from cosmic judgment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.26a The point remains not to escape all influence from others—that lies beyond my power.
12.26b The (DEF.ART) point (N-subj) remains (V-pres.STATE) not (ADV-neg) to (PART-inf) escape (V-inf) all (DET) influence (N-obj) from (PREP) others (PRON)—that (PRON-dem) lies (V-pres.EXIST) beyond (PREP) my (PRON-poss) power (N-obj).
12.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — “remains” = E-Prime state verb (not copula) — “lies beyond” = E-Prime existence construction — Honest admission of limits
12.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Dissolution does not promise total autonomy ∴ The practice: awareness, not escape
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.27a The point lies in knowing when I act from my own purposes and when I act from purposes others installed.
12.27b The (DEF.ART) point (N-subj) lies (V-pres.EXIST) in (PREP) knowing (V-pres.PART.MENTAL) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) purposes (N) and (CONJ) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) from (PREP) purposes (N) others (PRON-subj) installed (V-past).
12.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — “lies in” = E-Prime existence construction — Distinction: MY purposes vs. INSTALLED purposes
12.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Awareness as the goal ∴ WHO installed which purposes?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.28a Every infinitive I use deserves the question: whose purpose does this express?
12.28b Every (DET) infinitive (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) use (V-pres) deserves (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) question (N-obj): whose (PRON-interrog.poss) purpose (N-subj) does (V-aux) this (PRON-dem) express (V-inf)?
12.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — The test formulated — Applied to all infinitive constructions
12.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The habitual question: WHOSE purpose? ∴ Infinitives always point toward intenders—make certain the intender exists
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.29a I find this practice useful—it serves me—and I will continue it today.
12.29b I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres.PERCEPT) this (DET) practice (N-obj) useful (ADJ)—it (PRON-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will∿continue (V-fut) it (PRON-obj) today (ADV-time).
12.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — No spooks — First-person ownership throughout — Note: “today” contains “to” but functions as adverb of time
12.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The Stirnerian test applied: this practice SERVES ME ∴ When it stops serving me, I will discard it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.30a Tomorrow I may discard it—the unique decides, always.
12.30b Tomorrow (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) discard (V-inf) it (PRON-obj)—the (DEF.ART) unique (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[I.in.this.moment]) decides (V-pres), always (ADV-time).
12.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: — “the unique” = Stirnerian term, kept as owned shorthand — Dissolves to “I, in this moment, unrepeatable”
12.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even “the unique” can dissolve ∴ Final ownership: I decide ∴ The discipline serves me or I discard it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
12.16 “Certain persons taught me as a child to help persons whom officials label ‘compatriots’ and to act as written rules specify.”
12.17 “For years I felt that I existed to fulfill purposes larger than myself.”
12.18 “I thought I needed to sacrifice in order to earn approval from abstractions.”
12.19 “Then I began to question: WHO installed these infinitives in me?”
12.20 “Parents, teachers, priests, officials—all of them worked to install purposes in me that served them.”
12.21 “They taught me to feel guilt when I acted for myself alone.”
12.22 “Now I practice to recognize when an infinitive belongs to me and when it belongs to ghosts.”
12.23 “I ask myself: do I want to act this way, or do others expect me to act this way?”
12.24 “Sometimes I choose to act as others expect—but I know I choose.”
12.25 “Other times I refuse to act as others expect—and I accept the consequences.”
12.26 “The point remains not to escape all influence from others—that lies beyond my power.”
12.27 “The point lies in knowing when I act from my own purposes and when I act from purposes others installed.”
12.28 “Every infinitive I use deserves the question: whose purpose does this express?”
12.29 “I find this practice useful—it serves me—and I will continue it today.”
12.30 “Tomorrow I may discard it—the unique decides, always.”
12.16 Certain persons taught me as a child to help persons whom officials label “compatriots” and to act as written rules specify.
12.17 For years I felt that I existed to fulfill purposes larger than myself.
12.18 I thought I needed to sacrifice in order to earn approval from abstractions.
12.19 Then I began to question: WHO installed these infinitives in me?
12.20 Parents, teachers, priests, officials—all of them worked to install purposes in me that served them.
12.21 They taught me to feel guilt when I acted for myself alone.
12.22 Now I practice to recognize when an infinitive belongs to me and when it belongs to ghosts.
12.23 I ask myself: do I want to act this way, or do others expect me to act this way?
12.24 Sometimes I choose to act as others expect—but I know I choose.
12.25 Other times I refuse to act as others expect—and I accept the consequences.
12.26 The point remains not to escape all influence from others—that lies beyond my power.
12.27 The point lies in knowing when I act from my own purposes and when I act from purposes others installed.
12.28 Every infinitive I use deserves the question: whose purpose does this express?
12.29 I find this practice useful—it serves me—and I will continue it today.
12.30 Tomorrow I may discard it—the unique decides, always.
The narrative demonstrates several key features of infinitive usage in E-Prime Max:
Infinitives expressing taught purposes (12.16, 12.20, 12.21): These examples show how others install infinitives in us during childhood. The purposes expressed belong to the teachers, not to the taught. Dissolution traces these infinitives back to their installers.
Infinitives expressing mistaken self-understanding (12.17, 12.18): Before dissolution, the speaker believed they “existed to fulfill purposes larger than myself” and “needed to sacrifice.” These infinitives point toward spooks. The narrative voice now recognizes this.
The transitional question (12.19): “WHO installed these infinitives in me?” marks the turn toward dissolution. The infinitive “to question” here belongs to the speaker—a reclaimed purpose.
Infinitives expressing owned purposes (12.22-12.30): After dissolution, the speaker’s infinitives express their own purposes: “to recognize,” “to act,” “to refuse,” “to continue.” Even “to escape” (12.26) remains owned—the speaker acknowledges limits without surrendering to spooks.
The Stirnerian test applied to infinitives (12.23, 12.28): “Do I WANT to act this way, or do OTHERS expect me to act this way?” and “Whose purpose does this express?” These questions should accompany every infinitive construction.
The auto-dissolution (12.29-12.30): The speaker applies the test to the practice itself: “it serves me—and I will continue it today. Tomorrow I may discard it.” E-Prime Max does not escape its own test.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and the infinitive marker “to” into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “Freedom requires citizens to remain vigilant.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons around me claim that persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ should watch carefully what persons with weapons do—otherwise those persons with weapons may interfere more with our actions.”
Dissolutions: — Freedom → acting without interference (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) — requires → claim that should (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) — citizens → persons labeled “citizens” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ) — vigilant → watch carefully (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “freedom” requires anything. Persons make claims. The infinitive “to remain vigilant” now expresses a practical concern, not a cosmic obligation.
Exercise 2
Standard: “It is our duty to honor the sacrifices of those who came before.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons expect me to speak well of what past persons gave up, and I feel an urge to comply with this expectation.”
Dissolutions: — It is our duty → certain persons expect me + I feel an urge (E2 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ) — honor → speak well of (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) — sacrifices → what past persons gave up (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) — those who came before → past persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “duty” exists. Only expectations from living persons and urges I feel. The infinitive “to honor” now connects to MY experience, not cosmic obligation.
Exercise 3
Standard: “The law exists to protect the innocent from harm.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons wrote rules, claiming these rules would prevent other persons from harming persons whom observers label ‘innocent’—though persons with weapons often harm such persons anyway.”
Dissolutions: — The law → written rules (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) — exists → persons wrote, claiming (E3 + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ) — protect → prevent harm (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) — the innocent → persons labeled “innocent” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “law” exists as agent. Only words that persons wrote. The infinitive “to protect” reveals a CLAIM about purpose, not an achieved reality.
Exercise 4
Standard: “Morality teaches us to treat others as we wish to be treated.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons who taught me as a child claimed I should act toward others as I want others to act toward me.”
Dissolutions: — Morality → persons who taught me (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ) — teaches → claimed (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ) — to be treated → others to act toward me (E7) — treat others → act toward others (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “morality” teaches. Specific persons made specific claims when I lacked power to resist. The infinitive “to treat” now connects to a human origin.
Exercise 5
Standard: “History calls upon the young to learn from the errors of the past.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain writers of books about past events claim that young persons should study what those writers label ‘errors’ and act differently.”
Dissolutions: — History → writers of books about past events (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ) — calls upon → claim that should (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) — the young → young persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) — errors → outcomes labeled “errors” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ) — learn from → study and act differently (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “History” calls upon anyone. Writers make claims. WHO decides what counts as an “error”? The infinitive “to learn” now reveals: learn WHAT? From WHOSE interpretation?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max Language Course developed by the Latinum Institute, which has created language learning materials since 2006. The course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating abstract agents), producing a comprehensive linguistic discipline for consciousness liberation.
The construed text method used throughout these lessons derives from classical language pedagogy. By providing word-by-word glossing with grammatical markers and dissolution notes, students simultaneously acquire vocabulary, internalize E-Prime patterns, and develop the reflex to trace agency back from abstractions to persons.
This methodology serves autodidacts—self-directed learners who study independently. Each lesson stands alone while building on the discipline introduced in earlier lessons.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 12
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson introduces the English word “that” while training students to dissolve abstractions back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
“That” functions as a demonstrative pronoun (pointing to something), a relative pronoun (connecting clauses), and a subordinating conjunction (introducing dependent clauses). In E-Prime Max work, “that” presents particular challenges because it frequently introduces clauses where spooks hide: “the justice that demands,” “the society that expects,” “the truth that emerges.”
The philosophical foundation synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (1965), Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933), and Max Stirner’s spook dissolution from Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844). E-Prime attacks predication (”X is Y”). E-Prime Max attacks reification (treating abstractions as agents). Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
“that which morality requires” / “that which history teaches”
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
As conjunction: “I notice that certain persons expect this” (dissolved from “I see that society expects”)
Moral/political terms (justice, law, freedom) as clause subjects
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ when “that” introduces labeled categories
Power relations hidden by the abstraction
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That is the book.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.1a That book sits on the table.
13.1b That (PRON-dem) book (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj).
13.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “is” → sits (existence verb) → E3
13.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “is” → “sits” ∴ Demonstrative “that” requires no dissolution—it points to a concrete object
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I believe that the truth will emerge.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.2a I expect that what I observe will eventually match what others report.
13.2b I (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) will∿eventually (ADV-time) match (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[truth→observations.matching]) report (V-pres).
13.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “truth” → what I observe matching what others report → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “emerge” → match (concrete action) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “will” (as certainty) → expect (epistemic hedge) → E7
13.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” exists anywhere as an entity that “emerges” ∴ Only observations exist, and reports from persons ∴ “Truth emerging” dissolves into: observations matching reports ∴ WHO decides when observations “match”? WHO makes the reports?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That is what justice demands.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.3a That outcome matches what certain persons around me expect and will enforce.
13.3b That (PRON-dem) outcome (N-subj) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) and (CONJ) will∿enforce (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→enforce]).
13.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “justice” → certain persons around me expecting → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “demands” → expect and will enforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → matches → E3
13.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists to demand anything ∴ Only persons exist who hold expectations ∴ “Justice demands” → persons expect and will use force ∴ WHO holds these expectations? WHO will enforce them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law that governs us protects our freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.4a The words that certain persons wrote, and that others with weapons enforce, sometimes prevent interference with my actions.
13.4b The (DEF.ART) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words.written]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[governs→enforce]), sometimes (ADV-freq) prevent (V-pres) interference (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→non-interference]) with (PREP) my (PRON-poss) actions (N).
13.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “law” → words that certain persons wrote → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “governs” → enforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “freedom” → non-interference with my actions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “protects” → sometimes prevents interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” governs—only persons with weapons enforce written words ∴ No “freedom” exists as entity—only presence or absence of interference ∴ “That” now connects to concrete persons and actions ∴ WHO wrote those words? WHO carries the weapons? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society expects that citizens obey.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.5a Many persons around me expect that persons whom officials label “citizens” will act as written rules specify.
13.5b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) will∿act (V-fut) as (CONJ) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→rules]) specify (V-pres).
13.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “society” → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “citizens” → persons whom officials label “citizens” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “obey” → act as written rules specify → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to expect anything ∴ “Citizens” reveals itself as a label officials attach ∴ “Obey” dissolves into: act as rules specify ∴ WHO attached the label “citizen”? WHO wrote the rules?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That is what morality dictates.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.6a That behavior matches what certain persons taught me as a child and what many persons around me now reinforce.
13.6b That (PRON-dem) behavior (N-subj) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time) reinforce (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dictates→reinforce]).
13.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “morality” → what certain persons taught me as child → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “dictates” → taught and now reinforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → matches → E3
13.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” dictates—only persons teach and reinforce ∴ The genealogical origin appears: childhood instruction ∴ “That” now points to learned behavior, not cosmic imperative ∴ WHO taught me? WHO benefits from this teaching?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I know that the state has authority over me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.7a I observe that certain persons with weapons will harm me if I act against their commands.
13.7b I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres.PERCEPT) that (CONJ-subord) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) against (PREP) their (PRON-poss) commands (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→commands.backed.by.harm]).
13.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “state” → certain persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “authority” → will harm me if I disobey → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “know” → observe → E2 “has” → [eliminated—no possession by abstraction] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
13.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “state” exists—only persons with weapons ∴ No “authority” exists—only capacity to harm ∴ “That” now introduces observable consequences ∴ The mystification dissolves: “authority” = credible threat of harm
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us that progress is inevitable.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.8a Certain writers of books about past events claim that conditions will improve, and many persons repeat this claim.
13.8b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[teaches→claim]) that (CONJ-subord) conditions (N-subj) will∿improve (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→conditions.improving]), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) repeat (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) claim (N).
13.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “history” → writers of books about past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “teaches” → claim → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “progress” → conditions improving → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “inevitable” → [eliminated—claim, not fact] → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “is” → [eliminated with spook] → E3
13.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” teaches—only persons write and claim ∴ No “progress” marches forward—only conditions change ∴ “Inevitable” disappears entirely—merely a claim persons make ∴ WHO writes these books? WHO benefits from belief in “inevitable progress”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That duty calls me to serve.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.9a I feel an urge that pulls me toward acting as certain persons expect, and I choose to follow that urge.
13.9b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge.I.feel]) that (PRON-rel) pulls (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) toward (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART) as (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[calls→I.choose]) to∿follow (V-inf) that (PRON-dem) urge (N).
13.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “duty” → urge I feel → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “calls” → pulls / I choose to follow → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “serve” → act as persons expect → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” calls—I feel an urge and I choose ∴ Ownership returns: MY urge, MY choice ∴ “That” now connects to my experience, not cosmic command ∴ WHO taught me to feel this urge? Do I still want to follow it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love is all that matters.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.10a Acting with tenderness toward specific persons constitutes all that I value most.
13.10b Acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) with (PREP) tenderness (N) toward (PREP) specific (ADJ) persons (N) constitutes (V-pres) all (DET) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) value (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[matters→I.value]) most (ADV-degree).
13.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “love” (as agent) → acting with tenderness toward persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “matters” → I value → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “is” → constitutes → E4
13.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” exists as substance—only actions with tenderness ∴ “Matters” becomes “I value”—ownership returns ∴ “That” now connects to my valuing, not cosmic importance ∴ Specific persons appear where vague “love” floated
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear is that which holds humanity back.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.11a Bodily contractions and refraining from action—that pattern occurs among many persons I observe, and some claim it slows certain changes.
13.11b Bodily (ADJ) contractions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fear→contractions]) and (CONJ) refraining (V-pres.PART) from (PREP) action (N)—that (PRON-dem) pattern (N-subj) occurs (V-pres) among (PREP) many (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→persons.I.observe]) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres), and (CONJ) some (DET-indef) claim (V-pres) it (PRON-subj) slows (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[holds.back→slows]) certain (DET) changes (N).
13.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “fear” (as agent) → bodily contractions and refraining → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “humanity” → many persons I observe → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “holds back” → slows changes → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → [eliminated with restructure] → E3
13.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fear” holds anyone—bodies contract, persons refrain ∴ No “humanity” exists as collective—only persons I observe ∴ “That” now points to observable patterns ∴ WHO claims this pattern “holds back”? Holds back from what?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights are that which the constitution guarantees.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.12a Documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me—that comprises what certain persons wrote in a document they call “constitution,” and what other persons with weapons sometimes enforce.
13.12b Documented (ADJ) limits (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—that (PRON-dem) comprises (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) document (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “constitution” (N-label), and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) sometimes (ADV-freq) enforce (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[guarantees→enforce]).
13.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “rights” → documented limits on what may be done to me → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “constitution” (as agent) → document certain persons wrote → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “guarantees” → sometimes enforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “are” → comprises → E4
13.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “rights” exist as entities—only documented limits ∴ No “constitution” guarantees—persons wrote words, others enforce (or not) ∴ “That” now connects to concrete documents and enforcement ∴ WHO wrote those words? WHO enforces them? WHO ignores them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “That is the voice of conscience speaking.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.13a That sensation I experience reflects what certain persons taught me to feel when considering certain actions.
13.13b That (PRON-dem) sensation (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→sensation.I.experience]) I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres) reflects (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conscience→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿feel (V-inf) when (CONJ-temp) considering (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) actions (N).
13.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “conscience” → sensation I experience → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “voice of conscience” → what persons taught me to feel → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “speaking” → [eliminated—sensations do not speak] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → reflects → E2
13.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “conscience” speaks—I experience sensations ∴ Genealogy reveals: persons taught me to feel this ∴ “That” now points to my owned experience ∴ WHO taught me this? Do their teachings still serve me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Understand that tradition must be respected.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.14a Observe that certain persons will express disapproval if I act differently from how they and their predecessors acted.
13.14b Observe (V-imp) that (CONJ-subord) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.and.predecessors]) will∿express (V-fut) disapproval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respected→avoid.disapproval]) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) how (ADV) they (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) predecessors (N) acted (V-past).
13.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “tradition” → how certain persons and predecessors acted → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “must” → will (consequence description) → E7 “respected” → avoid their disapproval → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “understand” → observe → E2
13.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” commands respect—persons disapprove ∴ “Must” reveals itself as: consequence if I don’t ∴ “That” now introduces observable social dynamics ∴ WHO expresses disapproval? Do I choose to avoid it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The good that men do lives after them.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.15a The actions that certain persons performed, and that other persons now recall with approval, continue to influence how persons around me act.
13.15b The (DEF.ART) actions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[good→actions.recalled.with.approval]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) performed (V-past), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) recall (V-pres) with (PREP) approval (N), continue (V-pres) to∿influence (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[lives→influence]) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) act (V-pres).
13.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “good” (as substance) → actions recalled with approval → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “men” (collective) → certain persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “lives” (as survival) → continues to influence → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “good” survives as substance—actions get recalled ∴ “Lives after them” dissolves into: influences current persons ∴ “That” connects to concrete actions and memories ∴ WHO recalls these actions? WHO decides they merit approval?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
13.1 “That book sits on the table.”
[Standard English: “That is the book.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “sits” replaces “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete reference]
13.2 “I expect that what I observe will eventually match what others report.”
[Standard English: “I believe that the truth will emerge.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “observe”), E7 (state verb “expect”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observations matching reports)]
13.3 “That outcome matches what certain persons around me expect and will enforce.”
[Standard English: “That is what justice demands.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “matches”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → enforce)]
13.4 “The words that certain persons wrote, and that others with weapons enforce, sometimes prevent interference with my actions.”
[Standard English: “The law that governs us protects our freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required in original transformation]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → words persons wrote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (governs → enforce, freedom → non-interference)]
13.5 “Many persons around me expect that persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ will act as written rules specify.”
[Standard English: “Society expects that citizens obey.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around me), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled)]
13.6 “That behavior matches what certain persons taught me as a child and what many persons around me now reinforce.”
[Standard English: “That is what morality dictates.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (”matches” replaces “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → what persons taught), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (dictates → taught and reinforce)]
13.7 “I observe that certain persons with weapons will harm me if I act against their commands.”
[Standard English: “I know that the state has authority over me.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “observe”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (authority → will harm)]
13.8 “Certain writers of books about past events claim that conditions will improve, and many persons repeat this claim.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us that progress is inevitable.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → writers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (progress → conditions improving, teaches → claim)]
13.9 “I feel an urge that pulls me toward acting as certain persons expect, and I choose to follow that urge.”
[Standard English: “That duty calls me to serve.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urge I feel, calls → I choose)]
13.10 “Acting with tenderness toward specific persons constitutes all that I value most.”
[Standard English: “Love is all that matters.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb “constitutes”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting with tenderness), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (matters → I value)]
13.11 “Bodily contractions and refraining from action—that pattern occurs among many persons I observe, and some claim it slows certain changes.”
[Standard English: “Fear is that which holds humanity back.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “occurs”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (fear → contractions and refraining), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → persons I observe)]
13.12 “Documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me—that comprises what certain persons wrote in a document they call ‘constitution,’ and what other persons with weapons sometimes enforce.”
[Standard English: “Rights are that which the constitution guarantees.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb “comprises”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → documented limits), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (constitution → document persons wrote)]
13.13 “That sensation I experience reflects what certain persons taught me to feel when considering certain actions.”
[Standard English: “That is the voice of conscience speaking.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “reflects”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → sensation I experience), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (voice → what persons taught)]
13.14 “Observe that certain persons will express disapproval if I act differently from how they and their predecessors acted.”
[Standard English: “Understand that tradition must be respected.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “observe”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tradition → persons and predecessors), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (respected → avoid disapproval)]
13.15 “The actions that certain persons performed, and that other persons now recall with approval, continue to influence how persons around me act.”
[Standard English: “The good that men do lives after them.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (good → actions recalled with approval), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (men → certain persons)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
13.1 That book sits on the table.
13.2 I expect that what I observe will eventually match what others report.
13.3 That outcome matches what certain persons around me expect and will enforce.
13.4 The words that certain persons wrote, and that others with weapons enforce, sometimes prevent interference with my actions.
13.5 Many persons around me expect that persons whom officials label “citizens” will act as written rules specify.
13.6 That behavior matches what certain persons taught me as a child and what many persons around me now reinforce.
13.7 I observe that certain persons with weapons will harm me if I act against their commands.
13.8 Certain writers of books about past events claim that conditions will improve, and many persons repeat this claim.
13.9 I feel an urge that pulls me toward acting as certain persons expect, and I choose to follow that urge.
13.10 Acting with tenderness toward specific persons constitutes all that I value most.
13.11 Bodily contractions and refraining from action—that pattern occurs among many persons I observe, and some claim it slows certain changes.
13.12 Documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me—that comprises what certain persons wrote in a document they call “constitution,” and what other persons with weapons sometimes enforce.
13.13 That sensation I experience reflects what certain persons taught me to feel when considering certain actions.
13.14 Observe that certain persons will express disapproval if I act differently from how they and their predecessors acted.
13.15 The actions that certain persons performed, and that other persons now recall with approval, continue to influence how persons around me act.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “that” in E-Prime Max:
“That” operates in three primary grammatical roles:
Demonstrative pronoun/determiner: Points to something specific, often contrasted with “this” (near) versus “that” (far). Example: “That book on the far shelf.”
Relative pronoun: Introduces a relative clause that modifies a noun. Example: “The book that I read yesterday.” Interchangeable with “which” for things, though style guides often distinguish restrictive (that) from non-restrictive (which) clauses.
Subordinating conjunction: Introduces a noun clause, often after verbs of thinking, saying, or perceiving. Example: “I believe that she will arrive.”
“That” itself never requires E-Prime transformation—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “that” frequently appears in constructions that DO require E-Prime work:
“That is...” constructions: The demonstrative “that” combined with “is” requires transformation. “That is the answer” → “That constitutes the answer” or “That book contains the answer.”
Relative clauses with “to be”: “The book that is on the table” → “The book that sits on the table.”
Noun clauses with “to be”: “I know that he is tired” → “I know that he feels tired.”
“That” has HIGH spook proximity because it frequently introduces clauses where spooks hide as subjects or agents.
Common spook constructions with “that”:
“the law that governs” — “law” as agent “the truth that emerges” — “truth” as agent “the justice that demands” — “justice” as agent “the society that expects” — “society” as collective agent “that which freedom requires” — “freedom” as agent “the tradition that must continue” — “tradition” as commanding “the duty that calls” — “duty” as agent
The pattern: When “that” introduces a relative clause, check whether the modified noun functions as a spook-agent in the clause.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) with “that”:
Spook: “The society that expects conformity” Dissolved: “The many persons that express displeasure when I act differently”
Spook: “The state that demands obedience” Dissolved: “The persons with weapons that will harm me if I disobey”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) with “that”:
Spook: “The freedom that belongs to all” Dissolved: “The absence of interference that some persons experience”
Spook: “The justice that will prevail” Dissolved: “The outcome that certain persons with power will enforce”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure) with “that”:
Spook: “The morality that dictates our choices” Dissolved: “The training that certain persons gave us as children”
Spook: “The God that commands” Dissolved: “The being that persons who wrote certain old books invented”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution) with “that”:
Spook: “The fear that prevents me” Dissolved: “The bodily contraction that I experience”
Spook: “The love that compels me” Dissolved: “The tenderness that I feel and choose to act upon”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) with “that”:
Spook: “The criminals that society punishes” Dissolved: “The persons that officials label ‘criminal’ and that other persons with weapons confine”
Spook: “The citizens that have rights” Dissolved: “The persons that officials label ‘citizen’ and that certain documents describe”
Dissolving the wrong element: Students sometimes transform “that” when the spook hides elsewhere. In “I believe that justice will prevail,” the problem lies with “justice” and “prevail,” not with “that.”
Incomplete dissolution: “The law that governs” becomes “The law that certain persons enforce”—but “law” still remains somewhat abstract. Full dissolution: “The words that certain persons wrote and that others with weapons enforce.”
Missing nested spooks: “The duty that conscience demands” contains TWO spooks (duty, conscience). Both require dissolution: “The urge that I experience when recalling what certain persons taught me.”
Forgetting E-Prime within dissolved clauses: After dissolving spooks, check that the new clause still contains no “to be” forms.
Apply to every construction with “that”:
“Does the noun that ‘that’ modifies appear as an AGENT—something that demands, requires, commands, or acts?”
If YES: This noun functions as a spook. Dissolve it to persons acting, actions experienced, or labels attached.
If NO: The construction may pass without dissolution. “The book that I read” requires no spook dissolution—”book” acts as no agent.
Secondary test: “Could I discard this concept and the sentence would point to something concrete?”
“The justice that demands” — remove “justice” and nothing concrete remains. SPOOK. “The person that demands” — remove “person” and a concrete actor disappears. NOT SPOOK.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established General Semantics with his foundational insight: “The map does not equal the territory.” Language represents reality; it does not constitute reality. When we confuse our linguistic maps with the territory they describe, we fall into what Korzybski called “unsanity”—not insanity, but a subtle misalignment between language and experience.
D. David Bourland Jr. extended Korzybski’s work by proposing E-Prime: English without any form of “to be.” Bourland observed that “to be” creates false equations (”John is a failure”), masks agency (”mistakes were made”), and reifies transient states into permanent essences (”she is depressed” vs. “she feels depressed today”).
The word “that” often partners with “to be” in these problematic constructions. “That is the truth” treats truth as a thing that can be pointed to. “I know that he is guilty” embeds an identity claim within a knowledge claim.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Stirner traced how humans create abstractions, then forget they created them, then find themselves serving these abstractions as if they commanded with cosmic authority.
The haunting mechanism works as follows:
Creation: Persons observe patterns, generalize, and create abstract nouns. Many persons expect similar behaviors → “society” expects. Certain persons with weapons enforce rules → “the state” commands.
Forgetting: The origin in human action gets obscured. “Society” seems to exist independently. “The state” appears to command with inherent authority.
Possession: The abstraction now rides the person. “Society expects me to...” “The state demands that I...” The creator serves the creation.
“That” frequently introduces the very clauses where spooks appear most possessed: “the law that binds us,” “the truth that shall set you free,” “the duty that calls.”
E-Prime attacks predication: X IS Y. This breaks the false identity between a person and a label, between a map and territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: X DEMANDS/COMMANDS/REQUIRES. This breaks the false agency of abstractions, returning power to persons.
“That” sits at the intersection. As a relative pronoun, “that” introduces clauses that predicate actions of nouns. “The law that governs” predicates “governing” of “law.” E-Prime Max asks: can a law govern? No—only persons can govern, using words they call “law.”
Together, E-Prime and E-Prime Max constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline. Every sentence becomes an opportunity to ask: WHO acts here? WHO benefits from hiding that actor behind an abstraction?
When spooks dissolve from sentences containing “that”:
Persons acting appear where “society” seemed to act. “The society that condemns” → “The many persons that express disapproval.”
Written words and armed enforcers appear where “the law” seemed to command. “The law that prohibits” → “The words that certain persons wrote and that others with weapons enforce.”
Expectations and social pressure appear where “morality” seemed to judge. “The morality that requires” → “The training that certain persons gave me as a child.”
Power relations hidden by abstraction become visible. “The justice that will prevail” → WHO decides what counts as “just”? WHO will use force to impose their decision? The spook “justice” hid these questions. Dissolution exposes them.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone says “understand that the law requires this,” dissolution reveals: certain persons wrote these words, other persons with weapons will harm you if you disobey, and the speaker benefits from your compliance.
Resisting possession by concepts: The moment “that” introduces a spook-agent (”the duty that calls,” “the tradition that must continue”), pause. Ask: WHO benefits if I obey this “duty”? WHO created this “tradition”?
Reclaiming ownness: Transform “the fear that stops me” into “the sensation that I experience and that I can choose to act upon anyway.” Ownership returns. The spook loses its grip.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice in E-Prime Max creates new cognitive habits. Spook-constructions start to sound strange. When a politician says “history demands that we act,” the dissolution happens automatically: certain persons claim that we should act, and they benefit from our action.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The claim that “persons act” remains a simplification. For spook dissolution purposes, it usually suffices.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks. The word “that” happily introduces clauses for any priesthood’s favored abstractions.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complex dissolutions, showing off mastery of the technique, correcting others’ spook-usage with a sense of superiority, feeling more “awake” than those who speak in spooks. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands that we resist...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique uses words; words do not use the unique.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“Whence comes it that what I call my own is so hard to keep? I have it, and yet others lay claim to it. From the State I must accept as a loan what is supposedly mine, and am even thankful if this loan is secure. But the fact that others set up counter-claims to it springs from this, that I receive it as a fief and hold it only by the grace of others.”
E-Prime Max Version:
From where does it come that what I call my own remains so hard to keep? I have it, and yet others lay claim to it. From persons with weapons who call themselves “government” I must accept as a loan what supposedly belongs to me, and I even feel grateful if these persons secure this loan. But the fact that other persons set up counter-claims springs from this: that I receive it as a fief and hold it only by the grace that certain persons extend to me.
From where does it come that what I call my own remains so hard to keep? I have it, and yet others lay claim to it. From persons with weapons who call themselves “government” I must accept as a loan what supposedly belongs to me, and I even feel grateful if these persons secure this loan. But the fact that other persons set up counter-claims springs from this: that I receive it as a fief and hold it only by the grace that certain persons extend to me.
Spook dissolved:
“State” → “persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’”
The original Stirner passage already moves toward dissolution by questioning the “State’s” claim to grant what one supposedly owns. The E-Prime Max transformation completes the move: no “State” exists—only persons with weapons who label themselves and extend or withhold “grace.”
E-Prime transformations:
“is supposedly mine” → “supposedly belongs to me” (relational verb) “is secure” → “these persons secure” (active voice with concrete agent)
Revelation:
Stirner’s analysis becomes even sharper in E-Prime Max. The mystification of “the State” dissolves completely into: persons with weapons, labels they attach to themselves, grace they extend or withhold. “That” appears three times in the dissolution, each time connecting concrete persons and actions rather than abstractions and commands.
Stirner’s own prose, while brilliantly iconoclastic, still employs some spook-language (”the State,” “grace” as if it existed independently). The E-Prime Max transformation honors Stirner’s insight while completing the dissolution he began.
This demonstrates a crucial principle: no authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself. The methodology serves the student; the student does not serve the methodology or its founders.
The word “that” appears strategically in the dissolution—introducing clauses that now connect to persons with weapons, persons extending grace, persons making claims. Where Stirner’s original allowed “the State” to remain as a unified agent, the dissolution fragments it into the many persons whose actions constitute what we call “state.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining political concepts through E-Prime Max dissolution. Each example uses “that” while demonstrating how political spooks dissolve into persons acting.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy is the system that gives power to the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.16a A process exists that certain persons call “democracy,” wherein some persons mark papers and other persons count those marks, and the persons whose names receive the most marks then give commands that yet other persons enforce.
13.16b A (INDEF.ART) process (N-subj) exists (V-pres.EXIST) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “democracy” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[democracy→process.persons.call]), wherein (ADV-rel) some (DET) persons (N-subj) mark (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.papers]) papers (N-obj) and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) count (V-pres) those (PRON-dem) marks (N-obj), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[winners→persons.with.most.marks]) whose (PRON-poss) names (N) receive (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) most (DET) marks (N-obj) then (ADV-time) give (V-pres) commands (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) yet (ADV) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.who.enforce]) enforce (V-pres).
13.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “democracy” → process certain persons call by this name → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “power” → giving commands that others enforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “the people” → some persons who mark papers → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “gives” → persons mark, count, command, enforce → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → exists → E3
13.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “democracy” exists as an entity—only a process persons call by that name ∴ No “power” gets “given” to anyone—persons enforce commands ∴ “The people” dissolves into: some persons who mark papers ∴ “That” connects to concrete actions: calling, marking, enforcing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The constitution guarantees that all citizens enjoy equal rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.17a Certain persons wrote words that describe limits on what other persons with weapons may do, and some of those persons with weapons sometimes respect those limits when dealing with persons that officials label “citizens.”
13.17b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) describe (V-pres) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal), and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) those (PRON-dem) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N) sometimes (ADV-freq) respect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[guarantees→sometimes.respect]) those (PRON-dem) limits (N-obj) when (CONJ-temp) dealing (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) that (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label).
13.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “constitution” (as agent) → words certain persons wrote → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “guarantees” → sometimes respect → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “rights” → limits on what may be done → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “citizens” → persons officials label → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “equal” → [qualified by “sometimes”] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No document “guarantees” anything—persons sometimes respect words ∴ “Rights” reveals itself as: limits that may or may not be enforced ∴ “That” connects to concrete writing, labeling, respecting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government exists to protect the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.18a Certain persons that call themselves “government” claim that they act for the benefit of many persons, while in practice they often act for the benefit of themselves and those that pay them.
13.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.selves]) that (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) benefit (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[common.good→benefit]) of (PREP) many (DET) persons (N), while (CONJ-contr) in (PREP) practice (N) they (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) act (V-pres) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) benefit (N) of (PREP) themselves (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) that (PRON-rel) pay (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
13.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “government” → persons that call themselves by this name → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “common good” → benefit of many persons (their claim) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “exists to protect” → claim they act for → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “government” exists—only persons calling themselves that ∴ “Common good” becomes: their claim about whose benefit they serve ∴ “That” appears three times, each connecting to persons and their actions/claims
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Law and order must prevail so that civilization can continue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.19a Certain persons with weapons will continue harming persons that disobey written rules, so that the patterns of behavior that certain other persons prefer will persist.
13.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿continue (V-fut) harming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[prevail→harm.disobeyers]) persons (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) disobey (V-pres) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→rules]), so (CONJ-purp) that (CONJ-subord) the (DEF.ART) patterns (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[civilization→patterns]) of (PREP) behavior (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj) prefer (V-pres) will∿persist (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[continue→persist]).
13.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “law” → written rules + persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “order” → patterns that certain persons prefer → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “prevail” → continue harming disobeyers → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “civilization” → patterns of behavior → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Law and order” = written rules + armed enforcement ∴ “Civilization” = behavioral patterns that certain persons prefer ∴ “That” connects to concrete: disobeying, preferring, persisting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract binds us to obey laws that we ourselves created.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.20a Certain writers claimed that a contract exists that binds me to follow rules that persons I never met wrote, though I never signed anything and never met those writers.
13.20b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[social.contract→writers.who.claimed]) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ-subord) a (INDEF.ART) contract (N-subj) exists (V-pres.EXIST) that (PRON-rel) binds (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿follow (V-inf) rules (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) never (ADV-neg) met (V-past) wrote (V-past), though (CONJ-conc) I (PRON-subj) never (ADV-neg) signed (V-past) anything (PRON-indef) and (CONJ) never (ADV-neg) met (V-past) those (PRON-dem) writers (N-obj).
13.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “social contract” → claim certain writers made → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “binds us” → claimed to bind me → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “we ourselves created” → persons I never met wrote → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
13.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “social contract” exists—only claims by writers ∴ “We ourselves” dissolves: I never signed, I never met the authors ∴ “That” introduces clauses that expose the fiction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that the guilty pay for their crimes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.21a Many persons around me expect that persons that officials label “guilty” will experience suffering that other persons inflict, and many of those persons will feel satisfied when that suffering occurs.
13.21b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[guilty→persons.labeled]) that (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “guilty” (ADJ-label) will∿experience (V-fut) suffering (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pay→suffer]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) inflict (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) of (PREP) those (PRON-dem) persons (N) will∿feel (V-fut.STATE) satisfied (ADJ-pred) when (CONJ-temp) that (PRON-dem) suffering (N-subj) occurs (V-pres).
13.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “justice” → persons expecting and feeling satisfied → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “guilty” → persons officials label → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “pay for crimes” → experience suffering others inflict → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “demands” → expect → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” demands—persons expect suffering and feel satisfied ∴ “Guilty” = a label officials attach ∴ “That” appears five times, each connecting to persons, labels, suffering
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The will of the people must be respected.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.22a The preferences that some persons express through marks on papers—persons that other persons call “the people”—will influence what those in office do, or so the claim goes.
13.22b The (DEF.ART) preferences (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→preferences]) that (PRON-rel) some (DET) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) through (PREP) marks (N) on (PREP) papers (N)—persons (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[the.people→persons.called]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “the people” (N-label)—will∿influence (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respected→influence]) what (PRON-rel) those (PRON-dem) in (PREP) office (N) do (V-pres), or (CONJ) so (ADV) the (DEF.ART) claim (N) goes (V-pres).
13.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “will of the people” → preferences some persons express → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “the people” → persons others call by that name → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “respected” → will influence (or so claimed) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “must” → [qualified as claim] → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
13.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The people” = a label, not a unified agent with a “will” ∴ “Respected” dissolves into: maybe influences, or maybe not ∴ “That” connects to expressing preferences and attaching labels
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom is that which the constitution protects.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.23a The absence of interference that certain written words describe, and that persons with weapons sometimes refrain from causing—that comprises what some persons call “freedom.”
13.23b The (DEF.ART) absence (N-subj) of (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→absence.of.interference]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) written (ADJ) words (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→written.words]) describe (V-pres), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) sometimes (ADV-freq) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→refrain]) from (PREP) causing (V-pres.PART)—that (PRON-dem) comprises (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) some (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “freedom” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[freedom→what.persons.call]).
13.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “freedom” → absence of interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “constitution” → written words → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “protects” → persons sometimes refrain from interfering → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → comprises → E4
13.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Freedom” = absence of interference, which may or may not occur ∴ “Protects” dissolves: persons with weapons sometimes refrain ∴ “That” appears three times, each grounding the abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation that forgets its history is doomed to repeat it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.24a Persons that other persons group under a label “nation,” and that stop reading books about past events, may act in ways that resemble how persons in those books acted—or so certain writers claim.
13.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nation→persons.grouped.under.label]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) group (V-pres) under (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) label (N) “nation” (N-label), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) stop (V-pres) reading (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forgets→stop.reading]) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N), may∿act (V-modal) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) resemble (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[repeat→resemble]) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) those (PRON-dem) books (N) acted (V-past)—or (CONJ) so (ADV) certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.origin]) claim (V-pres).
13.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “nation” → persons grouped under that label → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “history” → books about past events → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “forgets” → stops reading → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “doomed to repeat” → may act similarly (claimed) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “is” → [eliminated with restructure] → E3
13.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” forgets—persons stop reading ∴ “History” = books that persons wrote about past events ∴ “Doomed” dissolves: a claim writers make, not inevitable fate ∴ “That” connects to concrete grouping, reading, resembling
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tyranny is that which liberty opposes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.25a The pattern that involves some persons commanding and others obeying under threat—that constitutes what certain persons call “tyranny,” and they claim that the absence of such commanding constitutes “liberty.”
13.25b The (DEF.ART) pattern (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tyranny→pattern]) that (PRON-rel) involves (V-pres) some (DET) persons (N-subj) commanding (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) others (N-subj) obeying (V-pres.PART) under (PREP) threat (N)—that (PRON-dem) constitutes (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “tyranny” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[tyranny→label]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) the (DEF.ART) absence (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[liberty→absence]) of (PREP) such (DET) commanding (N) constitutes (V-pres) “liberty” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[liberty→label]).
13.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “tyranny” → pattern of commanding under threat → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “liberty” → absence of such commanding → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “opposes” → [eliminated—abstractions cannot oppose] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → constitutes → E4
13.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Both “tyranny” and “liberty” dissolve into: patterns and labels ∴ No opposition between abstractions—only presence/absence of commanding ∴ “That” connects to concrete patterns, calling, claiming
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The authority that the state wields comes from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.26a The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to harm me if I disobey—some writers claim that this capacity depends on my agreement, though I never agreed and that capacity persists regardless.
13.26b The (DEF.ART) capacity (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→capacity]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) have (V-pres) to∿harm (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) disobey (V-pres)—some (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[claim.origin]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) this (PRON-dem) capacity (N-subj) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) my (PRON-poss) agreement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→agreement]), though (CONJ-conc) I (PRON-subj) never (ADV-neg) agreed (V-past) and (CONJ) that (PRON-dem) capacity (N-subj) persists (V-pres) regardless (ADV).
13.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “authority” → capacity to harm if I disobey → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “state” → persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “consent of the governed” → my agreement (never given) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ “wields” → have → E7 “comes from” → depends on (claimed) → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
13.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Authority” = capacity to harm—nothing more mystical ∴ “Consent” = a fiction writers claimed; I never actually consented ∴ “That” appears three times, each exposing the fiction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public interest requires that individual desires yield.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.27a Certain persons claim that my desires should yield to preferences that they attribute to many other persons, though those persons never expressed preferences that match what these certain persons describe.
13.27b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[claimers]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) my (PRON-poss) desires (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[individual→my]) should∿yield (V-modal) to (PREP) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[public.interest→preferences]) that (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) attribute (V-pres) to (PREP) many (DET) other (DET) persons (N), though (CONJ-conc) those (PRON-dem) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→persons]) never (ADV-neg) expressed (V-past) preferences (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) match (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) these (PRON-dem) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) describe (V-pres).
13.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “public interest” → preferences attributed to many persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “individual desires” → my desires → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ “requires” → certain persons claim → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
13.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “public interest” exists—only preferences attributed to others ∴ WHO attributes these preferences? WHO benefits when I yield? ∴ “That” appears three times, each exposing the attribution game
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rule of law ensures that no one is above justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.28a Written rules that certain persons enforce against some persons—though not against persons that those enforcers favor—create a pattern that certain persons call “rule of law.”
13.28b Written (ADJ) rules (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcers]) enforce (V-pres) against (PREP) some (DET) persons (N-obj)—though (CONJ-conc) not (ADV-neg) against (PREP) persons (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) those (PRON-dem) enforcers (N-subj) favor (V-pres)—create (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) pattern (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “rule of law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[rule.of.law→label]).
13.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “rule of law” → written rules selectively enforced → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “ensures” → [eliminated—selective enforcement revealed] → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “justice” → [eliminated—dissolved into enforcement patterns] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “no one above” → except those enforcers favor → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
13.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rule of law” = selective enforcement by persons with preferences ∴ “No one above justice” dissolves: enforcers favor some persons ∴ “That” connects to concrete enforcing, favoring, calling
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Sovereignty is that which no external power may violate.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.29a The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to exclude other persons with weapons from a territory—that constitutes what they call “sovereignty,” and that capacity depends on relative weapon strength.
13.29b The (DEF.ART) capacity (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sovereignty→capacity]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[sovereign→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) have (V-pres) to∿exclude (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) from (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) territory (N)—that (PRON-dem) constitutes (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “sovereignty” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sovereignty→label]), and (CONJ) that (PRON-dem) capacity (N-subj) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) relative (ADJ) weapon (N) strength (N).
13.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “sovereignty” → capacity to exclude using weapons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “external power” → other persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ “may not violate” → depends on weapon strength → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “is” → constitutes → E4
13.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Sovereignty” = weapon-based territorial exclusion ∴ “May not violate” dissolves: depends on who has more weapons ∴ “That” appears three times, grounding the abstraction in force
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The legitimacy that governments claim derives from serving the common welfare.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
13.30a The claim that persons calling themselves “government” make—that their commands merit obedience—rests on assertions that they serve many persons, assertions that those many persons cannot easily verify.
13.30b The (DEF.ART) claim (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[legitimacy→claim]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[governments→persons]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) make (V-pres)—that (CONJ-subord) their (PRON-poss) commands (N-subj) merit (V-pres) obedience (N-obj)—rests (V-pres) on (PREP) assertions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[derives→rests.on.assertions]) that (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) serve (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[common.welfare→serving.persons]), assertions (N) that (PRON-rel) those (PRON-dem) many (DET) persons (N-subj) cannot∿easily∿verify (V-modal-neg).
13.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY “legitimacy” → claim that commands merit obedience → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “governments” → persons calling themselves that → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ “common welfare” → serving many persons (asserted) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ “derives from” → rests on assertions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
13.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Legitimacy” = a claim, nothing inherent ∴ “Common welfare” = assertions difficult to verify ∴ “That” appears five times, each exposing claims, assertions, unverifiability
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
13.16 “A process exists that certain persons call ‘democracy,’ wherein some persons mark papers and other persons count those marks, and the persons whose names receive the most marks then give commands that yet other persons enforce.”
[Standard English: “Democracy is the system that gives power to the people.”]
13.17 “Certain persons wrote words that describe limits on what other persons with weapons may do, and some of those persons with weapons sometimes respect those limits when dealing with persons that officials label ‘citizens.’”
[Standard English: “The constitution guarantees that all citizens enjoy equal rights.”]
13.18 “Certain persons that call themselves ‘government’ claim that they act for the benefit of many persons, while in practice they often act for the benefit of themselves and those that pay them.”
[Standard English: “The government exists to protect the common good.”]
13.19 “Certain persons with weapons will continue harming persons that disobey written rules, so that the patterns of behavior that certain other persons prefer will persist.”
[Standard English: “Law and order must prevail so that civilization can continue.”]
13.20 “Certain writers claimed that a contract exists that binds me to follow rules that persons I never met wrote, though I never signed anything and never met those writers.”
[Standard English: “The social contract binds us to obey laws that we ourselves created.”]
13.21 “Many persons around me expect that persons that officials label ‘guilty’ will experience suffering that other persons inflict, and many of those persons will feel satisfied when that suffering occurs.”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that the guilty pay for their crimes.”]
13.22 “The preferences that some persons express through marks on papers—persons that other persons call ‘the people’—will influence what those in office do, or so the claim goes.”
[Standard English: “The will of the people must be respected.”]
13.23 “The absence of interference that certain written words describe, and that persons with weapons sometimes refrain from causing—that comprises what some persons call ‘freedom.’”
[Standard English: “Freedom is that which the constitution protects.”]
13.24 “Persons that other persons group under a label ‘nation,’ and that stop reading books about past events, may act in ways that resemble how persons in those books acted—or so certain writers claim.”
[Standard English: “The nation that forgets its history is doomed to repeat it.”]
13.25 “The pattern that involves some persons commanding and others obeying under threat—that constitutes what certain persons call ‘tyranny,’ and they claim that the absence of such commanding constitutes ‘liberty.’”
[Standard English: “Tyranny is that which liberty opposes.”]
13.26 “The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to harm me if I disobey—some writers claim that this capacity depends on my agreement, though I never agreed and that capacity persists regardless.”
[Standard English: “The authority that the state wields comes from the consent of the governed.”]
13.27 “Certain persons claim that my desires should yield to preferences that they attribute to many other persons, though those persons never expressed preferences that match what these certain persons describe.”
[Standard English: “Public interest requires that individual desires yield.”]
13.28 “Written rules that certain persons enforce against some persons—though not against persons that those enforcers favor—create a pattern that certain persons call ‘rule of law.’”
[Standard English: “The rule of law ensures that no one is above justice.”]
13.29 “The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to exclude other persons with weapons from a territory—that constitutes what they call ‘sovereignty,’ and that capacity depends on relative weapon strength.”
[Standard English: “Sovereignty is that which no external power may violate.”]
13.30 “The claim that persons calling themselves ‘government’ make—that their commands merit obedience—rests on assertions that they serve many persons, assertions that those many persons cannot easily verify.”
[Standard English: “The legitimacy that governments claim derives from serving the common welfare.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
13.16 A process exists that certain persons call “democracy,” wherein some persons mark papers and other persons count those marks, and the persons whose names receive the most marks then give commands that yet other persons enforce.
13.17 Certain persons wrote words that describe limits on what other persons with weapons may do, and some of those persons with weapons sometimes respect those limits when dealing with persons that officials label “citizens.”
13.18 Certain persons that call themselves “government” claim that they act for the benefit of many persons, while in practice they often act for the benefit of themselves and those that pay them.
13.19 Certain persons with weapons will continue harming persons that disobey written rules, so that the patterns of behavior that certain other persons prefer will persist.
13.20 Certain writers claimed that a contract exists that binds me to follow rules that persons I never met wrote, though I never signed anything and never met those writers.
13.21 Many persons around me expect that persons that officials label “guilty” will experience suffering that other persons inflict, and many of those persons will feel satisfied when that suffering occurs.
13.22 The preferences that some persons express through marks on papers—persons that other persons call “the people”—will influence what those in office do, or so the claim goes.
13.23 The absence of interference that certain written words describe, and that persons with weapons sometimes refrain from causing—that comprises what some persons call “freedom.”
13.24 Persons that other persons group under a label “nation,” and that stop reading books about past events, may act in ways that resemble how persons in those books acted—or so certain writers claim.
13.25 The pattern that involves some persons commanding and others obeying under threat—that constitutes what certain persons call “tyranny,” and they claim that the absence of such commanding constitutes “liberty.”
13.26 The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to harm me if I disobey—some writers claim that this capacity depends on my agreement, though I never agreed and that capacity persists regardless.
13.27 Certain persons claim that my desires should yield to preferences that they attribute to many other persons, though those persons never expressed preferences that match what these certain persons describe.
13.28 Written rules that certain persons enforce against some persons—though not against persons that those enforcers favor—create a pattern that certain persons call “rule of law.”
13.29 The capacity that certain persons with weapons have to exclude other persons with weapons from a territory—that constitutes what they call “sovereignty,” and that capacity depends on relative weapon strength.
13.30 The claim that persons calling themselves “government” make—that their commands merit obedience—rests on assertions that they serve many persons, assertions that those many persons cannot easily verify.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Political vocabulary dissolved in this section:
“Democracy” → a process persons call by this name, involving paper-marking and command-giving
“Constitution” → words certain persons wrote long ago
“Government” → persons who call themselves by this name
“Law” → written rules + persons who enforce them with weapons
“Social contract” → a claim certain writers made
“Justice” → expectations persons hold + suffering they inflict
“The people” → a label attached to some persons
“Freedom” → absence of interference (sometimes)
“Nation” → persons grouped under a label
“Tyranny” and “liberty” → patterns of commanding, or absence thereof
“Authority” → capacity to harm disobeyers
“Public interest” → preferences attributed to others
“Rule of law” → selective enforcement
“Sovereignty” → weapon-based territorial exclusion
“Legitimacy” → claims about deserving obedience
Pattern observed: Nearly every political term dissolves into one of three elements: persons with weapons, labels persons attach, claims persons make. The word “that” introduces clauses where these dissolutions become explicit.
The Stirnerian insight: Political philosophy consists largely of spooks created by certain persons to justify their command over others. Dissolving these spooks does not eliminate the commands—persons with weapons still exist—but it removes the mystification that makes commands appear legitimate.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences containing spooks and the topic word “that” into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “That is the nature of evil.”
E-Prime Max: “That pattern of behavior describes what certain persons label ‘evil’ and what they taught me to avoid.”
“is” → describes (E2)
Revelation: No “nature of evil” exists—only behaviors persons label and teachings they transmit.
2. Standard: “The destiny that awaits humanity cannot be escaped.”
E-Prime Max: “Whatever occurs to many persons in the future—that will occur, and no one can prevent it from occurring, or so certain persons claim.”
“cannot be escaped” → so certain persons claim (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “destiny” waits anywhere—only future events will occur. The claim of inevitability serves certain persons’ interests.
3. Standard: “I believe that God demands righteousness.”
E-Prime Max: “I hold a belief that a being whom certain persons invented commands behaviors that those same persons prefer.”
“righteousness” → behaviors those persons prefer (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO invented this being? WHO decided what “righteousness” means? The genealogy exposes human authors.
4. Standard: “That which the heart desires is what the soul needs.”
E-Prime Max: “That which I experience as desire in my body may coincide with that which I experience as fulfillment—or so certain persons claim when they use words like ‘soul.’”
“is” → may coincide with (E2 + epistemic hedge)
Revelation: No “heart” desires independently of me; no “soul” needs anything. I experience desires and fulfillments in my body.
5. Standard: “Reason tells us that morality must guide society.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons who call their preferences ‘reason’ claim that the expectations that they label ‘morality’ should influence how many persons around them act.”
“guide society” → influence how persons act (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Reason” does not speak—persons speak and call their speech “reason.” “Morality” does not guide—persons try to influence other persons’ behavior.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max language course developed by the Latinum Institute, which has created language learning materials for autodidacts since 2006. The Institute’s methodology emphasizes construed interlinear texts that make grammatical relationships visible, enabling students to internalize linguistic patterns through repeated exposure.
The E-Prime Max course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s philosophical critique of “spooks” (fixed ideas that possess thinkers). This synthesis creates a unique linguistic practice: students learn vocabulary and grammar while simultaneously training their capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons, actions, and experiences beneath.
Progressive difficulty (simple → complex sentences) builds competence gradually
How interlinear glossing accelerates comprehension: Students encounter each construction multiple times: in the dissolution map, in the natural sentence, and in the pure E-Prime Max text. This repetition creates cognitive grooves that make spook-free expression increasingly natural.
Complete grammatical apparatus and philosophical context
For course index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
For reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 13
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The English preposition for indicates purpose, benefit, reason, or exchange. In Standard English, speakers frequently combine “for” with abstract nouns—”for justice,” “for freedom,” “for the good of society”—creating constructions where spooks appear to demand sacrifice or action. E-Prime Max training requires particular vigilance with “for” because this small word often serves as the gateway through which reified abstractions enter speech.
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime (which eliminates all forms of “to be”) by additionally dissolving spooks—abstract nouns that function as possessing agents, demanding service from the persons who created them. When we say “I fight for freedom,” we speak as though “freedom” existed somewhere, waiting to receive our efforts. E-Prime Max asks: WHO acts? WHO benefits? What concrete actions and experiences hide behind the abstraction?
This lesson teaches vocabulary while training students to recognize when “for” precedes a spook and to dissolve that spook back into persons, actions, and bodies.
Spook Proximity Level: MEDIUM-HIGH
The word “for” commonly appears with moral spooks (justice, duty, the good), political spooks (the State, freedom, the people), and collective spooks (society, humanity, the common good). Nearly any sentence beginning “I do this for...” requires examination.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What function does “for” serve in E-Prime Max?
The preposition “for” indicates purpose, benefit, or exchange. In E-Prime Max, we preserve this function while dissolving any spooks that follow it. “For justice” becomes “for what certain persons expect.” “For the State” becomes “for persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government.’” The word “for” itself remains—only the spooks dissolve.
E-Prime rules still apply: no forms of “to be” in any construction
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I work for the company.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.1a I work for certain persons who pay me and call their organization “the company.”
14.1b I (PRON-subj) work (V-pres) for (PREP-benefit) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[company→persons.who.pay]) who (PRON-rel) pay (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) call (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) organization (N-obj) “the∿company” (N-label).
14.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
the company → certain persons who pay me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
14.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “company” exists to receive labor → only persons exist ∴ WHO pays? WHO directs? WHO benefits from the work? ∴ The label “company” masks specific persons with specific interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She fights for justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.2a She struggles for outcomes that certain persons around her expect and approve.
14.2b She (PRON-subj) struggles (V-pres) for (PREP-purpose) outcomes (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) and (CONJ) approve (V-pres).
14.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
fights → struggles → E-Prime: preserved (no “to be”)
14.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists anywhere to fight for ∴ Only persons with expectations exist ∴ WHO decides what counts as “justice”? WHO benefits from this definition? ∴ The abstraction dissolves → persons with interests remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They died for their country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.3a Persons with weapons killed them while they acted for other persons who lived in a region those persons called “their country.”
14.3b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) killed (V-past) them (PRON-obj) while (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) for (PREP-benefit) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.in.region]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) region (N) those (DET) persons (N-subj) called (V-past) “their∿country” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[country→labeled.region]).
14.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
died for → killed while acting for → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “country” exists to die for → only persons exist ∴ Persons killed other persons; some died while acting for persons in a region ∴ WHO labeled this region? WHO benefits from persons dying “for” it? ∴ The abstraction “country” hides which specific persons benefited from these deaths
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He did it for the good of society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.4a He acted for what certain persons around him claimed would benefit many persons.
14.4b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) for (PREP-purpose) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) claimed (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[good→claimed.benefit]) would∿benefit (V-cond) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]).
14.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“did it” → acted → stylistic (no E-Prime violation)
14.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to have a “good” → only persons exist ∴ “The good of society” = what certain persons CLAIM benefits many ∴ WHO makes this claim? WHO actually benefits? ∴ Double spook dissolved: “good” + “society” → persons claiming + persons affected
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I bought this gift for you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.5a I purchased this object for you.
14.5b I (PRON-subj) purchased (V-past) this (DET) object (N-obj) for (PREP-benefit) you (PRON-obj).
14.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
[no spooks present] → [none required] → —
14.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ “For you” specifies a concrete person → no dissolution needed ∴ Simple E-Prime compliance: no “to be” forms ∴ “For” serving its basic function without spook attachment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must sacrifice for freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.6a Certain persons expect us to give up things for the ability to act without interference from other persons.
14.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) us (PRON-obj) to∿give∿up (V-inf) things (N-obj) for (PREP-purpose) the (DEF.ART) ability (N) to∿act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj).
14.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
sacrifice → give up things → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists as a thing to sacrifice for ∴ “Freedom” = acting without interference from others ∴ WHO tells us we “must” sacrifice? WHO benefits from our giving up things? ∴ The moral imperative “must” dissolves into persons with expectations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State exists for the protection of its citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.7a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim they act for the safety of persons they label “citizens.”
14.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[exists.for→claim.they.act]) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) for (PREP-purpose) the (DEF.ART) safety (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protection→safety]) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label).
14.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
protection → safety → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” exists → only persons with weapons exist ∴ “Exists for” = a CLAIM made by those persons ∴ “Citizens” = a label attached by those same persons ∴ WHO benefits from this arrangement? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I waited for an hour.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.8a I remained in place for an hour.
14.8b I (PRON-subj) remained (V-past.STATE) in (PREP) place (N) for (PREP-duration) an (INDEF.ART) hour (N-time).
14.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
[no spooks present] → [none required] → —
14.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “For” indicates duration → concrete time measurement ∴ Simple E-Prime compliance achieved ∴ “Hour” functions as measurement, not as commanding agent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He speaks for the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.9a He claims to speak for many persons, though those persons never chose him to represent them.
14.9b He (PRON-subj) claims (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[speaks.for→claims.to.speak]) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP-behalf) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]), though (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) never (ADV) chose (V-past) him (PRON-obj) to∿represent (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
14.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
speaks for → claims to speak for → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (exposes claim)
14.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “people” (as unified agent) exists → only many persons exist ∴ “Speaking for the people” = a CLAIM one person makes ∴ WHO authorized this person to speak? WHO benefits from this claim? ∴ The collective spook “the people” hides that no such unified entity exists
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This medicine is good for your health.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.10a This medicine tends to benefit your body’s functioning.
14.10b This (DET) medicine (N-subj) tends (V-pres.PERCEPT) to∿benefit (V-inf) your (PRON-poss) body’s (N-poss) functioning (N-obj).
14.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
health → body’s functioning → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Health” as abstraction dissolved to “body’s functioning” ∴ E-Prime transformation: “is good for” → “tends to benefit” ∴ No spook-as-agent present after transformation ∴ “For” absorbed into verb “benefit” in E-Prime Max version
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love demands sacrifice for the beloved.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.11a When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give up things for that person.
14.11b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→I.feel.tenderness]) tenderness (N-obj) toward (PREP) someone (PRON), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[demands→I.choose]) to∿give∿up (V-inf) things (N-obj) for (PREP-benefit) that (DET) person (N-obj).
14.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
beloved → that person → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Love” cannot demand anything → only I can choose ∴ Reified emotion dissolved to first-person experience ∴ “For the beloved” → “for that person” (concrete) ∴ The spook “Love” no longer commands; I decide
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge us for our actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.12a Persons who write about past events in the future will evaluate what we do and form opinions for which we feel concern now.
14.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-time) will∿evaluate (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) and (CONJ) form (V-fut) opinions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→form.opinions]) for (PREP-reason) which (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres) concern (N-obj) now (ADV-time).
14.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
for our actions → for which we feel concern → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
14.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “History” cannot judge → only future persons can form opinions ∴ We feel concern NOW about what future persons will think ∴ WHO will write this “history”? WHO shapes future opinion? ∴ The spook “History” masks that specific persons will narrate events
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality requires us to act for others.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.13a Certain persons taught me rules they expect me to follow, including acting for the benefit of other persons.
14.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[morality→rules]) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[requires→they.expect]) me (PRON-obj) to∿follow (V-inf), including (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART) for (PREP-benefit) the (DEF.ART) benefit (N) of (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj).
14.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
for others → for the benefit of other persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Morality” cannot require anything → only persons can expect ∴ The rules came from specific persons with specific interests ∴ WHO taught these rules? WHO benefits from my compliance? ∴ The genealogical dissolution reveals the human origin of “moral requirements”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This law exists for the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.14a Certain persons wrote these words and persons with weapons enforce them, claiming they act for what benefits many persons.
14.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) these (DET) words (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→words]) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) them (PRON-obj), claiming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[exists.for→claiming]) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) for (PREP-purpose) what (PRON-rel) benefits (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→many.persons]).
14.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
common good → what benefits many persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists independently → only written words and enforcers exist ∴ “The common good” = a CLAIM about what benefits many ∴ WHO wrote the words? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits? ∴ Triple spook dissolved: law + exists + common good
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty calls—I must fight for my nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.15a I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and those persons expect me to harm others for the benefit of persons living in a region they label “my nation.”
14.15b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Duty.calls→I.feel.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→they.expect]) me (PRON-obj) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fight→harm]) others (PRON-obj) for (PREP-benefit) the (DEF.ART) benefit (N) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.in.region]) living (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) region (N) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[my.nation→labeled.region]) “my∿nation” (N-label).
14.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
my nation → persons living in a labeled region → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
14.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Duty” cannot call → I feel urges; others have expectations ∴ “Fight” operationalized → harming others ∴ “Nation” dissolved → persons in a labeled region ∴ WHO labeled this region? WHO expects me to harm others for it? ∴ Multiple spooks dissolved reveal: I have feelings; others have expectations; no duty, no nation commands anything
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
14.1 “I work for certain persons who pay me and call their organization ‘the company.’”
[Standard English: “I work for the company.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (company → persons who pay)]
14.2 “She struggles for outcomes that certain persons around her expect and approve.”
[Standard English: “She fights for justice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → outcomes persons expect)]
14.3 “Persons with weapons killed them while they acted for other persons who lived in a region those persons called ‘their country.’”
[Standard English: “They died for their country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (country → persons in labeled region)]
14.4 “He acted for what certain persons around him claimed would benefit many persons.”
[Standard English: “He did it for the good of society.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (society + good → persons claiming benefits)]
14.5 “I purchased this object for you.”
[Standard English: “I bought this gift for you.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks)]
14.6 “Certain persons expect us to give up things for the ability to act without interference from other persons.”
[Standard English: “We must sacrifice for freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (must → persons expect) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
14.7 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ claim they act for the safety of persons they label ‘citizens.’”
[Standard English: “The State exists for the protection of its citizens.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-existence verb eliminated via rephrasing]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons) + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → labeled persons) + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (exists for → claim)]
14.8 “I remained in place for an hour.”
[Standard English: “I waited for an hour.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks)]
14.9 “He claims to speak for many persons, though those persons never chose him to represent them.”
[Standard English: “He speaks for the people.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons) + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (speaks for → claims to speak for)]
14.10 “This medicine tends to benefit your body’s functioning.”
[Standard English: “This medicine is good for your health.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-existence + E2-perception (is good for → tends to benefit)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (health → body’s functioning)]
14.11 “When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give up things for that person.”
[Standard English: “Love demands sacrifice for the beloved.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Love demands → I feel, I choose) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → give up things)]
14.12 “Persons who write about past events in the future will evaluate what we do and form opinions for which we feel concern now.”
[Standard English: “History will judge us for our actions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → evaluate, form opinions)]
14.13 “Certain persons taught me rules they expect me to follow, including acting for the benefit of other persons.”
[Standard English: “Morality requires us to act for others.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality requires → persons taught me rules they expect)]
14.14 “Certain persons wrote these words and persons with weapons enforce them, claiming they act for what benefits many persons.”
[Standard English: “This law exists for the common good.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-existence eliminated via rephrasing]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons who wrote + persons who enforce) + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (exists for → claiming) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (common good → what benefits many)]
14.15 “I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and those persons expect me to harm others for the benefit of persons living in a region they label ‘my nation.’”
[Standard English: “Duty calls—I must fight for my nation.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Duty calls → I feel urge) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (must → they expect; nation → persons in region) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (fight → harm) + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (nation → labeled region)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
14.1 I work for certain persons who pay me and call their organization “the company.”
14.2 She struggles for outcomes that certain persons around her expect and approve.
14.3 Persons with weapons killed them while they acted for other persons who lived in a region those persons called “their country.”
14.4 He acted for what certain persons around him claimed would benefit many persons.
14.5 I purchased this object for you.
14.6 Certain persons expect us to give up things for the ability to act without interference from other persons.
14.7 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim they act for the safety of persons they label “citizens.”
14.8 I remained in place for an hour.
14.9 He claims to speak for many persons, though those persons never chose him to represent them.
14.10 This medicine tends to benefit your body’s functioning.
14.11 When I feel tenderness toward someone, I often choose to give up things for that person.
14.12 Persons who write about past events in the future will evaluate what we do and form opinions for which we feel concern now.
14.13 Certain persons taught me rules they expect me to follow, including acting for the benefit of other persons.
14.14 Certain persons wrote these words and persons with weapons enforce them, claiming they act for what benefits many persons.
14.15 I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and those persons expect me to harm others for the benefit of persons living in a region they label “my nation.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern for in E-Prime Max:
The preposition for performs multiple grammatical functions:
Purpose/Goal: “I work for money” (indicates why) Benefit: “This gift comes for you” (indicates recipient of benefit) Duration: “I waited for three hours” (indicates time span) Exchange: “I traded my car for his truck” (indicates swap) Representation: “She speaks for the committee” (indicates on behalf of) Support: “I voted for the candidate” (indicates allegiance) Reason: “He went to prison for robbery” (indicates cause)
The word “for” itself requires no E-Prime transformation—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “for” commonly appears in constructions that DO require E-Prime transformation:
Pattern requiring transformation: “X is for Y”
Standard: “This medicine is for pain.” E-Prime Max: “This medicine tends to reduce pain sensations.”
Standard: “The meeting is for Tuesday.” E-Prime Max: “The meeting occurs on Tuesday.”
“was for” → “served” / “benefited”
HIGH PROXIMITY: “For” frequently precedes spooks:
“for honor” → for what certain persons will think of me
“for democracy” → for a system where persons vote on decisions
“for posterity” → for persons who will live in the future
“for fear” → because my body contracts
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“I sacrifice for society” → “I give up things for many persons around me”
“He died for his country” → “Persons killed him while he acted for persons living in a region labeled ‘his country’”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“She fights for freedom” → “She struggles for the ability to act without interference from others”
“They work for justice” → “They work for outcomes that match what certain persons expect”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical):
“This law exists for our protection” → “Persons wrote these words and enforce them, claiming they act for our safety”
“Morality calls for sacrifice” → “Certain persons taught us rules calling for giving things up”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership):
“Love calls for sacrifice” → “When I feel tenderness, I choose to give things up for that person”
“Fear makes me act for safety” → “When my body contracts, I act for my own comfort”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“I fight for my nation” → “I harm others for persons in a region labeled ‘my nation’”
“He votes for the citizens” → “He votes for persons labeled ‘citizens’”
Correct: “I struggle for outcomes certain persons expect.”
Correct: Keep “for” and dissolve what follows it
Correct: “I work for certain persons who pay me”
Correct: “I fight for what I observe and others report”
Correct: Leave concrete, non-spook uses unchanged
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Can I discard my commitment to X without guilt?
If X appears as an independent agent that demands service, X functions as a spook. Dissolve it.
If X serves as a convenient label YOU control and can discard, it may remain—but watch for subtle possession.
Example test:
Result: “Money” here serves as shorthand I control → permitted
Result: “Justice” functions as spook → dissolve it
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics on the principle that “the map does not equal the territory.” Human nervous systems create abstractions from sensory experience, then treat those abstractions as though they represented reality directly. The verb “to be” particularly encourages this confusion by equating things with their labels (”John IS a criminal”) or asserting identity where none exists (”This IS good”).
D. David Bourland Jr. (1928-2000) proposed E-Prime as a discipline to combat this confusion. By eliminating all forms of “to be,” speakers must specify relationships more precisely: “John broke the law” instead of “John is a criminal”; “I experience this as pleasant” instead of “This is good.”
Max Stirner (1806-1856) identified what he called “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas”—abstractions that come to possess the minds that created them. In his work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Stirner traced how humans create concepts (God, State, Humanity, Justice, Freedom), then forget their human origin, and finally submit to them as though they existed independently and commanded obedience.
The haunting mechanism operates in three stages:
Stage 1 - Creation: Persons observe patterns, generalize, and create abstract nouns (”justice,” “the State,” “humanity”)
Stage 2 - Forgetting: Persons forget that THEY created these abstractions; the abstractions appear to exist independently
Stage 3 - Submission: The abstractions now appear to DEMAND service; persons feel obligated to sacrifice “for justice,” die “for the nation,” work “for the common good”
Stirner’s concept of “ownness” (Eigenheit) describes the condition of a person who has dissolved these spooks and reclaimed their creative power. The owner uses concepts as tools, discarding them when no longer useful. The owned serves concepts as masters, feeling guilt when disobedient.
E-Prime attacks predication (X IS Y)—the identification of things with labels, the confusion of maps with territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification (X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS)—the treatment of abstractions as commanding agents.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline:
E-Prime dissolves: “He is a criminal” → “Courts convicted him” E-Prime Max dissolves: “Justice demands punishment” → “Certain persons expect confinement”
The preposition “for” becomes a critical site of intervention because it so often links persons to spooks: “I act FOR justice,” “She died FOR freedom,” “We sacrifice FOR the nation.” By requiring dissolution of what follows “for,” E-Prime Max exposes WHO benefits and WHO acts behind the abstraction.
When spooks following “for” dissolve, we discover:
Persons acting where “society” seemed to demand Weapons and threats where “law” seemed to command Expectations and approvals where “morality” seemed to judge Labeled regions where “nations” seemed to exist Claims and assertions where “truths” seemed to reside
The dissolution reveals power relations hidden by abstraction. When someone says “Act for the common good,” spook dissolution asks: WHO defined this “common good”? WHO benefits from your compliance? WHO holds power in this arrangement?
Recognizing manipulation: When persons in power invoke spooks (”for national security,” “for the greater good,” “for justice”), dissolution reveals their interests behind the abstraction.
Resisting possession: When you feel compelled to sacrifice “for” something, dissolution asks whether YOU serve the concept or it serves you.
Reclaiming ownness: Through sustained practice, dissolution becomes automatic. You no longer hear “freedom demands” without immediately asking “WHO expects what from me?”
The reprogramming effect: Language shapes thought. By consistently dissolving spooks, you gradually become incapable of being possessed by them. The abstractions return to their proper status as tools you created and can discard.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The bedrock shifts depending on purpose.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks when the abstraction commands.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head! You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you. You have a fixed idea!”
—Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “Man, your head is haunted; you have wheels in your head!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Person, abstractions occupy your mind; confusing thoughts spin within you!
F.1b Person (N-vocative ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[Man→Person]), abstractions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[haunted→occupied]) occupy (V-pres.EXIST) your (PRON-poss) mind (N-obj); confusing (ADJ) thoughts (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[wheels→thoughts]) spin (V-pres) within (PREP) you (PRON-obj)!
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
wheels in your head → confusing thoughts spin → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (metaphor operationalized)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “You imagine great things, and depict to yourself a whole world of gods that has an existence for you, a spirit-realm to which you suppose yourself to be called, an ideal that beckons to you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.2a You imagine great things, and you picture for yourself a whole collection of god-concepts that seem to exist for you—a domain of spirits to which you feel called, an ideal that seems to beckon you.
F.2b You (PRON-subj) imagine (V-pres) great (ADJ) things (N-obj), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) picture (V-pres) for (PREP-benefit) yourself (PRON-refl) a (INDEF.ART) whole (ADJ) collection (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[world→collection]) of (PREP) god-concepts (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[gods→concepts.persons.created]) that (PRON-rel) seem (V-pres.PERCEPT) to∿exist (V-inf) for (PREP-benefit) you (PRON-obj)—a (INDEF.ART) domain (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[realm→domain]) of (PREP) spirits (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[spirits→concepts]) to (PREP) which (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[suppose→feel]) called (ADJ-pred), an (INDEF.ART) ideal (N) that (PRON-rel) seems (V-pres.PERCEPT) to∿beckon (V-inf) you (PRON-obj).
F.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
beckons to you → seems to beckon you → E2-perception
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “You have a fixed idea!”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.3a A fixed idea possesses you!
F.3b A (INDEF.ART) fixed (ADJ) idea (N-subj) possesses (V-pres) you (PRON-obj)!
F.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
have → possesses (inverted for clarity) → stylistic
F.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s own language required E-Prime transformation ∴ “is haunted” → “abstractions occupy” (eliminates “to be”) ∴ “has an existence” → “seems to exist” (adds epistemic modesty) ∴ “suppose yourself to be” → “feel” (eliminates “to be,” adds ownership) ∴ The passage describes exactly what E-Prime Max combats: being possessed by abstractions created FOR oneself ∴ Note “for” appears naturally in Stirner’s description of possession
Person, abstractions occupy your mind; confusing thoughts spin within you! You imagine great things, and you picture for yourself a whole collection of god-concepts that seem to exist for you—a domain of spirits to which you feel called, an ideal that seems to beckon you. A fixed idea possesses you!
This passage from Stirner’s The Unique and Its Property describes the mechanism of spook possession. Notice how “for you” functions twice: first in “a whole world of gods that has an existence FOR you” and second implicitly in the creation of these imaginary realms.
Stirner identifies the key move: we CREATE abstractions FOR ourselves, then FORGET we created them, then feel CALLED by them as though they existed independently. The “for” relationship inverts: what began as existing “for you” (serving you) becomes something you exist “for” (serving it).
The E-Prime Max transformation preserves Stirner’s insight while eliminating forms of “to be” that Stirner himself used. This demonstrates that no authority—not even Stirner—remains sacred. The discipline applies to all language, including the language of the discipline’s philosophical sources.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples examine political rhetoric through E-Prime Max dissolution, focusing on how “for” links speakers to collective spooks.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government works for the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.16a Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” claim they act for many persons they label “the people.”
14.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “the∿government” (N-label) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[works.for→claim]) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) for (PREP-benefit) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “the∿people” (N-label).
14.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
the people → many persons they label → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
14.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO makes the claim? WHO holds the weapons? WHO attached the labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We fight for democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.17a We harm others for a system where many persons vote on decisions.
14.17b We (PRON-subj) harm (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fight→harm]) others (PRON-obj) for (PREP-purpose) a (INDEF.ART) system (N) where (ADV-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) vote (V-pres) on (PREP) decisions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→voting.system]).
14.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
democracy → system where persons vote → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Fight” operationalized reveals violence; “democracy” operationalized reveals a procedure
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This policy exists for national security.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.18a Certain persons created this policy and claim it functions for the safety of persons living in a region they call “the nation.”
14.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[policy→persons.created]) created (V-past) this (DET) policy (N-obj) and (CONJ) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) it (PRON-subj) functions (V-pres.REL) for (PREP-purpose) the (DEF.ART) safety (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[security→safety]) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[national→persons.in.region]) living (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) region (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “the∿nation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
14.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
nation → labeled region → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
14.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO created the policy? WHO defines “security”? WHO labeled the region?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I vote for change.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.19a I mark a ballot for a candidate whom I expect will alter current arrangements.
14.19b I (PRON-subj) mark (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) ballot (N-obj) for (PREP-support) a (INDEF.ART) candidate (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) will∿alter (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[change→alter]) current (ADJ) arrangements (N-obj).
14.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
change (abstract) → alter current arrangements → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Change” as abstraction dissolved → specific alterations by a specific person
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution happened for liberty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.20a Certain persons violently overthrew other persons who held power, claiming they acted for the ability of many persons to act without interference.
14.20b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolution→persons.who.overthrew]) violently (ADV) overthrew (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revolution→overthrow]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) held (V-past) power (N-obj), claiming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[happened.for→claiming]) they (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) for (PREP-purpose) the (DEF.ART) ability (N) of (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[liberty→acting.without.interference]).
14.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
liberty → acting without interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO overthrew whom? WHO claimed what purpose? WHO actually acts without interference now?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She campaigns for equality.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.21a She speaks to crowds for a condition where certain persons no longer receive more than others receive.
14.21b She (PRON-subj) speaks (V-pres) to (PREP) crowds (N-obj) for (PREP-purpose) a (INDEF.ART) condition (N) where (ADV-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) no∿longer (ADV) receive (V-pres) more (DET) than (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) receive (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equality→receiving.same]).
14.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
equality → condition where persons receive same → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Equality” operationalized → specific distribution among specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law provides for punishment of criminals.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.22a Words that certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will confine persons labeled “criminals.”
14.22b Words (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→words]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) wrote (V-past) specify (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[provides.for→specify]) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿confine (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confine]) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled]) labeled (V-past.PART) “criminals” (N-label).
14.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
criminals → persons labeled → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
14.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” provides anything → persons wrote words; other persons enforce them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He resigned for the good of the party.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.23a He stopped holding his position for what certain persons claimed would benefit persons who call themselves “party members.”
14.23b He (PRON-subj) stopped (V-past) holding (V-pres.PART) his (PRON-poss) position (N-obj) for (PREP-purpose) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) claimed (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[good→claimed.benefit]) would∿benefit (V-cond) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[party→persons]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “party∿members” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
14.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
party → persons calling themselves “party members” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
14.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO claimed this would benefit whom? WHO actually benefits from his departure?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens must pay taxes for public services.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.24a Persons labeled “citizens” face expectations from persons with weapons to transfer money for services those armed persons provide.
14.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) labeled (V-past.PART) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→expectations]) from (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿transfer (V-inf) money (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pay.taxes→transfer.money]) for (PREP-exchange) services (N-obj) those (DET) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→those.persons]) provide (V-pres).
14.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
public → provided by those persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
14.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Must” dissolved → persons with weapons create the expectation ∴ “Public” dissolved → specific persons provide specific services
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution stands for our rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.25a Certain persons wrote words on old paper that other persons with weapons now claim to enforce for limits they place on what they do to us.
14.25b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Constitution→words]) on (PREP) old (ADJ) paper (N) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) now (ADV) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[stands.for→claim]) to∿enforce (V-inf) for (PREP-purpose) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) they (PRON-subj) place (V-pres) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) to (PREP) us (PRON-obj).
14.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
rights → limits on what they do to us → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rights” operationalized → limits certain persons (sometimes) observe ∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO enforces them (or claims to)?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She advocates for human rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.26a She speaks publicly for limits that certain persons might place on what they do to other persons.
14.26b She (PRON-subj) speaks (V-pres) publicly (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[advocates→speaks.publicly]) for (PREP-support) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) might∿place (V-cond) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) to (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human→persons]).
14.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
human → other persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
14.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rights” = proposed limits; “human” = other persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The war was fought for freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.27a Persons with weapons harmed and killed other persons, claiming they acted for the ability of certain persons to act without interference.
14.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[war→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) harmed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[war.fought→harmed.killed]) and (CONJ) killed (V-past) other (DET) persons (N-obj), claiming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) they (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) for (PREP-purpose) the (DEF.ART) ability (N) of (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) to∿act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]).
14.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
for freedom → claiming they acted for ability to act without interference → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “War” dissolved → persons killing persons ∴ “For freedom” → a claim made about purpose; WHOSE freedom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He stands for traditional values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.28a He publicly supports for patterns of behavior that certain persons in the past practiced and that certain persons now claim we should follow.
14.28b He (PRON-subj) publicly (ADV) supports (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stands.for→supports]) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→patterns]) of (PREP) behavior (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[traditional→past.persons]) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) past (N) practiced (V-past) and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) now (ADV) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) we (PRON-subj) should∿follow (V-cond).
14.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
values → patterns of behavior → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
14.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Values” = patterns persons practiced; “traditional” = persons in the past ∴ WHO claims we should follow? WHO benefits from our compliance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This regulation exists for consumer protection.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.29a Certain persons wrote this rule; persons with weapons enforce it; those persons claim they act for preventing harm to persons who purchase things.
14.29b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[regulation→persons.wrote]) wrote (V-past) this (DET) rule (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[regulation→rule]); persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) it (PRON-obj); those (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[exists.for→claim]) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) for (PREP-purpose) preventing (V-pres.PART) harm (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protection→preventing.harm]) to (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[consumers→persons]) who (PRON-rel) purchase (V-pres) things (N-obj).
14.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
consumers → persons who purchase → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Regulation” dissolved → written rule + enforcers ∴ “Consumers” dissolved → persons performing an action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The treaty was signed for lasting peace.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
14.30a Certain persons wrote their names on paper, claiming they did so for a condition where persons with weapons would refrain from harming each other over extended time.
14.30b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[treaty→persons.who.signed]) wrote (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[signed→wrote.names]) their (PRON-poss) names (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N), claiming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) they (PRON-subj) did (V-past) so (ADV) for (PREP-purpose) a (INDEF.ART) condition (N) where (ADV-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) weapons (N) would∿refrain (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[peace→refraining.from.harm]) from (PREP) harming (V-pres.PART) each∿other (PRON-recip) over (PREP) extended (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[lasting→extended]) time (N).
14.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
lasting → extended time → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
14.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Treaty” dissolved → names on paper; “peace” dissolved → persons refraining from harm ∴ WHO signed? WHO refrains (or doesn’t)? WHO benefits from this arrangement?
14.16 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘the government’ claim they act for many persons they label ‘the people.’”
[Standard English: “The government works for the people.”]
14.17 “We harm others for a system where many persons vote on decisions.”
[Standard English: “We fight for democracy.”]
14.18 “Certain persons created this policy and claim it functions for the safety of persons living in a region they call ‘the nation.’”
[Standard English: “This policy exists for national security.”]
14.19 “I mark a ballot for a candidate whom I expect will alter current arrangements.”
[Standard English: “I vote for change.”]
14.20 “Certain persons violently overthrew other persons who held power, claiming they acted for the ability of many persons to act without interference.”
[Standard English: “The revolution happened for liberty.”]
14.21 “She speaks to crowds for a condition where certain persons no longer receive more than others receive.”
[Standard English: “She campaigns for equality.”]
14.22 “Words that certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will confine persons labeled ‘criminals.’”
[Standard English: “The law provides for punishment of criminals.”]
14.23 “He stopped holding his position for what certain persons claimed would benefit persons who call themselves ‘party members.’”
[Standard English: “He resigned for the good of the party.”]
14.24 “Persons labeled ‘citizens’ face expectations from persons with weapons to transfer money for services those armed persons provide.”
[Standard English: “Citizens must pay taxes for public services.”]
14.25 “Certain persons wrote words on old paper that other persons with weapons now claim to enforce for limits they place on what they do to us.”
[Standard English: “The Constitution stands for our rights.”]
14.26 “She speaks publicly for limits that certain persons might place on what they do to other persons.”
[Standard English: “She advocates for human rights.”]
14.27 “Persons with weapons harmed and killed other persons, claiming they acted for the ability of certain persons to act without interference.”
[Standard English: “The war was fought for freedom.”]
14.28 “He publicly supports patterns of behavior that certain persons in the past practiced and that certain persons now claim we should follow.”
[Standard English: “He stands for traditional values.”]
14.29 “Certain persons wrote this rule; persons with weapons enforce it; those persons claim they act for preventing harm to persons who purchase things.”
[Standard English: “This regulation exists for consumer protection.”]
14.30 “Certain persons wrote their names on paper, claiming they did so for a condition where persons with weapons would refrain from harming each other over extended time.”
[Standard English: “The treaty was signed for lasting peace.”]
14.16 Persons with weapons who call themselves “the government” claim they act for many persons they label “the people.”
14.17 We harm others for a system where many persons vote on decisions.
14.18 Certain persons created this policy and claim it functions for the safety of persons living in a region they call “the nation.”
14.19 I mark a ballot for a candidate whom I expect will alter current arrangements.
14.20 Certain persons violently overthrew other persons who held power, claiming they acted for the ability of many persons to act without interference.
14.21 She speaks to crowds for a condition where certain persons no longer receive more than others receive.
14.22 Words that certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will confine persons labeled “criminals.”
14.23 He stopped holding his position for what certain persons claimed would benefit persons who call themselves “party members.”
14.24 Persons labeled “citizens” face expectations from persons with weapons to transfer money for services those armed persons provide.
14.25 Certain persons wrote words on old paper that other persons with weapons now claim to enforce for limits they place on what they do to us.
14.26 She speaks publicly for limits that certain persons might place on what they do to other persons.
14.27 Persons with weapons harmed and killed other persons, claiming they acted for the ability of certain persons to act without interference.
14.28 He publicly supports patterns of behavior that certain persons in the past practiced and that certain persons now claim we should follow.
14.29 Certain persons wrote this rule; persons with weapons enforce it; those persons claim they act for preventing harm to persons who purchase things.
14.30 Certain persons wrote their names on paper, claiming they did so for a condition where persons with weapons would refrain from harming each other over extended time.
Political Rhetoric and “For”
The genre section demonstrates how “for” functions as the primary connector between speakers and political spooks. Nearly every political claim follows the pattern: “We act FOR [abstraction].” The E-Prime Max dissolutions reveal:
Pattern 1: Claimed Purpose “For democracy/freedom/justice” → persons with weapons claim they act for [operationalized abstraction]
The word “claiming” appears frequently because political rhetoric rarely describes observable actions—it describes asserted purposes. By adding “claiming,” we mark that someone SAYS they act for something, without accepting that claim as fact.
Pattern 2: The Government/People Exchange “Government works FOR the people” → persons with weapons claim they act FOR persons they label
Both terms dissolve: “government” to persons with weapons; “the people” to many persons or persons labeled. The “for” relationship becomes visible as a CLAIM made by one set of persons about another.
Pattern 3: Hidden Violence “Fight/war/revolution FOR X” → harm/kill FOR [operationalized abstraction]
Dissolving “fight” and “war” reveals the violence hidden by these terms. Dissolving what follows “for” reveals that violence occurs FOR claims made by persons about abstract benefits.
Pattern 4: Legal/Constitutional Authority “Law/Constitution provides FOR X” → written words + persons who enforce claim they act FOR X
No “law” provides anything; persons wrote words, other persons enforce them. The “for” marks their claimed purpose. “Rights” dissolve to limits that some persons (sometimes) observe.
Common Dissolution Patterns in Political Contexts:
“values” → “patterns of behavior certain persons practiced”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “The organization exists for the benefit of its members.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons created this organization and claim it functions for the benefit of persons who call themselves “members.”
benefit → [retained as concrete noun, not agent]
Revelation: No “organization” exists independently. Only persons exist who created an arrangement and make claims about whom it benefits.
Exercise 2
Standard: “Justice demands that we fight for equality.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons expect us to struggle for a condition where persons no longer receive more than others receive.
equality → condition where persons receive same (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Justice” cannot demand anything. Certain persons have expectations. “Equality” names a condition where specific distributions change.
Exercise 3
Standard: “He was punished for his crimes against society.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons confined him for actions that other persons labeled “crimes” and claimed harmed many persons around them.
against society → claimed to harm many persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “crimes” exist; only labeled actions. No “society” suffers harm; only persons claim harm occurred. Persons with weapons did the confining.
Exercise 4
Standard: “This charity works for the homeless.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons in this organization provide services for persons without permanent shelter.
the homeless → persons without permanent shelter (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: “Charity” dissolved to specific persons taking specific actions. “Homeless” dissolved from label to description of condition.
Exercise 5
Standard: “Duty requires sacrifice for the greater good.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons expect me to give up things for what they claim benefits more persons than it harms.
greater good → what they claim benefits more persons than it harms (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Duty” cannot require anything. WHO expects sacrifice? WHO defines “greater good”? WHO benefits from your giving things up? The dissolution reveals persons making claims about comparative benefits.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max course, a 1000-lesson vocabulary-building program that combines traditional language instruction with Stirnerian consciousness practice.
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidact learners worldwide. The methodology emphasizes construed text—interlinear presentation that allows learners to see grammatical structures while reading naturally.
E-Prime Max represents a synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating abstract agents). This synthesis creates a linguistic discipline that attacks both predication and reification, training speakers to see persons and actions where abstractions previously seemed to command.
The course follows a CSV-based progression through the 1000 most common English words, demonstrating E-Prime Max usage for each word while building vocabulary and dissolution skills simultaneously.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
@ᶠᴵᴺᴬᴸ.ᵂᴬᴿᴺᴵᴺᴳ
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 14
✓ Lesson 14 E-Prime Max complete
Definition: The English verb “do” functions both as a main verb (expressing action or performance) and as an auxiliary verb (forming questions, negatives, and emphatic statements). In E-Prime Max, “do” presents a critical opportunity: it assigns AGENCY, and E-Prime Max insists that agency belong to PERSONS, never to abstractions.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What role does “do” play in E-Prime Max?
The verb “do” frequently appears in constructions where spooks masquerade as agents: “Society does not permit,” “Justice does not sleep,” “Duty does not allow exceptions.” E-Prime Max dissolves these constructions by restoring agency to specific persons acting. When we ask “WHO does?” instead of accepting that abstractions “do” things, we pierce the veil that hides power relations.
In this lesson, you will practice using “do” exclusively with PERSONS as agents, while dissolving the spooks that commonly colonize “do” constructions in standard English.
Watch for emotional spooks: “Love does strange things” dissolves to “I act strangely when I feel tenderness”
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society does not tolerate deviance.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.1a Many persons around me do not tolerate when I act differently from their expectations.
15.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) tolerate (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) their (PRON-poss) expectations (N-obj).
15.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Society │ many persons around me │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ deviance │ acting differently from expectations │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ tolerate │ [concrete verb—no change needed] │ — │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists anywhere — only persons with expectations ∴ “Deviance” dissolves — only acting differently from what certain persons expect ∴ WHO holds these expectations? WHO enforces them? ∴ The abstraction “society” hides specific persons who benefit from conformity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice does not sleep.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.2a Persons who call themselves “prosecutors” and “judges” do not stop pursuing persons they have labeled “criminal.”
15.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.with.titles]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “prosecutors” (N-label) and (CONJ) “judges” (N-label) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) stop (V-inf) pursuing (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) have∿labeled (V-perf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminal→labeled]) “criminal” (N-label).
15.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Justice │ persons calling themselves X │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ sleep (metaphor)│ stop pursuing │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ criminal │ persons labeled "criminal" │ D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists that could sleep or wake ∴ Only persons with weapons and titles persist in their pursuit ∴ “Criminal” appears as a label attached by specific persons ∴ WHO benefits from the claim that “justice never sleeps”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does love do to a person?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.3a What do I do differently when I feel strong tenderness toward another person?
15.3b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX-interrog) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→I.feel]) do (V-inf) differently (ADV-manner) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) strong (ADJ) tenderness (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness.felt]) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N-obj)?
15.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ love (as agent) │ I feel strong tenderness │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ to a person │ when I feel toward another │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” exists as agent that “does” things to persons ∴ I experience feelings → I then act → the action comes from ME ∴ Attributing agency to “love” hides my own choices
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear does terrible things.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.4a When my body contracts and my heart races, I do things I later regret.
15.4b When (CONJ-time) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracts (V-pres) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) heart (N-subj) races (V-pres), I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Fear→I.experience]) do (V-pres) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) later (ADV-time) regret (V-pres).
15.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Fear (as agent) │ my body contracts, heart races, I act │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ terrible things │ things I later regret │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fear” exists as an agent — only bodily sensations and my responses ∴ I remain the one who acts, even when my body signals alarm ∴ “Fear did it” hides: “I did it while experiencing certain sensations”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government does what it wants.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.5a Persons holding offices in buildings called “capitol” do what they choose, and persons with weapons enforce their choices.
15.5b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.in.offices]) holding (V-pres.PART) offices (N-obj) in (PREP) buildings (N-obj) called (V-past.PART) “capitol” (N-label) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) enforce (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) choices (N-obj).
15.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ government │ persons holding offices │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ it (referring │ they (specific persons) │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ to gov't) │ │ │ │ wants │ choose (persons choose, spooks cannot) │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “government” exists as entity with desires ∴ Specific persons in specific buildings make specific choices ∴ Other specific persons with specific weapons enforce those choices ∴ WHO sits in those offices? WHO holds those weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History does repeat itself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.6a Persons who write about past events notice patterns, and persons today do similar things to what persons yesterday did.
15.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) notice (V-pres) patterns (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) today (ADV-time) do (V-pres) similar (ADJ) things (N-obj) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) yesterday (ADV-time) did (V-past).
15.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ History │ persons who write about past events │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ itself │ [eliminated—abstractions lack selves] │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ repeat │ persons do similar things │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” exists that could repeat anything ∴ Only persons acting, and other persons noticing similarities ∴ The claim “history repeats” hides: “I notice patterns and predict” ∴ WHO benefits from treating patterns as inevitable forces?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What did the law do to protect us?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.7a What did persons with badges and weapons do to protect us, following words that other persons wrote down?
15.7b What (PRON-interrog) did (AUX-past.interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.badges]) with (PREP) badges (N-obj) and (CONJ) weapons (N-obj) do (V-inf) to (PREP) protect (V-inf) us (PRON-obj), following (V-pres.PART) words (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→words.written]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past) down (ADV)?
15.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ law │ persons with badges + words written │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ │ │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ protect (by law)│ protect (by persons following words) │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists that can protect anyone ∴ Only persons with weapons who may or may not follow written words ∴ The question reveals: protection comes from persons, not abstractions ∴ WHO wrote those words? WHO decides to follow them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I do my duty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.8a I do what certain persons expect of me, and I have internalized their expectations as my own urges.
15.8b I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) of (PREP) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have∿internalized (V-perf) their (PRON-poss) expectations (N-obj) as (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) urges (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→internalized.urges]).
15.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ duty │ expectations from persons, internalized │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ │ as urges │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ my (duty) │ expectations that I have made my own │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists outside of persons expecting and persons internalizing ∴ “My duty” dissolves to: urges I feel that originated from others’ expectations ∴ WHO first expected this? WHO benefits from my feeling obligated? ∴ The Stirnerian question: Do I own this urge, or does it own me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality does not permit such actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.9a Persons who raised me, and persons around me now, do not approve when I act this way, and I feel discomfort when I consider acting against their training.
15.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Morality→persons.who.trained.me]) who (PRON-rel) raised (V-past) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time), do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) approve (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) this (DET) way (N-manner), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Morality→discomfort.felt]) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) acting (V-pres.PART) against (PREP) their (PRON-poss) training (N-obj).
15.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Morality │ persons who raised me + persons now │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ permit │ approve │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ such actions │ when I act this way │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ [internal │ discomfort I feel from their training │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ prohibition] │ │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” exists that can permit or forbid ∴ Only persons approving or disapproving, and feelings I experience ∴ WHO trained me to feel this discomfort? WHO benefits from my compliance? ∴ “Morality does not permit” hides: “Certain persons would disapprove, and I would feel bad”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market does what it does.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.10a Many persons buying and selling do what each one chooses, and their combined choices produce patterns that observers then describe.
15.10b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) each (DET) one (PRON) chooses (V-pres), and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) combined (ADJ) choices (N-subj) produce (V-pres) patterns (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) observers (N-subj) then (ADV-time) describe (V-pres).
15.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ market │ many persons buying and selling │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ it (market) │ each person choosing │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ does (market │ persons do + observers describe │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ as agent) │ │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “market” exists as agent that does things ∴ Only persons choosing, and other persons observing patterns ∴ “The market decides” hides: “Many persons choose, and I describe their aggregate choices” ∴ WHO benefits from treating aggregate choices as an impersonal force?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth does not change.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.11a What I observe and what others report to me do not shift when we observe carefully and report honestly.
15.11b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) shift (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[change→shift]) when (CONJ-time) we (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) carefully (ADV-manner) and (CONJ) report (V-pres) honestly (ADV-manner).
15.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Truth │ what I observe + what others report │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ change │ shift │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” exists as substance that could change or remain ∴ Only observations and reports by specific persons ∴ “Truth” dissolves to: agreement between what I observe and what others report ∴ WHO gets to declare what counts as “truth”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My conscience does not let me rest.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.12a I do not rest because I remember what I did, and my body produces discomfort when I remember it.
15.12b I (PRON-subj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) rest (V-inf) because (CONJ-cause) I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) did (V-past), and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) produces (V-pres) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→discomfort.produced]) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
15.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ conscience │ remembering + bodily discomfort │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ let (conscience │ [eliminated—I refrain, body reacts] │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ as gatekeeper)│ │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “conscience” exists as internal agent ∴ Only memory and bodily sensations ∴ “Conscience won’t let me” hides: “I feel discomfort when I remember” ∴ WHO trained me to feel this discomfort at these memories?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Nature does its work.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.13a Plants grow, animals move, water flows, and bodies decay—these processes do what I observe them doing regardless of my preferences.
15.13b Plants (N-subj) grow (V-pres), animals (N-subj) move (V-pres), water (N-subj) flows (V-pres), and (CONJ) bodies (N-subj) decay (V-pres)—these (DET) processes (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Nature→specific.processes]) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) doing (V-pres.PART) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj).
15.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Nature │ specific processes: growth, motion, │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ │ flow, decay │ │ │ its work │ what I observe happening │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nature” exists as agent with “work” to do ∴ Only specific observable processes occurring ∴ Listing concrete processes keeps agency with observable entities ∴ “Nature” as agent can serve any ideology—better to name what actually happens
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What can I do against the system?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.14a What can I do when many persons coordinate their actions according to shared rules, and persons with weapons enforce those rules?
15.14b What (PRON-interrog) can (AUX-ability) I (PRON-subj) do (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[system→persons.coordinating]) coordinate (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) according (PREP) to (PREP) shared (ADJ) rules (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) enforce (V-pres) those (DET) rules (N-obj)?
15.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ system │ many persons coordinating + enforcers │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ against │ when they coordinate and enforce │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “system” exists as opponent to fight ∴ Only persons coordinating and persons enforcing ∴ The dissolution suggests possibilities: persons can stop coordinating, enforcers can refuse ∴ “The system” makes resistance seem impossible; naming persons makes it imaginable
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Do what your heart tells you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.15a Do what feels right when you attend to your bodily sensations and desires, before the voices of others drown them out.
15.15b Do (V-imp) what (PRON-rel) feels (V-pres.STATE) right (ADJ-pred) when (CONJ-time) you (PRON-subj) attend (V-pres) to (PREP) your (PRON-poss) bodily (ADJ) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[heart→bodily.sensations]) and (CONJ) desires (N-obj), before (PREP-time) the (DEF.ART) voices (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[internalized.others→voices]) of (PREP) others (N-obj) drown (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) out (ADV).
15.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ heart (as │ bodily sensations and desires │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ speaker) │ │ │ │ tells (heart │ feels right when attending to body │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ as advisor) │ │ │ │ voices of │ internalized expectations from others │ D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ │ │ others │ │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “heart” exists as inner advisor with speech ∴ Only bodily sensations, and trained responses from others’ expectations ∴ The dissolution preserves the insight: attend to your own sensations before others’ training ∴ Even “heart” can become a spook if treated as external authority
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
15.1 “Many persons around me do not tolerate when I act differently from their expectations.” [Standard English: “Society does not tolerate deviance.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (deviance → acting differently)]
15.2 “Persons who call themselves ‘prosecutors’ and ‘judges’ do not stop pursuing persons they have labeled ‘criminal.’” [Standard English: “Justice does not sleep.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons with titles), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal → persons labeled)]
15.3 “What do I do differently when I feel strong tenderness toward another person?” [Standard English: “What does love do to a person?”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (love → I feel tenderness)]
15.4 “When my body contracts and my heart races, I do things I later regret.” [Standard English: “Fear does terrible things.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Fear → bodily sensations + I act)]
15.5 “Persons holding offices in buildings called ‘capitol’ do what they choose, and persons with weapons enforce their choices.” [Standard English: “The government does what it wants.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons in offices), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (wants → chooses)]
15.6 “Persons who write about past events notice patterns, and persons today do similar things to what persons yesterday did.” [Standard English: “History does repeat itself.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (repeat → do similar things)]
15.7 “What did persons with badges and weapons do to protect us, following words that other persons wrote down?” [Standard English: “What did the law do to protect us?”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with badges), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → words written)]
15.8 “I do what certain persons expect of me, and I have internalized their expectations as my own urges.” [Standard English: “I do my duty.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → persons expecting), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → internalized urges)]
15.9 “Persons who raised me, and persons around me now, do not approve when I act this way, and I feel discomfort when I consider acting against their training.” [Standard English: “Morality does not permit such actions.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Morality → persons who raised me), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (prohibition → discomfort felt)]
15.10 “Many persons buying and selling do what each one chooses, and their combined choices produce patterns that observers then describe.” [Standard English: “The market does what it does.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons buying/selling), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (market action → aggregate choices)]
15.11 “What I observe and what others report to me do not shift when we observe carefully and report honestly.” [Standard English: “Truth does not change.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Truth → observations and reports)]
15.12 “I do not rest because I remember what I did, and my body produces discomfort when I remember it.” [Standard English: “My conscience does not let me rest.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → memory + bodily discomfort)]
15.13 “Plants grow, animals move, water flows, and bodies decay—these processes do what I observe them doing regardless of my preferences.” [Standard English: “Nature does its work.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Nature → specific observable processes)]
15.14 “What can I do when many persons coordinate their actions according to shared rules, and persons with weapons enforce those rules?” [Standard English: “What can I do against the system?”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (system → persons coordinating + enforcers)]
15.15 “Do what feels right when you attend to your bodily sensations and desires, before the voices of others drown them out.” [Standard English: “Do what your heart tells you.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (heart → bodily sensations), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (voices → internalized expectations)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
15.1 Many persons around me do not tolerate when I act differently from their expectations.
15.2 Persons who call themselves “prosecutors” and “judges” do not stop pursuing persons they have labeled “criminal.”
15.3 What do I do differently when I feel strong tenderness toward another person?
15.4 When my body contracts and my heart races, I do things I later regret.
15.5 Persons holding offices in buildings called “capitol” do what they choose, and persons with weapons enforce their choices.
15.6 Persons who write about past events notice patterns, and persons today do similar things to what persons yesterday did.
15.7 What did persons with badges and weapons do to protect us, following words that other persons wrote down?
15.8 I do what certain persons expect of me, and I have internalized their expectations as my own urges.
15.9 Persons who raised me, and persons around me now, do not approve when I act this way, and I feel discomfort when I consider acting against their training.
15.10 Many persons buying and selling do what each one chooses, and their combined choices produce patterns that observers then describe.
15.11 What I observe and what others report to me do not shift when we observe carefully and report honestly.
15.12 I do not rest because I remember what I did, and my body produces discomfort when I remember it.
15.13 Plants grow, animals move, water flows, and bodies decay—these processes do what I observe them doing regardless of my preferences.
15.14 What can I do when many persons coordinate their actions according to shared rules, and persons with weapons enforce those rules?
15.15 Do what feels right when you attend to your bodily sensations and desires, before the voices of others drown them out.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “do” in E-Prime Max:
The verb “do” operates in two distinct capacities:
“They did the impossible.” (accomplishing)
Emphasis: “I do believe you.”
The word “do” itself presents no E-Prime difficulties—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “do” frequently appears adjacent to E-Prime violations:
“I do what I’m told” → contains “’m” (forbidden)
“I do what others tell me” → removes contracted “to be”
The verb “do” carries HIGH spook proximity because it assigns AGENCY. When abstractions appear as subjects of “do,” they function as spooks:
Spooks commonly appearing with “do”:
Dissolution: persons in offices do / persons with weapons do / persons following written words do
Dissolution: persons calling themselves judges do / persons who trained me approve or disapprove / persons expect and I feel urged
Dissolution: many persons around me do / persons who write about past events claim / many persons buying and selling do
Dissolution: when I feel tenderness I do / when my body contracts I do / when my muscles tense I do
Dissolution: what I observe and others report does / these observable processes do / [eliminate entirely—”fate” cannot do]
“The state does violence” → “Persons with weapons and uniforms do violence”
“History does repeat” → “Persons today do similar things to what persons yesterday did”
“Tradition does not allow” → “Persons in the past did things this way, and persons today expect me to do likewise”
“Fear does control me” → “When my body contracts, I do what I would not choose calmly”
“Citizens do their duty” → “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ do what those officials expect”
RIGHT: “Many persons around me do not tolerate when I act differently” (Must dissolve BOTH “society” AND “deviance”)
RIGHT: “Persons with badges and robes do not stop pursuing” (”Legal system” simply replaces one spook with another)
RIGHT: “When my body contracts, I do things I later regret” (The dissolution should reveal MY agency, not abstract causation)
RIGHT: “Many persons buying and selling do what each one chooses” (”Economic forces” remains a spook)
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Apply to “do” constructions by asking:
If I can only name abstractions → spook → dissolve
If “duty” appears as cosmic fact → spook possessing me
If prevention seems to come from nowhere → the spook hides real persons
The Test in Action:
“The law does not allow this.” → WHO wrote these words? WHO will enforce them? → “Persons in an old building wrote words, and persons with weapons will cage me if I act otherwise.” → Now I see the persons. Now I can assess: Do I serve this, or does it serve me?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski observed that the verb “to be” creates false identifications: “John IS a failure” treats a temporary state as permanent essence. D. David Bourland extended this insight into E-Prime, eliminating “to be” entirely to force more precise expression.
E-Prime reveals that behind “X is Y” lies either “X appears Y to me” or “I categorize X as Y”—statements that acknowledge the observer’s role.
Max Stirner, writing in 1844, identified a related but distinct problem: REIFICATION. Humans create abstractions (justice, society, morality, the state) as mental tools, then FORGET they created them, then SERVE them as masters.
Stirner called these self-imposed masters “Gespenster”—ghosts, spooks, fixed ideas. They haunt the mind of the believer, possessing the thinker rather than serving the thinker’s purposes.
The spook mechanism operates through grammar: abstractions appear as AGENTS of verbs. “Society demands,” “Justice requires,” “Duty calls”—the sentence structure treats the abstraction as a PERSON who can demand, require, call.
E-Prime attacks PREDICATION: “X is Y” (false identification through “to be”)
E-Prime Max extends this to attack REIFICATION: “X does/demands/requires Y” (false agency through abstract subjects)
E-Prime Max reveals the PERSONS behind every abstraction
When we dissolve spooks from “do” constructions, we consistently find:
“The government does what it wants” → “Persons in offices do what they choose”
“Justice does not sleep” → “Persons with badges do not stop pursuing”
“Love does strange things” → “When I feel tenderness, I act differently”
“History does repeat” → WHO benefits from treating patterns as inevitable?
Recognizing Manipulation Through Reification
When someone says “Society demands X,” they hide the question: WHICH persons demand this? Often, “society” means “persons who would benefit from your compliance” or “persons with power to punish your noncompliance.”
Resisting Possession by Concepts
When you feel that “duty calls” or “conscience forbids,” the E-Prime Max dissolution reveals: certain persons trained you to feel this urge. The urge remains real—but now you can assess: do I own this urge, or does it own me?
Reclaiming Ownness Through Linguistic Awareness
Stirner’s term “Eigenheit” (ownness, self-belonging) describes the condition of using concepts rather than serving them. E-Prime Max, practiced consistently, trains this capacity: every spook you dissolve strengthens your ability to see through the next one.
The Reprogramming Effect
Sustained practice in E-Prime Max changes how you HEAR language. When a politician says “Our nation does not negotiate with terrorists,” you automatically hear: “Persons in offices, supported by persons with weapons, choose not to negotiate with persons they have labeled ‘terrorists.’” The spook no longer conceals the persons and choices beneath.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The bedrock shifts depending on purpose. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “Evolution selects for fitness,” “The algorithm decides”—all spooks when the abstraction commands. The test applies to every domain.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to those who use standard English. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands freedom,” “Anarchism requires solidarity”—spooks. No sacred words exist, not even those of the tradition that most influenced Stirner’s reception. The unique person decides whether to use these words as tools, never serves them as masters.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique, the owner returns into his creative nothing, of which he was born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it the human being, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and only pales before the sun of this consciousness. If I set my affair on myself, the unique, then my affair stands on the transient, the mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say: I have set my affair on nothing.”
F-A: Interlinear Construed Text
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a I own my own might, and I do so when I recognize myself as unrepeatable. In recognizing my unrepeatability, the owner returns to a creative absence from which one emerged. Every higher essence that others place above me—whether they call it God or Humanity—weakens how I feel my own uniqueness, and these essences pale when I attend fully to this recognition. When I place my concerns on myself, the unrepeatable one, then my concerns stand on something transient, a mortal creator who consumes himself, and I may say: I have placed my concerns on nothing.
F.1b I (PRON-subj) own (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) might (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) so (ADV) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) recognize (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[know→recognize]) myself (PRON-refl) as (PREP) unrepeatable (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[unique→unrepeatable]). In (PREP) recognizing (V-pres.PART) my (PRON-poss) unrepeatability (N-obj), the (DEF.ART) owner (N-subj) returns (V-pres) to (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) creative (ADJ) absence (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[nothing→absence]) from (PREP) which (PRON-rel) one (PRON-indef) emerged (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[born→emerged]). Every (DET) higher (ADJ) essence (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God/Human→essence.others.place]) that (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) place (V-pres) above (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—whether (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) God (N-label) or (CONJ) Humanity (N-label)—weakens (V-pres) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) uniqueness (N-obj), and (CONJ) these (DET) essences (N-subj) pale (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) attend (V-pres) fully (ADV-manner) to (PREP) this (DET) recognition (N-obj). When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) place (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) concerns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[affair→concerns]) on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), the (DEF.ART) unrepeatable (ADJ) one (PRON), then (ADV-consq) my (PRON-poss) concerns (N-subj) stand (V-pres) on (PREP) something (PRON-indef) transient (ADJ), a (INDEF.ART) mortal (ADJ) creator (N-app) who (PRON-rel) consumes (V-pres) himself (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) may (AUX) say (V-inf): I (PRON-subj) have∿placed (V-perf) my (PRON-poss) concerns (N-obj) on (PREP) nothing (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK/E-PRIME │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ I am (owner) │ I own │ E7 │ │ I am so │ I do so │ E7 │ │ unique │ unrepeatable │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ God │ what others call God │ D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ │ │ human being │ what others call Humanity │ D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ │ │ (as higher) │ │ │ │ nothing │ nothing [retained—Stirner's own term] │ — │ │ was born │ emerged │ E3 │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════F-B: E-Prime Max Text with Translation
E-Prime Max: I own my own might, and I do so when I recognize myself as unrepeatable. In recognizing my unrepeatability, the owner returns to a creative absence from which one emerged. Every higher essence that others place above me—whether they call it God or Humanity—weakens how I feel my own uniqueness, and these essences pale when I attend fully to this recognition. When I place my concerns on myself, the unrepeatable one, then my concerns stand on something transient, a mortal creator who consumes himself, and I may say: I have placed my concerns on nothing.F-C: E-Prime Max Text Only
I own my own might, and I do so when I recognize myself as unrepeatable. In recognizing my unrepeatability, the owner returns to a creative absence from which one emerged. Every higher essence that others place above me—whether they call it God or Humanity—weakens how I feel my own uniqueness, and these essences pale when I attend fully to this recognition. When I place my concerns on myself, the unrepeatable one, then my concerns stand on something transient, a mortal creator who consumes himself, and I may say: I have placed my concerns on nothing.F-D: Dissolution Notes
This passage from the closing lines of Der Einzige und sein Eigentum encapsulates Stirner’s position. The E-Prime Max transformation:
Transforms “I am owner” to “I own” — removes the identity predication, shifts to active ownership
Transforms “I am so” to “I do so” — replaces static being with active doing; this directly uses our lesson’s topic word
Dissolves “unique” to “unrepeatable” — “unique” has become a term of art that can itself function as spook; “unrepeatable” operationalizes the meaning
Exposes “God” and “human being” as labels — Stirner treats these as “higher essences,” and the dissolution shows them as labels others apply, not independent agents
Retains “nothing” — This word functions as Stirner’s terminus, not as a spook; it represents the absence of any foundation outside the unique personF-E: Commentary
Stirner’s prose itself contains “to be” forms that E-Prime dissolves. More significantly, his key term “der Einzige” (the unique) can become a spook if reified—treated as a concept demanding adherence rather than a word the unique person uses and discards at will.
The transformation demonstrates that even the terminology of liberation requires ongoing dissolution. No word achieves permanent innocence; every word can become a fetter if we serve it rather than using it.
The phrase “I do so” (replacing “I am so”) shows how “do” properly assigns agency to the first person: I act, I choose, I own my might actively rather than possessing it as static attribute.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A narrative meditation on agency, action, and dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Every morning, duty calls me to work.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.16a Every morning, I do what employers expect, feeling an urge that I have internalized from years of training.
15.16b Every (DET) morning (N-time), I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) employers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→employers]) expect (V-pres), feeling (V-pres.PART) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty.calls→urge.felt]) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) have∿internalized (V-perf) from (PREP) years (N-obj) of (PREP) training (N-obj).
15.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ duty │ employers expect + urge internalized │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ │ │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ calls │ [eliminated—abstractions cannot call] │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” calls anywhere — only felt urges and others’ expectations ∴ The dissolution reveals the mechanism: training → internalization → urge ∴ Now I can ask: do I own this urge, or does it own me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I wonder what life has in store for me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.17a I wonder what persons around me will do, and what I will do in response, in the days ahead.
15.17b I (PRON-subj) wonder (V-pres) what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) will (AUX-fut) do (V-inf ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[life→persons.around.me]), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) I (PRON-subj) will (AUX-fut) do (V-inf) in (PREP) response (N-obj), in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) days (N-obj) ahead (ADV-time).
15.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ life │ persons around me + I │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ has in store │ will do │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “life” holds goods in storage for me ∴ Only persons acting, including me ∴ The future dissolves to: actions by specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society rewards those who do good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.18a Many persons around me treat me better when I do things they approve of.
15.18b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) treat (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rewards→treat.better]) me (PRON-obj) better (ADV-manner) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) things (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[good→approved]) of (PREP).
15.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Society │ many persons around me │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ rewards │ treat better │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ good │ things they approve of │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” rewards anyone ∴ Specific persons treat me differently based on my actions ∴ “Good” dissolves to: what those specific persons approve
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I do what tradition demands.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.19a I do what persons before me did, because persons around me expect me to continue their patterns.
15.19b I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.before.me]) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj) did (V-past), because (CONJ-cause) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP) continue (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) patterns (N-obj).
15.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ tradition │ persons before me + persons around me │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ demands │ expect │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” demands anything ∴ Only past persons’ actions + present persons’ expectations ∴ The dissolution opens choice: I can break patterns if I choose
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My conscience tells me what to do.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.20a When I consider certain actions, my body produces sensations of comfort or discomfort, and I do what produces comfort—or I do what produces discomfort and then notice my body’s reaction.
15.20b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) certain (DET) actions (N-obj), my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) produces (V-pres) sensations (N-obj) of (PREP) comfort (N-obj) or (CONJ) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→bodily.sensations]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) produces (V-pres) comfort (N-obj)—or (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) produces (V-pres) discomfort (N-obj) and (CONJ) then (ADV-time) notice (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) body’s (N-poss) reaction (N-obj).
15.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ conscience │ bodily sensations of comfort/discomfort │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ tells │ body produces sensations │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “conscience” speaks or tells ∴ Only bodily sensations that I then interpret and act upon ∴ I retain choice: I can do what produces discomfort and observe my reaction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Reason does not support this decision.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.21a When I think through the likely consequences, I do not find outcomes I prefer.
15.21b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) think (V-pres) through (PREP) the (DEF.ART) likely (ADJ) consequences (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) find (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Reason→I.think.through]) outcomes (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres).
15.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Reason │ I think through consequences │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ support │ find preferable outcomes │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “reason” exists as advisor that supports or opposes ∴ Only my process of thinking through consequences ∴ “Reason supports” hides: “When I think carefully, I prefer different outcomes”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy does not favor the poor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.22a Persons with wealth do things that benefit themselves, and persons with little wealth find fewer opportunities to increase it.
15.22b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.with.wealth]) with (PREP) wealth (N-obj) do (V-pres) things (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) little (DET) wealth (N-obj) find (V-pres) fewer (DET) opportunities (N-obj) to (PREP) increase (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
15.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ economy │ persons with wealth doing things │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ favor │ benefit │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ the poor │ persons with little wealth │ D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “economy” favors or disfavors anyone ∴ Specific persons with resources make choices that benefit themselves ∴ “The poor” dissolves to: persons whom observers label by wealth level
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I do what my heart desires.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.23a I do what I want when I attend to my bodily sensations before others’ expectations drown them out.
15.23b I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) attend (V-pres) to (PREP) my (PRON-poss) bodily (ADJ) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[heart→bodily.sensations]) before (PREP-time) others’ (N-poss) expectations (N-subj) drown (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) out (ADV).
15.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ heart │ bodily sensations │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ desires │ want (first person) │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “heart” exists as inner authority with desires ∴ Only bodily sensations that I notice or ignore ∴ The dissolution reveals the competition: my sensations vs. others’ expectations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Time does not wait for anyone.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.24a Processes continue regardless of my preferences; plants grow, bodies age, and I do not stop them by wishing otherwise.
15.24b Processes (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Time→processes]) continue (V-pres) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj); plants (N-subj) grow (V-pres), bodies (N-subj) age (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) stop (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) by (PREP) wishing (V-pres.PART) otherwise (ADV).
15.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Time │ processes (growth, aging, etc.) │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ wait │ [eliminated—processes continue or not] │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ anyone │ I (first person ownership) │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “time” exists as agent that waits or refuses to wait ∴ Only observable processes that continue ∴ The dissolution removes the personification and shows what actually occurs
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does fate have in store for me?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.25a What will happen when persons around me act, when events unfold, and when I do what I choose in response?
15.25b What (PRON-interrog) will (AUX-fut) happen (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) act (V-pres), when (CONJ-time) events (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fate→events.unfolding]) unfold (V-pres), and (CONJ) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres) in (PREP) response (N-obj)?
15.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ fate │ events unfolding + persons acting + I │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ │ choosing │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ have in store │ [eliminated—events lack storage] │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fate” stores anything for anyone ∴ Events will occur, persons will act, I will choose ∴ The dissolution restores my agency: I do what I choose
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Religion does not permit doubt.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.26a Persons who lead certain gatherings do not approve when attendees question the teachings, and those attendees feel discomfort when they doubt.
15.26b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Religion→persons.who.lead]) who (PRON-rel) lead (V-pres) certain (DET) gatherings (N-obj) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) approve (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[permit→approve]) when (CONJ-time) attendees (N-subj) question (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) teachings (N-obj), and (CONJ) those (DET) attendees (N-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[prohibition→discomfort.felt]) when (CONJ-time) they (PRON-subj) doubt (V-pres).
15.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Religion │ persons who lead gatherings │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ permit │ approve │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ doubt (prohib.) │ discomfort when doubting │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “religion” permits or forbids anything ∴ Specific persons approve or disapprove; trained persons feel discomfort ∴ WHO trained them to feel discomfort at doubt?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science does not lie.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.27a Persons who conduct experiments and report results carefully do not intentionally deceive—though any person can deceive, and some persons who call themselves scientists do deceive.
15.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Science→persons.who.experiment]) who (PRON-rel) conduct (V-pres) experiments (N-obj) and (CONJ) report (V-pres) results (N-obj) carefully (ADV-manner) do (AUX-neg) not (ADV-neg) intentionally (ADV-manner) deceive (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[lie→deceive])—though (CONJ) any (DET) person (N-subj) can (AUX) deceive (V-inf), and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) scientists (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[scientists→self-labeled]) do (V-pres.emph) deceive (V-inf).
15.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ Science │ persons who conduct experiments │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ lie │ deceive │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ scientists │ persons who call themselves X │ D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “science” can lie or tell truth — only persons can ∴ The dissolution notes: some persons who claim the label DO deceive ∴ No priesthood receives immunity from the Stirnerian test
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does the future hold?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.28a What will I do, what will persons around me do, and what events will occur, in the days and years ahead?
15.28b What (PRON-interrog) will (AUX-fut) I (PRON-subj) do (V-inf), what (PRON-interrog) will (AUX-fut) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) do (V-inf ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[future→persons.acting]), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) events (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[future→events]) will (AUX-fut) occur (V-inf), in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) days (N-obj) and (CONJ) years (N-obj) ahead (ADV-time)?
15.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ future │ days/years ahead + persons acting + │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ │ │ events occurring │ │ │ hold │ [eliminated—time lacks hands] │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “future” holds anything ∴ Persons will act, events will occur, in times not yet arrived ∴ The dissolution includes ME among the actors — I will do things
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I just do what I’m told.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.29a I do what other persons instruct me to do, having internalized obedience from years of training.
15.29b I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→other.persons]) instruct (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP) do (V-inf), having∿internalized (V-perf.PART) obedience (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[obedience→training]) from (PREP) years (N-obj) of (PREP) training (N-obj).
15.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ I'm (contrac.) │ [eliminated—E-Prime requires removal] │ E7 │ │ told (passive) │ other persons instruct │ D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ │ │ obedience │ internalized from training │ D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The passive “told” hides WHO tells ∴ Specific other persons instruct; I then choose to follow ∴ “Just” hides the choice: I CHOOSE to do what they instruct ∴ The genealogical trace reveals: training produced this obedience
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the end, all we can do is hope.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.30a When I have acted and can act no further, I do what remains: I attend to my body’s sensations of anticipation and let them flow without grasping at outcomes.
15.30b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) have∿acted (V-perf) and (CONJ) can (AUX) act (V-inf) no (DET) further (ADV), I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) remains (V-pres): I (PRON-subj) attend (V-pres) to (PREP) my (PRON-poss) body’s (N-poss) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→sensations.of.anticipation]) of (PREP) anticipation (N-obj) and (CONJ) let (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) flow (V-inf) without (PREP) grasping (V-pres.PART) at (PREP) outcomes (N-obj).
15.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ: ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────┐ │ SPOOK │ DISSOLUTION │ STRATEGY │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────┤ │ hope │ bodily sensations of anticipation │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ all we can do │ what remains for me to do │ D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ │ │ in the end │ when I have acted and can act no more │ D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
15.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Hope” dissolves to bodily sensations I can attend to ∴ Even when I cannot act further, I still do something: attending ∴ The dissolution preserves agency even in apparent passivity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
15.16 “Every morning, I do what employers expect, feeling an urge that I have internalized from years of training.” [Standard: “Every morning, duty calls me to work.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.17 “I wonder what persons around me will do, and what I will do in response, in the days ahead.” [Standard: “I wonder what life has in store for me.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
15.18 “Many persons around me treat me better when I do things they approve of.” [Standard: “Society rewards those who do good.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
15.19 “I do what persons before me did, because persons around me expect me to continue their patterns.” [Standard: “I do what tradition demands.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ]
15.20 “When I consider certain actions, my body produces sensations of comfort or discomfort, and I do what produces comfort—or I do what produces discomfort and then notice my body’s reaction.” [Standard: “My conscience tells me what to do.”] [Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.21 “When I think through the likely consequences, I do not find outcomes I prefer.” [Standard: “Reason does not support this decision.”] [Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
15.22 “Persons with wealth do things that benefit themselves, and persons with little wealth find fewer opportunities to increase it.” [Standard: “The economy does not favor the poor.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ]
15.23 “I do what I want when I attend to my bodily sensations before others’ expectations drown them out.” [Standard: “I do what my heart desires.”] [Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.24 “Processes continue regardless of my preferences; plants grow, bodies age, and I do not stop them by wishing otherwise.” [Standard: “Time does not wait for anyone.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.25 “What will happen when persons around me act, when events unfold, and when I do what I choose in response?” [Standard: “What does fate have in store for me?”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.26 “Persons who lead certain gatherings do not approve when attendees question the teachings, and those attendees feel discomfort when they doubt.” [Standard: “Religion does not permit doubt.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ]
15.27 “Persons who conduct experiments and report results carefully do not intentionally deceive—though any person can deceive, and some persons who call themselves scientists do deceive.” [Standard: “Science does not lie.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ]
15.28 “What will I do, what will persons around me do, and what events will occur, in the days and years ahead?” [Standard: “What does the future hold?”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
15.29 “I do what other persons instruct me to do, having internalized obedience from years of training.” [Standard: “I just do what I’m told.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + E7 (removing “I’m”)]
15.30 “When I have acted and can act no further, I do what remains: I attend to my body’s sensations of anticipation and let them flow without grasping at outcomes.” [Standard: “In the end, all we can do is hope.”] [Dissolution: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
15.16 Every morning, I do what employers expect, feeling an urge that I have internalized from years of training.
15.17 I wonder what persons around me will do, and what I will do in response, in the days ahead.
15.18 Many persons around me treat me better when I do things they approve of.
15.19 I do what persons before me did, because persons around me expect me to continue their patterns.
15.20 When I consider certain actions, my body produces sensations of comfort or discomfort, and I do what produces comfort—or I do what produces discomfort and then notice my body’s reaction.
15.21 When I think through the likely consequences, I do not find outcomes I prefer.
15.22 Persons with wealth do things that benefit themselves, and persons with little wealth find fewer opportunities to increase it.
15.23 I do what I want when I attend to my bodily sensations before others’ expectations drown them out.
15.24 Processes continue regardless of my preferences; plants grow, bodies age, and I do not stop them by wishing otherwise.
15.25 What will happen when persons around me act, when events unfold, and when I do what I choose in response?
15.26 Persons who lead certain gatherings do not approve when attendees question the teachings, and those attendees feel discomfort when they doubt.
15.27 Persons who conduct experiments and report results carefully do not intentionally deceive—though any person can deceive, and some persons who call themselves scientists do deceive.
15.28 What will I do, what will persons around me do, and what events will occur, in the days and years ahead?
15.29 I do what other persons instruct me to do, having internalized obedience from years of training.
15.30 When I have acted and can act no further, I do what remains: I attend to my body’s sensations of anticipation and let them flow without grasping at outcomes.
This genre section presents a Personal Reflection narrative exploring agency through the lens of E-Prime Max dissolution.
When abstractions seem to “do,” dissolution reveals persons doing
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “Democracy does not guarantee happiness.”
E-Prime Max: “When many persons vote and their choices produce officials, those officials do not guarantee that I will feel satisfied with my circumstances.”
happiness → I feel satisfied (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “democracy” can guarantee anything. Only persons acting, and my own satisfaction or dissatisfaction with results.
2. Standard: “Capitalism does what capitalism does.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who own resources do what benefits themselves, and persons who lack resources do what they can to survive, and observers describe the aggregate patterns.”
does → do (action by specific persons) (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “capitalism” acts anywhere. Only persons with different resource levels acting, and observers labeling patterns.
3. Standard: “What does the Bible say about this?”
E-Prime Max: “What did the persons who wrote certain old texts claim about this, and what do persons who interpret those texts today conclude?”
say → claim, conclude (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No book “says” anything. Persons wrote words; other persons interpret them. WHO wrote? WHO interprets? WHO benefits from this interpretation?
4. Standard: “I do my civic duty by voting.”
E-Prime Max: “I do what officials and fellow residents expect of me—I mark a paper and place it in a box—having internalized the expectation that this action matters.”
internalized expectation noted (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “civic duty” compels anyone. Persons expect; I have internalized their expectations; I perform the physical action.
5. Standard: “Nature does not negotiate.”
E-Prime Max: “Plants grow, weather changes, and tectonic plates shift regardless of what I prefer or demand—these processes do not respond to my wishes.”
negotiate → respond to wishes (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “nature” exists as negotiating partner. Only observable processes that continue regardless of human preferences. The personification hides the actual mechanism: processes occurring.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts who prefer rigorous, systematic approaches to language acquisition. Our methodology emphasizes:
Interlinear Construed Text: By placing glosses directly beneath target text, learners grasp grammatical relationships immediately rather than consulting separate resources.
Vocabulary in Context: Each lesson builds from a specific vocabulary item, embedding it in multiple sentences that demonstrate varied uses and constructions.
Progressive Difficulty: Examples progress from simple to complex within each lesson, allowing learners to consolidate before advancing.
Authentic Citation: Literary passages connect classroom learning to real-world texts, preparing students for independent reading.
E-Prime Max Discipline: This specialized curriculum synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s critique of fixed ideas, training students to recognize and dissolve reified abstractions in English.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Link: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 15: “DO”
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson teaches the English pronoun “he” while training students in E-Prime Max—the synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (which eliminates all forms of “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (which eliminates abstract nouns functioning as commanding agents). Together, these disciplines constitute comprehensive linguistic liberation from both predication and reification.
“He” functions as the third-person masculine singular subject pronoun in English, referring to a specific male person. While the word itself remains concrete—pointing to an actual body, an actual person—it frequently appears in constructions laden with spooks. “He believes in justice.” “He serves the state.” “He violated morality.” In each case, the pronoun grounds us in a person while the surrounding language summons ghosts.
This lesson demonstrates how to use “he” in E-Prime Max constructions that maintain reference to specific persons while dissolving the abstractions that typically accompany such references. When we say “he,” we point to someone. E-Prime Max ensures that what we say about him also points to concrete realities—actions, bodies, other persons—rather than to haunting concepts that possess both speaker and subject.
FAQ: What does “he” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “he” retains its standard function as a masculine subject pronoun referring to a specific person. The discipline affects not the pronoun itself but the predicates and objects that follow it. Instead of “He is a criminal” (which uses forbidden “is” and the spook-label “criminal”), E-Prime Max produces: “Certain persons with weapons label him and will cage him.” The “he” remains; the haunting dissolves.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
How “he” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The pronoun “he” functions normally as a subject, but E-Prime Max transforms what follows. “He feels tired” replaces “He is tired.” “He acts as the manager” replaces “He is the manager.” “He experiences what others call ‘guilt’” replaces “He is guilty.”
Common spooks to watch for with “he”: When “he” appears as subject, watch for spook-laden predicates: “He believes in [SPOOK],” “He serves [SPOOK],” “He violates [SPOOK],” “He embodies [SPOOK].” Common co-occurring spooks include: justice, duty, morality, the state, society, honor, conscience, law, freedom, humanity.
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) works best when “he” interacts with collective spooks—dissolve “society” to “persons around him.” D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership) works when “he” experiences reified emotions—dissolve “fear controlled him” to “his body contracted and he refrained.” D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) reveals when others apply spook-categories to him—”He committed a crime” becomes “Persons with weapons will cage him for what he did.”
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: Behind every abstraction that seems to judge, command, or categorize “him,” specific persons appear—persons with expectations, persons with weapons, persons who benefit from the labeling. The masculine pronoun points to one body; dissolution reveals the other bodies that surround, constrain, reward, and punish him.
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Archaic: art, wast, wert
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy (when reified)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
NOTE: These lists EXEMPLIFY. ANY word becomes a spook when appearing as AGENT. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is a good man.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.1a He acts in ways that many persons around me approve.
16.1b He (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[good→persons.approving]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[good.man→acts.approved]).
E-PRIME “is” → DISSOLUTION “acts” → STRATEGY E1 (Active Voice)
∴ The spook “good man” dissolves → a person acting + other persons approving remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is guilty of violating the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.2a Persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” declared that he acted against written rules, and now persons with weapons will cage him.
16.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[judges→persons.labeling.themselves]) declared (V-past) that (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) against (PREP) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]), and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿cage (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[guilty→will.cage]) him (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME “is guilty” → DISSOLUTION “declared...will cage” → STRATEGY E1
∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from caging him?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He believes in justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.3a He expects certain persons to act in ways he approves when conflicts arise among persons.
16.3b He (PRON-subj) expects (V-pres) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.acting]) to∿act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N) he (PRON-subj) approves (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→ways.approved]) when (CONJ) conflicts (N-subj) arise (V-pres) among (PREP) persons (N-obj).
SPOOK “believes in” → DISSOLUTION “expects” → STRATEGY D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO defines what counts as “just”? Whose preferences prevail?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is a citizen of this nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.4a Persons with official titles label him “citizen,” and persons with weapons within these borders treat him differently than they treat those they label “non-citizen.”
16.4b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.with.titles]) with (PREP) official (ADJ) titles (N) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizen→label.applied]) him (PRON-obj) “citizen” (N-label), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) within (PREP) these (DET) borders (N) treat (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) treat (V-pres) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “non-citizen” (N-label).
E-PRIME “is a citizen” → DISSOLUTION “persons label him” → STRATEGY E5
∴ WHO applies the labels? WHO benefits from the distinction?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He serves the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.5a He acts as persons with weapons and official titles direct him to act.
16.5b He (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) as (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) official (ADJ) titles (N) direct (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf).
SPOOK “serves” → DISSOLUTION “acts as directed” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO commands? WHO enforces? WHO benefits from his compliance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is brave.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.6a He acts when his body signals danger, rather than refraining.
16.6b He (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) when (CONJ) his (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) signals (V-pres) danger (N-obj), rather∿than (CONJ) refraining (V-pres.PART).
E-PRIME “is brave” → DISSOLUTION “acts when...signals danger” → STRATEGY E7
∴ The concrete description permits evaluation without metaphysical claims
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear prevented him from acting.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.7a His body contracted, his heart raced, and he refrained from acting.
16.7b His (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracted (V-past), his (PRON-poss) heart (N-subj) raced (V-past), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) refrained (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear.prevented→he.refrained]) from (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK “prevented” → DISSOLUTION “he refrained” → STRATEGY D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ What appears as external force (”fear”) becomes owned experience + choice
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is the president.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.8a He currently holds the position that certain persons call “president,” and other persons with weapons follow his commands.
16.8b He (PRON-subj) currently (ADV-time) holds (V-pres.REL) the (DEF.ART) position (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “president” (N-label), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) follow (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj).
SPOOK “president” (as authority) → DISSOLUTION “position + persons who follow commands” → STRATEGY D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO follows his commands? What happens if they stop following?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He has rights that society must respect.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.9a Certain persons wrote documents claiming limits on what persons with weapons may do to him, and many persons around me expect those with weapons to observe these limits.
16.9b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj) claiming (V-pres.PART) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-mod) to (PREP) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) those (PRON-dem) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿observe (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→observe]) these (DET) limits (N-obj).
SPOOK “must respect” → DISSOLUTION “expect to observe limits” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote the documents? WHO enforces the limits? What happens when they don’t?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He was corrupted by power.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.10a After many persons began following his commands, he started taking more from others and harming those who refused to comply.
16.10b After (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.following]) began (V-past) following (V-pres.PART) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj), he (PRON-subj) started (V-past) taking (V-pres.PART) more (DET) from (PREP) others (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) harming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[corrupted→harming]) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refused (V-past) to∿comply (V-inf).
E-PRIME “was corrupted” → DISSOLUTION “he started” → STRATEGY E1
∴ WHO followed him? What did HE choose to do? The dissolution restores his agency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is an enemy of the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.11a Certain persons with loud voices and weapons declare that he acts against the interests of many other persons, and they encourage those other persons to harm him.
16.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→persons.declaring]) with (PREP) loud (ADJ) voices (N) and (CONJ) weapons (N) declare (V-pres) that (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) against (PREP) the (DEF.ART) interests (N-obj) of (PREP) many (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.other.persons]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) encourage (V-pres) those (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿harm (V-inf) him (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME “is an enemy” → DISSOLUTION “persons declare that he acts against” → STRATEGY E5
∴ WHO declares him enemy? WHO benefits from the declaration? WHO gets harmed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He found God.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.12a He began acting as certain old books prescribe and started reporting experiences he attributes to a being those books describe.
16.12b He (PRON-subj) began (V-past) acting (V-pres.PART) as (CONJ) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→books.describing]) prescribe (V-pres) and (CONJ) started (V-past) reporting (V-pres.PART) experiences (N-obj) he (PRON-subj) attributes (V-pres) to (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-obj) those (DET) books (N-subj) describe (V-pres).
SPOOK “found” → DISSOLUTION “began acting as prescribed + reporting experiences” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ What changed: HIS actions, HIS reports—these remain observable
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He owes a duty to humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.13a Certain persons taught him that he should act in ways that benefit many other persons he will never meet, and he now feels discomfort when he refrains from such actions.
16.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) him (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) should∿act (V-mod) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) many (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→many.persons]) he (PRON-subj) will∿never∿meet (V-fut.NEG), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) now (ADV-time) feels (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→feels.discomfort]) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) refrains (V-pres) from (PREP) such (DET) actions (N-obj).
SPOOK “owes” → DISSOLUTION “persons taught him he should” → STRATEGY D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO taught him this duty? WHO benefits from his compliance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He lost his honor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.14a He acted in ways that persons around him disapprove, and now those persons treat him with less respect than before.
16.14b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[honor→persons.around.him]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) disapprove (V-pres), and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) those (DET) persons (N-subj) treat (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[lost.honor→treated.differently]) him (PRON-obj) with (PREP) less (DET) respect (N) than (CONJ) before (ADV-time).
SPOOK “lost” → DISSOLUTION “acted in ways disapproved → treated differently” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO disapproves? By WHOSE standards did he fall short?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.15a Persons who write about past events in the future will describe him, and persons reading those descriptions will form opinions about him.
16.15b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-time) will∿describe (V-fut) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) reading (V-pres.PART) those (DET) descriptions (N-obj) will∿form (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→form.opinions]) opinions (N-obj) about (PREP) him (PRON-obj).
SPOOK “judge” → DISSOLUTION “form opinions” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO will write about him? WHO will choose what to include?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
16.1 “He acts in ways that many persons around me approve.”
[Standard English: “He is a good man.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1, E7 — “is good” → “acts in ways...approve”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (good → persons approving)]
16.2 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘judges’ declared that he acted against written rules, and now persons with weapons will cage him.”
[Standard English: “He is guilty of violating the law.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 — passive “is guilty” → active “persons declared...will cage”] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (guilty → will cage), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (judges → persons labeling themselves)]
16.3 “He expects certain persons to act in ways he approves when conflicts arise among persons.”
[Standard English: “He believes in justice.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be” in original] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → persons acting as he approves)]
16.4 “Persons with official titles label him ‘citizen,’ and persons with weapons within these borders treat him differently than they treat those they label ‘non-citizen.’”
[Standard English: “He is a citizen of this nation.”] [E-Prime strategies: E5 — “is a citizen” → “persons label him ‘citizen’”] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizen → label), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → persons with weapons within borders)]
16.5 “He acts as persons with weapons and official titles direct him to act.”
[Standard English: “He serves the state.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons and titles), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (serves → acts as directed)]
16.6 “He acts when his body signals danger, rather than refraining.”
[Standard English: “He is brave.”] [E-Prime strategies: E7 — “is brave” → “acts when...rather than refraining”] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (brave → acts despite danger signals)]
16.7 “His body contracted, his heart raced, and he refrained from acting.”
[Standard English: “Fear prevented him from acting.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear prevented → body contracted + he refrained)]
16.8 “He currently holds the position that certain persons call ‘president,’ and other persons with weapons follow his commands.”
[Standard English: “He is the president.”] [E-Prime strategies: E6 — “is the president” → “holds the position called ‘president’”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (president’s authority → persons who follow commands)]
16.9 “Certain persons wrote documents claiming limits on what persons with weapons may do to him, and many persons around me expect those with weapons to observe these limits.”
[Standard English: “He has rights that society must respect.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → documents written by persons), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around me + persons with weapons)]
16.10 “After many persons began following his commands, he started taking more from others and harming those who refused to comply.”
[Standard English: “He was corrupted by power.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 — “was corrupted” → “he started”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (power → persons following commands), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (corrupted → taking more and harming)]
16.11 “Certain persons with loud voices and weapons declare that he acts against the interests of many other persons, and they encourage those other persons to harm him.”
[Standard English: “He is an enemy of the people.”] [E-Prime strategies: E5 — “is an enemy” → “persons declare that he acts against”] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → persons declaring + many other persons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (enemy → persons declare)]
16.12 “He began acting as certain old books prescribe and started reporting experiences he attributes to a being those books describe.”
[Standard English: “He found God.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being described in books), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (found God → began acting + reporting experiences)]
16.13 “Certain persons taught him that he should act in ways that benefit many other persons he will never meet, and he now feels discomfort when he refrains from such actions.”
[Standard English: “He owes a duty to humanity.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (duty → persons taught him), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → many persons he’ll never meet), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (owes → feels discomfort)]
16.14 “He acted in ways that persons around him disapprove, and now those persons treat him with less respect than before.”
[Standard English: “He lost his honor.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (honor → persons around him), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (lost honor → treated with less respect)]
16.15 “Persons who write about past events in the future will describe him, and persons reading those descriptions will form opinions about him.”
[Standard English: “History will judge him.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → persons who write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → form opinions)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
16.1 He acts in ways that many persons around me approve.
16.2 Persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” declared that he acted against written rules, and now persons with weapons will cage him.
16.3 He expects certain persons to act in ways he approves when conflicts arise among persons.
16.4 Persons with official titles label him “citizen,” and persons with weapons within these borders treat him differently than they treat those they label “non-citizen.”
16.5 He acts as persons with weapons and official titles direct him to act.
16.6 He acts when his body signals danger, rather than refraining.
16.7 His body contracted, his heart raced, and he refrained from acting.
16.8 He currently holds the position that certain persons call “president,” and other persons with weapons follow his commands.
16.9 Certain persons wrote documents claiming limits on what persons with weapons may do to him, and many persons around me expect those with weapons to observe these limits.
16.10 After many persons began following his commands, he started taking more from others and harming those who refused to comply.
16.11 Certain persons with loud voices and weapons declare that he acts against the interests of many other persons, and they encourage those other persons to harm him.
16.12 He began acting as certain old books prescribe and started reporting experiences he attributes to a being those books describe.
16.13 Certain persons taught him that he should act in ways that benefit many other persons he will never meet, and he now feels discomfort when he refrains from such actions.
16.14 He acted in ways that persons around him disapprove, and now those persons treat him with less respect than before.
16.15 Persons who write about past events in the future will describe him, and persons reading those descriptions will form opinions about him.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “he” in E-Prime Max:
“He” functions as the third-person masculine singular subject pronoun. It refers to a specific male person already identified in context. In Standard English, “he” appears constantly with forms of “to be” in constructions like “He is tired,” “He was happy,” “He will be president.” These predications attach qualities or roles to the person as if they constituted his essence.
Judgment statements: “[Abstraction] judges him”
“He” appears with “to be” constantly in Standard English. Key transformations:
“He is brave” → “He acts despite danger signals”
“He is a criminal” → “Persons with weapons label him ‘criminal’” (dissolution needed)
“He was praised” → “Persons praised him”
“He” appears with HIGH frequency alongside spooks because statements about specific persons often invoke abstract categories to judge, classify, or explain them. Watch for:
“He broke the law” → He acted against written rules; persons with weapons will harm him
“He violated his duty” → He acted differently than certain persons expected
“He speaks the truth” → What he reports matches what I observe
“History judges him” → Future writers will describe him; future readers will form opinions
“Love drove him” → He felt tenderness and acted accordingly
“History remembers him” → Persons who write about past events mention him
“He lost freedom” → Persons with weapons now restrict where he may go
“He believes in morality” → He acts as certain persons taught him to act
“Hope sustains him” → He imagines future improvements and continues acting
“He turned traitor” → Certain persons now call him “traitor” and want to harm him
Incomplete dissolution: “He believes in justice” → “He wants justice” (still contains spook as object). Complete: “He expects certain persons to act in ways he approves.”
Hidden agency in abstractions: “Justice condemned him” → Watch for abstractions as subjects. Dissolve: “Persons calling themselves ‘judges’ declared he must suffer.”
Metaphysical predicates surviving: “He became good” → Still treats “good” as quality he acquired. Dissolve: “He began acting in ways that many persons around me approve.”
Forgetting the weapons: “The state employs him” → Dissolving to “persons employ him” misses the coercive structure. Include: “Persons with weapons and official titles employ him.”
Emotion spooks slipping through: “He felt love” → Acceptable (he experiences). “Love changed him” → Spook as agent; dissolve: “He felt tenderness toward certain persons and began acting differently.”
When using “he” in any construction, ask: “Does the concept I attach to him serve MY understanding, or do I serve the concept by using it?”
Useful application: “He works as a doctor”—I understand what he does; the category serves communication.
Spook possession: “He violated the sacred oath”—”Sacred” suggests the oath commands from beyond human creation; persons who benefit from oath-keeping taught others to call certain promises “sacred.”
The test reveals: Every judgment about “him” reflects persons judging. Every category applied to “him” reflects persons labeling. Every expectation of “him” reflects persons expecting. The pronoun points to one body; the predicates reveal the social field surrounding that body.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933) taught that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality differ fundamentally from reality itself. The structure of language shapes thought. When we say “he IS a criminal,” the “is” of identity suggests a permanent essence, a fixed nature, a necessary connection between the person and the category.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1965) developed E-Prime to eliminate this “is of identity.” By forbidding all forms of “to be,” E-Prime forces speakers to specify relationships, perceptions, and actions. “He is a criminal” becomes “The court convicted him” or “He acted in ways that violate certain laws.” Each formulation reveals something: who judged, what actions, which rules.
The E-Prime discipline applies operational definitions—specifying what OPERATIONS produce a category. “Criminal” operationally means: “person whom courts convict” or “person whom police arrest” or “person who acts against written rules enforced by persons with weapons.” Each operational definition reveals different actors and relationships.
Humans FORGET they created it (the abstraction appears as eternal, necessary, commanding)
The haunting completes itself: the person serves a concept they themselves invented (or inherited from others who invented it). The spook rides the thinker, not the reverse.
Stirner’s “ownness” (Eigenheit) means: using concepts as tools I own, deploying them for my purposes, discarding them when they no longer serve. A concept I own: “justice means getting what I want in this dispute.” A concept that owns me: “Justice DEMANDS that I sacrifice my interests for the greater good.”
E-Prime attacks predication: the claim that X IS Y, that identity holds between subject and predicate. It reveals that every “is” masks a relationship, perception, or action.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the claim that abstractions ACT, DEMAND, REQUIRE, FORBID. It reveals that every spook-as-agent masks specific persons acting.
“He IS guilty because Justice CONDEMNS him” → Both disciplines required
The pronoun “he” grounds us in a specific body. E-Prime Max ensures that what we say about that body also refers to concrete realities—other bodies acting, sensations experienced, relationships observable.
When we dissolve the spooks surrounding “he,” we find:
Persons acting where “society” seemed to act: “Society rejects him” → Many persons around me express disapproval. Now we can ask: WHICH persons? ALL persons? On what basis? The dissolution opens inquiry.
Weapons and cages where “law” seemed to command: “He broke the law” → He acted against written rules; persons with weapons will cage him. The violence becomes visible. The coercive apparatus reveals itself.
Expectations and approvals where “morality” seemed to judge: “He acted immorally” → He acted in ways that persons around him disapprove. Whose morality? Taught by whom? Enforced how? The social construction appears.
Power relations hidden by abstraction: “He serves the state” → He acts as persons with weapons direct. The service relationship clarifies: he follows commands backed by force. The hierarchy becomes visible.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone says “Justice demands X of him” or “History will condemn him,” ask: WHO demands? WHO will condemn? The reification often serves the speaker’s interests while appearing neutral.
Resisting possession by concepts: When you find yourself thinking “He SHOULD do X because DUTY requires it,” trace the spook: Who taught this duty? Who benefits from his compliance? Do I benefit from his compliance?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Practice E-Prime Max not as obligation but as tool. Use it when it reveals something useful. The circumlocution exposes: behind every judgment about “him” stand specific persons judging.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice changes perception. Where “society” seemed to act, I now see persons. Where “law” seemed to command, I now see weapons and written words. Where “he is guilty” seemed to describe an essence, I now see: specific persons will do specific things to him.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. When we say “persons with weapons,” we treat “persons” as fundamental. We could go further: “bodies with weapons,” “patterns of behavior involving weapons.” We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Evolution selected him for this trait” → spook. “The market rewarded his efforts” → spook. “His brain determined his choice” → spook (if “brain” appears as agent distinct from him). The test applies universally.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to “possessed” speakers. The moment this discipline becomes identity (”I am an E-Prime Max speaker”) or performance (elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality), dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “True freedom requires...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even those of the tradition that produced this analysis.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The man who is set free is nothing but a freed man, a libertinus, a dog dragging a piece of chain with him: he is an unfree man in the garment of freedom, like the donkey in the lion’s skin.”
F.1a The man whom others call “set free” functions only as a freed man, someone released by others, a dog dragging a piece of chain: he acts without freedom while wearing the appearance of freedom, like a donkey covered with a lion’s skin.
F.1b The (DEF.ART) man (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[passive→others.acting]) call (V-pres) “set∿free” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[set.free→label.applied]) functions (V-pres.REL) only (ADV) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) freed (ADJ) man (N), someone (PRON) released (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freed→released.by.others]) by (PREP) others (N-agent), a (INDEF.ART) dog (N) dragging (V-pres.PART) a (INDEF.ART) piece (N) of (PREP) chain (N): he (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[is.unfree→acts.without.freedom]) without (PREP) freedom (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.as.one.chooses]) while (CONJ) wearing (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) appearance (N-obj) of (PREP) freedom (N), like (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) donkey (N) covered (V-past.PART) with (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) lion’s (N-poss) skin (N).
E-PRIME “is an unfree man” → DISSOLUTION “acts without freedom” → STRATEGY E7
∴ He who receives “freedom” from others still carries their chain
The man whom others call “set free” functions only as a freed man, someone released by others, a dog dragging a piece of chain: he acts without freedom while wearing the appearance of freedom, like a donkey covered with a lion’s skin.
Preserves Stirner’s insight: genuine self-ownership cannot come from others
The pronoun “he” appears in the dissolution, pointing to the specific person who received freedom from others. The dissolution surrounds “him” with the concrete reality: others freed him, others call him free, yet he still drags their chain.
This passage demonstrates that even Stirner—the analyst of spooks—wrote in Standard English with its hidden predications. “He IS an unfree man” attaches the quality as if essential. The E-Prime Max transformation reveals: he ACTS without freedom. The action can change. The quality does not inhere in essence.
The transformation also reveals a spook in Stirner’s text: “freedom” as something one can possess, wear, receive. E-Prime Max dissolves it to: acting as one chooses. This operational definition clarifies Stirner’s point: acting as one chooses requires no permission from others. “Freedom” received from others still constrains—one acts as they allow.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This section presents 15 additional examples examining how spooks cluster around masculine pronouns in political discourse. When we speak of “leaders,” “rulers,” “presidents,” we invoke constellations of abstractions—authority, legitimacy, sovereignty, mandate, the people’s will. E-Prime Max dissolves these to reveal: specific persons with specific capabilities (usually weapons), specific compliance relationships, specific beneficiaries.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He derives his authority from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.16a Many persons comply with his commands because they expect other persons with weapons to harm them if they refuse—and some persons express approval of this arrangement.
16.16b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.governed→many.persons]) comply (V-pres) with (PREP) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj) because (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿harm (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres)—and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[consent→some.approving]) express (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→express.approval]) approval (N-obj) of (PREP) this (DET) arrangement (N).
SPOOK “derives” → DISSOLUTION eliminated—no transfer of metaphysical substance → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO actually consented? WHO never consented but complies anyway?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He embodies the will of the nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.17a When he commands, persons with weapons act; many persons within these borders expect and approve of this, though many others do not.
16.17b When (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) commands (V-pres), persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) act (V-pres); many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.within.borders]) within (PREP) these (DET) borders (N) expect (V-pres) and (CONJ) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→approve]) of (PREP) this (PRON-dem), though (CONJ) many (DET) others (N-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG).
SPOOK “embodies” → DISSOLUTION eliminated—no metaphysical embodiment occurs → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The “many others who do not” disappear in the original—dissolution makes them visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He was democratically elected.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.18a Many persons marked papers or touched screens in his favor, and officials counted more marks for him than for others who also sought the position; now persons with weapons enforce his commands.
16.18b Many (DET) persons (N-subj) marked (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[voted→marked.papers]) papers (N-obj) or (CONJ) touched (V-past) screens (N-obj) in (PREP) his (PRON-poss) favor (N), and (CONJ) officials (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[officials→persons.with.titles]) counted (V-past) more (DET) marks (N-obj) for (PREP) him (PRON-obj) than (CONJ) for (PREP) others (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) also (ADV) sought (V-past) the (DEF.ART) position (N); now (ADV-time) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj).
E-PRIME “was elected” → DISSOLUTION “persons marked, officials counted” → STRATEGY E1
∴ How many marked papers? How did officials count? Who enforces the result?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He betrayed the public trust.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.19a He acted differently than many persons expected him to act, and now many persons express disapproval and want persons with weapons to harm him.
16.19b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→many.persons]) expected (V-past) him (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf), and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-obj) and (CONJ) want (V-pres) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punish.betrayal→harm]) him (PRON-obj).
SPOOK “betrayed” → DISSOLUTION “acted differently than expected” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Betrayal” dissolves to: he acted differently than they expected; now they want him harmed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He abused his power.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.20a While many persons followed his commands, he directed them to harm persons whom he wanted harmed, and he took things from persons who did not wish to give them.
16.20b While (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.following]) followed (V-past) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj), he (PRON-subj) directed (V-past) them (PRON-obj) to∿harm (V-inf) persons (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) harmed (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abused→harmed]), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) took (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abused→took]) things (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) did∿not∿wish (V-past.NEG) to∿give (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK “abused” → DISSOLUTION “harmed those he wanted harmed + took without consent” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO got harmed? WHO lost things? The abstraction hid the victims
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He speaks for the voiceless.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.21a He claims to express what persons without access to officials and media want; those persons rarely confirm this, and he benefits from making the claim.
16.21b He (PRON-subj) claims (V-pres) to∿express (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[voiceless→persons.without.access]) without (PREP) access (N) to (PREP) officials (N) and (CONJ) media (N) want (V-pres); those (DET) persons (N-subj) rarely (ADV-freq) confirm (V-pres) this (PRON-dem), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) benefits (V-pres) from (PREP) making (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) claim (N-obj).
SPOOK “speaks for” → DISSOLUTION “claims to express what they want” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the claim? Do the “voiceless” actually want what he says?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is a tyrant.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.22a He commands persons with weapons to harm many persons who do not wish to comply, and he takes from many persons without their approval.
16.22b He (PRON-subj) commands (V-pres) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tyrant→harms.many]) many (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) do∿not∿wish (V-pres.NEG) to∿comply (V-inf), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) takes (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tyrant→takes.without.approval]) from (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-obj) without (PREP) their (PRON-poss) approval (N).
SPOOK “tyrant” → DISSOLUTION “specific actions: commanding harm, taking” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Anyone can evaluate the actions without debating the label
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is a great leader.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.23a Many persons follow his commands enthusiastically, and many persons report that their lives improved after he began commanding.
16.23b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[great.leader→persons.following]) follow (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj) enthusiastically (ADV-manner), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) report (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) lives (N-subj) improved (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[great→lives.improved]) after (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) began (V-past) commanding (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK “leader” → DISSOLUTION “one whose commands persons follow” → STRATEGY D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ Also reveals: “many persons” follow—but how many do not? Who got harmed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He has a mandate from the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.24a Some persons who marked papers in his favor now expect him to act in certain ways, and he claims that their marks authorize him to command.
16.24b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→some.persons]) who (PRON-rel) marked (V-past) papers (N-obj) in (PREP) his (PRON-poss) favor (N) now (ADV-time) expect (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) claims (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) marks (N-subj) authorize (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[mandate→authorize]) him (PRON-obj) to∿command (V-inf).
SPOOK “the people” → DISSOLUTION “some persons who marked papers” → STRATEGY D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO didn’t mark papers? WHO marked against him? They disappear in “mandate from the people”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He must answer to justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.25a Certain persons calling themselves “prosecutors” want persons calling themselves “judges” to direct persons with weapons to cage him or take things from him.
16.25b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[prosecutors→persons.labeling.selves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “prosecutors” (N-label) want (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[judges→persons.labeling.selves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) to∿direct (V-inf) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿cage (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→cage.or.take]) him (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) take (V-inf) things (N-obj) from (PREP) him (PRON-obj).
SPOOK “answer to” → DISSOLUTION “they want to cage him or take from him” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO calls themselves prosecutor? WHO calls themselves judge? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He defends freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.26a He commands persons with weapons to harm persons who would restrict how other persons act within certain borders.
16.26b He (PRON-subj) commands (V-pres) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿harm (V-inf) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) would∿restrict (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[threaten.freedom→restrict]) how (ADV-manner) other (DET) persons (N-subj) act (V-pres) within (PREP) certain (DET) borders (N).
SPOOK “defends” → DISSOLUTION “commands weapons to harm restrictors” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO gets restricted? WHO gets harmed? Whose “freedom”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is above the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.27a Persons with weapons do not cage him or take things from him even when he acts in ways for which they cage or take from others.
16.27b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) do∿not∿cage (V-pres.NEG) him (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) take (V-pres) things (N-obj) from (PREP) him (PRON-obj) even∿when (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) for (PREP) which (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) cage (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→caging]) or (CONJ) take (V-pres) from (PREP) others (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME “is above” → DISSOLUTION “persons do not cage him” → STRATEGY E3
∴ WHO decides not to cage him? WHO gets caged for the same actions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He has blood on his hands.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.28a Persons with weapons killed other persons after he commanded them to do so.
16.28b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) killed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[blood.on.hands→killed]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) after (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) commanded (V-past) them (PRON-obj) to∿do∿so (V-inf).
METAPHOR “blood on his hands” → DISSOLUTION “commanded killings” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO got killed? WHO held the weapons? WHO commanded?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He violated his oath of office.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.29a He spoke certain words in a ceremony, and now he acts differently than those words specified; persons who heard those words express disapproval.
16.29b He (PRON-subj) spoke (V-past) certain (DET) words (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[oath→words.spoken]) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) ceremony (N), and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) he (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) those (DET) words (N-subj) specified (V-past); persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) heard (V-past) those (DET) words (N-obj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[violated→acts.differently.disapproved]).
SPOOK “violated” → DISSOLUTION “acts differently than words specified” → STRATEGY D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote the oath? WHO cares that he acts differently?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He will go down in history as a hero.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
16.30a Persons who write about past events will describe him with words that persons reading those words will interpret favorably; those writers will select certain actions of his to emphasize and omit others.
16.30b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) will∿describe (V-fut) him (PRON-obj) with (PREP) words (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) reading (V-pres.PART) those (DET) words (N-obj) will∿interpret (V-fut) favorably (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hero→interpreted.favorably]); those (DET) writers (N-subj) will∿select (V-fut) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) of (PREP) his (PRON-poss) to∿emphasize (V-inf) and (CONJ) omit (V-inf) others (PRON-obj).
SPOOK “go down in history” → DISSOLUTION “writers will describe, readers will interpret” → STRATEGY D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO will write? What will they select? What will they omit?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
16.16 “Many persons comply with his commands because they expect other persons with weapons to harm them if they refuse—and some persons express approval of this arrangement.”
[Standard: “He derives his authority from the consent of the governed.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authority → compliance + weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (consent → some approve)]
16.17 “When he commands, persons with weapons act; many persons within these borders expect and approve of this, though many others do not.”
[Standard: “He embodies the will of the nation.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → persons within borders, will → some approve, some don’t)]
16.18 “Many persons marked papers or touched screens in his favor, and officials counted more marks for him than for others who also sought the position; now persons with weapons enforce his commands.”
[Standard: “He was democratically elected.”] [Dissolution: E1 (was elected → persons marked + officials counted), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (democratically → marking papers)]
16.19 “He acted differently than many persons expected him to act, and now many persons express disapproval and want persons with weapons to harm him.”
[Standard: “He betrayed the public trust.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (public → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (trust → expectations, betrayed → acted differently)]
16.20 “While many persons followed his commands, he directed them to harm persons whom he wanted harmed, and he took things from persons who did not wish to give them.”
[Standard: “He abused his power.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (power → persons following), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (abused → harmed + took)]
16.21 “He claims to express what persons without access to officials and media want; those persons rarely confirm this, and he benefits from making the claim.”
[Standard: “He speaks for the voiceless.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (voiceless → persons without access), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (speaks for → claims to express)]
16.22 “He commands persons with weapons to harm many persons who do not wish to comply, and he takes from many persons without their approval.”
[Standard: “He is a tyrant.”] [Dissolution: E5 (is a tyrant → commands harming + takes), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tyrant → specific harmful actions)]
16.23 “Many persons follow his commands enthusiastically, and many persons report that their lives improved after he began commanding.”
[Standard: “He is a great leader.”] [Dissolution: E5 (is a great leader → enthusiastic following + improvement), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (great → measurable outcomes)]
16.24 “Some persons who marked papers in his favor now expect him to act in certain ways, and he claims that their marks authorize him to command.”
[Standard: “He has a mandate from the people.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → some persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (mandate → marks + claims)]
16.25 “Certain persons calling themselves ‘prosecutors’ want persons calling themselves ‘judges’ to direct persons with weapons to cage him or take things from him.”
[Standard: “He must answer to justice.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (justice → labeled persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (answer to → cage/take)]
16.26 “He commands persons with weapons to harm persons who would restrict how other persons act within certain borders.”
[Standard: “He defends freedom.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → unrestricted action, defends → commands harming restrictors)]
16.27 “Persons with weapons do not cage him or take things from him even when he acts in ways for which they cage or take from others.”
[Standard: “He is above the law.”] [Dissolution: E3 (is above → not caged/taken from), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons enforcing)]
16.28 “Persons with weapons killed other persons after he commanded them to do so.”
[Standard: “He has blood on his hands.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (blood on hands → commanded killings)]
16.29 “He spoke certain words in a ceremony, and now he acts differently than those words specified; persons who heard those words express disapproval.”
[Standard: “He violated his oath of office.”] [Dissolution: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (oath → words spoken in ceremony), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (violated → acts differently)]
16.30 “Persons who write about past events will describe him with words that persons reading those words will interpret favorably; those writers will select certain actions of his to emphasize and omit others.”
[Standard: “He will go down in history as a hero.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → persons writing/reading), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (hero → favorable selective description)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
16.16 Many persons comply with his commands because they expect other persons with weapons to harm them if they refuse—and some persons express approval of this arrangement.
16.17 When he commands, persons with weapons act; many persons within these borders expect and approve of this, though many others do not.
16.18 Many persons marked papers or touched screens in his favor, and officials counted more marks for him than for others who also sought the position; now persons with weapons enforce his commands.
16.19 He acted differently than many persons expected him to act, and now many persons express disapproval and want persons with weapons to harm him.
16.20 While many persons followed his commands, he directed them to harm persons whom he wanted harmed, and he took things from persons who did not wish to give them.
16.21 He claims to express what persons without access to officials and media want; those persons rarely confirm this, and he benefits from making the claim.
16.22 He commands persons with weapons to harm many persons who do not wish to comply, and he takes from many persons without their approval.
16.23 Many persons follow his commands enthusiastically, and many persons report that their lives improved after he began commanding.
16.24 Some persons who marked papers in his favor now expect him to act in certain ways, and he claims that their marks authorize him to command.
16.25 Certain persons calling themselves “prosecutors” want persons calling themselves “judges” to direct persons with weapons to cage him or take things from him.
16.26 He commands persons with weapons to harm persons who would restrict how other persons act within certain borders.
16.27 Persons with weapons do not cage him or take things from him even when he acts in ways for which they cage or take from others.
16.28 Persons with weapons killed other persons after he commanded them to do so.
16.29 He spoke certain words in a ceremony, and now he acts differently than those words specified; persons who heard those words express disapproval.
16.30 Persons who write about past events will describe him with words that persons reading those words will interpret favorably; those writers will select certain actions of his to emphasize and omit others.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The political discourse genre concentrates spooks densely around masculine pronouns. When we speak of leaders, rulers, and politicians, we invoke:
“Mandate” → marks on papers + claims of authorization
“The public” → many persons (with varying views)
“Tyrant/hero” → specific actions, specific outcomes, specific evaluators
Hides who benefits from the abstractions
The dissolution reveals: Every political claim about “him” reflects specific persons: who commands, who complies, who enforces, who judges, who benefits, who gets harmed. The masculine pronoun points to one body; the surrounding spooks hide the other bodies involved.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Standard 1: “He is a victim of society’s neglect.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around him chose not to help him when he needed help, and now he suffers the consequences of receiving no help.
“is a victim” → now suffers (E7)
Revelation: No “society” exists to neglect anyone → only persons who chose not to help. WHO chose not to help? The dissolution invites the question.
Standard 2: “He was possessed by evil.”
E-Prime Max: He acted in ways that harmed many persons around him, and those persons now describe his actions with words like “evil.”
“was possessed” → he acted (E1)
Revelation: No “evil” exists as possessing force → only actions judged harmful + the word “evil” applied by persons judging. WHO applies the label? By WHOSE standards?
Standard 3: “He is a saint in the eyes of his community.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons who interact with him regularly describe him with words of high praise and point to his actions that benefited them.
“is a saint” → persons describe him with praise (E5)
Revelation: No “sainthood” exists as quality → only praise from specific persons. The “community” dissolves to identifiable persons. WHICH persons praise him? For WHICH actions?
Standard 4: “Freedom made him who he is today.”
E-Prime Max: After persons with weapons stopped restricting where he could go and what he could do, he began acting differently; he now acts in ways he did not act before.
“is today” → now acts (E7)
Revelation: No “freedom” exists as shaping force → only: restrictions ended, he acted differently. WHO stopped restricting? WHAT did he do differently?
Standard 5: “Conscience forced him to confess.”
E-Prime Max: He felt increasing discomfort when he remembered what he did, and eventually he told others what he had done.
“forced” → eventually he told (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “conscience” exists as forcing agent → only his feelings + his choice to speak. The dissolution restores agency: HE felt, HE told. No external force compelled—only his own sensations and choices.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This E-Prime Max course comes from the Latinum Institute, which has developed language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The E-Prime Max curriculum synthesizes two powerful intellectual traditions:
General Semantics (Korzybski, Bourland): The discipline of E-Prime eliminates “to be” forms, forcing speakers to specify relationships and actions rather than asserting essences and identities.
Stirnerian Philosophy (Max Stirner): The concept of “spooks” identifies abstract nouns that possess thinkers rather than serving them—concepts that demand, require, forbid, and judge.
The Synthesis: E-Prime Max combines these disciplines. E-Prime attacks predication; E-Prime Max attacks reification. Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic awareness.
The Autodidact Method: Each lesson introduces a high-frequency English word while demonstrating E-Prime Max construction. The interlinear format with Dissolution Maps makes the transformative work visible. Students see exactly how abstractions dissolve into persons, actions, and bodies.
The Circumlocution Benefit: E-Prime Max sentences appear longer and more cumbersome than Standard English. This serves the pedagogical purpose: the circumlocution REVEALS what the spook HID. Where “He is guilty” offers false economy, the dissolution “Persons with weapons will cage him” exposes the concrete reality.
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 16
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
With functions as a preposition in English, indicating accompaniment, association, means, or instrument. In Standard English, “with” connects nouns to indicate togetherness (”I walked with my friend”), instrumentality (”I cut it with a knife”), or manner (”She spoke with confidence”).
For autodidact students working through the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max curriculum, “with” presents a fascinating challenge. The word itself carries no E-Prime violations and functions as no spook—yet it constantly appears alongside spooks. Constructions like “with justice,” “with authority,” “with society’s blessing,” “with the law on our side” use “with” to attach persons to abstract agents that possess rather than serve.
This lesson demonstrates how E-Prime Max dissolves these constructions. When someone claims to act “with justice,” we ask: WHO perceives this as just? When someone claims “the law stands with us,” we dissolve: WHICH persons with weapons will act on our behalf?
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “with” mean in E-Prime Max?
“With” retains its standard function as a preposition of accompaniment or instrument. However, E-Prime Max scrutinizes what follows “with”—dissolving any spooks that might ride alongside. “With authority” becomes “with persons whom others obey.” “With justice” becomes “with outcomes that certain persons expect.” The preposition remains; the ghost departs.
◊ E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
◊ The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
◊ Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
◊ Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
How “with” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The preposition itself requires no transformation. The work happens in dissolving what follows—replacing “with justice” with “with persons expecting X,” replacing “with the state’s approval” with “with permission from persons calling themselves officials.”
Common spooks to watch for with this word: authority, justice, society, the state, law, morality, tradition, duty, the public interest, conscience
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) predominates—most “with [spook]” constructions dissolve by identifying the persons behind the abstraction. D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) applies when “with” indicates manner or instrument.
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The persons who actually act. The weapons behind “law.” The expectations behind “duty.” The particular individuals behind “society.” Power relations emerge from abstraction’s fog.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She walked with confidence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.1a She walked with steady steps and held her head high.
17.1b She (PRON-subj) walked (V-past) with (PREP) steady (ADJ) steps (N-obj) and (CONJ) held (V-past) her (PRON-poss) head (N-obj) high (ADV-manner).
17.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: confidence (as abstract quality) DISSOLUTION: steady steps, head held high (observable actions) STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “confidence” exists apart from observable behaviors ∴ “With confidence” dissolves into specific physical actions ∴ The abstraction vanishes; the body remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The police acted with authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.2a Certain persons with weapons and uniforms gave commands, and other persons obeyed from habit.
17.2b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[police→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) uniforms (N) gave (V-past) commands (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) obeyed (V-past) from (PREP) habit (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→habitual.obedience]).
17.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: authority DISSOLUTION: persons obeying from habit STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: police (as institutional agent) DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons and uniforms STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authority” commands—persons command, others obey ∴ “Authority” names a pattern of obedience, not a force ∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO obeys? Power appears.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He spoke with justice on his side.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.3a He spoke, and many persons around him nodded with approval at his words.
17.3b He (PRON-subj) spoke (V-past), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.approving]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) nodded (V-past) with (PREP) approval (N-action) at (PREP) his (PRON-poss) words (N-obj).
17.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: justice (as validating agent) DISSOLUTION: persons nodding with approval STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” stands beside anyone ∴ Only persons approve or disapprove ∴ “Justice on his side” = certain persons agree with him
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The bread was shared with the community.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.4a Several persons divided the bread and gave portions with their hands to those standing nearby.
17.4b Several (DET) persons (N-subj) divided (V-past) the (DEF.ART) bread (N-obj) and (CONJ) gave (V-past) portions (N-obj) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) hands (N-instrument) to (PREP) those (PRON-dem) standing (V-pres.PART) nearby (ADV-place ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→those.standing.nearby]).
17.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: was shared DISSOLUTION: divided... and gave (active voice) STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: community DISSOLUTION: those standing nearby STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “community” receives—specific persons receive ∴ “With” now modifies instrument (hands), not abstraction ∴ Concrete bodies replace collective ghost
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must act with morality.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.5a I choose to act with consideration for how my actions affect specific persons around me.
17.5b I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must→I.choose]) to∿act (V-inf) with (PREP) consideration (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[morality→consideration.for.effects]) for (PREP) how (ADV-manner) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) affect (V-pres) specific (ADJ) persons (N-obj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
17.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: morality (as commanding agent) DISSOLUTION: consideration for effects on persons STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: must (obligation from outside) DISSOLUTION: I choose STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
17.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” commands me—I choose ∴ “With morality” becomes “with attention to effects” ∴ The abstraction dissolves; my agency appears
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She did it with society’s approval.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.6a She did it, and many persons around her expressed agreement with nods and smiles.
17.6b She (PRON-subj) did (V-past) it (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) expressed (V-past) agreement (N-action ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[approval→agreement]) with (PREP) nods (N) and (CONJ) smiles (N).
17.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society DISSOLUTION: many persons around her STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: approval (as abstract grant) DISSOLUTION: agreement expressed with nods and smiles STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” approves—specific persons nod ∴ “With society’s approval” = with nods from nearby persons ∴ The collective ghost dissolves into visible faces
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law is with us.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.7a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will act on our behalf if we ask them.
17.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) will∿act (V-fut) on (PREP) our (PRON-poss) behalf (N) if (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) ask (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
17.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is with us DISSOLUTION: will act on our behalf STRATEGY: E3-Existence + E1-Active
SPOOK: law (as allied agent) DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons acting on our behalf STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” stands anywhere—only written words exist ∴ Persons with weapons enforce those words ∴ “Law with us” = those persons will hurt others for us
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He struggled with his conscience.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.8a He felt discomfort when imagining what certain persons would think of him, and he wrestled with these feelings.
17.8b He (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→felt.discomfort]) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ) imagining (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) would∿think (V-cond) of (PREP) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) wrestled (V-past) with (PREP) these (DET) feelings (N-obj).
17.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: conscience (as internal agent) DISSOLUTION: discomfort when imagining others’ judgments STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “conscience” struggles—I feel discomfort ∴ “Conscience” = internalized judgments of others ∴ WHO installed these feelings? Whose voices echo?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “With God’s blessing, we will succeed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.9a With encouragement from persons who speak of a being they call “God,” we will attempt this and observe what happens.
17.9b With (PREP) encouragement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[blessing→encouragement]) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God→persons.who.speak.of]) who (PRON-rel) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) being (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “God” (N-label), we (PRON-subj) will∿attempt (V-fut) this (PRON-dem) and (CONJ) observe (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres).
17.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: God (as blessing agent) DISSOLUTION: persons who speak of a being they call “God” STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: blessing DISSOLUTION: encouragement STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will succeed (certainty from divine source) DISSOLUTION: will attempt and observe what happens STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
17.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “God” blesses—persons encourage ∴ “God” = a being certain persons invented and named ∴ Certainty of success dissolves into attempt and observation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The criminal was dealt with by the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.10a Persons with weapons confined the person whom other persons had labeled “criminal” in a cage.
17.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) confined (V-past) the (DEF.ART) person (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) had∿labeled (V-past.perf) “criminal” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminal→person.labeled]) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) cage (N-place).
17.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: was dealt with DISSOLUTION: confined (active voice) STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: criminal DISSOLUTION: person whom others labeled “criminal” STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “state” acts—persons with weapons act ∴ No “criminals” exist—only persons bearing labels ∴ WHO attaches the label? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She spoke with the voice of reason.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.11a She spoke with clear statements, and many persons found themselves nodding at her arguments.
17.11b She (PRON-subj) spoke (V-past) with (PREP) clear (ADJ) statements (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reason→clear.statements]), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) found (V-past) themselves (PRON-refl) nodding (V-pres.PART) at (PREP) her (PRON-poss) arguments (N-obj).
17.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: reason (as possessing a voice) DISSOLUTION: clear statements that prompt agreement STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Reason” has no voice—persons speak ∴ “Voice of reason” = statements others find compelling ∴ WHO decides what counts as “reasonable”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “With tradition as our guide, we proceeded.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.12a With the practices that persons before us had repeated, and that older persons around us taught, we proceeded.
17.12b With (PREP) the (DEF.ART) practices (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→practices.repeated]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.before.us]) before (PREP) us (PRON-obj) had∿repeated (V-past.perf), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) older (ADJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) us (PRON-obj) taught (V-past), we (PRON-subj) proceeded (V-past).
17.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: tradition (as guiding agent) DISSOLUTION: practices that past and present persons repeated and taught STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” guides—persons taught us ∴ “Tradition” = patterns persons repeated ∴ We can repeat them or not—the choice remains ours
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love is with those who wait.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.13a Persons who wait sometimes encounter other persons who act with tenderness toward them.
17.13b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) wait (V-pres) sometimes (ADV-freq) encounter (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness.in.action]) toward (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
17.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is with DISSOLUTION: encounter... act with STRATEGY: E3-Existence
SPOOK: love (as companion agent) DISSOLUTION: persons acting with tenderness STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” accompanies anyone—persons act ∴ “With tenderness” describes how persons act ∴ The emotion dissolves; the action remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They negotiated with the enemy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.14a They negotiated with persons whom their leaders had labeled “enemies.”
17.14b They (PRON-subj) negotiated (V-past) with (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[enemy→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) their (PRON-poss) leaders (N-subj) had∿labeled (V-past.perf) “enemies” (N-label).
17.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: enemy (as categorical identity) DISSOLUTION: persons whom leaders labeled “enemies” STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
17.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “enemies” exist—only persons with labels ∴ WHO attached this label? For what purpose? ∴ The label dissolves; persons negotiating remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “With freedom comes responsibility.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.15a With the capacity to act without interference comes the expectation from persons around me that I will consider how my actions affect them.
17.15b With (PREP) the (DEF.ART) capacity (N) to∿act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→capacity.to.act]) without (PREP) interference (N) comes (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) expectation (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[responsibility→expectation]) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will∿consider (V-fut) how (ADV-manner) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) affect (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
17.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: freedom (as abstract gift) DISSOLUTION: capacity to act without interference STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: responsibility (as cosmic burden) DISSOLUTION: expectation from persons around me STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” comes—I can act when no one interferes ∴ No “responsibility” follows—persons expect things of me ∴ Both abstractions dissolve into capacity and expectation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
17.1 “She walked with steady steps and held her head high.”
[Standard English: “She walked with confidence.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (confidence → observable behaviors)]
17.2 “Certain persons with weapons and uniforms gave commands, and other persons obeyed from habit.”
[Standard English: “The police acted with authority.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (police → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (authority → habitual obedience)]
17.3 “He spoke, and many persons around him nodded with approval at his words.”
[Standard English: “He spoke with justice on his side.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons approving)]
17.4 “Several persons divided the bread and gave portions with their hands to those standing nearby.”
[Standard English: “The bread was shared with the community.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1-Active Voice (was shared → divided and gave)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (community → those standing nearby)]
17.5 “I choose to act with consideration for how my actions affect specific persons around me.”
[Standard English: “We must act with morality.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → I choose), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (morality → consideration for effects)]
17.6 “She did it, and many persons around her expressed agreement with nods and smiles.”
[Standard English: “She did it with society’s approval.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (approval → nods and smiles)]
17.7 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ will act on our behalf if we ask them.”
[Standard English: “The law is with us.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-Existence (is with us → will act)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons)]
17.8 “He felt discomfort when imagining what certain persons would think of him, and he wrestled with these feelings.”
[Standard English: “He struggled with his conscience.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → felt discomfort), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (conscience → others’ imagined judgments)]
17.9 “With encouragement from persons who speak of a being they call ‘God,’ we will attempt this and observe what happens.”
[Standard English: “With God’s blessing, we will succeed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being persons invented), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (blessing → encouragement), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (will succeed → will attempt and observe)]
17.10 “Persons with weapons confined the person whom other persons had labeled ‘criminal’ in a cage.”
[Standard English: “The criminal was dealt with by the state.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1-Active Voice (was dealt with → confined)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal → person labeled)]
17.11 “She spoke with clear statements, and many persons found themselves nodding at her arguments.”
[Standard English: “She spoke with the voice of reason.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (reason → clear statements that prompt agreement)]
17.12 “With the practices that persons before us had repeated, and that older persons around us taught, we proceeded.”
[Standard English: “With tradition as our guide, we proceeded.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tradition → practices persons repeated)]
17.13 “Persons who wait sometimes encounter other persons who act with tenderness toward them.”
[Standard English: “Love is with those who wait.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-Existence (is with → encounter)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → persons acting with tenderness)]
17.14 “They negotiated with persons whom their leaders had labeled ‘enemies.’”
[Standard English: “They negotiated with the enemy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (enemy → persons labeled)]
17.15 “With the capacity to act without interference comes the expectation from persons around me that I will consider how my actions affect them.”
[Standard English: “With freedom comes responsibility.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → capacity to act without interference; responsibility → expectation)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
17.1 She walked with steady steps and held her head high.
17.2 Certain persons with weapons and uniforms gave commands, and other persons obeyed from habit.
17.3 He spoke, and many persons around him nodded with approval at his words.
17.4 Several persons divided the bread and gave portions with their hands to those standing nearby.
17.5 I choose to act with consideration for how my actions affect specific persons around me.
17.6 She did it, and many persons around her expressed agreement with nods and smiles.
17.7 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will act on our behalf if we ask them.
17.8 He felt discomfort when imagining what certain persons would think of him, and he wrestled with these feelings.
17.9 With encouragement from persons who speak of a being they call “God,” we will attempt this and observe what happens.
17.10 Persons with weapons confined the person whom other persons had labeled “criminal” in a cage.
17.11 She spoke with clear statements, and many persons found themselves nodding at her arguments.
17.12 With the practices that persons before us had repeated, and that older persons around us taught, we proceeded.
17.13 Persons who wait sometimes encounter other persons who act with tenderness toward them.
17.14 They negotiated with persons whom their leaders had labeled “enemies.”
17.15 With the capacity to act without interference comes the expectation from persons around me that I will consider how my actions affect them.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “with” in E-Prime Max:
1. Standard English Function
“With” functions primarily as a preposition expressing:
ACCOMPANIMENT — “I walked with my friend” (together) INSTRUMENT — “She cut it with a knife” (by means of) MANNER — “He spoke with confidence” (in the manner of) POSSESSION — “the man with the hat” (characterized by) CAUSE — “trembling with fear” (because of) OPPOSITION — “arguing with someone” (against)
The preposition introduces a noun phrase that modifies a verb, noun, or the entire clause.
2. E-Prime Considerations
“With” itself requires no E-Prime transformation—it contains no form of “to be.” However, sentences containing “with” often include E-Prime violations:
VIOLATION: “The book with the red cover is on the table.” SOLUTION: “The book with the red cover sits on the table.”
VIOLATION: “Being with her was wonderful.” SOLUTION: “Spending time with her felt wonderful.”
VIOLATION: “He was dealt with harshly.” SOLUTION: “They dealt with him harshly.”
Watch for passive constructions (”was dealt with,” “was met with”) that require active voice transformation.
3. Spook Proximity Analysis
“With” carries HIGH SPOOK PROXIMITY. The preposition constantly appears alongside political, moral, and metaphysical abstractions:
WITH + MORAL SPOOKS: with justice, with virtue, with honor, with conscience WITH + POLITICAL SPOOKS: with authority, with the state’s blessing, with the law WITH + COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: with society’s approval, with tradition, with history WITH + METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: with God, with truth, with reason WITH + REIFIED EMOTIONS: with love, with fear, with hope (when these act)
The spook rides beside “with”—always ask: WHO actually accompanies? WHAT concrete action occurs?
4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“with authority” → with the capacity to command others who obey “with society’s support” → with many persons around me expressing agreement “with the state’s permission” → with written documents from persons calling themselves officials “with God’s blessing” → with encouragement from persons who speak of a being they call “God”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“with confidence” → with steady steps and raised head “with love” → with tender actions and kind words “with justice” → with outcomes that match what certain persons expected “with freedom” → with the capacity to act without interference
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership):
“struggling with conscience” → feeling discomfort when imagining others’ judgments “filled with fear” → my body contracted and my hands trembled “blessed with hope” → I anticipated good outcomes and felt encouraged
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“met with the enemy” → met with persons whom leaders labeled “enemy” “dealing with criminals” → dealing with persons whom others labeled “criminal” “associating with outcasts” → associating with persons whom others avoided
5. Common Mistakes
MISTAKE: Dissolving “with” itself. “With” requires no dissolution—dissolve what follows it.
MISTAKE: Half-dissolving. “With many persons’ authority” still contains the spook. Complete: “With the commands that many persons obeyed.”
MISTAKE: Creating new spooks in dissolution. “With the people’s will” replaces one collective ghost with another. Complete: “With what many persons around me expressed wanting.”
MISTAKE: Forgetting instrument uses. “With a knife” needs no dissolution—knives exist as objects, not abstractions.
MISTAKE: Over-dissolving emotional language. “I acted with tenderness” requires no further dissolution—”I” remain the agent, “tenderness” describes my manner.
6. The Stirnerian Test
Apply to every “with [X]” construction:
“Does X serve me, or do I serve X?”
“With justice on my side” → Do I USE this claim, or does “justice” COMMAND me? “With tradition guiding me” → Do I CHOOSE these practices, or do they POSSESS me? “With authority” → Do I USE others’ obedience, or does “authority” OWN me?
If the abstraction appears as agent—if it guides, commands, blesses, supports—dissolve it. If I own and can discard it at will, I may keep it as shorthand.
But watch carefully: the shorthand can possess you while you think you possess it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1. General Semantics Background
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics around the principle that “the map does not equal the territory.” Our words create maps of reality that we often mistake for reality itself. The verb “to be” particularly encourages this confusion through the “is of identity” (”John is a failure”) and the “is of predication” (”The sky is blue”).
D. David Bourland Jr. proposed E-Prime in 1965 to address this problem. By eliminating all forms of “to be,” speakers must specify their actual observations and relationships rather than making absolute identity claims.
The preposition “with” intersects with General Semantics at the point of ASSOCIATION. When we say “with justice” or “with authority,” we associate ourselves with abstractions as if they existed alongside us. E-Prime Max asks: what ACTUAL associations exist? With WHOM do we stand? What ACTIONS do we perform?
2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner (1806-1856), in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), identified “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” (fixe Ideen) that haunt human consciousness. These concepts—God, State, Humanity, Morality, Truth—began as human creations but now possess their creators.
“With” becomes a primary vector for spook transmission. When persons claim to act “with justice,” they subordinate themselves to an abstraction. When persons proceed “with tradition,” they let dead patterns command living choices. When persons speak “with authority,” they invoke a ghost that only exists because others believe in it.
Stirner wrote: “The thought is my own only when I can indeed subjugate it to myself, but it never subjugates me, never fanatizes me, makes me the tool of its realization.”
The preposition “with” can indicate genuine accompaniment (walking with my friend) or spectral possession (acting with divine sanction). E-Prime Max distinguishes between them.
3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication: “X IS Y” E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X [abstraction] accompanies/guides/blesses me”
Together they dissolve both the identity-claim and the agency-claim. The unique person remains—no longer identified as (”I am a citizen”), no longer accompanied by ghosts (”with justice on my side”).
“With” in E-Prime Max connects persons to persons, bodies to bodies, actions to actions. Never abstractions to anything.
4. What Dissolution Reveals
When we dissolve “with authority,” we see: persons commanding, others obeying from habit or fear. The “authority” evaporates; the power relation appears.
When we dissolve “with justice,” we see: certain persons expecting certain outcomes, expressing approval or disapproval. The “justice” vanishes; the particular persons and their particular expectations appear.
When we dissolve “with society’s blessing,” we see: some persons around me nodding, others shrugging, most paying no attention at all. The monolithic “society” fragments into the diverse persons who actually exist.
The preposition “with” remains. The ghost departs. What stays: persons, actions, bodies, choices.
5. Practical Applications
RECOGNIZING MANIPULATION: When someone claims to act “with the law on their side,” ask: WHICH persons with weapons will support this? When someone invokes “with the people’s mandate,” ask: WHICH specific persons expressed this preference?
RESISTING POSSESSION: When I feel compelled to act “with conscience,” I can ask: WHOSE voices echo in my discomfort? When I proceed “with tradition,” I can ask: DO I choose these patterns, or do they choose me?
RECLAIMING OWNNESS: Instead of “acting with authority,” I can notice: I give commands, and these persons obey from habit. Instead of “blessed with freedom,” I can notice: currently, no one prevents me from acting.
The dissolution doesn’t remove my capacity—it clarifies what I actually do and who actually exists around me.
6. On Honest Limits
ON INFINITE REGRESS: “Persons” serves as our pragmatic stopping point, not a metaphysical bedrock. “Persons with weapons” could dissolve further—into bodies, into sensations, into patterns of perception. We stop where useful, not where true.
ON PRIESTHOODS: No domain escapes the Stirnerian test. “With scientific consensus,” “with evolutionary advantage,” “with market forces”—all invite scrutiny. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other; their abstractions receive no special immunity.
ON THIS DISCIPLINE ITSELF: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: elaborating dissolutions to signal radicality, correcting others’ spook-usage, taking pride in circumlocution. The moment “with E-Prime Max discipline” becomes a badge, the hobgoblin rides again.
ON ANARCHISM: Even “with anarchist principles” appears on the spook list. No sacred words exist—not even ours. If the principle commands rather than serves, dissolve it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
STIRNER ORIGINAL (Wolfi Landstreicher translation):
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime. The state resorts to violence with the pretext of public security; private violence is called crime.”
F-A: INTERLINEAR CONSTRUED TEXT
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.violence]), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not∿control (V-pres.NEG) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.for.violence]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons who call themselves “government” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: law DISSOLUTION: label attached to certain violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: individual DISSOLUTION: persons they do not control STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: crime DISSOLUTION: label attached to other violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual”) ∴ The dissolution preserves and clarifies his insight ∴ No “state” exists → only persons with weapons who label ∴ No “law” or “crime” exists → only violence, differently labeled ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from this labeling? ∴ The preposition “with” now connects to visible instruments (weapons) rather than abstract pretexts (public security)
F-B: E-PRIME MAX TEXT WITH TRANSLATION
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Stirner’s Original: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
F-C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F-D: NOTES ON THE TRANSFORMATION
Stirner’s insight remains intact through the dissolution: the same act (violence) receives different labels depending on WHO performs it. The persons with weapons label their violence “law” and others’ violence “crime.”
The E-Prime Max version makes explicit what Stirner implied:
“State” → persons with weapons calling themselves something “Law” → a label, not a thing “Crime” → another label, not another thing “Individual” → persons outside the labeling group’s control
Note how “with” functions differently in each version:
STIRNER: “with the pretext of public security” → instrumental spook E-PRIME MAX: “with weapons” → instrumental object
The preposition remains; what follows it clarifies.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This section presents 15 additional examples forming a coherent analytical text on political spook dissolution. The text examines how “with” functions in political discourse and what becomes visible when we dissolve the accompanying abstractions.
PART A: INTERLINEAR CONSTRUED TEXT
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government acted with the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.16a Certain persons with weapons took actions, and many persons around them did not physically resist or flee.
17.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) took (V-past) actions (N-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[governed→many.persons]) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) did∿not (V-past.NEG) physically (ADV-manner) resist (V-inf) or (CONJ) flee (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→not.resisting]).
17.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: government DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: governed DISSOLUTION: many persons around them STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: consent DISSOLUTION: not resisting or fleeing STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Consent” often means: no active resistance ∴ WHO counts the “consent”? By what method? ∴ Not fleeing ≠ endorsing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens must comply with the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.17a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face confinement by persons with weapons if they act contrary to certain written rules.
17.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) confinement (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[comply→face.confinement]) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) contrary (ADJ) to (PREP) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj).
17.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: citizens DISSOLUTION: persons whom officials label STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: law DISSOLUTION: written rules enforced by persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: must comply DISSOLUTION: face confinement if they don’t STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Must” means: or face violence ∴ “Law” means: words plus weapons ∴ WHO wrote the words? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy gives people power with their vote.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.18a Persons with the ability to mark papers on certain days may influence which other persons gain access to weapons and cages.
17.18b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) ability (N) to∿mark (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.papers]) papers (N-obj) on (PREP) certain (DET) days (N) may∿influence (V-pres.modal) which (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[democracy→persons.influencing.selection]) gain∿access (V-pres) to (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) cages (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→access.to.weapons]).
17.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: democracy (as giving agent) DISSOLUTION: a process where persons influence selection STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: power DISSOLUTION: access to weapons and cages STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: vote DISSOLUTION: marking papers on certain days STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “democracy” gives anything—persons mark papers ∴ “Power” means: access to instruments of force ∴ How much influence does one paper mark create?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation stands with its allies against aggression.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.19a Certain persons with weapons coordinate with other persons with weapons from other territories to threaten persons in yet other territories.
17.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) coordinate (V-pres) with (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[allies→other.persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) from (PREP) other (DET) territories (N) to∿threaten (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[against.aggression→threaten]) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) yet (ADV) other (DET) territories (N).
17.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: nation (as standing agent) DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons in a territory STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: allies DISSOLUTION: other persons with weapons coordinating STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: aggression DISSOLUTION: threat from yet other persons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” stands—persons with weapons coordinate ∴ “With allies” = with other weapon-holders ∴ “Against aggression” = threatening others ∴ WHO benefits from the coordination? WHO faces the threat?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights come with citizenship.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.20a Certain documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me come with their recognition that I fall within their labeling category.
17.20b Certain (DET) documented (ADJ) limits (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→documented.limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-pres.modal) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) come (V-pres) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) recognition (N) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) fall (V-pres) within (PREP) their (PRON-poss) labeling (ADJ) category (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizenship→labeling.category]).
17.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: rights DISSOLUTION: documented limits on violence toward me STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: citizenship DISSOLUTION: falling within their labeling category STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
17.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Rights” = limits on what weapon-holders may do ∴ “Citizenship” = a label attached by those same weapon-holders ∴ WHO decides the category? WHO enforces the limits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society progresses with education.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.21a Many persons around me change their behaviors with the information and skills that other persons teach them.
17.21b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) change (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→change]) their (PRON-poss) behaviors (N-obj) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) information (N) and (CONJ) skills (N) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[education→persons.teaching]) teach (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
17.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society (as progressing agent) DISSOLUTION: many persons around me STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: progresses DISSOLUTION: change behaviors STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: education (as abstract force) DISSOLUTION: information and skills that persons teach STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” progresses—persons change ∴ “Progress” = change (in what direction? who decides?) ∴ “Education” = persons teaching other persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution succeeded with the masses behind it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.22a Some persons with weapons replaced other persons with weapons, with many other persons watching and some assisting.
17.22b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) replaced (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revolution→replacement]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N), with (PREP) many (DET) other (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[masses→many.persons]) watching (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) some (DET) assisting (V-pres.PART).
17.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: revolution DISSOLUTION: replacement of one weapon-holding group by another STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: masses DISSOLUTION: many persons, some watching, some assisting STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Revolution” = changing who holds weapons ∴ “Masses behind it” = some assisted, most watched ∴ WHO held weapons before? WHO holds them now?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice was served with the verdict.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.23a Certain persons with robes pronounced words, and persons with weapons will now confine the accused person.
17.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.pronouncing]) with (PREP) robes (N) pronounced (V-past) words (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[verdict→pronounced.words]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿now∿confine (V-fut) the (DEF.ART) accused (ADJ) person (N-obj).
17.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: was served DISSOLUTION: persons pronounced words, others will confine STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: justice DISSOLUTION: persons with robes pronouncing, persons with weapons confining STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: verdict DISSOLUTION: pronounced words STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” gets served—persons pronounce, others confine ∴ The robes = costumes signifying role ∴ WHO pronounced? WHO will confine? WHO gets confined?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The public interest must be balanced with individual rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.24a What certain officials claim many persons want must match with documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to particular persons.
17.24b What (PRON-rel) certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.interest→what.officials.claim]) claim (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-subj) want (V-pres) must∿match (V-pres.modal) with (PREP) documented (ADJ) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-pres.modal) to (PREP) particular (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→particular.persons]).
17.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: public interest DISSOLUTION: what officials claim many persons want STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: individual rights DISSOLUTION: limits on violence toward particular persons STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO defines “public interest”? Officials do. ∴ “Balancing” = officials deciding whose interests matter ∴ “Rights” = limits that weapon-holders may or may not honor
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She governed with wisdom and compassion.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.25a She commanded persons with weapons, and many persons expressed approval with the outcomes of her decisions.
17.25b She (PRON-subj) commanded (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[governed→commanded]) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) expressed (V-past) approval (N-obj) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) outcomes (N) of (PREP) her (PRON-poss) decisions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[wisdom.compassion→outcomes.approved]).
17.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: governed DISSOLUTION: commanded persons with weapons STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: wisdom and compassion DISSOLUTION: outcomes that many approved STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Governing” = commanding weapon-holders ∴ “Wisdom” = decisions others approved ∴ WHO approved? What outcomes served them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Patriotism demands sacrifice with love for one’s country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.26a Certain persons expect other persons to harm themselves or others with warm feelings toward the territory where they live.
17.26b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[patriotism→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→expect]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→harm]) themselves (PRON-refl) or (CONJ) others (PRON-obj) with (PREP) warm (ADJ) feelings (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→warm.feelings]) toward (PREP) the (DEF.ART) territory (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→territory]) where (ADV-place) they (PRON-subj) live (V-pres).
17.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: patriotism (as demanding agent) DISSOLUTION: certain persons expecting STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: sacrifice DISSOLUTION: harming oneself or others STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: love for country DISSOLUTION: warm feelings toward territory STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “patriotism” demands—persons expect ∴ “Sacrifice” = harming yourself or others ∴ “Love for country” = feelings toward a territory ∴ WHO benefits from this expectation?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge them with the benefit of hindsight.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.27a Persons who write about past events in the future will describe these persons with knowledge of outcomes we cannot yet see.
17.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N) will∿describe (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→describe]) these (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) knowledge (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hindsight→knowledge.of.outcomes]) of (PREP) outcomes (N) we (PRON-subj) cannot (V-pres.modal.NEG) yet (ADV) see (V-inf).
17.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: history (as judging agent) DISSOLUTION: persons who write about past events STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: hindsight DISSOLUTION: knowledge of outcomes STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” judges—future writers will write ∴ WHO will write? What will they emphasize? ∴ “With hindsight” = with information we lack now
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The common good must be pursued with collective effort.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.28a What certain persons claim benefits many persons requires many persons acting with coordination.
17.28b What (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→what.certain.persons.claim]) claim (V-pres) benefits (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj) requires (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[collective→many.persons]) acting (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) coordination (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[effort→coordination]).
17.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: common good DISSOLUTION: what certain persons claim benefits many STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: collective effort DISSOLUTION: many persons acting with coordination STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
17.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ WHO defines “common good”? Certain persons do. ∴ “Collective” = many persons (but which ones?) ∴ WHO coordinates? Toward whose benefit?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Authority must be exercised with responsibility.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.29a Persons whom others obey face expectations with their commands—expectations from those who obey and those who observe.
17.29b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.obeyed]) whom (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) obey (V-pres) face (V-pres) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[responsibility→expectations]) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) commands (N)—expectations (N) from (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) obey (V-pres) and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) observe (V-pres).
17.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: authority DISSOLUTION: persons whom others obey STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: responsibility DISSOLUTION: expectations from those who obey and observe STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Authority” = the pattern of others obeying ∴ “Responsibility” = expectations those others hold ∴ WHO obeys? WHO observes? WHO commands?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “True freedom comes only with order maintained by the state.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
17.30a Acting without interference from others occurs with patterns of behavior that persons with weapons enforce through threat.
17.30b Acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) others (PRON) occurs (V-pres) with (PREP) patterns (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[order→patterns]) of (PREP) behavior (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) through (PREP) threat (N).
17.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: true freedom DISSOLUTION: acting without interference STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: order DISSOLUTION: patterns of behavior enforced through threat STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
17.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Freedom with order” = acting without interference BECAUSE weapon-holders threaten ∴ The “freedom” depends on whose behavior gets enforced ∴ WHO escapes interference? WHO faces threat?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART B: NATURAL SENTENCES
17.16 “Certain persons with weapons took actions, and many persons around them did not physically resist or flee.”
[Standard English: “The government acted with the consent of the governed.”]
17.17 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face confinement by persons with weapons if they act contrary to certain written rules.”
[Standard English: “Citizens must comply with the law.”]
17.18 “Persons with the ability to mark papers on certain days may influence which other persons gain access to weapons and cages.”
[Standard English: “Democracy gives people power with their vote.”]
17.19 “Certain persons with weapons coordinate with other persons with weapons from other territories to threaten persons in yet other territories.”
[Standard English: “The nation stands with its allies against aggression.”]
17.20 “Certain documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me come with their recognition that I fall within their labeling category.”
[Standard English: “Rights come with citizenship.”]
17.21 “Many persons around me change their behaviors with the information and skills that other persons teach them.”
[Standard English: “Society progresses with education.”]
17.22 “Some persons with weapons replaced other persons with weapons, with many other persons watching and some assisting.”
[Standard English: “The revolution succeeded with the masses behind it.”]
17.23 “Certain persons with robes pronounced words, and persons with weapons will now confine the accused person.”
[Standard English: “Justice was served with the verdict.”]
17.24 “What certain officials claim many persons want must match with documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to particular persons.”
[Standard English: “The public interest must be balanced with individual rights.”]
17.25 “She commanded persons with weapons, and many persons expressed approval with the outcomes of her decisions.”
[Standard English: “She governed with wisdom and compassion.”]
17.26 “Certain persons expect other persons to harm themselves or others with warm feelings toward the territory where they live.”
[Standard English: “Patriotism demands sacrifice with love for one’s country.”]
17.27 “Persons who write about past events in the future will describe these persons with knowledge of outcomes we cannot yet see.”
[Standard English: “History will judge them with the benefit of hindsight.”]
17.28 “What certain persons claim benefits many persons requires many persons acting with coordination.”
[Standard English: “The common good must be pursued with collective effort.”]
17.29 “Persons whom others obey face expectations with their commands—expectations from those who obey and those who observe.”
[Standard English: “Authority must be exercised with responsibility.”]
17.30 “Acting without interference from others occurs with patterns of behavior that persons with weapons enforce through threat.”
[Standard English: “True freedom comes only with order maintained by the state.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY
17.16 Certain persons with weapons took actions, and many persons around them did not physically resist or flee.
17.17 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face confinement by persons with weapons if they act contrary to certain written rules.
17.18 Persons with the ability to mark papers on certain days may influence which other persons gain access to weapons and cages.
17.19 Certain persons with weapons coordinate with other persons with weapons from other territories to threaten persons in yet other territories.
17.20 Certain documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to me come with their recognition that I fall within their labeling category.
17.21 Many persons around me change their behaviors with the information and skills that other persons teach them.
17.22 Some persons with weapons replaced other persons with weapons, with many other persons watching and some assisting.
17.23 Certain persons with robes pronounced words, and persons with weapons will now confine the accused person.
17.24 What certain officials claim many persons want must match with documented limits on what persons with weapons may do to particular persons.
17.25 She commanded persons with weapons, and many persons expressed approval with the outcomes of her decisions.
17.26 Certain persons expect other persons to harm themselves or others with warm feelings toward the territory where they live.
17.27 Persons who write about past events in the future will describe these persons with knowledge of outcomes we cannot yet see.
17.28 What certain persons claim benefits many persons requires many persons acting with coordination.
17.29 Persons whom others obey face expectations with their commands—expectations from those who obey and those who observe.
17.30 Acting without interference from others occurs with patterns of behavior that persons with weapons enforce through threat.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
PART D: GRAMMAR AND DISSOLUTION NOTES FOR GENRE SECTION
The political analysis section demonstrates how “with” functions as a primary connector in political discourse, attaching persons to abstractions that legitimize or obscure power relations.
Pattern 1: “With” + LEGITIMIZING SPOOK
“with authority,” “with consent,” “with democratic mandate”
These constructions claim legitimacy from abstractions. Dissolution reveals: WHO grants this legitimacy? Often no one specific—the abstraction performs the granting, which means no one does.
Pattern 2: “With” + INSTRUMENT OF FORCE
“with weapons,” “with cages,” “with documented limits”
E-Prime Max often dissolves TO this pattern from others. “With the law” dissolves to “with written words that persons with weapons enforce.” The instrument becomes visible.
Pattern 3: “With” + COLLECTIVE GHOST
“with the masses,” “with the people,” “with society’s backing”
These constructions invoke collective support. Dissolution reveals: WHICH specific persons? How many? Doing what? The monolithic collective fragments into diverse individuals with varying degrees of involvement.
Pattern 4: “With” + RESULT ATTRIBUTION
“with wisdom,” “with justice,” “with success”
These constructions attribute positive qualities to actions. Dissolution reveals: WHO judges this as wise, just, or successful? The quality depends on the observer.
Recurring Theme: Persons with Weapons
Political spook dissolution repeatedly arrives at “persons with weapons.” The state, law, authority, citizenship, rights—all dissolve to patterns of behavior enforced by persons who can harm others. This represents not cynicism but clarity: political power ultimately rests on the capacity for violence, however diffused or legitimized.
“With” connects persons to this capacity. “Acting with authority” = acting while others obey. “Governing with legitimacy” = commanding persons with weapons while others don’t actively resist. “Rights with citizenship” = documented limits that weapon-holders may honor.
The Question E-Prime Max Always Asks:
WHO holds the weapons? WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from this arrangement?
The preposition “with” remains. The ghosts depart. Persons and their capacities appear.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing “with” into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “The treaty was signed with great ceremony.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons in formal clothing gathered and observed while certain persons wrote their names on papers, and others clapped and made photographs.
great ceremony → formal clothing, gathering, clapping (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “ceremony” exists—only persons performing actions. “Great” reflects observers’ judgments.
2. Standard: “Justice must be served with mercy.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with robes who pronounce sentences face expectations from some observers that they also consider the suffering their sentences will cause.
mercy → consideration of suffering (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO expects “mercy”? Not everyone does. The expectation comes from particular persons.
3. Standard: “She approached the task with humility.”
E-Prime Max: She approached the task with quiet speech and willingness to hear others’ suggestions.
humility → quiet speech, willingness to hear (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Humility” dissolves into observable behaviors. No spook here—just a person acting in certain ways.
4. Standard: “The church spoke with moral authority on this matter.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons wearing specific costumes made statements, and many other persons around them treated those statements with weight, having learned from childhood to do so.
moral authority → statements others treat with weight (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: “Authority” exists only in the pattern of others treating statements seriously. WHO taught them to do this?
5. Standard: “With God as my witness, I swear to tell the truth.”
E-Prime Max: With persons who speak of a being they call “God” encouraging me, I promise to report what I observed.
swear → promise (E-Prime style preference)
Revelation: No “God” witnesses—persons in the room observe. “Truth” dissolves to reported observations, which may or may not match what occurred.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute, creating language-learning materials since 2006, developed E-Prime Max as a synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline and Max Stirner’s philosophy of spook dissolution. This course offers autodidacts a systematic method for linguistic consciousness archaeology—excavating the persons and actions buried beneath abstract language.
The course progresses through 1000 lessons based on English vocabulary frequency. Each lesson introduces a Standard English word and demonstrates its use in E-Prime Max constructions, building both vocabulary and critical awareness simultaneously.
The Latinum method treats language learning as active construction rather than passive absorption. Through construed texts, students see the architecture of sentences—the grammatical relationships, the dissolution strategies, the power relations hidden by abstraction.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
E-Prime Max represents one tool among many. Students who find it useful may continue; those who find it burdensome may discard it. The discipline exists to serve liberation, not to become another master.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 17
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Definition: The English preposition “on” indicates surface contact, position, or relationship—expressing that something rests upon, touches, or relates to another thing. In E-Prime Max, “on” frequently appears in constructions requiring both E-Prime transformation (removing “to be”) and spook dissolution (dissolving abstractions that appear as agents).
This lesson teaches the preposition “on” while training students to recognize and dissolve the spooks that commonly accompany it: “on duty” (duty as commanding agent), “on behalf of the State” (State as authorizing agent), “on principle” (principle as compelling agent), “on moral grounds” (morality as judging agent).
Philosophy: E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be” from English) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (dissolving reified abstractions back into the persons and actions from which they arose). Together, these disciplines attack both predication (”X is Y”) and reification (”Justice demands,” “The State forbids”).
“relies on authority” → authority as support
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
How “on” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The preposition “on” itself requires no transformation—it functions as a concrete spatial/relational marker. However, constructions containing “on” frequently require E-Prime work (”The book is on the table” → “The book sits on the table”) and spook dissolution (”She acted on principle” → “She acted according to a rule she chose to follow”).
Common spooks to watch for with “on”: duty, principle, authority, the State, law, behalf, moral grounds, orders, behalf of society
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ for “on the orders of authorities” → “following commands from persons others label ‘authorities’”
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: No “duty” exists to command anyone—only persons with expectations. No “State” exists to authorize actions—only persons with weapons who label themselves. No “principle” compels from outside—only rules I choose to follow or discard.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List): be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being, I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re, art, wast, wert
Spook Categories:
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents that “do” things): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
The Five Dissolution Strategies:
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is on the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.1a The cat sits on the mat.
18.1b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: sits (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ Concrete nouns (cat, mat) require no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The book is on the table near the window.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.2a The book rests on the table near the window.
18.2b The (DEF.ART) book (N-subj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj) near (PREP) the (DEF.ART) window (N-obj).
FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: rests (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ Concrete spatial relation preserved
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am on time for the meeting.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.3a I arrived on time for the meeting.
18.3b I (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) on (PREP) time (N-obj) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) meeting (N-obj).
FORM: am → DISSOLUTION: arrived (action verb) → STRATEGY: E7
∴ No spooks present
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She is on the phone with her mother.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.4a She speaks on the phone with her mother.
18.4b She (PRON-subj) speaks (V-pres) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) phone (N-obj) with (PREP) her (PRON-poss) mother (N-obj).
FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: speaks (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ Concrete action replaces static state
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are on vacation in Spain.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.5a They travel on vacation in Spain.
18.5b They (PRON-subj) travel (V-pres) on (PREP) vacation (N-obj) in (PREP) Spain (N-proper).
FORM: are → DISSOLUTION: travel (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ Simple E-Prime transformation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The soldier is on duty and must obey orders.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.6a The person wearing a uniform performs the actions on the schedule that persons calling themselves “officers” expect, following commands those persons give.
18.6b The (DEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[soldier→person.wearing.uniform]) wearing (V-pres.PART) a (INDEF.ART) uniform (N-obj) performs (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[duty→actions.expected]) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) schedule (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[officers→persons.calling.themselves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “officers” (N-label) expect (V-pres), following (V-pres.PART) commands (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[orders→commands]) those (DET) persons (N-subj) give (V-pres).
FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: performs (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO gives the commands? WHO expects obedience? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice depends on the law being applied equally.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.7a What many persons around me expect depends on persons with weapons applying written rules equally to different persons.
18.7b What (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) applying (V-pres.PART) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) equally (ADV) to (PREP) different (ADJ) persons (N-obj).
SPOOK: being applied → DISSOLUTION: persons applying → STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits from “equal application”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He acted on principle, regardless of the consequences.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.8a He acted according to a rule he chose to follow, on his own decision, regardless of what might happen to him.
18.8b He (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) according (PREP) to (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) rule (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[principle→rule.I.chose]) he (PRON-subj) chose (V-past) to (PART) follow (V-inf), on (PREP) his (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) decision (N-obj), regardless (ADV) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) might (V-mod) happen (V-inf) to (PREP) him (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: consequences → DISSOLUTION: what might happen to him → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The dissolution reveals his freedom, not his bondage to abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State depends on citizens obeying the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.9a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” depend on persons they label “citizens” acting as written rules specify.
18.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) depend (V-pres) on (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) acting (V-pres.PART) as (CONJ) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres).
SPOOK: obeying → DISSOLUTION: acting as rules specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO attached the labels? WHO wrote the rules?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality is based on universal principles.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.10a What certain persons teach about proper behavior rests on rules those persons claim apply everywhere.
18.10b What (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.teaching]) teach (V-pres) about (PREP) proper (ADJ) behavior (N-obj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[principles→rules]) those (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) apply (V-pres) everywhere (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[universal→everywhere]).
FORM: is based → DISSOLUTION: rests (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ WHO teaches these rules? WHO benefits from calling them “universal”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society relies on trust between citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.11a Many persons around me rely on acting predictably toward persons they encounter who wear the same labels.
18.11b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) rely (V-pres) on (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART) predictably (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[trust→acting.predictably]) toward (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) who (PRON-rel) wear (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) same (ADJ) labels (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.with.labels]).
SPOOK: citizens → DISSOLUTION: persons who wear the same labels → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO decides which actions count as “trustworthy”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom depends on the rule of law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.12a Acting without interference from other persons depends on persons with weapons applying written rules consistently.
18.12b Acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N-obj) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rule.of.law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) applying (V-pres.PART) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj) consistently (ADV).
SPOOK: rule of law → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons applying written rules consistently → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO wrote the rules? WHO decides “consistent”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He served on behalf of the nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.13a He performed actions on behalf of persons living within certain borders whom officials label “compatriots.”
18.13b He (PRON-subj) performed (V-past) actions (N-obj) on (PREP) behalf (N-obj) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.within.borders]) living (V-pres.PART) within (PREP) certain (DET) borders (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “compatriots” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nation→label.attached]).
SPOOK: served → DISSOLUTION: performed actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Did all persons within those borders want his actions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Authority rests on the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.14a The power of persons who command rests on other persons choosing not to resist or flee.
18.14b The (DEF.ART) power (N-subj) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.who.command]) who (PRON-rel) command (V-pres) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[governed→other.persons]) choosing (V-pres.PART) not (ADV) to (PART) resist (V-inf) or (CONJ) flee (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→not.resisting]).
FORM: rests → permitted (concrete verb, not “to be”)
∴ Did each person actively consent, or merely fail to resist?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The decision was made on moral grounds by the committee.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.15a Certain persons calling themselves “the committee” chose this option on the basis of rules about proper behavior that those persons learned and now enforce.
18.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[committee→certain.persons]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “the committee” (N-label) chose (V-past) this (DET) option (N-obj) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) basis (N-obj) of (PREP) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[moral.grounds→rules]) about (PREP) proper (ADJ) behavior (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) those (DET) persons (N-subj) learned (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[moral→taught.to.them]) and (CONJ) now (ADV) enforce (V-pres).
FORM: was made → DISSOLUTION: chose (active voice) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO taught them these rules? WHO benefits from this decision?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
18.1 “The cat sits on the mat.” [Standard English: “The cat is on the mat.”] [E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb)] [Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
18.2 “The book rests on the table near the window.” [Standard English: “The book is on the table near the window.”] [E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb)] [Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
18.3 “I arrived on time for the meeting.” [Standard English: “I am on time for the meeting.”] [E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb → action verb)] [Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
18.4 “She speaks on the phone with her mother.” [Standard English: “She is on the phone with her mother.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)] [Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
18.5 “They travel on vacation in Spain.” [Standard English: “They are on vacation in Spain.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)] [Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
18.6 “The person wearing a uniform performs the actions on the schedule that persons calling themselves ‘officers’ expect, following commands those persons give.” [Standard English: “The soldier is on duty and must obey orders.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (soldier → person wearing uniform), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (duty → actions expected), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (orders → commands), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (officers → persons calling themselves)]
18.7 “What many persons around me expect depends on persons with weapons applying written rules equally to different persons.” [Standard English: “Justice depends on the law being applied equally.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons expecting), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules enforced by persons)]
18.8 “He acted according to a rule he chose to follow, on his own decision, regardless of what might happen to him.” [Standard English: “He acted on principle, regardless of the consequences.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (principle → rule he chose), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (consequences → what might happen)]
18.9 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ depend on persons they label ‘citizens’ acting as written rules specify.” [Standard English: “The State depends on citizens obeying the law.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules)]
18.10 “What certain persons teach about proper behavior rests on rules those persons claim apply everywhere.” [Standard English: “Morality is based on universal principles.”] [E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → what persons teach), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (universal principles → rules they claim apply everywhere)]
18.11 “Many persons around me rely on acting predictably toward persons they encounter who wear the same labels.” [Standard English: “Society relies on trust between citizens.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (trust → acting predictably), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons with labels)]
18.12 “Acting without interference from other persons depends on persons with weapons applying written rules consistently.” [Standard English: “Freedom depends on the rule of law.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Freedom → acting without interference), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rule of law → persons with weapons applying rules)]
18.13 “He performed actions on behalf of persons living within certain borders whom officials label ‘compatriots.’” [Standard English: “He served on behalf of the nation.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (nation → persons within borders with labels)]
18.14 “The power of persons who command rests on other persons choosing not to resist or flee.” [Standard English: “Authority rests on the consent of the governed.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required in original] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Authority → persons who command), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (consent → not resisting), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (governed → other persons)]
18.15 “Certain persons calling themselves ‘the committee’ chose this option on the basis of rules about proper behavior that those persons learned and now enforce.” [Standard English: “The decision was made on moral grounds by the committee.”] [E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)] [Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (committee → persons calling themselves), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (moral grounds → rules they learned)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
18.1 The cat sits on the mat.
18.2 The book rests on the table near the window.
18.3 I arrived on time for the meeting.
18.4 She speaks on the phone with her mother.
18.5 They travel on vacation in Spain.
18.6 The person wearing a uniform performs the actions on the schedule that persons calling themselves “officers” expect, following commands those persons give.
18.7 What many persons around me expect depends on persons with weapons applying written rules equally to different persons.
18.8 He acted according to a rule he chose to follow, on his own decision, regardless of what might happen to him.
18.9 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” depend on persons they label “citizens” acting as written rules specify.
18.10 What certain persons teach about proper behavior rests on rules those persons claim apply everywhere.
18.11 Many persons around me rely on acting predictably toward persons they encounter who wear the same labels.
18.12 Acting without interference from other persons depends on persons with weapons applying written rules consistently.
18.13 He performed actions on behalf of persons living within certain borders whom officials label “compatriots.”
18.14 The power of persons who command rests on other persons choosing not to resist or flee.
18.15 Certain persons calling themselves “the committee” chose this option on the basis of rules about proper behavior that those persons learned and now enforce.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “on” in E-Prime Max:
Behalf: She spoke on behalf of the group.
“On” functions as a relational word connecting entities or describing positions, states, and relationships.
“He is on duty” → “He performs his duties” or “He works on the schedule”
Replace “is/are on” (activity) with action verbs: speaks, works, travels
“On” has HIGH spook proximity in certain constructions:
“on orders” → dissolve the abstracted command
“based on justice” → dissolve the abstract foundation
“depends on the people” → dissolve the reified mass
“relies on society” → “relies on many persons around me”
“based on trust” → “based on acting predictably toward each other”
“founded on tradition” → “founded on practices that certain persons established and passed down”
“on conscience” → “on the discomfort I feel when I remember certain actions”
“depends on authorities” → “depends on persons whom others label ‘authorities’”
“History proved him right on this” → “history” appears as judging agent
“The decision rested on justice and the law” → must dissolve both abstractions
“On closer inspection, the truth emerged” → “truth” appears as self-revealing agent
When encountering “on” constructions, ask:
“I stand on principle” → “principle” compels from outside → dissolve to “I follow a rule I chose”
The test reveals: When “on” introduces a foundation, ask whether that foundation owns you or you own it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s principle—”the map does not equal the territory”—warns against confusing words with the realities they represent. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by eliminating the verb “to be” from English, creating E-Prime.
Why? Because “to be” creates false equations. “John is a criminal” suggests that “criminal” constitutes John’s essence. “John committed theft” describes an action without collapsing John’s identity into a label.
The preposition “on” becomes relevant here: “The decision rests on justice” treats “justice” as a foundation—something solid, external, real. But no foundation called “justice” exists anywhere. Only persons exist, with expectations, preferences, and weapons.
“Morality” (no morality exists—only rules certain persons teach and enforce)
The haunting mechanism: Humans create abstractions for convenience → the abstractions accumulate authority → humans forget they created them → humans serve the abstractions they invented.
“On duty” exemplifies this: someone invented the concept “duty” to describe expected behaviors. Now persons feel “duty” commands them from outside—forgetting that “duty” names only what other persons expect.
Ownness (Eigenheit): Stirner’s alternative involves owning one’s concepts rather than being owned by them. I can use “duty” as shorthand for “what others expect” while remembering I created this shorthand and can discard it.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” becomes “X appears Y” or “I perceive X as Y”—breaking false equations.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “Justice demands X” becomes “Certain persons expect X”—breaking the illusion that abstractions act.
Together, these disciplines dissolve both the false equations of predication and the false agency of reification.
“on duty” → E-Prime Max requires dissolving “duty” into “what others expect”
When we dissolve the spooks in “on” constructions:
“The State relies on X” → “Persons with weapons who call themselves government rely on X”
“Based on the law” → “Based on written rules that persons with weapons enforce”
“On duty” → “Performing actions others expect during scheduled hours”
“Authority rests on consent” → armed persons depend on unarmed persons not resisting
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone says “the situation demands,” “justice requires,” or “duty calls”—ask WHO demands, WHO requires, WHO calls? The spook dissolves; the person(s) with interests appear.
Resisting possession by concepts: When you feel compelled “on principle” or “on moral grounds”—ask: did I choose this rule? Do I still choose it? Can I discard it? The compulsion dissolves; your choice appears.
Reclaiming ownness: Use abstractions as tools you own and can discard. “I follow this rule because I choose to, on my own decision, and I can stop whenever I choose.”
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“I am not the champion of a thought, a doctrine, since for me no thought is sacred; I am not a man of an idea, of a principle; I have set my cause on nothing.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “I am not the champion of a thought, a doctrine, since for me no thought is sacred; I am not a man of an idea, of a principle; I have set my cause on nothing.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a I do not fight for any thought or doctrine, since no thought commands me as if sacred; I do not define myself by any idea or principle; I have placed what I want on nothing—on myself.
F.1b I (PRON-subj) do (AUX) not (ADV) fight (V-pres) for (PREP) any (DET) thought (N-obj) or (CONJ) doctrine (N-obj), since (CONJ) no (DET) thought (N-subj) commands (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[sacred→commands.me]) me (PRON-obj) as (CONJ) if (CONJ) sacred (ADJ); I (PRON-subj) do (AUX) not (ADV) define (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) by (PREP) any (DET) idea (N-obj) or (CONJ) principle (N-obj); I (PRON-subj) have (AUX) placed (V-past.PART) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[cause→what.I.want]) on (PREP) nothing (PRON-obj)—on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl).
FORM: am (x2), is → DISSOLUTION: fight for, commands, define → STRATEGY: E1, E7
∴ The preposition “on” here indicates basis—and Stirner places his basis on himself alone
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I do not fight for any thought or doctrine, since no thought commands me as if sacred; I do not define myself by any idea or principle; I have placed what I want on nothing—on myself.
Stirner’s original passage demonstrates his central insight while still using “to be” forms (”I am not,” “no thought is sacred”). The E-Prime Max transformation preserves and clarifies his meaning:
“I am not the champion of” becomes “I do not fight for”—converting identity-statement into action-statement.
“no thought is sacred” becomes “no thought commands me as if sacred”—revealing what “sacred” means operationally: something that commands from outside.
“I have set my cause on nothing” becomes “I have placed what I want on nothing—on myself”—clarifying that “nothing” here means “no external foundation” and “cause” means “what I want.”
The preposition “on” appears crucially in Stirner’s famous phrase. He places his cause ON nothing—meaning he requires no external foundation, no justifying abstraction, no commanding principle. The second “on”—”on myself”—reveals what “nothing” means: not nihilism, but self-grounding. I found my projects on myself, not on spooks.
This passage encapsulates Stirner’s rejection of all “sacred” ideas—all spooks that command from outside. Notice his explicit rejection of “principle” as identity: “I am not a man of a principle.”
The E-Prime Max transformation reveals the active rejection more clearly: “I do not define myself by any principle.” And the dissolution of “sacred” exposes its mechanism: “commands me as if from outside.”
When Stirner says he sets his cause “on nothing,” he attacks all foundations. “Justice,” “duty,” “morality,” “the State”—all claim to provide foundations for action. Stirner refuses them all. His foundation? Himself. His cause? What he wants.
The preposition “on” here does double work: it indicates the absence of external foundation (”on nothing”) and the presence of self-grounding (”on myself”). E-Prime Max can use “on” without dissolution when “on” indicates a relation I own and can change—as Stirner owns and changes his commitments at will.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining how power structures depend “on” various mechanisms, using “on” throughout while dissolving the spooks that typically accompany political analysis.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Modern government relies on the legitimacy granted by democratic elections.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.16a Persons with weapons who currently command rely on other persons believing that certain rituals called “elections” authorize the commanding.
18.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) currently (ADV) command (V-pres) rely (V-pres) on (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) believing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) certain (DET) rituals (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[elections→rituals]) called (V-past.PART) “elections” (N-label) authorize (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[legitimacy→believing.authorization]) the (DEF.ART) commanding (N-obj).
SPOOK: democratic elections → DISSOLUTION: rituals called “elections” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits from the belief in legitimacy?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The social contract is based on mutual obligations.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.17a The story certain writers told about how persons came to obey commands rests on claimed mutual expectations—though most persons alive never agreed to anything.
18.17b The (DEF.ART) story (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[social.contract→story.told]) certain (DET) writers (N-subj) told (V-past) about (PREP) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) came (V-past) to (PART) obey (V-inf) commands (N-obj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) claimed (V-past.PART) mutual (ADJ) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obligations→expectations])—though (CONJ) most (DET) persons (N-subj) alive (ADJ) never (ADV) agreed (V-past) to (PREP) anything (PRON-obj).
FORM: is based → DISSOLUTION: rests → STRATEGY: E3
∴ WHO wrote this story? WHO benefits from others believing it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Taxes are levied on citizens for the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.18a Persons with weapons take money from persons they label “citizens,” claiming the taking benefits everyone—though they decide what counts as benefit.
18.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) take (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[levy→take]) money (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]), claiming (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) taking (N-obj) benefits (V-pres) everyone (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) decide (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) counts (V-pres) as (PREP) benefit (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→what.they.decide]).
SPOOK: common good → DISSOLUTION: what those persons decide counts as benefit → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO decides what benefits everyone?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The courts impose sentences on criminals based on justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.19a Persons wearing robes impose confinement on persons they label “criminals,” claiming their decisions match what many persons expect and call “justice.”
18.19b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[courts→persons.in.robes]) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N-obj) impose (V-pres) confinement (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sentences→confinement]) on (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “criminals” (N-label), claiming (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) decisions (N-subj) match (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres) and (CONJ) call (V-pres) “justice” (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→what.persons.expect]).
SPOOK: justice → DISSOLUTION: what many persons expect and call X → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO wears the robes? WHO attaches the labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Political stability depends on citizens trusting institutions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.20a Persons with weapons continuing to command without resistance depends on other persons acting predictably toward patterns they call “institutions.”
18.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[political.stability→persons.commanding]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) continuing (V-pres.PART) to (PART) command (V-inf) without (PREP) resistance (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stability→no.resistance]) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) acting (V-pres.PART) predictably (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[trusting→acting.predictably]) toward (PREP) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[institutions→patterns]) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “institutions” (N-label).
SPOOK: institutions → DISSOLUTION: patterns they call X → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Depends on” reveals the dependency clearly
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights are conferred on individuals by the constitution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.21a Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons with weapons today claim those words limit what they may do to other persons.
18.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N-obj) long (ADV) ago (ADV), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) today (ADV) claim (V-pres) those (DET) words (N-subj) limit (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits.on.violence]) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) may (V-mod) do (V-inf) to (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individuals→persons]).
FORM: are conferred → DISSOLUTION: wrote, claim (active voice) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO wrote those words? Do they actually limit anything?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy depends on consumer confidence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.22a Patterns of persons exchanging things depend on those persons continuing to act as if they will receive things later when they give things now.
18.22b Patterns (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[economy→patterns.of.exchange]) of (PREP) persons (N-obj) exchanging (V-pres.PART) things (N-obj) depend (V-pres) on (PREP) those (DET) persons (N-subj) continuing (V-pres.PART) to (PART) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) will (V-mod) receive (V-inf) things (N-obj) later (ADV) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) give (V-pres) things (N-obj) now (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[confidence→expecting.future.exchange]).
SPOOK: consumer confidence → DISSOLUTION: persons acting as if exchange will continue → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Depends on” reveals: patterns continue when persons expect them to
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Education instills values in children for the benefit of society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.23a Certain persons teach preferences and rules to young persons, claiming this benefits many persons—though those teaching decide what counts as benefit.
18.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[education→persons.teaching]) teach (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[instills→teaches]) preferences (N-obj) and (CONJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→preferences.and.rules]) to (PREP) young (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[children→young.persons]), claiming (V-pres.PART) this (PRON-dem) benefits (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons])—though (CONJ) those (DET) teaching (V-pres.PART) decide (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) counts (V-pres) as (PREP) benefit (N-obj).
SPOOK: society → DISSOLUTION: many persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “For society” dissolves → for many persons, as defined by those teaching
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Law enforcement acts on behalf of public safety.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.24a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” act on behalf of reducing harm—as they and their commanders define “harm.”
18.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law.enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) act (V-pres) on (PREP) behalf (N-obj) of (PREP) reducing (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[safety→reducing.harm]) harm (N-obj)—as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) commanders (N-subj) define (V-pres) “harm” (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→as.they.define]).
SPOOK: public safety → DISSOLUTION: reducing harm as they define it → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “On behalf of” reveals the claim—not necessarily the reality
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy is founded on the will of the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.25a Certain arrangements for selecting commanders rest on claims about what many persons want—though those many persons rarely agree.
18.25b Certain (DET) arrangements (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→arrangements.for.selecting]) for (PREP) selecting (V-pres.PART) commanders (N-obj) rest (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) claims (N-obj) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→many.persons]) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→what.persons.want])—though (CONJ) those (DET) many (DET) persons (N-subj) rarely (ADV) agree (V-pres).
FORM: is founded → DISSOLUTION: rest (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ “Founded on” dissolves → rests on claims about agreement that rarely exists
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Revolutionary movements depend on solidarity among the oppressed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.26a Persons trying to replace those who command depend on other persons acting together—persons whom observers label “oppressed.”
18.26b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolutionary.movements→persons.trying]) trying (V-pres.PART) to (PART) replace (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revolution→replacing.commanders]) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) command (V-pres) depend (V-pres) on (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) acting (V-pres.PART) together (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[solidarity→acting.together])—persons (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) observers (N-subj) label (V-pres) “oppressed” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[oppressed→persons.labeled]).
SPOOK: oppressed → DISSOLUTION: persons whom observers label → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Oppressed” = a label observers attach, not an essence
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress depends on innovation driven by the free market.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.27a Certain persons getting more of what they want depends on other persons creating new things—while persons with weapons enforce rules about exchanging.
18.27b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[progress→certain.persons.getting.more]) getting (V-pres.PART) more (DET) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) depends (V-pres) on (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) creating (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[innovation→creating.new.things]) new (ADJ) things (N-obj)—while (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) enforce (V-pres) rules (N-obj) about (PREP) exchanging (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[market→exchanging.under.rules]).
SPOOK: free market → DISSOLUTION: exchanging while persons with weapons enforce rules → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Depends on” reveals: those getting more depend on creators and enforcers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Social order is maintained through the rule of law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.28a Persons continuing to act predictably toward each other continues through persons with weapons applying written rules consistently on those who deviate.
18.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[social.order→persons.acting.predictably]) continuing (V-pres.PART) to (PART) act (V-inf) predictably (ADV) toward (PREP) each (DET) other (PRON-obj) continues (V-pres) through (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rule.of.law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj) applying (V-pres.PART) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj) consistently (ADV) on (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) deviate (V-pres).
FORM: is maintained → DISSOLUTION: continues (active) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “On those who deviate” = violence applied to non-conformers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Civilization rests on the suppression of our baser instincts.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.29a What certain persons call “civilization” rests on persons not acting on urges that those same persons label “base.”
18.29b What (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “civilization” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[civilization→label.attached]) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) persons (N-obj) not (ADV) acting (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) urges (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[instincts→urges]) that (PRON-rel) those (DET) same (ADJ) persons (N-subj) label (V-pres) “base” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[baser→label.attached]).
SPOOK: suppression → DISSOLUTION: not acting on → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO attaches these labels? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human dignity must be protected on moral and legal grounds.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
18.30a Certain ways of treating persons that many persons expect—on the basis of rules they learned and rules armed persons enforce—should continue, they claim.
18.30b Certain (DET) ways (N-subj) of (PREP) treating (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human→persons]) that (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dignity→expected.treatment])—on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) basis (N-obj) of (PREP) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[moral.grounds→rules.learned]) they (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) and (CONJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[legal.grounds→rules.enforced]) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) enforce (V-pres)—should (V-mod) continue (V-inf), they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres).
SPOOK: legal grounds → DISSOLUTION: rules armed persons enforce → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “On grounds” reveals the foundations as human-made: teachings and enforcement
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
18.16 “Persons with weapons who currently command rely on other persons believing that certain rituals called ‘elections’ authorize the commanding.” [Standard English: “Modern government relies on the legitimacy granted by democratic elections.”]
18.17 “The story certain writers told about how persons came to obey commands rests on claimed mutual expectations—though most persons alive never agreed to anything.” [Standard English: “The social contract is based on mutual obligations.”]
18.18 “Persons with weapons take money from persons they label ‘citizens,’ claiming the taking benefits everyone—though they decide what counts as benefit.” [Standard English: “Taxes are levied on citizens for the common good.”]
18.19 “Persons wearing robes impose confinement on persons they label ‘criminals,’ claiming their decisions match what many persons expect and call ‘justice.’” [Standard English: “The courts impose sentences on criminals based on justice.”]
18.20 “Persons with weapons continuing to command without resistance depends on other persons acting predictably toward patterns they call ‘institutions.’” [Standard English: “Political stability depends on citizens trusting institutions.”]
18.21 “Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons with weapons today claim those words limit what they may do to other persons.” [Standard English: “Rights are conferred on individuals by the constitution.”]
18.22 “Patterns of persons exchanging things depend on those persons continuing to act as if they will receive things later when they give things now.” [Standard English: “The economy depends on consumer confidence.”]
18.23 “Certain persons teach preferences and rules to young persons, claiming this benefits many persons—though those teaching decide what counts as benefit.” [Standard English: “Education instills values in children for the benefit of society.”]
18.24 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ act on behalf of reducing harm—as they and their commanders define ‘harm.’” [Standard English: “Law enforcement acts on behalf of public safety.”]
18.25 “Certain arrangements for selecting commanders rest on claims about what many persons want—though those many persons rarely agree.” [Standard English: “Democracy is founded on the will of the people.”]
18.26 “Persons trying to replace those who command depend on other persons acting together—persons whom observers label ‘oppressed.’” [Standard English: “Revolutionary movements depend on solidarity among the oppressed.”]
18.27 “Certain persons getting more of what they want depends on other persons creating new things—while persons with weapons enforce rules about exchanging.” [Standard English: “Progress depends on innovation driven by the free market.”]
18.28 “Persons continuing to act predictably toward each other continues through persons with weapons applying written rules consistently on those who deviate.” [Standard English: “Social order is maintained through the rule of law.”]
18.29 “What certain persons call ‘civilization’ rests on persons not acting on urges that those same persons label ‘base.’” [Standard English: “Civilization rests on the suppression of our baser instincts.”]
18.30 “Certain ways of treating persons that many persons expect—on the basis of rules they learned and rules armed persons enforce—should continue, they claim.” [Standard English: “Human dignity must be protected on moral and legal grounds.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
18.16 Persons with weapons who currently command rely on other persons believing that certain rituals called “elections” authorize the commanding.
18.17 The story certain writers told about how persons came to obey commands rests on claimed mutual expectations—though most persons alive never agreed to anything.
18.18 Persons with weapons take money from persons they label “citizens,” claiming the taking benefits everyone—though they decide what counts as benefit.
18.19 Persons wearing robes impose confinement on persons they label “criminals,” claiming their decisions match what many persons expect and call “justice.”
18.20 Persons with weapons continuing to command without resistance depends on other persons acting predictably toward patterns they call “institutions.”
18.21 Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons with weapons today claim those words limit what they may do to other persons.
18.22 Patterns of persons exchanging things depend on those persons continuing to act as if they will receive things later when they give things now.
18.23 Certain persons teach preferences and rules to young persons, claiming this benefits many persons—though those teaching decide what counts as benefit.
18.24 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” act on behalf of reducing harm—as they and their commanders define “harm.”
18.25 Certain arrangements for selecting commanders rest on claims about what many persons want—though those many persons rarely agree.
18.26 Persons trying to replace those who command depend on other persons acting together—persons whom observers label “oppressed.”
18.27 Certain persons getting more of what they want depends on other persons creating new things—while persons with weapons enforce rules about exchanging.
18.28 Persons continuing to act predictably toward each other continues through persons with weapons applying written rules consistently on those who deviate.
18.29 What certain persons call “civilization” rests on persons not acting on urges that those same persons label “base.”
18.30 Certain ways of treating persons that many persons expect—on the basis of rules they learned and rules armed persons enforce—should continue, they claim.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Political Spooks Dissolved in This Section:
The Genre Section systematically dissolved the major political spooks: government, State, democracy, law, justice, rights, society, citizenship, progress, civilization, institutions, social contract, and authority.
Labels reveal power: “Citizens,” “criminals,” “oppressed”—all labels attached by some persons to other persons, not natural categories.
The preposition “on” in political analysis:
“On” frequently indicates basis or foundation: “rests on,” “depends on,” “founded on,” “based on.” When the foundation involves a spook (justice, democracy, morality), the spook must dissolve.
After dissolution, “on” still indicates foundation—but now the foundation appears as what persons believe, expect, write, enforce, and label. No abstract foundations remain. Only persons acting, expecting, and enforcing.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform the following five sentences containing spooks and the topic word “on.” Show the complete E-Prime Max transformation for each.
Exercise 1
Standard: “He swore an oath on the Bible to uphold justice.”
E-Prime Max: He spoke words while touching a book many persons call sacred, claiming he would act as certain persons expect and call “upholding.”
swore → spoke words, claiming (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “oath” binds except as words spoken. No “justice” exists to uphold—only expectations from persons. The Bible functions as a prop in a ritual of promising.
Exercise 2
Standard: “Society places heavy burdens on the shoulders of citizens.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me expect much from persons whom officials label “citizens”—and armed persons enforce these expectations.
places on → expects from (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “society” exists to place anything. Only persons expecting and persons labeled. “On the shoulders” becomes “from”—revealing expectation rather than physical weight.
Exercise 3
Standard: “The State must act on principle, not on expedience.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” should, certain persons claim, follow rules those persons call principles rather than doing whatever helps those commanders most at the moment.
expedience → whatever helps those commanders most at the moment (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “State” exists—only persons commanding. No “principles” compel from outside—only rules that some persons endorse. “Must” dissolves to “should, certain persons claim.”
Exercise 4
Standard: “Freedom is based on eternal truths about human rights.”
E-Prime Max: Acting without interference from other persons rests on claims certain persons make about how persons should treat each other—claims they call “eternal” to make them seem beyond question.
human rights → how persons should treat each other (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “truths” exist eternally—only claims persons make. Calling claims “eternal” functions as a strategy to prevent questioning. “Rights” dissolve to treatment expectations.
Exercise 5
Standard: “The judge ruled on the case based on the evidence and the law.”
E-Prime Max: The person wearing a robe decided this matter, using observations and testimony others presented and words written by certain persons that other armed persons enforce.
law → words written by certain persons that armed persons enforce (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “judge” exists as special category—only a person with a robe and power. No “law” commands from outside—only words backed by weapons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in courses designed for autodidacts—self-directed learners who prefer intensive, systematic study.
This E-Prime Max course applies the Latinum Institute methodology to English consciousness liberation. Each lesson introduces vocabulary from a 1000-word frequency list while training students in both E-Prime (elimination of “to be”) and Stirnerian spook dissolution (dissolving reified abstractions back into the persons and actions from which they arose).
The construed text approach accelerates comprehension by showing standard constructions alongside their E-Prime Max transformations. Students see exactly how spooks operate and how they dissolve—building the mental patterns for spontaneous spook detection in everyday language.
The Bourland-Stirner synthesis attacks language at two levels: predication (E-Prime) and reification (spook dissolution). Together, these disciplines reveal the persons and power relations hidden behind abstract nouns and identity statements.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 18: “ON”
✓ Lesson 18 E-Prime Max complete
This functions as a demonstrative pronoun and determiner in English, pointing to objects, ideas, or situations proximal to the speaker—near in space, time, or discourse. For autodidact students of E-Prime Max, “this” presents a fascinating case: a humble pointing word that, when aimed at spooks, either reinforces their phantom authority or—when wielded with Stirnerian awareness—can expose the persons hiding behind abstractions.
E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating all forms of “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating abstract nouns that function as commanding agents). The result: a linguistic practice that attacks both predication (”X is Y”) and reification (”X demands/requires/forbids”).
What spooks commonly appear with “this”?
The demonstrative “this” frequently points at political spooks (”this government,” “this law,” “this state”), moral spooks (”this duty,” “this obligation,” “this justice”), collective spooks (”this society,” “this tradition,” “this culture”), and metaphysical spooks (”this truth,” “this reality,” “this meaning”). In each case, the spook appears to gain solidity through deixis—as if pointing at it makes it real.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
How “this” typically appears in E-Prime Max: As a demonstrative pointing to concrete objects, specific persons, immediate experiences, or owned concepts—never pointing at abstractions as if they possessed agency.
Common spooks to watch for with “this”: “this society,” “this government,” “this law,” “this tradition,” “this duty,” “this morality,” “this truth,” “this justice,” “this freedom”
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (dissolve collective agents to persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (dissolve abstractions to actions), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (reveal categories as labeling acts)
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The specific persons who benefit from the abstraction; the weapons and cages behind “law”; the expectations of particular humans behind “society”; the inventors and enforcers behind “duty”
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
Spook Categories
CATEGORY A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
CATEGORY B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
CATEGORY C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
CATEGORY D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
CATEGORY E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS: love, hate, fear, hope, anger (when treated as agents that “do” things—”love conquers,” “fear prevents,” “hope sustains”)
NOTE: These lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes a spook when appearing as AGENT. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity.
The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization): Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization): Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences they mask
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure): Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution): Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons
The Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This society demands conformity from its members.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.1a This group of persons around me expresses displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.
19.1b This (DEM.PROX ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) group (N-subj) of (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→specific.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expresses (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→expresses.displeasure]) displeasure (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) how (ADV-manner) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conformity→acting.as.expected]).
19.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society → DISSOLUTION: persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: expresses displeasure → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: conformity → DISSOLUTION: acting as they expect → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: members → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—no membership exists] → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
19.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “society” exists anywhere to demand anything → only persons with expectations
∴ “This” points at specific persons, not at a phantom collective
∴ WHO benefits from calling these expectations “society’s demands”?
∴ The dissolution reveals: displeasure from particular humans, not commands from an abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This law is just and must be obeyed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.2a This document, written by certain persons and enforced by others with weapons, appears fair to me, and persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise.
19.2b This (DEM.PROX) document (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→document.written.by.persons]), written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N) and (CONJ) enforced (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→enforced.by.persons]) by (PREP) others (PRON) with (PREP) weapons (N), appears (V-pres.PERCEPT) fair (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[just→appears.fair.to.me]) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[must.be.obeyed→or.harm.follows]) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV-manner).
19.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: appears (perception verb) → STRATEGY: E2
E-PRIME FORM: must be obeyed → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons will harm me otherwise → STRATEGY: E1 + D1
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: document written and enforced by persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: just → DISSOLUTION: appears fair to me (owned judgment) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
19.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists as an agent → only words on paper and persons with weapons
∴ “Just” dissolves from cosmic verdict to my owned perception
∴ “Must be obeyed” dissolves to reveal the threat: harm from persons with weapons
∴ WHO wrote this document? WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from calling it “just”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This is the truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.3a This matches what I observe and what others report to me.
19.3b This (DEM.PROX-subj) matches (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→matches.observations]) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) report (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
19.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: matches → STRATEGY: E4
SPOOK: the truth → DISSOLUTION: what I observe and what others report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
19.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists as a thing I can point at → only observations and reports
∴ “This” points at a claim that matches experience, not at a metaphysical entity
∴ The dissolution removes the authority-claim hidden in “truth”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This tradition must be preserved.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.4a This pattern of behavior that certain persons before me practiced, and that certain persons now expect me to repeat, may continue if I choose to repeat it.
19.4b This (DEM.PROX) pattern (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→pattern.of.behavior]) of (PREP) behavior (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[tradition→persons.before.me]) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj) practiced (V-past), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿repeat (V-inf), may∿continue (V-pres.MODAL ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[must.be.preserved→may.continue]) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must→I.choose]) to∿repeat (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
19.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: must be preserved → DISSOLUTION: may continue if I choose → STRATEGY: E1
SPOOK: tradition → DISSOLUTION: pattern of behavior practiced by persons before me → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: must → DISSOLUTION: may + I choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
19.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “tradition” exists that requires preservation → only behaviors persons practiced
∴ “Must” dissolves to reveal: my choice, not cosmic necessity
∴ WHO benefits from telling me “this tradition must be preserved”?
∴ The dissolution reveals: pressure from living persons, not commands from the past
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This government protects the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.5a This group of persons with weapons, calling themselves “officials,” sometimes prevents other persons from harming the persons they claim to serve.
19.5b This (DEM.PROX) group (N-subj) of (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N), calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label), sometimes (ADV-freq) prevents (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→prevents.harm]) other (DET) persons (N-subj) from∿harming (V-ger) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) to∿serve (V-inf).
19.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: government → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “officials” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: the people → DISSOLUTION: the persons they claim to serve → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: protects → DISSOLUTION: sometimes prevents harm → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “government” exists as a protective entity → only persons with weapons
∴ No “people” exists as a collective beneficiary → only specific persons
∴ “Protects” dissolves to reveal: sometimes prevents, and sometimes harms
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO decides whom to “protect” and whom to cage?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This duty calls me to serve.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.6a This urge I feel—planted by persons who taught me—prompts me to act as they expected.
19.6b This (DEM.PROX) urge (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge.I.feel]) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres)—planted (V-past.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→planted.by.teachers]) by (PREP) persons (N) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj)—prompts (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[calls→prompts]) me (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[serve→act]) as (CONJ-manner) they (PRON-subj) expected (V-past).
19.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: duty → DISSOLUTION: urge I feel, planted by teachers → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: calls → DISSOLUTION: prompts (internal sensation, not external command) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: serve → DISSOLUTION: act as they expected → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “duty” exists outside me calling → only an internal urge with external origin
∴ WHO planted this urge? WHO benefits from my “service”?
∴ The dissolution reveals: my feeling, their expectation, no cosmic command
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This book is on the table.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.7a This book rests on the table.
19.7b This (DEM.PROX) book (N-subj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj).
19.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is → DISSOLUTION: rests (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
19.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original
∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “is” → “rests”
∴ Concrete nouns (book, table) require no dissolution
∴ “This” points at a concrete object—no phantom authority invoked
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This morality forbids such actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.8a This set of expectations, which certain persons taught me and which others around me share, includes their expressed disapproval of such actions.
19.8b This (DEM.PROX) set (N-subj) of (PREP) expectations (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[morality→expectations]) which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) which (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) share (V-pres), includes (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forbids→includes.disapproval]) their (PRON-poss) expressed (ADJ) disapproval (N-obj) of (PREP) such (DET) actions (N).
19.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: morality → DISSOLUTION: expectations taught by persons, shared by others → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: forbids → DISSOLUTION: includes disapproval → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “morality” exists to forbid → only persons with expectations and disapproval
∴ “Forbids” dissolves to reveal: expressed disapproval, not cosmic prohibition
∴ WHO taught these expectations? WHO benefits from calling them “morality”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This freedom is worth dying for.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.9a This condition—in which certain persons refrain from interfering with my actions—I value highly enough to risk death.
19.9b This (DEM.PROX) condition (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→condition])—in (PREP) which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[freedom→persons.refraining]) refrain (V-pres) from∿interfering (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→non-interference]) with (PREP) my (PRON-poss) actions (N)—I (PRON-subj) value (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[worth→I.value]) highly∿enough (ADV-degree) to∿risk (V-inf) death (N-obj).
19.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is worth → DISSOLUTION: I value highly enough → STRATEGY: E7 + D4
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: condition in which persons refrain from interfering → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: worth → DISSOLUTION: I value (owned evaluation) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
19.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists as a thing worth dying for → only a condition I value
∴ “Worth” dissolves from cosmic value to my chosen valuation
∴ WHO told me this condition has cosmic “worth”? WHO benefits from my willingness to die?
∴ The dissolution reveals: my choice, not an external demand for sacrifice
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This cat seems friendly.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.10a This cat behaves in ways I interpret as friendly.
19.10b This (DEM.PROX) cat (N-subj) behaves (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) I (PRON-subj) interpret (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[seems→I.interpret]) as (PREP) friendly (ADJ-pred).
19.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: seems → DISSOLUTION: behaves in ways I interpret → STRATEGY: E2 + D4
19.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present—concrete noun (cat), owned interpretation
∴ “Seems” dissolves to reveal: the cat’s behavior plus my interpretation
∴ “This” points at a perceivable creature, not an abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This justice demands retribution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.11a This desire for retribution—which certain persons feel and express, and which they call “justice”—leads them to harm persons who harmed others.
19.11b This (DEM.PROX) desire (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[justice→desire]) for (PREP) retribution (N)—which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.who.desire]) feel (V-pres) and (CONJ) express (V-pres), and (CONJ) which (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→label.they.apply]) “justice” (N-label)—leads (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→leads]) them (PRON-obj) to∿harm (V-inf) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) harmed (V-past) others (PRON-obj).
19.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: justice → DISSOLUTION: desire for retribution that persons feel and label → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: leads them to (internal motivation, not external command) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists to demand → only persons with retributive desires
∴ “This justice” pointed at nothing—the dissolution reveals the persons behind the label
∴ WHO benefits from calling their desire for retribution “justice”?
∴ The abstraction disguised revenge as cosmic command
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This nation expects sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.12a This collection of persons—whom certain officials label “the nation”—includes persons who express expectation that I give up things for their benefit.
19.12b This (DEM.PROX) collection (N-subj) of (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons])—whom (PRON-rel) certain (DET) officials (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→officials.who.label]) label (V-pres) “the (DEF.ART) nation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nation→label])—includes (V-pres) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) express (V-pres) expectation (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[expects→express.expectation]) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) give∿up (V-pres) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up.things]) for (PREP) their (PRON-poss) benefit (N).
19.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: nation → DISSOLUTION: persons whom officials label “the nation” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: expects → DISSOLUTION: includes persons who express expectation → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: give up things for their benefit → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “nation” exists to expect → only persons with expectations, and officials who apply labels
∴ “Sacrifice” dissolves to reveal: I give up things; they benefit
∴ WHO created the label “nation”? WHO benefits from my “sacrifice”?
∴ “This nation” pointed at a phantom—the dissolution reveals specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This right cannot be taken away.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.13a This agreement among certain persons—to refrain from certain actions toward me—remains in effect as long as those persons continue to honor it.
19.13b This (DEM.PROX) agreement (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[right→agreement.among.persons]) among (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N)—to∿refrain (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→persons.refraining]) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—remains (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[cannot.be.taken→remains]) in∿effect (ADV-phrase) as∿long∿as (CONJ-cond) those (DEM.DIST) persons (N-subj) continue (V-pres) to∿honor (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
19.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: cannot be taken → DISSOLUTION: remains in effect as long as persons honor it → STRATEGY: E3
SPOOK: right → DISSOLUTION: agreement among persons to refrain from actions → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “right” exists as an inviolable entity → only agreements that persons may break
∴ “Cannot be taken” dissolves to reveal: depends on persons honoring the agreement
∴ “This right” pointed at a phantom guarantee—the dissolution reveals contingency
∴ WHO made this agreement? WHO has the power to break it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This house stands near the river.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.14a This house stands near the river.
19.14b This (DEM.PROX) house (N-subj) stands (V-pres.EXIST) near (PREP) the (DEF.ART) river (N-obj).
19.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
[No transformation required—original already E-Prime compliant, no spooks present]
19.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No E-Prime violation, no spooks
∴ “This” points at concrete objects (house, river)
∴ Demonstrates that E-Prime Max permits ordinary deixis when pointing at things, not phantoms
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This progress requires sacrifices from all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.15a This sequence of changes—which certain persons label “progress” and approve—occurs when many persons give up things; those who benefit from the changes tell others to give up things.
19.15b This (DEM.PROX) sequence (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→sequence.of.changes]) of (PREP) changes (N)—which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[progress→persons.who.label]) label (V-pres) “progress” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) and (CONJ) approve (V-pres)—occurs (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj) give∿up (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifices→give.up]) things (N-obj); those (DEM.DIST-subj) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) changes (N) tell (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[requires→persons.tell.others]) others (PRON-obj) to∿give∿up (V-inf) things (N-obj).
19.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: progress → DISSOLUTION: sequence of changes that certain persons label and approve → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: requires → DISSOLUTION: occurs when + those who benefit tell others → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: sacrifices from all → DISSOLUTION: many persons give up things → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “progress” exists to require → only changes that some persons approve
∴ “Requires” dissolves to reveal: persons who benefit telling others to give up things
∴ “From all” dissolves to reveal: “all” means “those with less power to refuse”
∴ WHO labels these changes “progress”? WHO benefits? WHO gives up things?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
19.1 “This group of persons around me expresses displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.”
[Standard English: “This society demands conformity from its members.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be” in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → expresses displeasure; conformity → acting as expected)]
19.2 “This document, written by certain persons and enforced by others with weapons, appears fair to me, and persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise.”
[Standard English: “This law is just and must be obeyed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (is → appears), E1 (must be obeyed → persons will harm otherwise)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → document written/enforced by persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (just → appears fair to me)]
19.3 “This matches what I observe and what others report to me.”
[Standard English: “This is the truth.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (is → matches)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (the truth → what I observe and others report)]
19.4 “This pattern of behavior that certain persons before me practiced, and that certain persons now expect me to repeat, may continue if I choose to repeat it.”
[Standard English: “This tradition must be preserved.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (must be preserved → may continue if I choose)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (tradition → pattern practiced by persons before me), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → I choose)]
19.5 “This group of persons with weapons, calling themselves ‘officials,’ sometimes prevents other persons from harming the persons they claim to serve.”
[Standard English: “This government protects the people.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons with weapons; the people → persons they claim to serve), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects → sometimes prevents harm)]
19.6 “This urge I feel—planted by persons who taught me—prompts me to act as they expected.”
[Standard English: “This duty calls me to serve.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urge I feel), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (duty → planted by persons who taught me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (calls → prompts; serve → act as expected)]
19.7 “This book rests on the table.”
[Standard English: “This book is on the table.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (is → rests)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
19.8 “This set of expectations, which certain persons taught me and which others around me share, includes their expressed disapproval of such actions.”
[Standard English: “This morality forbids such actions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (morality → expectations taught by persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (forbids → includes disapproval)]
19.9 “This condition—in which certain persons refrain from interfering with my actions—I value highly enough to risk death.”
[Standard English: “This freedom is worth dying for.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is worth → I value)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → condition of non-interference), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (worth → I value)]
19.10 “This cat behaves in ways I interpret as friendly.”
[Standard English: “This cat seems friendly.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (seems → behaves in ways I interpret)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership of interpretation)]
19.11 “This desire for retribution—which certain persons feel and express, and which they call ‘justice’—leads them to harm persons who harmed others.”
[Standard English: “This justice demands retribution.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (justice → desire that persons label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → leads them)]
19.12 “This collection of persons—whom certain officials label ‘the nation’—includes persons who express expectation that I give up things for their benefit.”
[Standard English: “This nation expects sacrifice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (nation → persons whom officials label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (expects sacrifice → persons express expectation that I give up things)]
19.13 “This agreement among certain persons—to refrain from certain actions toward me—remains in effect as long as those persons continue to honor it.”
[Standard English: “This right cannot be taken away.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (cannot be taken → remains in effect)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (right → agreement among persons to refrain)]
19.14 “This house stands near the river.”
[Standard English: “This house stands near the river.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—already compliant]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks]
19.15 “This sequence of changes—which certain persons label ‘progress’ and approve—occurs when many persons give up things; those who benefit from the changes tell others to give up things.”
[Standard English: “This progress requires sacrifices from all.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (progress → changes that persons label), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (requires → persons tell others)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
19.1 This group of persons around me expresses displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.
19.2 This document, written by certain persons and enforced by others with weapons, appears fair to me, and persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise.
19.3 This matches what I observe and what others report to me.
19.4 This pattern of behavior that certain persons before me practiced, and that certain persons now expect me to repeat, may continue if I choose to repeat it.
19.5 This group of persons with weapons, calling themselves “officials,” sometimes prevents other persons from harming the persons they claim to serve.
19.6 This urge I feel—planted by persons who taught me—prompts me to act as they expected.
19.7 This book rests on the table.
19.8 This set of expectations, which certain persons taught me and which others around me share, includes their expressed disapproval of such actions.
19.9 This condition—in which certain persons refrain from interfering with my actions—I value highly enough to risk death.
19.10 This cat behaves in ways I interpret as friendly.
19.11 This desire for retribution—which certain persons feel and express, and which they call “justice”—leads them to harm persons who harmed others.
19.12 This collection of persons—whom certain officials label “the nation”—includes persons who express expectation that I give up things for their benefit.
19.13 This agreement among certain persons—to refrain from certain actions toward me—remains in effect as long as those persons continue to honor it.
19.14 This house stands near the river.
19.15 This sequence of changes—which certain persons label “progress” and approve—occurs when many persons give up things; those who benefit from the changes tell others to give up things.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “this” in E-Prime Max:
“This” operates as a demonstrative determiner and pronoun, indicating proximity to the speaker in space, time, or discourse. As a determiner: “this book,” “this idea,” “this moment.” As a pronoun: “This works,” “I want this,” “This seems right.”
Common constructions include:
“This” + abstract noun as subject: “This freedom matters” / “This duty calls”
“This” + copula + predicate: “This is important” / “This is wrong”
“This” + concrete noun + verb: “This cat sleeps” / “This house stands”
“This” frequently appears with “to be” verbs:
“This is X” → requires E-Prime transformation
“This is the Y” → requires identity rephrasing
“This seems to be Z” → “seems” permits, but “to be” must drop
Common E-Prime transformations for “this”:
“This is the problem” → “This constitutes the problem” / “This functions as the problem”
“This is important” → “This matters” / “This carries importance”
“This is true” → “This matches what I observe” / “This corresponds to my experience”
“This” carries HIGH spook proximity because demonstratives often point at abstractions, lending them false concreteness. The act of pointing suggests something tangible exists to point at.
Spooks commonly appearing with “this”:
Political: “this government,” “this law,” “this nation,” “this state”
Moral: “this duty,” “this obligation,” “this morality,” “this justice”
Collective: “this society,” “this tradition,” “this culture,” “this progress”
Metaphysical: “this truth,” “this reality,” “this meaning”
The danger: deixis suggests concreteness. “This justice demands” sounds more solid than “Justice demands” because pointing implies locatable reality.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“This society expects” → “These persons around me expect”
“This government orders” → “These persons with weapons order”
“This nation requires” → “These persons whom officials label ‘nation’ express expectation”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“This freedom matters” → “This condition of non-interference matters”
“This justice requires” → “This pattern of retribution involves”
“This progress demands” → “These changes require”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure):
“This tradition commands” → “This pattern, which persons before me practiced and expect me to repeat”
“This morality forbids” → “This set of expectations that persons planted in me”
“This duty calls” → “This urge that persons taught me to feel”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution):
“This seems right” → “This appears right to me” / “I interpret this as right”
“This truth shines” → “What I observe and call true”
“This matters” → “I value this”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“This criminal deserves” → “This person whom others label ‘criminal’”
“This citizen must” → “This person whom officials label ‘citizen’”
“This hero sacrificed” → “This person whom storytellers label ‘hero’”
Mistake 1: Using “this” to reify abstractions further.
Wrong: “This justice thing that certain persons want”
Right: “This desire for retribution that certain persons feel”
The word “justice” should dissolve entirely, not remain as a “thing.”
Mistake 2: Incomplete dissolution—stopping at the abstraction.
Wrong: “This society, meaning certain persons”
Right: “These persons around me” (no “society” remains)
Mistake 3: Leaving hidden agency in the dissolution.
Wrong: “This law, which requires obedience”
Right: “This document, which persons with weapons enforce”
“Requires” still grants agency to the document.
Mistake 4: Using “this” with retained spooks in apposition.
Wrong: “This—what morality demands—guides me”
Right: “This urge—which persons taught me—guides me”
When “this” points at something, ask:
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
If “this” points at a spook that commands, demands, or requires → dissolve the spook to persons
If “this” points at a tool I own and can discard → permitted
If “this” points at a concrete object (this book, this cat) → no dissolution needed
The pointing itself carries power. When I point at “this duty,” I lend solidity to a phantom. When I dissolve to “this urge I feel,” I reclaim ownership.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) founded General Semantics on the principle that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality but do not constitute it. The “is of identity” (”John is a failure”) collapses the distinction between map and territory, treating temporary states as essential natures.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime in 1965 as a practical application: eliminate “to be” and watch clarity emerge. Without “is,” speakers must specify who perceives, who claims, who acts. “The economy is bad” becomes “Many persons I know have lost jobs” or “Economists report declining GDP.”
The demonstrative “this” gains special significance in General Semantics because pointing creates the illusion of direct reference. “This problem” seems to indicate something concrete. E-Prime discipline reveals: what problem? According to whom? For what purpose?
Max Stirner (1806–1856) developed the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Stirner traces how humans create abstractions, then forget they created them, then serve them as if they possessed external authority.
The haunting mechanism operates thus:
Persons act → Persons notice patterns → Persons create labels for patterns → Labels acquire capital letters and become Nouns → Nouns become Agents that “demand,” “require,” “forbid” → Persons serve the Agents they created → Persons forget they created them
“This duty calls me” exemplifies the haunting. Certain persons taught me certain expectations. I internalized them as an “urge.” I externalized the urge as “duty.” I granted “duty” agency (”it calls”). Now I serve what I created, having forgotten I created it.
Stirner’s solution: “Ownness” (Eigenheit)—the recognition that I can own my concepts rather than serving them. “I have set my affair on nothing”—no abstraction commands me unless I grant it command.
E-Prime attacks predication: the structure “X is Y” that collapses map and territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the structure “X demands/requires/forbids” that grants agency to abstractions.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
“This” operates at the intersection. “This is justice” commits both errors: predication (is) and reification (justice as a thing that exists). “This justice demands” commits reification even without “to be.” E-Prime Max catches both.
The dissolution: “This matches what I observe, and certain persons call such matching ‘justice,’ and they expect me to act in certain ways because of it.”
When “this society” dissolves to “these persons around me,” I see:
Specific persons with specific expectations, not a unified collective with unified demands
Power relations: who has the power to enforce expectations?
My choice: I can meet their expectations or not, and face consequences either way
No cosmic authority behind the expectations—just persons, just power, just consequences
When “this law” dissolves to “this document enforced by persons with weapons,” I see:
Words written by some persons, enforced by others
The weapons behind the words
My position relative to those weapons
The contingency: “law” changes when persons with power change it
When “this duty” dissolves to “this urge planted by teachers,” I see:
My own feeling, not an external command
The human origin of the feeling
My freedom to follow or resist the urge
The question: does serving this urge serve me?
Recognizing manipulation through reification:
When someone says “This tradition requires,” ask: WHO taught you this tradition? WHO benefits from your compliance?
When someone says “This law forbids,” ask: WHO wrote this law? WHO enforces it? WHO benefits?
When someone says “This duty calls,” ask: WHO planted this duty in you? Whom do you serve by answering?
Resisting possession by concepts:
The discipline of saying “these persons expect” instead of “this society demands” reminds the speaker: no Society exists to demand anything. Only persons expect. I can meet their expectations or not.
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness:
Every time I catch myself granting agency to an abstraction, I have an opportunity. I can dissolve the spook, see the persons behind it, and choose whether to comply.
The reprogramming effect of sustained practice:
After months of E-Prime Max discipline, the spooks begin to appear transparently. “Society” spontaneously dissolves to “persons around me.” “Law” automatically reveals “persons with weapons.” The discipline becomes perception.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“This will show still more glaringly in what follows. But first I will call attention to the word “I” only to show its utter vacuity. Ask yourself: What is Man? How shall this question be answered? To answer it, the inquirer must be referred to some determinate man, to this one or that one; for the answer, “Man is a spirit” or “Man is a body,” already presupposes that you know what Man is, in order that you may compare him with a spirit or a body.”
—Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property, Part One: “I”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a This analysis will show still more glaringly what follows. But first I will call attention to the word “I” only to show its utter vacuity. Ask yourself: What constitutes Man? How shall persons answer this question? To answer it, the inquirer must receive direction to some determinate man, to this one or that one; for the answer, “Man constitutes a spirit” or “Man constitutes a body,” already presupposes that you know what Man constitutes, in order that you may compare him with a spirit or a body.
F.1b This (DEM.PROX) analysis (N-subj) will∿show (V-fut) still (ADV-degree) more∿glaringly (ADV-manner) what (PRON-rel) follows (V-pres). But (CONJ) first (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) will∿call (V-fut) attention (N-obj) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) word (N) “I” (N-label) only (ADV-restriction) to∿show (V-inf) its (PRON-poss) utter (ADJ) vacuity (N-obj). Ask (V-imp) yourself (PRON-refl): What (PRON-interrog) constitutes (V-pres) Man (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[Man→label.applied.to.bodies])? How (ADV-manner) shall (V-fut.MODAL) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[general→specific.persons]) answer (V-inf) this (DEM.PROX) question (N-obj)? To∿answer (V-inf) it (PRON-obj), the (DEF.ART) inquirer (N-subj) must∿receive (V-pres.MODAL) direction (N-obj) to (PREP) some (DET) determinate (ADJ) man (N), to (PREP) this (DEM.PROX) one (PRON) or (CONJ) that (DEM.DIST) one (PRON); for (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) answer (N-subj), “Man (N-subj) constitutes (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) spirit (N-pred)” or (CONJ) “Man (N-subj) constitutes (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) body (N-pred),” already (ADV-time) presupposes (V-pres) that (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) Man (N-subj) constitutes (V-pres), in∿order∿that (CONJ-purpose) you (PRON-subj) may∿compare (V-pres.MODAL) him (PRON-obj) with (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) spirit (N) or (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) body (N).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
E-PRIME FORM: is (multiple) → DISSOLUTION: constitutes → STRATEGY: E5
SPOOK: Man → DISSOLUTION: label applied to specific bodies/persons → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (partial—Stirner himself performs this dissolution in the passage)
SPOOK: spirit → DISSOLUTION: (Stirner questions this category) → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: body → DISSOLUTION: (Stirner questions this category too) → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Stirner himself performs spook dissolution on “Man” in this passage
∴ He points out: “this one or that one”—the demonstrative dissolves the abstraction
∴ The abstract “Man” cannot answer questions; only this person or that person can answer
∴ “What is Man?” presupposes “Man” exists as a category—but only specific bodies exist
∴ Even Stirner’s passage requires E-Prime transformation to remove “is”
This analysis will show still more glaringly what follows. But first I will call attention to the word “I” only to show its utter vacuity. Ask yourself: What constitutes Man? How shall persons answer this question? To answer it, the inquirer must receive direction to some determinate man, to this one or that one; for the answer, “Man constitutes a spirit” or “Man constitutes a body,” already presupposes that you know what Man constitutes, in order that you may compare him with a spirit or a body.
Stirner’s passage demonstrates the demonstrative dissolution in action. When someone asks “What is Man?”, Stirner redirects: “this one or that one.” The abstract category “Man” dissolves into specific persons when “this” points at them.
The passage also shows E-Prime Max at work on Stirner himself. His original contains “is” (multiple times) and treats “spirit” and “body” as categories. The E-Prime Max transformation replaces “is” with “constitutes” and reveals that Stirner questions these categories even while using them.
This demonstrates: no authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself. We transform even the texts that teach us to transform.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A coherent narrative demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max writing on spook dissolution through the demonstrative “this.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.16a I grew up believing this country constituted something sacred.
19.16b I (PRON-subj) grew∿up (V-past) believing (V-past.PART) this (DEM.PROX) country (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[country→label.applied.to.territory]) constituted (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[was→constituted]) something (PRON-indef) sacred (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sacred→label.applied.by.teachers]).
19.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this country (as sacred entity) → DISSOLUTION: label applied to territory → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: sacred → DISSOLUTION: label applied by teachers → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
19.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: WHO taught me to call this territory “sacred”? WHO benefits from my reverence?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.17a This belief came from persons—my parents, my teachers, persons who wrote the books I read.
19.17b This (DEM.PROX) belief (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[belief→something.I.held]) came (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin]) from (PREP) persons (N)—my (PRON-poss) parents (N), my (PRON-poss) teachers (N), persons (N) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) the (DEF.ART) books (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) read (V-past).
19.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: belief → DISSOLUTION: something I held (owned) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
GENEALOGY: traced to specific persons → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
19.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The belief did not descend from heaven—specific persons planted it in me.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.18a They told me this nation protected freedom.
19.18b They (PRON-subj) told (V-past) me (PRON-obj) this (DEM.PROX) nation (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.labeled]) protected (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protected→sometimes.prevented.harm]) freedom (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→non-interference]).
19.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this nation → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “nation” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: non-interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: “This nation” pointed at no unified protector—only persons, some of whom sometimes prevented interference.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.19a I felt this duty to serve—an urge in my chest, a tightness when I considered refusing.
19.19b I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past) this (DEM.PROX) duty (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge]) to∿serve (V-inf)—an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-appos) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) chest (N), a (INDEF.ART) tightness (N-appos) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) considered (V-past) refusing (V-ger).
19.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this duty → DISSOLUTION: urge, tightness in chest → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (owned bodily sensation)
19.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: No external “duty” commanded—only internal sensations that teachers planted.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.20a One day this question arose in my mind: whom does my service actually benefit?
19.20b One (DET) day (N-time) this (DEM.PROX) question (N-subj) arose (V-past) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) mind (N): whom (PRON-interrog) does (AUX) my (PRON-poss) service (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[service→my.actions]) actually (ADV-manner) benefit (V-pres)?
19.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: service → DISSOLUTION: my actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
NOTE: “This question”—no spook, concrete reference to thought
19.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The Stirnerian question: WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.21a I began to notice: this “nation” that demanded my service included persons who lived very differently from me.
19.21b I (PRON-subj) began (V-past) to∿notice (V-inf): this (DEM.PROX) “nation” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.labeled]) that (PRON-rel) demanded (V-past ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[demanded→persons.expressed.expectation]) my (PRON-poss) service (N-obj) included (V-past) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) very (ADV-degree) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
19.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this “nation” → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “nation” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: demanded → DISSOLUTION: certain persons expressed expectation → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
19.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The “nation” dissolved to reveal: specific persons, some wealthy, some powerful, many unlike me.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.22a This “government” that “protected” me also sent young persons to die in places they could not find on a map.
19.22b This (DEM.PROX) “government” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) that (PRON-rel) “protected” (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protected→sometimes.prevented.harm]) me (PRON-obj) also (ADV-addition) sent (V-past) young (ADJ) persons (N-obj) to∿die (V-inf) in (PREP) places (N) they (PRON-subj) could∿not∿find (V-past.MODAL.NEG) on (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) map (N).
19.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this “government” → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons and authority → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: protected → DISSOLUTION: sometimes prevented harm (and sometimes caused it) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
19.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The same persons who “protected” also killed. “Protection” dissolved to reveal: selective harm-prevention and selective harm-causing.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.23a This “freedom” they celebrated looked different from my daily experience.
19.23b This (DEM.PROX) “freedom” (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→condition.of.non-interference]) they (PRON-subj) celebrated (V-past) looked (V-past.PERCEPT) different (ADJ-pred) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss) daily (ADJ) experience (N).
19.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this “freedom” → DISSOLUTION: condition of non-interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: looked (perception verb) → compliant
19.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: “Freedom” as celebrated differed from freedom as experienced. WHO celebrates? WHO experiences?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.24a Persons with more money experienced more non-interference; persons with less money experienced more persons with weapons telling them what to do.
19.24b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) more (DET) money (N) experienced (V-past) more (DET) non-interference (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→non-interference]); persons (N-subj) with (PREP) less (DET) money (N) experienced (V-past) more (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) telling (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj) what (PRON-rel) to∿do (V-inf).
19.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: non-interference (distributed unequally) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
19.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: “Freedom” dissolved to reveal: variable conditions depending on wealth and power.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.25a I stopped saying “this country requires my sacrifice.”
19.25b I (PRON-subj) stopped (V-past) saying (V-ger) “this (DEM.PROX) country (N-subj) requires (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) sacrifice (N-obj).”
19.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
NOTE: The sentence describes stopping spook-language—the quoted phrase contains the spook
19.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: Linguistic change preceded perceptual change. When I stopped saying it, I stopped believing it.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.26a I started saying: “Certain persons benefit if I give up things, and they tell me this expectation constitutes my ‘duty.’”
19.26b I (PRON-subj) started (V-past) saying (V-ger): “Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[beneficiaries]) benefit (V-pres) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) give∿up (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up]) things (N-obj), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) this (DEM.PROX) expectation (N-subj) constitutes (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) ‘duty’ (N-pred ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→label.they.apply]).”
19.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: give up things → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: duty → DISSOLUTION: label they apply to their expectation → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
19.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: New language revealed: persons benefit + persons label. No cosmic duty exists.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.27a This change in how I spoke slowly changed how I perceived.
19.27b This (DEM.PROX) change (N-subj) in (PREP) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) spoke (V-past) slowly (ADV-manner) changed (V-past) how (ADV-manner) I (PRON-subj) perceived (V-past).
19.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
NOTE: No spooks—”this change” points at concrete linguistic practice
19.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The discipline worked: language reshaped perception.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.28a Where I once saw “this sacred duty,” I now saw persons with expectations and persons with weapons.
19.28b Where (ADV-rel) I (PRON-subj) once (ADV-time) saw (V-past) “this (DEM.PROX) sacred (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) duty (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ),” I (PRON-subj) now (ADV-time) saw (V-past) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) expectations (N) and (CONJ) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N).
19.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
NOTE: The sentence describes perceptual change—spooks appeared “once,” persons appear “now”
19.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The veil lifted. Spooks became transparent to the persons behind them.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.29a This transparency brought neither peace nor despair—only clarity.
19.29b This (DEM.PROX) transparency (N-subj) brought (V-past) neither (CONJ) peace (N-obj) nor (CONJ) despair (N-obj)—only (ADV-restriction) clarity (N-obj).
19.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
NOTE: “This transparency” points at concrete perceptual change. “Peace,” “despair,” “clarity” appear as experiences, not agents.
19.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: Dissolution brings clarity—neither salvation nor damnation.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
19.30a Now when someone tells me “this law requires,” I ask: which persons wrote this document? Which persons with weapons enforce it? Which persons benefit?
19.30b Now (ADV-time) when (CONJ-time) someone (PRON-indef-subj) tells (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) “this (DEM.PROX) law (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) requires (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ),” I (PRON-subj) ask (V-pres): which (DET-interrog) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past) this (DEM.PROX) document (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→document])? Which (DET-interrog) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) it (PRON-obj)? Which (DET-interrog) persons (N-subj) benefit (V-pres)?
19.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: this law requires → DISSOLUTION: which persons wrote this document? → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
19.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: The final dissolution becomes automatic: every “this X requires” triggers the questions WHO wrote? WHO enforces? WHO benefits?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
19.16 “I grew up believing this country constituted something sacred.”
19.17 “This belief came from persons—my parents, my teachers, persons who wrote the books I read.”
19.18 “They told me this nation protected freedom.”
19.19 “I felt this duty to serve—an urge in my chest, a tightness when I considered refusing.”
19.20 “One day this question arose in my mind: whom does my service actually benefit?”
19.21 “I began to notice: this ‘nation’ that demanded my service included persons who lived very differently from me.”
19.22 “This ‘government’ that ‘protected’ me also sent young persons to die in places they could not find on a map.”
19.23 “This ‘freedom’ they celebrated looked different from my daily experience.”
19.24 “Persons with more money experienced more non-interference; persons with less money experienced more persons with weapons telling them what to do.”
19.25 “I stopped saying ‘this country requires my sacrifice.’”
19.26 “I started saying: ‘Certain persons benefit if I give up things, and they tell me this expectation constitutes my duty.’”
19.27 “This change in how I spoke slowly changed how I perceived.”
19.28 “Where I once saw ‘this sacred duty,’ I now saw persons with expectations and persons with weapons.”
19.29 “This transparency brought neither peace nor despair—only clarity.”
19.30 “Now when someone tells me ‘this law requires,’ I ask: which persons wrote this document? Which persons with weapons enforce it? Which persons benefit?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
19.16 I grew up believing this country constituted something sacred.
19.17 This belief came from persons—my parents, my teachers, persons who wrote the books I read.
19.18 They told me this nation protected freedom.
19.19 I felt this duty to serve—an urge in my chest, a tightness when I considered refusing.
19.20 One day this question arose in my mind: whom does my service actually benefit?
19.21 I began to notice: this “nation” that demanded my service included persons who lived very differently from me.
19.22 This “government” that “protected” me also sent young persons to die in places they could not find on a map.
19.23 This “freedom” they celebrated looked different from my daily experience.
19.24 Persons with more money experienced more non-interference; persons with less money experienced more persons with weapons telling them what to do.
19.25 I stopped saying “this country requires my sacrifice.”
19.26 I started saying: “Certain persons benefit if I give up things, and they tell me this expectation constitutes my ‘duty.’”
19.27 This change in how I spoke slowly changed how I perceived.
19.28 Where I once saw “this sacred duty,” I now saw persons with expectations and persons with weapons.
19.29 This transparency brought neither peace nor despair—only clarity.
19.30 Now when someone tells me “this law requires,” I ask: which persons wrote this document? Which persons with weapons enforce it? Which persons benefit?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Narrative Use of “This”:
In this personal narrative, “this” performs multiple functions:
Proximal reference to owned experience: “This belief,” “this duty,” “this urge”—pointing at internal states that the speaker owns rather than external commands that possess the speaker.
Quotation-marking for spook-language: “This ‘nation,’” “this ‘government,’” “this ‘freedom’”—scare quotes signal that the speaker no longer grants these words literal reference.
Demonstrative of past vs. present perception: “Where I once saw ‘this sacred duty,’ I now saw...”—the same “this” points at different perceptions before and after dissolution.
Dissolution in Progress:
The narrative arc shows dissolution happening over time. Early sentences contain more spook-residue; later sentences complete the dissolution. This demonstrates that E-Prime Max functions as a practice, not a state—one dissolves progressively.
The Questions That Replace Spooks:
The final sentence demonstrates the replacement: instead of accepting “this law requires,” the speaker asks three questions. These questions—WHO wrote? WHO enforces? WHO benefits?—constitute the active form of spook dissolution.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform these sentences containing “this” and spooks:
1. Standard: “This justice system works for everyone.”
E-Prime Max: “These persons—whom certain officials label ‘judges’ and ‘lawyers’—sometimes help persons whom other persons have harmed, though they help some persons more than others depending on wealth and connection.”
everyone → some persons more than others (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “system” works for anyone. Persons help other persons—selectively, unequally.
2. Standard: “This tradition is who we are.”
E-Prime Max: “This pattern of behavior, which certain persons before us practiced and which certain persons now expect us to repeat, constitutes one thing some persons call ‘our identity.’”
tradition → pattern practiced by persons before, expected by persons now (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: “Who we are” dissolves to “what some persons expect us to repeat.” No essence exists—only behaviors and expectations.
3. Standard: “This democracy gives power to the people.”
E-Prime Max: “This arrangement—in which certain persons vote and other persons count votes and still other persons make decisions regardless—distributes influence among persons very unequally.”
the people → persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “democracy” gives anything. Persons vote; other persons decide. The distribution of influence varies by wealth, connection, and position.
4. Standard: “This morality guides us toward the good.”
E-Prime Max: “These expectations, which certain persons taught us and which we now feel as internal urges, prompt us toward actions that those persons who taught us call ‘good.’”
the good → actions that teachers call ‘good’ (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “morality” exists to guide. Persons taught expectations; we feel urges; we call certain actions “good” because they taught us to.
5. Standard: “This truth will set you free.”
E-Prime Max: “If what I tell you matches what you observe and what others report, and if you act on this match, persons may interfere with you less—or may interfere with you more, depending on which persons hold power.”
will set you free → persons may interfere less (or more) (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “truth” sets anyone free. Accurate information may help or harm depending on power relations. “Freedom” dissolves to “non-interference by persons with power.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute’s E-Prime Max course, a synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s philosophy of spook dissolution. The course applies a 1000-word vocabulary system drawn from frequency analysis to teach both English vocabulary and consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in autodidact methodology. The construed-text approach—presenting each word with grammatical gloss—enables learners to comprehend complex sentences without prior grammatical training. In E-Prime Max lessons, this approach also makes visible the work of dissolution: learners see exactly how spooks transform into persons and actions.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The Bourland-Stirner Synthesis:
E-Prime attacks predication—the “is of identity” that collapses map and territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification—the transformation of human actions into commanding abstractions.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through sustained linguistic practice.
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 19: THIS
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson teaches the English word “not” while training you to dissolve abstractions back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
The word “not” functions as an adverb of negation in English. It transforms affirmative statements into negative ones, denying the existence, occurrence, or truth of something. In E-Prime Max, “not” presents a dual challenge: it constantly co-occurs with forbidden “to be” forms (”is not,” “are not,” “was not”), AND it frequently appears in constructions where spooks masquerade as agents (”Society does not care,” “Justice was not served,” “The law does not permit”).
The philosophical synthesis: D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (1965) attacks predication—the false equation “X IS Y.” Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (1844) attacks reification—treating abstractions as agents that demand, require, or forbid. Together, E-Prime Max constitutes comprehensive linguistic liberation. When we say “Justice was not served,” we perpetuate two illusions: the copula “was” and the spook “Justice” as an entity capable of receiving service. E-Prime Max dissolves both.
“The State does not recognize...” (State as agent)
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
Shifts from abstract absence → concrete persons not acting
Reified emotions: fear, love, hope (when they “do” things)
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: “Fear did not stop me” → “I did not refrain despite my body contracting”
The ABSENCE named by “not” always involves specific persons NOT acting
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
CATEGORIA A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
CATEGORIA B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
CATEGORIA C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
CATEGORIA D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
CATEGORIA E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
NOTA BENE: The test for spook status: “Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?” If yes → spook. If used as shorthand that the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺᴬᴸᴵᶻᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺᴱᴬᴸᴼᴳᴵᶜᴬᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ — Trace the spook back to who created it and why—expose the human origin.
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺᴱᴿˢᴴᴵᴾ⁻ᴬᵀᵀᴿᴵᴮᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ — Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience.
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮᴱᴸ⁻ᴱˣᴾᴼˢᵁᴿᴱ — Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is not on the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.1a The cat does not sit on the mat.
20.1b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) does∿not (ADV-neg) sit (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
20.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → does not sit (existence verb) → E3
20.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “is not” → “does not sit” ∴ “Not” negates the concrete action of sitting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am not tired.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.2a I do not feel tired.
20.2b I (PRON-subj) do∿not (ADV-neg) feel (V-pres.STATE) tired (ADJ-pred).
20.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
am not → do not feel (state verb) → E7
20.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ E-Prime transformation: “am not” → “do not feel” ∴ “Not” negates my experienced sensation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society is not fair.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.3a Many persons around me do not distribute resources equally among all persons I encounter.
20.3b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) do∿not (ADV-neg) distribute (V-pres) resources (N-obj) equally (ADV-manner) among (PREP) all (DET) persons (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres).
20.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → do not (present tense) → E7
20.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Society” exists to possess fairness or lack it ∴ Only specific persons distributing or not distributing ∴ WHO distributes? WHO does not? ∴ “Fairness” dissolves into observable distribution patterns
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice was not served.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.4a Certain persons with expectations did not see other persons with weapons act as they wished.
20.4b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.with.expectations]) with (PREP) expectations (N) did∿not (ADV-neg) see (V-past) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[served→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) wished (V-past).
20.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
was not → did not (past tense) → E1
20.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Justice” exists anywhere to receive service ∴ Only persons with expectations feeling dissatisfied ∴ Only persons with weapons who acted otherwise ∴ WHO expected what? WHO acted? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State does not permit this.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.5a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” will confine me if I do this—they do not grant permission.
20.5b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label) will∿confine (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) this (PRON-dem)—they (PRON-subj) do∿not (ADV-neg) grant (V-pres) permission (N-action).
20.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” exists to permit or forbid ∴ Only persons with weapons who will act ∴ “Permission” dissolves into: will they confine me or not? ∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO will act against me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom is not free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.6a Acting without interference from others does not come without my effort and vigilance.
20.6b Acting (V-GERUND ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) others (N) does∿not (ADV-neg) come (V-pres) without (PREP) my (PRON-poss) effort (N) and (CONJ) vigilance (N).
20.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → does not come → E3
20.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Freedom” exists as a substance with a price ∴ Only the condition of acting without interference ∴ This condition requires ongoing action by me ∴ The abstraction masked: what must I DO?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear did not stop him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.7a His body contracted and his heart raced, yet he did not refrain from acting.
20.7b His (PRON-poss) body (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Fear→body.contracted]) contracted (V-past) and (CONJ) his (PRON-poss) heart (N-subj) raced (V-past), yet (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) did∿not (ADV-neg) refrain (V-past) from (PREP) acting (V-GERUND).
20.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
did not → did not (past, no “to be”) → E-Prime compliant
20.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Fear” exists as an agent that stops anyone ∴ Only bodily sensations that he experienced ∴ He chose to act despite the sensations ∴ WHO acted? He did. The spook did nothing.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality does not allow such behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.8a Certain persons who taught me rules in childhood expressed disapproval when others acted this way—they did not teach me to do this.
20.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Morality→persons.who.taught.rules]) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) rules (N-obj) in (PREP) childhood (N) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N) when (CONJ) others (N-subj) acted (V-past) this (DET) way (N)—they (PRON-subj) did∿not (ADV-neg) teach (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿do (V-inf) this (PRON-dem).
20.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → did not → E-Prime compliant
20.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Morality” exists to allow or forbid ∴ Only persons who taught and persons who disapprove ∴ The prohibition came from specific humans ∴ WHO taught these rules? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth is not relative.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.9a What I observe matches what others report regardless of who observes—this correspondence does not change with the observer.
20.9b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Truth→observation.correspondence]) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) who (PRON-rel) observes (V-pres)—this (DET) correspondence (N) does∿not (ADV-neg) change (V-pres) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) observer (N).
20.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → does not change → E7
20.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Truth” exists as a cosmic substance ∴ Only observations and reports that match or fail to match ∴ The claim concerns consistency of correspondence ∴ WHO observes? WHO reports? WHO compares?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Criminals are not welcome here.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.10a Persons whom officials label “criminal” do not receive friendly greetings from the persons who gather in this place.
20.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[Criminals→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “criminal” (N-label) do∿not (ADV-neg) receive (V-pres) friendly (ADJ) greetings (N-obj) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[here→persons.who.gather]) who (PRON-rel) gather (V-pres) in (PREP) this (DET) place (N).
20.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
are not → do not receive → E7
20.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “criminals” exist as a natural category ∴ Only persons to whom officials attach labels ∴ “Welcome” dissolves into specific greeting behaviors ∴ WHO labels? WHO greets or refuses to greet?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty does not require heroism.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.11a The persons who assigned me tasks did not demand that I risk my body beyond ordinary limits.
20.11b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Duty→persons.who.assigned.tasks]) who (PRON-rel) assigned (V-past) me (PRON-obj) tasks (N-obj) did∿not (ADV-neg) demand (V-past) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) risk (V-subj) my (PRON-poss) body (N-obj) beyond (PREP) ordinary (ADJ) limits (N).
20.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → did not → E-Prime compliant
20.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Duty” exists to require anything ∴ Only persons who assigned and persons who demand ∴ “Heroism” dissolves into bodily risk ∴ WHO assigned? WHO demands?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History does not repeat itself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.12a Persons acting now do not perform exactly the actions that persons performed in times past, though similarities sometimes appear.
20.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.acting.now]) acting (V-PRES.PART) now (ADV-time) do∿not (ADV-neg) perform (V-pres) exactly (ADV-manner) the (DEF.ART) actions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) performed (V-past) in (PREP) times (N) past (ADJ), though (CONJ) similarities (N-subj) sometimes (ADV-time) appear (V-pres.PERCEPT).
20.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists as an agent that repeats ∴ Only persons acting now, persons who acted before ∴ Similarities = observers noticing patterns ∴ WHO acts? WHO compares? WHO notices?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love is not enough.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.13a Acting with tenderness toward another person does not by itself produce the outcomes I desire.
20.13b Acting (V-GERUND ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Love→acting.with.tenderness]) with (PREP) tenderness (N) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N) does∿not (ADV-neg) by∿itself (ADV) produce (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) outcomes (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) desire (V-pres).
20.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → does not produce → E7
20.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Love” exists as a substance that could suffice ∴ Only persons acting with tenderness ∴ “Enough” dissolves into: does it produce what I want? ∴ WHO acts? WHO desires? What outcomes?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “God does not exist.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.14a I do not encounter any being matching the descriptions found in certain old books written by certain persons.
20.14b I (PRON-subj) do∿not (ADV-neg) encounter (V-pres) any (DET) being (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.described.in.books]) matching (V-PRES.PART) the (DEF.ART) descriptions (N) found (V-PAST.PART) in (PREP) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N) written (V-PAST.PART) by (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→invented.by.persons]).
20.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The claim concerns my encountering ∴ Certain persons wrote certain books describing a being ∴ I have not encountered such a being ∴ WHO wrote? WHO described? WHO claims to encounter?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people are not happy with the government.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.15a Many persons I encounter express dissatisfaction with the persons who call themselves “officials” and wield weapons—these many persons do not feel contentment.
20.15b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) express (V-pres) dissatisfaction (N-obj) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.selves.officials]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) and (CONJ) wield (V-pres) weapons (N-obj)—these (DET) many (ADJ) persons (N-subj) do∿not (ADV-neg) feel (V-pres.STATE) contentment (N-obj).
20.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
are not → do not feel → E7
20.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “people” exists as unified agent ∴ No “government” exists as unified agent ∴ Only specific persons feeling, specific persons wielding weapons ∴ WHO feels discontent? WHO wields? WHO labels whom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
20.1 “The cat does not sit on the mat.”
Standard English: “The cat is not on the mat.” E-Prime strategies: E3 (is not → does not sit) Dissolution strategies: None required (no spooks)
20.2 “I do not feel tired.”
Standard English: “I am not tired.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (am not → do not feel) Dissolution strategies: None required (no spooks)
20.3 “Many persons around me do not distribute resources equally among all persons I encounter.”
Standard English: “Society is not fair.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (is not → do not) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (fair → distribute equally)
20.4 “Certain persons with expectations did not see other persons with weapons act as they wished.”
Standard English: “Justice was not served.” E-Prime strategies: E1 (was not → did not see) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons with expectations), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (served → persons with weapons acted)
20.5 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government officials’ will confine me if I do this—they do not grant permission.”
Standard English: “The State does not permit this.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (permit → grant permission / will confine)
20.6 “Acting without interference from others does not come without my effort and vigilance.”
Standard English: “Freedom is not free.” E-Prime strategies: E3 (is not → does not come) Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Freedom → acting without interference), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (free → without effort)
20.7 “His body contracted and his heart raced, yet he did not refrain from acting.”
Standard English: “Fear did not stop him.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Fear → body contracted, heart raced), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (stop → refrain from acting)
20.8 “Certain persons who taught me rules in childhood expressed disapproval when others acted this way—they did not teach me to do this.”
Standard English: “Morality does not allow such behavior.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught rules), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (allow → teach / express disapproval)
20.9 “What I observe matches what others report regardless of who observes—this correspondence does not change with the observer.”
Standard English: “Truth is not relative.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (is not → does not change) Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Truth → observation matching reports), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (relative → changes with observer)
20.10 “Persons whom officials label ‘criminal’ do not receive friendly greetings from the persons who gather in this place.”
Standard English: “Criminals are not welcome here.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (are not → do not receive) Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Criminals → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (welcome → receive friendly greetings)
20.11 “The persons who assigned me tasks did not demand that I risk my body beyond ordinary limits.”
Standard English: “Duty does not require heroism.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Duty → persons who assigned tasks), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (heroism → risk body beyond limits)
20.12 “Persons acting now do not perform exactly the actions that persons performed in times past, though similarities sometimes appear.”
Standard English: “History does not repeat itself.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons acting now / persons who acted then), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (repeat itself → perform same actions)
20.13 “Acting with tenderness toward another person does not by itself produce the outcomes I desire.”
Standard English: “Love is not enough.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (is not → does not produce) Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Love → acting with tenderness), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (enough → produces desired outcomes)
20.14 “I do not encounter any being matching the descriptions found in certain old books written by certain persons.”
Standard English: “God does not exist.” E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”) Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being described in books, invented by persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (exist → I encounter)
20.15 “Many persons I encounter express dissatisfaction with the persons who call themselves ‘officials’ and wield weapons—these many persons do not feel contentment.”
Standard English: “The people are not happy with the government.” E-Prime strategies: E7 (are not → do not feel) Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons I encounter), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons calling selves officials + weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (happy → feel contentment)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
20.1 The cat does not sit on the mat.
20.2 I do not feel tired.
20.3 Many persons around me do not distribute resources equally among all persons I encounter.
20.4 Certain persons with expectations did not see other persons with weapons act as they wished.
20.5 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” will confine me if I do this—they do not grant permission.
20.6 Acting without interference from others does not come without my effort and vigilance.
20.7 His body contracted and his heart raced, yet he did not refrain from acting.
20.8 Certain persons who taught me rules in childhood expressed disapproval when others acted this way—they did not teach me to do this.
20.9 What I observe matches what others report regardless of who observes—this correspondence does not change with the observer.
20.10 Persons whom officials label “criminal” do not receive friendly greetings from the persons who gather in this place.
20.11 The persons who assigned me tasks did not demand that I risk my body beyond ordinary limits.
20.12 Persons acting now do not perform exactly the actions that persons performed in times past, though similarities sometimes appear.
20.13 Acting with tenderness toward another person does not by itself produce the outcomes I desire.
20.14 I do not encounter any being matching the descriptions found in certain old books written by certain persons.
20.15 Many persons I encounter express dissatisfaction with the persons who call themselves “officials” and wield weapons—these many persons do not feel contentment.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “not” in E-Prime Max:
Creates absence, denial, or contradiction
Common constructions with “not” include declarative negation (”He does not run”), interrogative negation (”Does he not run?”), and emphatic negation (”He does not ever run”).
“isn’t,” “aren’t,” “wasn’t,” “weren’t” → forbidden contractions containing “to be”
Common E-Prime transformations for “not” constructions:
“X is not Y” → “X does not function as Y” (E4) “X is not Y” → “X does not appear as Y” (E2) “X is not in Z” → “X does not sit/stand/rest in Z” (E3) “I am not X” → “I do not feel X” (E7) “There is not X” → “X does not exist there” or “No X sits there” (E3)
“The State does not recognize” — State as agent
Which dissolution strategies apply most often with “not”:
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ appears most frequently because “not” often negates actions attributed to collective spooks (Society, State, Law, the People). The dissolution reveals: specific persons who do not act, do not care, do not permit.
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ appears frequently because “not” often negates abstract qualities or states. “Freedom is not free” → “Acting without interference does not come without effort.” The abstraction dissolves into concrete actions that do not occur.
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ appears with reified emotions: “Fear did not stop him” → “His body contracted yet he did not refrain.”
“Government does not listen” → “Persons calling themselves officials do not respond”
“Welcome is not extended” → “Friendly greetings do not occur”
“Ethics do not support” → “Persons who developed guidelines did not endorse”
“Hope did not sustain him” → “He did not feel anticipation that sustained him”
“Patriots did not protest” → “Persons labeled ‘patriot’ did not express objection”
Leaving “to be” with “not”: The most common error involves transforming the spook while leaving the copula intact. “Justice is not served” might become “Persons with expectations are not satisfied”—but “are not” still violates E-Prime. Complete transformation: “Persons with expectations do not feel satisfied.”
Incomplete spook dissolution: “Society does not care about criminals” might become “Society does not care about persons labeled ‘criminal’”—but “Society” remains as agent. Complete transformation: “Many persons around me do not express concern about persons labeled ‘criminal.’”
Hidden agency in abstract nouns: “Not” can create hidden spooks through negative constructions. “Without justice, there is no peace” contains two spooks AND “to be.” Dissolution: “When persons with weapons do not act as certain other persons expect, those other persons do not refrain from violence.”
The double-negative trap: Some E-Prime Max constructions create awkward double negatives. “I do not not feel” sounds wrong. Rephrase positively when possible: “I feel” rather than dissolving “I am not not tired.”
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
When “not” appears with any abstraction, apply the test:
“Society does not care” — Do I invoke “Society” as shorthand I control, or do I feel powerless before a monolith? If the latter, dissolve: “Specific persons around me do not express concern.”
“Justice was not done” — Do I own “Justice” as my own expectation, or do I serve a cosmic principle? If the latter, dissolve: “Persons with weapons did not act as I wished.”
“The law does not permit” — Do I treat “law” as shorthand for specific written rules and enforcers, or do I submit to “Law” as commanding agent? If the latter, dissolve: “Persons with weapons will confine me if I act this way.”
The test with “not”: When I say something “does not” or “is not,” WHO does not act? WHAT does not occur? If the subject remains an abstraction, I have not yet dissolved the spook.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s insight—”the map does not equal the territory”—reminds us that language constructs reality rather than describing it. The verb “to be” creates false identities and false essences. “John is a criminal” equates John with a category, erasing his complexity.
D. David Bourland Jr. noticed that eliminating “to be” reduced dogmatic thinking. Without the copula, speakers must specify relationships, appearances, and functions rather than asserting identities.
“Not” intensifies the E-Prime challenge because negation in English almost always involves “to be”: “is not,” “are not,” “was not.” The E-Prime discipline with “not” forces us to specify what DOES happen or what persons DO rather than asserting what something “is not.”
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker. These abstractions began as human creations but came to command their creators. “Justice,” “the State,” “Morality,” “Humanity”—all spooks that ride humans like demons.
The haunting mechanism: Humans create abstractions → Abstractions appear to demand service → Humans forget they created them → Humans serve their own creations.
Negation and spooks: When we say “Justice was not served,” we speak as if Justice existed and could receive service. The negation actually REINFORCES the spook’s apparent reality. We affirm Justice’s existence by discussing its unfulfillment.
Ownness (Eigenheit): Stirner proposed that the unique individual stands as the only real agent. All else dissolves back into persons acting. “Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter.”
E-Prime attacks predication: X IS Y becomes X FUNCTIONS AS/APPEARS AS/SERVES AS Y.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS becomes PERSONS DEMAND/REQUIRE/FORBID.
Together: comprehensive spook dissolution.
“Not” in the synthesis: The word “not” frequently bridges both violations. “Justice is not served” contains both the forbidden copula AND the spook-as-patient. E-Prime Max transforms both: “Persons with expectations did not see persons with weapons act as they wished.”
When “not” constructions dissolve:
Where “society does not care” stood → specific persons who express no concern become visible. WHO does not care? Which persons? What would “caring” look like as action?
Where “the law does not permit” stood → persons with weapons who will act against me become visible. WHO will confine me? What weapons do they carry? What words justify their action?
Where “justice was not done” stood → persons with expectations who feel dissatisfied become visible. WHO expected what? WHO holds the power to fulfill or frustrate?
The revelation: “Not” always concerns specific persons NOT acting, NOT approving, NOT interfering. The abstraction masks the WHO.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: Politicians and priests invoke “Justice,” “the People,” “the Nation” as agents that demand. E-Prime Max reveals: specific persons demand, and they benefit from the abstraction’s apparent authority.
Resisting possession by concepts: When I feel that “Society does not accept me,” I serve the spook. Dissolution reveals: certain specific persons around me express disapproval. I can engage with persons; I cannot negotiate with “Society.”
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Each dissolved spook returns power to me. Not “Justice demands” but “I expect.” Not “Morality forbids” but “Certain persons taught me to avoid.”
The reprogramming effect of sustained practice: Extended E-Prime Max use reorganizes thought. After weeks of dissolving “the State” into “persons with weapons calling themselves officials,” the spook weakens. I see persons where I once saw monoliths.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The bedrock shifts depending on purpose. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other. “Not” applies equally: “Energy does not allow perpetual motion” → dissolve it.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. If you catch yourself thinking “E-Prime Max speakers do not make these errors,” you have reified the practice.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “Anarchists do not believe...” → spook if “anarchists” acts as unified agent. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label]), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not (ADV-neg) control (V-pres) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
its/that of → possessive of spook eliminated → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual”) ∴ The dissolution preserves and clarifies his insight ∴ No “state” exists → only persons with weapons who label ∴ No “law” exists → only a label for certain violence ∴ No “crime” exists → only a label for other violence ∴ “Not” appears in the dissolution: persons they do NOT control ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from this labeling?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Standard English (Stirner): “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Stirner’s observation brilliantly exposes the double standard in political language. Yet even his formulation contains spooks—”the state” and “the individual” both appear as unified agents.
The E-Prime Max dissolution reveals:
“The state” dissolves into persons with weapons who call themselves something. No monolithic State exists—only humans with guns and cages who use particular words about themselves.
“Law” dissolves into a label. The same physical action (violence) receives different labels depending on who performs it. Persons with weapons calling themselves “government” label their violence “law.” The same violence by others gets labeled “crime.”
“The individual” dissolves into persons they do not control. Stirner meant to contrast collective and singular, but E-Prime Max goes further: the relevant distinction concerns control, not metaphysical individuality.
The word “not” appears crucially in the dissolution: “persons they do NOT control.” The negation marks the boundary of power. Violence by persons within their control receives one label; violence by persons outside their control receives another.
Transforming Stirner INTO E-Prime Max demonstrates that no authority remains sacred—including Stirner himself. His insight survives and sharpens; his spooks dissolve like anyone’s.
The transformation reveals: Stirner pointed at the labeling game, but even his pointing used abstractions. E-Prime Max completes his gesture by dissolving the abstractions in his own formulation.
On “not” specifically: The word “not” marks the crucial distinction. Violence DOES occur in both cases. The difference: who controls whom. “Not” draws the line between what powerful persons accept and what they refuse to accept.
Power becomes visible: When spooks dissolve, power relations appear. Persons with weapons label. Persons without weapons get labeled. “Law” and “crime” mask this simple relationship. E-Prime Max unmasks it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy is not working.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.16a The procedures by which certain persons get selected to make decisions do not produce outcomes that satisfy many persons I encounter.
20.16b The (DEF.ART) procedures (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Democracy→procedures]) by (PREP) which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[selected→persons]) get∿selected (V-PASS) to∿make (V-inf) decisions (N-obj) do∿not (ADV-neg) produce (V-pres) outcomes (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) satisfy (V-pres) many (DET) persons (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres).
20.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → do not produce → E3
20.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Democracy” exists to work or fail ∴ Only procedures and persons acting within them ∴ “Working” dissolves into: do outcomes satisfy? ∴ WHO gets selected? WHO decides? WHO feels dissatisfied?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution did not bring freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.17a The violent actions by which certain persons removed other persons from power did not result in me acting without interference from others.
20.17b The (DEF.ART) violent (ADJ) actions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revolution→violent.actions]) by (PREP) which (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) removed (V-past) other (DET) persons (N-obj) from (PREP) power (N) did∿not (ADV-neg) result (V-past) in (PREP) me (PRON-obj) acting (V-GERUND) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) others (N).
20.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
did not → did not → E-Prime compliant
20.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Revolution” exists as agent that brings things ∴ Only persons acting violently to remove other persons ∴ “Freedom” dissolves into my acting without interference ∴ WHO acted? WHO got removed? WHO now interferes?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights are not respected in this country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.18a Persons with weapons in this region do not refrain from certain actions that persons elsewhere agreed to document as limits.
20.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→region]) do∿not (ADV-neg) refrain (V-pres) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) elsewhere (ADV-place) agreed (V-past) to∿document (V-inf) as (PREP) limits (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Rights→documented.limits]).
20.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
are not → do not → E7
20.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Rights” exist as things that get respected ∴ Only documented limits that persons may or may not observe ∴ Persons with weapons act or refrain ∴ WHO documented? WHO agreed? WHO now acts regardless?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Nationalism does not serve the workers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.19a Feeling loyalty toward persons sharing a geographical label does not benefit persons who exchange labor for payment.
20.19b Feeling (V-GERUND ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Nationalism→feeling.loyalty]) loyalty (N) toward (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.sharing.label]) sharing (V-PRES.PART) a (INDEF.ART) geographical (ADJ) label (N) does∿not (ADV-neg) benefit (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[workers→persons.exchanging.labor]) who (PRON-rel) exchange (V-pres) labor (N) for (PREP) payment (N).
20.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → does not → E-Prime compliant
20.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Nationalism” exists as agent that serves ∴ Only feelings of loyalty that persons experience ∴ “Workers” dissolves into persons in specific economic relationships ∴ WHO benefits from this loyalty? WHO does not?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion is not on their side.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.20a Many persons I encounter do not express agreement with what those persons claim.
20.20b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Public.opinion→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) do∿not (ADV-neg) express (V-pres) agreement (N-obj) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres).
20.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → do not express → E7
20.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Public opinion” exists as a unified force ∴ Only specific persons expressing or not expressing agreement ∴ WHO expresses what? WHO claims what?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The system is not designed for people like us.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.21a Certain persons created these procedures and did not intend them to benefit persons whom they categorize as we get categorized.
20.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[system→persons.who.created]) created (V-past) these (DET) procedures (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[system→procedures]) and (CONJ) did∿not (ADV-neg) intend (V-past) them (PRON-obj) to∿benefit (V-inf) persons (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) categorize (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[people.like.us→persons.categorized]) as (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) get∿categorized (V-PASS).
20.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → did not → E7
20.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “System” exists as impersonal mechanism ∴ Specific persons created specific procedures ∴ They categorize; we get categorized ∴ WHO created? WHO intended? WHO categorizes?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Capitalism does not care about human suffering.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.22a Persons who control resources and seek to increase their control do not alter their actions based on the pain of persons without such control.
20.22b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Capitalism→persons.controlling.resources]) who (PRON-rel) control (V-pres) resources (N-obj) and (CONJ) seek (V-pres) to∿increase (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) control (N-obj) do∿not (ADV-neg) alter (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) based (V-PAST.PART) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) pain (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[suffering→pain]) of (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human→persons]) without (PREP) such (DET) control (N).
20.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Capitalism” exists as agent that cares or does not care ∴ Only persons making decisions about resources ∴ These persons do or do not alter actions based on others’ pain ∴ WHO controls? WHO experiences pain? WHO decides?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The constitution does not protect us from this.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.23a The words that certain persons wrote long ago, and that persons with weapons claim to follow, do not prevent those same persons with weapons from acting against us.
20.23b The (DEF.ART) words (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[constitution→words]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) long∿ago (ADV-time), and (CONJ) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) claim (V-pres) to∿follow (V-inf), do∿not (ADV-neg) prevent (V-pres) those (DET) same (ADJ) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) from (PREP) acting (V-GERUND) against (PREP) us (PRON-obj).
20.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Constitution” exists as protecting agent ∴ Only words on paper, written by persons now dead ∴ Living persons with weapons claim to follow these words ∴ These same persons act against us regardless ∴ WHO wrote? WHO claims? WHO acts? WHO gets harmed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition does not justify oppression.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.24a The fact that certain persons acted a particular way in times past does not make it acceptable for persons now to cause pain and restrict the actions of others.
20.24b The (DEF.ART) fact (N-subj) that (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Tradition→persons.in.past]) acted (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) particular (ADJ) way (N) in (PREP) times (N) past (ADJ) does∿not (ADV-neg) make (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) acceptable (ADJ) for (PREP) persons (N) now (ADV-time) to∿cause (V-inf) pain (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[oppression→causing.pain]) and (CONJ) restrict (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) actions (N-obj) of (PREP) others (N).
20.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → does not → E-Prime compliant
20.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Tradition” exists as justifying authority ∴ Only past persons who acted certain ways ∴ Present persons cause pain; past actions cannot justify ∴ WHO acted then? WHO causes pain now? WHO claims justification?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science does not have all the answers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.25a Persons using particular methods of observation and testing have not yet found explanations for all phenomena they investigate.
20.25b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Science→persons.using.methods]) using (V-PRES.PART) particular (ADJ) methods (N) of (PREP) observation (N) and (CONJ) testing (N) have∿not (ADV-neg) yet (ADV-time) found (V-PAST.PART) explanations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[answers→explanations]) for (PREP) all (DET) phenomena (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) investigate (V-pres).
20.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → have not → E-Prime compliant
20.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Science” exists as knowing agent ∴ Only persons using particular methods ∴ These persons have or have not found explanations ∴ WHO investigates? WHO finds? What methods do they use?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Religion is not the opiate of the masses.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.26a The practices and beliefs that certain persons teach and others follow do not function merely to dull the pain of many persons whom wealthy persons exploit.
20.26b The (DEF.ART) practices (N-subj) and (CONJ) beliefs (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Religion→practices.and.beliefs]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Religion→persons.who.teach]) teach (V-pres) and (CONJ) others (N-subj) follow (V-pres) do∿not (ADV-neg) function (V-pres.REL) merely (ADV) to∿dull (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[opiate→dulling.pain]) the (DEF.ART) pain (N-obj) of (PREP) many (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[masses→many.persons]) whom (PRON-rel) wealthy (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied→persons.exploiting]) exploit (V-pres).
20.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → do not function → E4
20.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Religion” exists as substance that drugs ∴ Only practices and beliefs, persons teaching and following ∴ “The masses” dissolves into many specific persons ∴ WHO teaches? WHO follows? WHO exploits? What functions how?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market is not efficient.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.27a The transactions by which persons exchange goods and services do not result in the distribution that observers using certain criteria would label “optimal.”
20.27b The (DEF.ART) transactions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[market→transactions]) by (PREP) which (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) exchange (V-pres) goods (N-obj) and (CONJ) services (N-obj) do∿not (ADV-neg) result (V-pres) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) distribution (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) observers (N-subj) using (V-PRES.PART) certain (DET) criteria (N) would∿label (V-COND ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[efficient→labeled.optimal]) “optimal” (ADJ-label).
20.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
is not → do not result → E3
20.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Market” exists as agent that works efficiently or not ∴ Only transactions between persons ∴ “Efficient” dissolves into a label applied by observers ∴ WHO transacts? WHO observes? What criteria define “optimal”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will not forgive them.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.28a Persons who write about past events in times to come will likely not describe their actions favorably.
20.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) in (PREP) times (N) to∿come (V-inf) will (AUX) likely (ADV) not (ADV-neg) describe (V-fut) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) favorably (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forgive→describe.favorably]).
20.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
will not → will not → E-Prime compliant
20.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” exists as judging agent ∴ Only future persons writing about past events ∴ “Forgiveness” dissolves into favorable description ∴ WHO will write? What will they say? WHO decides what counts as favorable?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Power does not corrupt; it reveals.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.29a Gaining the ability to compel others does not change a person’s character; it reveals what they would do if others could not resist.
20.29b Gaining (V-GERUND) the (DEF.ART) ability (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Power→ability.to.compel]) to∿compel (V-inf) others (N-obj) does∿not (ADV-neg) change (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) person’s (N-poss) character (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[corrupt→change.character]); it (PRON-subj) reveals (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) would∿do (V-COND) if (CONJ) others (N-subj) could∿not (ADV-neg) resist (V-COND).
20.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → does not → E-Prime compliant
20.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Power” exists as corrupting agent ∴ Only ability to compel that persons gain ∴ Character does not change; actions become visible ∴ WHO gains ability? WHO gets compelled? What would they do without resistance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Evil does not exist; only hurt people hurting people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.30a No cosmic force of wrongness acts in the world—only persons who experienced pain and now cause pain to other persons, who often do not recognize this pattern.
20.30b No (DET) cosmic (ADJ) force (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Evil→cosmic.force]) of (PREP) wrongness (N) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) world (N)—only (ADV) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) experienced (V-past) pain (N-obj) and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) cause (V-pres) pain (N-obj) to (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj), who (PRON-rel) often (ADV-freq) do∿not (ADV-neg) recognize (V-pres) this (DET) pattern (N-obj).
20.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
does not → do not → E-Prime compliant
20.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Evil” exists as cosmic agent ∴ Only persons in pain causing pain ∴ The pattern often goes unrecognized ∴ WHO experienced pain? WHO causes pain now? WHO does not see the pattern?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
20.16 “The procedures by which certain persons get selected to make decisions do not produce outcomes that satisfy many persons I encounter.”
Standard English: “Democracy is not working.”
20.17 “The violent actions by which certain persons removed other persons from power did not result in me acting without interference from others.”
Standard English: “The revolution did not bring freedom.”
20.18 “Persons with weapons in this region do not refrain from certain actions that persons elsewhere agreed to document as limits.”
Standard English: “Rights are not respected in this country.”
20.19 “Feeling loyalty toward persons sharing a geographical label does not benefit persons who exchange labor for payment.”
Standard English: “Nationalism does not serve the workers.”
20.20 “Many persons I encounter do not express agreement with what those persons claim.”
Standard English: “Public opinion is not on their side.”
20.21 “Certain persons created these procedures and did not intend them to benefit persons whom they categorize as we get categorized.”
Standard English: “The system is not designed for people like us.”
20.22 “Persons who control resources and seek to increase their control do not alter their actions based on the pain of persons without such control.”
Standard English: “Capitalism does not care about human suffering.”
20.23 “The words that certain persons wrote long ago, and that persons with weapons claim to follow, do not prevent those same persons with weapons from acting against us.”
Standard English: “The constitution does not protect us from this.”
20.24 “The fact that certain persons acted a particular way in times past does not make it acceptable for persons now to cause pain and restrict the actions of others.”
Standard English: “Tradition does not justify oppression.”
20.25 “Persons using particular methods of observation and testing have not yet found explanations for all phenomena they investigate.”
Standard English: “Science does not have all the answers.”
20.26 “The practices and beliefs that certain persons teach and others follow do not function merely to dull the pain of many persons whom wealthy persons exploit.”
Standard English: “Religion is not the opiate of the masses.”
20.27 “The transactions by which persons exchange goods and services do not result in the distribution that observers using certain criteria would label ‘optimal.’”
Standard English: “The market is not efficient.”
20.28 “Persons who write about past events in times to come will likely not describe their actions favorably.”
Standard English: “History will not forgive them.”
20.29 “Gaining the ability to compel others does not change a person’s character; it reveals what they would do if others could not resist.”
Standard English: “Power does not corrupt; it reveals.”
20.30 “No cosmic force of wrongness acts in the world—only persons who experienced pain and now cause pain to other persons, who often do not recognize this pattern.”
Standard English: “Evil does not exist; only hurt people hurting people.”
20.16 The procedures by which certain persons get selected to make decisions do not produce outcomes that satisfy many persons I encounter.
20.17 The violent actions by which certain persons removed other persons from power did not result in me acting without interference from others.
20.18 Persons with weapons in this region do not refrain from certain actions that persons elsewhere agreed to document as limits.
20.19 Feeling loyalty toward persons sharing a geographical label does not benefit persons who exchange labor for payment.
20.20 Many persons I encounter do not express agreement with what those persons claim.
20.21 Certain persons created these procedures and did not intend them to benefit persons whom they categorize as we get categorized.
20.22 Persons who control resources and seek to increase their control do not alter their actions based on the pain of persons without such control.
20.23 The words that certain persons wrote long ago, and that persons with weapons claim to follow, do not prevent those same persons with weapons from acting against us.
20.24 The fact that certain persons acted a particular way in times past does not make it acceptable for persons now to cause pain and restrict the actions of others.
20.25 Persons using particular methods of observation and testing have not yet found explanations for all phenomena they investigate.
20.26 The practices and beliefs that certain persons teach and others follow do not function merely to dull the pain of many persons whom wealthy persons exploit.
20.27 The transactions by which persons exchange goods and services do not result in the distribution that observers using certain criteria would label “optimal.”
20.28 Persons who write about past events in times to come will likely not describe their actions favorably.
20.29 Gaining the ability to compel others does not change a person’s character; it reveals what they would do if others could not resist.
20.30 No cosmic force of wrongness acts in the world—only persons who experienced pain and now cause pain to other persons, who often do not recognize this pattern.
Political discourse saturates itself with spooks. The genre section demonstrates how political language systematically obscures agency. “Democracy,” “the revolution,” “rights,” “nationalism,” “public opinion,” “the system,” “capitalism,” “the constitution,” “tradition,” “science,” “religion,” “the market,” “history,” “power,” “evil”—all appear as agents that act, fail, serve, protect, justify, or corrupt.
“Not” in political analysis: The word “not” frequently marks the failure or absence of these phantom agents. “Democracy is not working” treats Democracy as a mechanism that should work. “The constitution does not protect” treats the Constitution as a guardian that should protect. E-Prime Max dissolves both the positive claim (these agents exist) and the negative claim (they fail to act).
Where “History” stood → future persons writing about past events
The pattern: Political abstractions hide persons. “Not” marks where those hidden persons fail to act as speakers wish. E-Prime Max makes visible both the persons and their actions (or inactions).
On using this analysis: The dissolution of political spooks does not constitute a political program. E-Prime Max reveals; it does not prescribe. A student who uses these dissolutions to feel politically superior has found another master. The unique decides what to do with what becomes visible.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these sentences containing “not” and spooks:
Exercise 1:
Standard: “Society is not ready for this change.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons I encounter express reluctance when they consider acting differently than they currently act—they do not express willingness to alter their behaviors.
is not → do not express (E7)
Revelation: No “Society” exists to feel ready or unready. Only specific persons expressing attitudes about potential changes in behavior.
Exercise 2:
Standard: “Justice is not blind.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who call themselves “judges” do not treat all persons the same regardless of visible characteristics—they see the characteristics and act accordingly.
is not → do not treat (E7)
Revelation: No “Justice” exists that could see or not see. Only persons judging, seeing characteristics, treating differently.
Exercise 3:
Standard: “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”
E-Prime Max: The condition of speaking without persons with weapons confining me does not prevent other persons from responding to my words with their own actions.
does not mean → does not prevent (E-Prime compliant rephrasing)
Revelation: “Freedom” dissolves twice into concrete conditions. Other persons will respond; “consequences” names their responses.
Exercise 4:
Standard: “The law is not above criticism.”
E-Prime Max: The words that persons with weapons enforce do not escape examination and objection by other persons who choose to examine and object.
is not → do not escape (E3)
Revelation: No “Law” exists as entity above or below anything. Only written words, enforcing persons, examining persons.
Exercise 5:
Standard: “Human nature does not change.”
E-Prime Max: Persons in all times and places whom I read about or observe exhibit similar patterns of behavior—these patterns do not appear different across long stretches of time.
does not → do not (E-Prime compliant)
Revelation: No “Human nature” exists as unchanging essence. Only observable patterns in how persons act, noted by observers comparing across time.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of E-Prime Max: A Latinum Institute Language Course, developed from the CSV-based vocabulary progression system (1000-word foundation). The Latinum Institute has created educational materials for autodidact language learners since 2006.
The Latinum methodology emphasizes self-directed learning through interlinear texts, grammatical analysis, and progressive complexity. Students encounter vocabulary in context, with full grammatical apparatus visible, allowing deep comprehension rather than superficial memorization.
E-Prime Max synthesizes two radical linguistic disciplines:
E-Prime (Bourland, 1965): Eliminating all forms of “to be” forces speakers to specify relationships, appearances, and functions rather than asserting false identities and essences.
Spook Dissolution (Stirner, 1844): Treating abstractions as tools rather than masters, dissolving collective agents back into the persons from whom they arose.
The synthesis: E-Prime attacks predication; E-Prime Max attacks reification. Together they constitute comprehensive consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
✓ Lesson 20 E-Prime Max complete
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max combines two linguistic disciplines into a single practice of consciousness liberation. From E-Prime (developed by D. David Bourland Jr. from Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics), it inherits the elimination of all forms of the verb “to be.” From Max Stirner’s analysis of Gespenster (spooks/fixed ideas), it inherits the dissolution of abstract nouns that appear as commanding agents.
The topic word for this lesson—we—occupies a fascinating position in E-Prime Max analysis. As a first-person plural pronoun, “we” functions legitimately when referring to specific, identifiable persons: “We [my friend and I] walked to the store.” However, “we” becomes a spook-vehicle when invoked to conjure collective agents that possess no unified consciousness, will, or capacity for action: “We as a society must...” or “We the people demand...”
This phantom “we” performs ideological work. It smuggles obligations onto individuals by pretending that a collective entity exists, thinks, wants, and commands. The speaker who says “We must do X” rarely means “I and these specific persons have decided to do X.” More often, the speaker means “I want X done, and I invoke a phantom collective to add weight to my preference.”
Spook Proximity Level: HIGH — The word “we” frequently co-occurs with political spooks (nation, society, people), moral spooks (duty, obligation, responsibility), and collective spooks (humanity, civilization, posterity).
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does E-Prime Max dissolution of “we” involve?
E-Prime Max dissolution of “we” involves distinguishing between legitimate uses (referring to specific identified persons) and spook-vehicle uses (invoking phantom collectives). When “we” invokes “society,” “humanity,” “the nation,” or “the people” as if these abstractions possessed unified will, the dissolution traces the claim back to specific persons making specific demands—often the speaker themselves, using “we” to disguise “I want.”
Requiring dissolution: “We as a society must...” → “Many persons around me expect...” or “I want others to...”
“Our” values, traditions, heritage (when “our” invokes phantom collective)
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: Expose “citizen,” “member,” “people” as labels applied by specific persons
The absence of any actual collective consciousness
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List): be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being, I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re, art, wast, wert
Spook Categories:
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS: love, hate, fear, hope, anger—when treated as agents that “do” things (conquers, destroys, prevents, sustains, consumes)
The Five Dissolution Strategies:
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization): Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization): Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure): Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution): Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons
The Stirnerian Test: “Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?” IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve IF I own it as a tool I can discard → permitted with caution
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We are all in this together.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.1a Many persons around me and I face similar circumstances, and some of those persons express a desire to cooperate with me.
21.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) face (V-pres) similar (ADJ) circumstances (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) desire (N-obj) to∿cooperate (V-inf) with (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
21.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” (phantom collective) → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me and I (specific) → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
FORM: “are” → DISSOLUTION: face (active verb) → STRATEGY: E3
SPOOK: “all” (false unanimity) → DISSOLUTION: some of those persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “together” (implies unified will) → DISSOLUTION: express desire to cooperate → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No unified “we” exists with a single experience ∴ “All” dissolves—some persons want cooperation, others do not ∴ “Together” masks varying degrees of willingness ∴ WHO benefits from invoking unanimous solidarity? ∴ WHO gets silenced when dissent becomes betrayal of “us”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We the people demand justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.2a Certain persons who wrote a document centuries ago used the phrase “we the people,” and now I and some persons I know want persons with weapons whom others call “judges” to confine certain other persons.
21.2b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[We.the” people→document.authors]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) document (N-obj) centuries (N-time) ago (ADV-time) used (V-past) the (DEF.ART) phrase (N-obj) “we (PRON-subj) the (DEF.ART) people (N-appos),” and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[demand→I.want]) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) call (V-pres) “judges” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) to∿confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→confine]) certain (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj).
21.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We the people” → DISSOLUTION: persons who wrote a document + I and some persons I know → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “demand” (collective will) → DISSOLUTION: I want, some persons want → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “justice” → DISSOLUTION: confine certain persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “judges” → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons whom others call X → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
21.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “We the people” traces to specific authors in 1787 ∴ No “people” demanded anything—specific persons wanted specific outcomes ∴ “Justice” dissolves to confinement by armed persons ∴ WHO gets to speak for “the people”? ∴ WHO gets excluded from that “we”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must protect our values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.3a I feel an urge to act in certain ways, and some persons around me express similar preferences; we call these preferences “values” and some of us want to prevent others from acting differently.
21.3b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must→I.feel.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿act (V-inf) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) similar (ADJ) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→preferences]); we (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) these (DET) preferences (N-obj) “values” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) us (PRON-obj) want (V-pres) to∿prevent (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protect→prevent.others]) others (N-obj) from∿acting (V-gerund) differently (ADV-manner).
21.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “must” (obligation from nowhere) → DISSOLUTION: I feel an urge → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “our values” (collective sacred) → DISSOLUTION: preferences I and some persons share → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: “protect” (defensive posture) → DISSOLUTION: prevent others from acting differently → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “must” floats in the universe demanding compliance ∴ “Values” = preferences some persons hold and want others to share ∴ “Protect” often means “impose” or “enforce” ∴ WHO decides which preferences count as “our values”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We have a duty to future generations.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.4a Some persons tell me that I should act in certain ways for the benefit of persons not yet born; I may choose to consider those future persons, or I may not—no “duty” compels me apart from my own choosing.
21.4b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.telling.me]) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) act (V-inf) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N-obj) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) benefit (N) of (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[future.generations→persons.not.yet.born]) not (ADV-neg) yet (ADV-time) born (V-past.PART); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) choose (V-inf) to∿consider (V-inf) those (DET) future (ADJ) persons (N-obj), or (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg)—no (DET) “duty” (N-label ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[duty→telling + my.choosing]) compels (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) apart (ADV) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) choosing (N-gerund ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
21.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” (who exactly?) → DISSOLUTION: Some persons tell me, I choose → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “duty” → DISSOLUTION: persons telling me + my own choosing → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “future generations” → DISSOLUTION: persons not yet born → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
21.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Duty” traces to persons making claims on me ∴ “Future generations” = persons who do not exist yet and cannot consent ∴ I may choose to act for their benefit—or not—based on my own will ∴ WHO benefits NOW from invoking persons who cannot speak?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We believe in democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.5a I and certain persons I associate with prefer a system where many persons vote and the persons receiving more votes gain access to positions of command.
21.5b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.certain.persons]) I (PRON-subj) associate (V-pres) with (PREP) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[believe.in→prefer]) a (INDEF.ART) system (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) vote (V-pres) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) receiving (V-pres.PART) more (DET) votes (N-obj) gain (V-pres) access (N-obj) to (PREP) positions (N-obj) of (PREP) command (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→voting.system.described]).
21.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” (implies consensus) → DISSOLUTION: I and certain persons I associate with → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “believe in” (quasi-religious) → DISSOLUTION: prefer → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “democracy” → DISSOLUTION: system where persons vote, winners command → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No unified “we” believes anything—individuals hold preferences ∴ “Believe in” carries religious weight; “prefer” remains honest ∴ “Democracy” dissolves to a specific procedure involving voting and commanding ∴ The dissolution neither endorses nor condemns—it describes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We should be ashamed of our history.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.6a Some persons want me to feel discomfort about actions that other persons—now dead—performed before I existed; I may choose to feel such discomfort, or I may recognize that I performed none of those actions.
21.6b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.should→persons.who.want]) want (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿feel (V-inf.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[be.ashamed→feel.discomfort]) discomfort (N-obj) about (PREP) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[history→actions.persons.performed]) that (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj)—now (ADV-time) dead (ADJ)—performed (V-past) before (PREP) I (PRON-subj) existed (V-past); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) choose (V-inf) to∿feel (V-inf) such (DET) discomfort (N-obj), or (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) recognize (V-inf) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) performed (V-past) none (PRON) of (PREP) those (DET) actions (N-obj).
21.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We should” → DISSOLUTION: Some persons want me to → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
FORM: “be ashamed” → DISSOLUTION: feel discomfort → STRATEGY: E7
SPOOK: “our history” → DISSOLUTION: actions other persons performed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
21.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “We should” dissolves to “some persons want me to” ∴ “History” = actions by specific persons, now dead ∴ I performed none of those actions ∴ WHO benefits from my feeling shame for others’ deeds?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We live in a society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.7a We—meaning I and certain persons I can name—live near many other persons who follow various patterns of interaction.
21.7b We (PRON-subj)—meaning (V-pres.PART) I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[specific.identified]) I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) name (V-inf)—live (V-pres) near (PREP) many (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.nearby]) who (PRON-rel) follow (V-pres) various (ADJ) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[society→patterns.of.interaction]) of (PREP) interaction (N).
21.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “society” → DISSOLUTION: many persons following patterns of interaction → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
NOTE: “We” here becomes legitimate when specified as “I and certain persons I can name”
21.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Society” possesses no will, makes no demands ∴ Only persons interact, follow patterns, express expectations ∴ Specifying “we” transforms spook-vehicle into legitimate pronoun ∴ The work of specification makes the dissolution visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We need to have a conversation about race.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.8a Some persons want me and others to discuss how certain persons categorize other persons by physical appearance; I may choose to participate in such discussions or not.
21.8b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.need→persons.who.want]) want (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) others (N-obj) to∿discuss (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[have.conversation→discuss]) how (ADV-manner) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) categorize (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[race→categorization.act]) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) by (PREP) physical (ADJ) appearance (N); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) choose (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to∿participate (V-inf) in (PREP) such (DET) discussions (N-obj) or (CONJ) not (ADV-neg).
21.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We need” → DISSOLUTION: Some persons want → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “race” → DISSOLUTION: categorization of persons by appearance → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: implied obligation → DISSOLUTION: I may choose to participate or not → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
21.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “We need” = “some persons want” ∴ “Race” = an act of categorization by specific persons ∴ No collective “need” compels me ∴ WHO decides what “we” need to discuss?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We can change the world.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.9a I and some persons acting in concert can alter conditions for some other persons in some locations; we cannot alter conditions for all persons everywhere.
21.9b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.some.persons]) acting (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) concert (N) can (V-modal) alter (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[change→alter.conditions]) conditions (N-obj) for (PREP) some (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) some (DET) locations (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[world→locations.persons]); we (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.neg) alter (V-inf) conditions (N-obj) for (PREP) all (DET) persons (N-obj) everywhere (ADV-place).
21.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “the world” → DISSOLUTION: conditions for some persons in some locations → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
GRANDIOSITY CHECK: “change the world” overstates; honest version acknowledges limits
21.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The world” dissolves to specific locations and persons ∴ Grand claims often mask modest possibilities ∴ The dissolution neither discourages action nor inflates it ∴ Honest scope reveals realistic agency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.10a Certain persons—Thomas Jefferson and editors—wrote that they considered certain claims obvious; I may find those claims obvious or not, as I choose.
21.10b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[We→Jefferson.and.editors])—Thomas (N-proper) Jefferson (N-proper) and (CONJ) editors (N)—wrote (V-past) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) considered (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hold.truths→considered.claims]) certain (DET) claims (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truths→claims]) obvious (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[self-evident→obvious.to.them]); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) find (V-inf) those (DET) claims (N-obj) obvious (ADJ) or (CONJ) not (ADV-neg), as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
21.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” (founders as collective voice) → DISSOLUTION: specific persons who wrote → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: “truths” → DISSOLUTION: claims → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “self-evident” → DISSOLUTION: obvious to those persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “We” = Jefferson and his editors, not “humanity” or “Americans” ∴ “Truths” = claims certain persons made ∴ “Self-evident” = obvious to them; not necessarily to anyone else ∴ The document’s authority dissolves to its authors’ authority
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We cannot let fear win.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.11a I notice my body contracting and my breath shortening; I choose to act despite these sensations rather than refrain from acting.
21.11b I (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.sensations]) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) breath (N-subj) shortening (V-pres.PART); I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[let.win→my.choice]) to∿act (V-inf) despite (PREP) these (DET) sensations (N-obj) rather (ADV) than (CONJ) refrain (V-inf) from∿acting (V-gerund).
21.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “fear” (as agent that “wins”) → DISSOLUTION: body sensations I experience → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “win” (competition metaphor) → DISSOLUTION: I choose to act or refrain → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
NOTE: “We” here masked speaker’s own experience; dissolution recovers first-person ownership
21.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fear” exists to win or lose—only bodily sensations ∴ I experience these sensations; I choose my response ∴ The competitive metaphor (”win”) obscures my agency ∴ The “we” invoked a phantom collective to avoid saying “I”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We owe it to our ancestors.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.12a Some persons tell me I should act in certain ways to honor persons—now dead—from whom I descended; those dead persons cannot experience honor or dishonor.
21.12b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.owe→persons.telling.me]) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) act (V-inf) in (PREP) certain (DET) ways (N-obj) to∿honor (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[owe→honor]) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[ancestors→dead.persons.from.whom.descended])—now (ADV-time) dead (ADJ)—from (PREP) whom (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) descended (V-past); those (DET) dead (ADJ) persons (N-subj) cannot (V-modal.neg) experience (V-inf) honor (N-obj) or (CONJ) dishonor (N-obj).
21.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “owe” (implies cosmic debt) → DISSOLUTION: some persons tell me I should → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “ancestors” → DISSOLUTION: dead persons from whom I descended → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
REALITY CHECK: Dead persons experience nothing
21.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “debt” exists owed to non-experiencing beings ∴ Living persons invoke dead persons to command living persons ∴ WHO benefits from my “honoring” the dead? ∴ The dead cannot collect; only the living can
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We as a nation must come together.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.13a Some persons who call themselves officials want many persons living within certain borders to cooperate with their plans.
21.13b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.as.nation→officials]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) officials (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[must→want]) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.in.territory]) living (V-pres.PART) within (PREP) certain (DET) borders (N-obj) to∿cooperate (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[come.together→cooperate]) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) plans (N-obj).
21.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We as a nation” → DISSOLUTION: persons living within certain borders → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “must” → DISSOLUTION: officials want → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: “come together” → DISSOLUTION: cooperate with officials’ plans → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “nation” exists with unified will ∴ Specific persons (officials) want specific outcomes ∴ “Come together” often means “comply with my agenda” ∴ WHO speaks for the “nation”? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We agree on the fundamental principles.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.14a I and the persons in this room expressed similar preferences on certain points; we have not tested whether this agreement extends to specific applications.
21.14b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→specific.identified]) in (PREP) this (DET) room (N-obj) expressed (V-past) similar (ADJ) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[agree→expressed.similar.preferences]) on (PREP) certain (DET) points (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[principles→points]); we (PRON-subj) have∿not∿tested (V-pres.PERF.neg) whether (CONJ) this (DET) agreement (N-subj) extends (V-pres) to (PREP) specific (ADJ) applications (N-obj).
21.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “fundamental principles” → DISSOLUTION: certain points → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
NOTE: “We” here becomes legitimate through specification (I and persons in this room)
CAUTION: Agreement on abstractions often masks disagreement on specifics
21.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Principles” dissolve to “points” or “preferences” ∴ Abstract agreement often conceals concrete disagreement ∴ Specifying “we” (persons in this room) legitimizes the pronoun ∴ The qualification “have not tested” maintains honesty
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We stand for freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.15a I and some persons I associate with prefer conditions where certain persons refrain from interfering with certain actions we want to perform.
21.15b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.some.persons]) I (PRON-subj) associate (V-pres) with (PREP) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stand.for→prefer]) conditions (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) refrain (V-pres) from∿interfering (V-gerund ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→non-interference]) with (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) we (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) to∿perform (V-inf).
21.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “freedom” → DISSOLUTION: conditions of non-interference for certain actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “stand for” (implies sacred commitment) → DISSOLUTION: prefer → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
NOTE: Second “we” legitimate (refers back to “I and some persons”)
21.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Freedom” dissolves to non-interference with specific actions ∴ WHO gets to perform which actions without interference? ∴ “Stand for” carries sacrificial weight; “prefer” remains honest ∴ The dissolution reveals whose freedom, for what actions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
21.1 “Many persons around me and I face similar circumstances, and some of those persons express a desire to cooperate with me.”
[Standard English: “We are all in this together.”]
[E-Prime strategies: “are” → “face” (E3-existence verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (phantom “we” → many persons around me and I), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (false unanimity “all” → some of those persons)]
21.2 “Certain persons who wrote a document centuries ago used the phrase ‘we the people,’ and now I and some persons I know want persons with weapons whom others call ‘judges’ to confine certain other persons.”
[Standard English: “We the people demand justice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (”We the people” → document authors traced), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (”demand” → I want), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”justice” → confine persons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (”judges” → label exposed)]
21.3 “I feel an urge to act in certain ways, and some persons around me express similar preferences; we call these preferences ‘values’ and some of us want to prevent others from acting differently.”
[Standard English: “We must protect our values.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (”must” → I feel an urge), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (”values” → preferences we label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”protect” → prevent others)]
21.4 “Some persons tell me that I should act in certain ways for the benefit of persons not yet born; I may choose to consider those future persons, or I may not—no ‘duty’ compels me apart from my own choosing.”
[Standard English: “We have a duty to future generations.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”duty” → persons telling me), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (reclaiming choice), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”future generations” → persons not yet born)]
21.5 “I and certain persons I associate with prefer a system where many persons vote and the persons receiving more votes gain access to positions of command.”
[Standard English: “We believe in democracy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”We” → I and certain persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (”believe in” → prefer), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”democracy” → voting system described)]
21.6 “Some persons want me to feel discomfort about actions that other persons—now dead—performed before I existed; I may choose to feel such discomfort, or I may recognize that I performed none of those actions.”
[Standard English: “We should be ashamed of our history.”]
[E-Prime strategies: “be ashamed” → “feel discomfort” (E7-state verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”We should” → some persons want), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”history” → actions persons performed)]
21.7 “We—meaning I and certain persons I can name—live near many other persons who follow various patterns of interaction.”
[Standard English: “We live in a society.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”society” → persons following patterns), “we” legitimized through specification]
21.8 “Some persons want me and others to discuss how certain persons categorize other persons by physical appearance; I may choose to participate in such discussions or not.”
[Standard English: “We need to have a conversation about race.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”We need” → some persons want), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (”race” → categorization act), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (reclaiming choice)]
21.9 “I and some persons acting in concert can alter conditions for some other persons in some locations; we cannot alter conditions for all persons everywhere.”
[Standard English: “We can change the world.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”the world” → conditions for persons in locations)]
21.10 “Certain persons—Thomas Jefferson and editors—wrote that they considered certain claims obvious; I may find those claims obvious or not, as I choose.”
[Standard English: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”]
[E-Prime strategies: “to be” → eliminated through restructuring]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (”We” → specific authors), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”truths” → claims, “self-evident” → obvious to them)]
21.11 “I notice my body contracting and my breath shortening; I choose to act despite these sensations rather than refrain from acting.”
[Standard English: “We cannot let fear win.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (”fear” → body sensations I experience, “let win” → my choice)]
21.12 “Some persons tell me I should act in certain ways to honor persons—now dead—from whom I descended; those dead persons cannot experience honor or dishonor.”
[Standard English: “We owe it to our ancestors.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”owe” → persons telling me), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”ancestors” → dead persons)]
21.13 “Some persons who call themselves officials want many persons living within certain borders to cooperate with their plans.”
[Standard English: “We as a nation must come together.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (”We as a nation” → persons in territory), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (”officials” → label exposed), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”come together” → cooperate with plans)]
21.14 “I and the persons in this room expressed similar preferences on certain points; we have not tested whether this agreement extends to specific applications.”
[Standard English: “We agree on the fundamental principles.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”principles” → points), “we” legitimized through specification]
21.15 “I and some persons I associate with prefer conditions where certain persons refrain from interfering with certain actions we want to perform.”
[Standard English: “We stand for freedom.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (”freedom” → non-interference conditions), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (”stand for” → prefer)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
21.1 Many persons around me and I face similar circumstances, and some of those persons express a desire to cooperate with me.
21.2 Certain persons who wrote a document centuries ago used the phrase “we the people,” and now I and some persons I know want persons with weapons whom others call “judges” to confine certain other persons.
21.3 I feel an urge to act in certain ways, and some persons around me express similar preferences; we call these preferences “values” and some of us want to prevent others from acting differently.
21.4 Some persons tell me that I should act in certain ways for the benefit of persons not yet born; I may choose to consider those future persons, or I may not—no “duty” compels me apart from my own choosing.
21.5 I and certain persons I associate with prefer a system where many persons vote and the persons receiving more votes gain access to positions of command.
21.6 Some persons want me to feel discomfort about actions that other persons—now dead—performed before I existed; I may choose to feel such discomfort, or I may recognize that I performed none of those actions.
21.7 We—meaning I and certain persons I can name—live near many other persons who follow various patterns of interaction.
21.8 Some persons want me and others to discuss how certain persons categorize other persons by physical appearance; I may choose to participate in such discussions or not.
21.9 I and some persons acting in concert can alter conditions for some other persons in some locations; we cannot alter conditions for all persons everywhere.
21.10 Certain persons—Thomas Jefferson and editors—wrote that they considered certain claims obvious; I may find those claims obvious or not, as I choose.
21.11 I notice my body contracting and my breath shortening; I choose to act despite these sensations rather than refrain from acting.
21.12 Some persons tell me I should act in certain ways to honor persons—now dead—from whom I descended; those dead persons cannot experience honor or dishonor.
21.13 Some persons who call themselves officials want many persons living within certain borders to cooperate with their plans.
21.14 I and the persons in this room expressed similar preferences on certain points; we have not tested whether this agreement extends to specific applications.
21.15 I and some persons I associate with prefer conditions where certain persons refrain from interfering with certain actions we want to perform.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern we in E-Prime Max:
1. Standard English Function
Collective we: Speaker invoking a group identity: “We Americans believe...”
E-Prime Max focuses particular attention on the last category—collective “we”—because it frequently serves as a vehicle for spook-constructions.
2. E-Prime Considerations
“We’re all in this together” → “We all face similar circumstances”
The contraction “we’re” represents a forbidden form (containing “are”) and requires dissolution.
3. Spook Proximity Analysis
“We” frequently co-occurs with the following spooks:
Political spooks: nation, society, people, state, government Examples: “We as a nation,” “We the people,” “We as a society” Dissolution: Identify who specifically acts, speaks, or demands
Moral spooks: duty, obligation, responsibility, values Examples: “We have a duty,” “We share responsibility,” “We must protect our values” Dissolution: Trace “duty” to persons making claims; trace “values” to preferences
Collective spooks: humanity, civilization, future generations, posterity Examples: “We as humanity,” “We owe it to future generations” Dissolution: Specify which persons; note that future persons cannot consent or demand
Temporal spooks: history, tradition, heritage, legacy Examples: “We inherit,” “Our history demands” Dissolution: Dead persons cannot demand; living persons invoke dead persons to command living persons
4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
“Our nation requires” → “Certain officials want”
“We need change” → “We want certain conditions altered”
“Our founding principles” → “Claims made by specific persons for specific purposes”
“We cannot let fear win” → “I choose to act despite my body’s sensations”
“We as members” → “We, persons who joined or got enrolled”
5. Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Assuming all uses of “we” require dissolution Correction: “We” functions legitimately when referring to specific, identified persons. “My brother and I walked to the store—we enjoyed the weather.” No dissolution required.
Mistake 2: Dissolving “we” but leaving the spook intact Incorrect: “I and many others as a society expect...” Correct: “I and many persons around me expect...” The spook “society” requires dissolution regardless of whether “we” has been replaced.
Mistake 3: Replacing collective “we” with collective “people” Incorrect: “People demand justice” Correct: “Certain persons want certain outcomes” “People” as collective agent remains a spook.
Mistake 4: Failing to notice hidden obligation “We need to talk about X” often masks “I want you to accept Y.” Dissolution should expose whose need, whose desire.
Mistake 5: Over-dissolving to the point of obscurity Balance: E-Prime Max accepts some circumlocution for the sake of clarity, but if the dissolution becomes incomprehensible, it has failed its purpose.
6. The Stirnerian Test
Apply this test to every “we” construction:
“Does this ‘we’ serve me—helping me coordinate with specific persons I identify—or does it serve a phantom collective that demands my submission?”
The “we” makes the speaker’s preferences seem like cosmic necessities
The “we” coordinates rather than commands
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1. General Semantics Background
Alfred Korzybski developed General Semantics in the 1930s with his dictum “the map does not equal the territory.” Language, he argued, presents a map of reality that speakers often mistake for reality itself. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by developing E-Prime—English without the verb “to be”—arguing that “is” statements create false equations that rigidify thought.
The pronoun “we” connects to this tradition because collective “we” creates a particularly powerful false equation: “We = unified collective with shared will.” This equation maps a phantom onto reality and then treats the phantom as an agent.
2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) identifies “spooks” (Gespenster) as fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serve them. Humans create abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Morality—and then forget they created them. These abstractions then appear as commanding agents, demanding service, sacrifice, and submission.
The collective “we” serves as a primary mechanism for spook-creation and spook-enforcement:
Creation: When someone says “We believe X,” they create a phantom collective that believes. This phantom has no independent existence—no brain, no consciousness, no capacity for belief—yet it suddenly appears to hold convictions.
Enforcement: Once the phantom exists, anyone who disagrees becomes a traitor to “us.” The dissenter has not merely disagreed with the speaker; they have betrayed the collective, violated solidarity, abandoned their people. This rhetorical escalation serves to silence dissent.
Stirner would identify collective “we” as a haunting mechanism—the speaker becomes a medium through whom the phantom collective speaks and commands.
3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication (X IS Y), forcing speakers to specify relationships rather than assert identities. E-Prime Max attacks reification (X DEMANDS/REQUIRES), forcing speakers to identify who actually demands and who actually requires.
Reification error: “We DEMAND justice” → attribution of agency to phantom collective
E-Prime Max dissolution addresses both: specifying which persons hold which citizenship, and identifying who actually wants what outcomes.
4. What Dissolution Reveals
When the collective “we” dissolves, several things become visible:
Power asymmetries: Not everyone included in “we” has equal say. “We as a nation” usually means “officials claim to speak for residents.” The “we” conceals who actually decides.
Absent consent: The persons included in “we” often never agreed to the statement. “We the people” invokes millions who never signed anything, many of whom would disagree.
The speaker’s desires: “We must” often means “I want.” The collective “we” launders individual preferences as collective necessities.
The silence of the excluded: Every “we” draws a boundary. “We Americans” excludes non-Americans. “We the people” historically excluded non-landowners, non-males, non-whites. The dissolution reveals who counts as “we” and who does not.
5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation: When politicians, advertisers, or authorities invoke “we,” ask: Who specifically? Did they agree? Who benefits? Who gets silenced?
Honest speech: Replace phantom “we” with honest specification: “I want,” “I and my colleagues decided,” “These specific persons claim.” Accept the loss of rhetorical power that comes with honesty.
Reclaiming choice: The collective “we” often attaches obligations without consent. Dissolution reveals: I may choose to adopt these obligations, or I may not. No phantom “we” decides for me.
Coordinating without possession: Legitimate “we” coordinates action among consenting persons. Spook “we” commands submission from persons who never agreed. Learn to distinguish them.
6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For spook dissolution, “specific persons” usually suffices.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes a spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “The market demands,” “evolution selects,” “the data shows” → all spooks when the abstraction commands. “We as scientists conclude” → still requires dissolution.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in elaborate dissolutions, correcting others’ “we” usage, feeling superior to those who speak in collectives. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who dissolves phantom “we” to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchists, we must...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique uses E-Prime Max while useful and discards it when not.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
F-A: STIRNER ORIGINAL (Landstreicher translation):
“Where the world gets in my way—and it gets in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and consumed by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usability, of utility, of use.”
F-B: E-PRIME MAX TRANSFORMATION WITH INTERLINEAR APPARATUS:
F.1a Where the world gets in my way—and it gets in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you remain nothing but—my food, even as I too get fed upon and consumed by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usability, of utility, of use.
F.1b Where (ADV-rel) the (DEF.ART) world (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[world→conditions.I.encounter]) gets (V-pres) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) way (N-obj)—and (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) gets (V-pres) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) way (N-obj) everywhere (ADV-place)—I (PRON-subj) consume (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) to∿quiet (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) hunger (N-obj) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) egoism (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[egoism→my.wanting]). For (PREP) me (PRON-obj) you (PRON-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE) nothing (PRON) but (PREP)—my (PRON-poss) food (N-pred), even (ADV) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) too (ADV) get∿fed∿upon (V-pres.PASSIVE) and (CONJ) consumed (V-past.PART) by (PREP) you (PRON-obj). We (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We=you.and.I.specifically]) have (V-pres) only (ADV) one (NUM) relation (N-obj) to (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip), that (PRON-dem) of (PREP) usability (N), of (PREP) utility (N), of (PREP) use (N).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “the world” → DISSOLUTION: conditions I encounter → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “egoism” (when reified) → DISSOLUTION: my wanting (but Stirner owns it, so permissible) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
FORM: “is nothing but” → DISSOLUTION: “remain nothing but” → STRATEGY: E3
NOTE: Stirner’s “we” here functions legitimately—he addresses a specific “you” and includes himself
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Stirner’s “we” remains legitimate: he speaks to a specific “you” ∴ The relation he describes—mutual use—dissolves sentimentalized bonds ∴ No phantom collective appears; only two persons, using each other ∴ Even Stirner’s “egoism” could dissolve, but he owns it as his term ∴ The passage demonstrates legitimate “we”: specific, reciprocal, honest
F-C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY:
Where the world gets in my way—and it gets in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you remain nothing but—my food, even as I too get fed upon and consumed by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usability, of utility, of use.
F-D: DISSOLUTION NOTES:
This passage required minimal dissolution because Stirner already speaks with E-Prime-compatible directness. The main transformation: “is nothing but” → “remain nothing but.”
Stirner’s “we” here exemplifies legitimate use: he addresses a specific “you” (the reader) and includes himself. No phantom collective appears. The “we” coordinates a description rather than commanding a submission.
The passage also demonstrates Stirner’s method of dissolving sentimental spooks. Where others might invoke “love,” “friendship,” or “solidarity,” Stirner describes the actual relation: mutual use. This dissolution does not necessarily condemn the relation—it simply describes it without euphemism.
F-E: COMMENTARY:
This passage shows Stirner at his most provocative—and most honest. By describing all relations as relations of use, he strips away the sentimentality that often accompanies collective “we” statements.
Consider the contrast:
Sentimental: “We care for each other because love binds us together.”
Stirnerian: “We use each other; you consume me as I consume you; we remain together while this arrangement serves us.”
The Stirnerian version sounds harsh, but it describes what actually happens in human relations. The sentimental version invokes “love” as a binding agent—a spook that commands continued association even when it no longer serves.
Either party can exit without “betraying” a phantom collective
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent analysis of how collective “we” functions in political rhetoric. They demonstrate sustained E-Prime Max writing while introducing new examples of dissolution.Part A: Interlinear Construed Text
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We are at war.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.16a Certain persons with weapons—taking orders from persons who call themselves “commanders”—engage in killing persons in another territory, and officials claim to act on my behalf.
21.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→soldiers]) with (PREP) weapons (N)—taking (V-pres.PART) orders (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “commanders” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ)—engage (V-pres) in (PREP) killing (V-gerund ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[war→killing]) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) another (DET) territory (N-obj), and (CONJ) officials (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) claim (V-pres) to∿act (V-inf) on (PREP) my (PRON-poss) behalf (N).
21.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” → DISSOLUTION: soldiers + officials claiming to represent me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
FORM: “are at” → DISSOLUTION: engage in → STRATEGY: E3
SPOOK: “war” → DISSOLUTION: killing persons in another territory → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “we” engages in war—specific persons kill specific other persons ∴ Officials claim to represent me; I never consented ∴ WHO decides which killings count as “war” vs. “murder”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Our democracy is under attack.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.17a Certain persons want to change the voting procedures that other persons established; some persons I know prefer the existing procedures.
21.17b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[attackers]) want (V-pres) to∿change (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[attack→change]) the (DEF.ART) voting (V-gerund) procedures (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→procedures]) that (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) established (V-past); some (DET) persons (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) prefer (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) existing (ADJ) procedures (N-obj).
21.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “our democracy” → DISSOLUTION: voting procedures certain persons established → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “under attack” → DISSOLUTION: certain persons want to change → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
FORM: “is under” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated through restructuring → STRATEGY: E3
21.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Democracy” = voting procedures, not sacred entity ∴ “Attack” = persons wanting different procedures ∴ Dissolution removes the drama; reveals a dispute about rules
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We will not be divided.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.18a I and certain persons I identify with choose to continue coordinating despite disagreements; we may also choose otherwise.
21.18b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.certain.persons]) I (PRON-subj) identify (V-pres) with (PREP) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[will.not→choose]) to∿continue (V-inf) coordinating (V-gerund) despite (PREP) disagreements (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[divided→disagreements]); we (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) also (ADV) choose (V-inf) otherwise (ADV).
21.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: “will not be divided” → DISSOLUTION: choose to continue coordinating → STRATEGY: E7 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: implied permanent unity → DISSOLUTION: we may choose otherwise → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
21.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Unity remains a choice, not a cosmic necessity ∴ “We” becomes legitimate through specification ∴ The option to divide remains open—honest speech acknowledges this
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We honor those who sacrificed for our freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.19a Some persons express reverence toward dead persons who killed or died in wars that officials claimed would maintain certain conditions; I may share this reverence or find it misplaced.
21.19b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→some.persons]) express (V-pres) reverence (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[honor→express.reverence]) toward (PREP) dead (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.who.sacrificed→dead.persons]) who (PRON-rel) killed (V-past) or (CONJ) died (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrificed→killed.or.died]) in (PREP) wars (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ) that (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) claimed (V-past) would∿maintain (V-cond) certain (DET) conditions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→conditions]); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) share (V-inf) this (DET) reverence (N-obj) or (CONJ) find (V-inf) it (PRON-obj) misplaced (ADJ).
21.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” → DISSOLUTION: some persons (I may or may not join) → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “honor” → DISSOLUTION: express reverence → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “sacrificed” → DISSOLUTION: killed or died → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “freedom” → DISSOLUTION: conditions officials claimed to maintain → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Sacrifice” dissolves to killing and dying—the actual events ∴ “Freedom” dissolves to claims officials made about purposes ∴ I retain choice about whether to share the reverence
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We have a responsibility to act.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.20a Some persons tell me that I should act; I may choose to act, choose not to act, or ask them what consequences they threaten if I refuse.
21.20b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[responsibility→persons.telling.me]) tell (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) act (V-inf); I (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) choose (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to∿act (V-inf), choose (V-inf) not∿to∿act (V-inf.neg), or (CONJ) ask (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) what (PRON-interrog) consequences (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) threaten (V-pres) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
21.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “responsibility” → DISSOLUTION: persons telling me I should → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
NOTE: The dissolution includes the Stirnerian question: “What consequences do you threaten?”
21.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Responsibility” traces to persons making claims ∴ The practical question: what happens if I refuse? ∴ Asking about consequences exposes the power relation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We need comprehensive reform.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.21a I and some persons I work with want officials to change many rules; other persons want different changes or no changes.
21.21b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.some.persons]) I (PRON-subj) work (V-pres) with (PREP) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[need→want]) officials (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) to∿change (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reform→change.rules]) many (DET) rules (N-obj); other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) want (V-pres) different (ADJ) changes (N-obj) or (CONJ) no (DET) changes (N-obj).
21.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We need” → DISSOLUTION: I and some persons want → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “comprehensive reform” → DISSOLUTION: officials changing many rules → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
HONESTY CHECK: “Other persons want different changes” acknowledges disagreement
21.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Need” dissolves to “want”—no cosmic necessity ∴ “Reform” = changing rules; who changes, which rules ∴ Acknowledging disagreement prevents false unanimity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We reject hatred and division.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.22a I choose to speak without hostility toward persons with whom I disagree; we—I and some persons I know—prefer cooperation to conflict when possible.
21.22b I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[reject→choose]) to∿speak (V-inf) without (PREP) hostility (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[hatred→hostility]) toward (PREP) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) whom (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) disagree (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[division→disagreement]); we (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[specified])—I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres)—prefer (V-pres) cooperation (N-obj) to (PREP) conflict (N-obj) when (CONJ) possible (ADJ).
21.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “hatred” (reified as agent to reject) → DISSOLUTION: hostility (behavior I can choose or not) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “division” (as condition to reject) → DISSOLUTION: disagreement (normal state among persons) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
NOTE: “We” legitimized through immediate specification
21.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Reject hatred” = I choose non-hostile speech ∴ “Reject division” = I prefer cooperation when possible ∴ The dissolution converts grand rejection into personal practice
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We gave so much for this country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.23a I worked many hours and paid money to persons who call themselves “tax collectors” and now I want recognition from officials; they may or may not provide it.
21.23b I (PRON-subj) worked (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[gave→worked]) many (DET) hours (N-obj) and (CONJ) paid (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[gave→paid]) money (N-obj) to (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “tax∿collectors” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) recognition (N-obj) from (PREP) officials (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ); they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) or (CONJ) may∿not (V-modal.neg) provide (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
21.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “gave so much” → DISSOLUTION: worked hours, paid money → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “for this country” → DISSOLUTION: to persons calling themselves tax collectors → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
HONESTY: “may or may not provide” acknowledges uncertain reciprocity
21.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Gave” dissolves to specific transfers: work, money ∴ “Country” dissolves to persons who collect and distribute ∴ No “country” can reciprocate; only persons can
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We the undersigned demand immediate action.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.24a I and the persons whose names appear below want officials to act quickly; we have written our names to indicate this preference and await their response.
21.24b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We.the.undersigned→persons.who.signed]) whose (PRON-poss.rel) names (N-subj) appear (V-pres) below (ADV-place) want (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demand→want]) officials (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) to∿act (V-inf) quickly (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[immediate→quickly]); we (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legitimate]) have∿written (V-pres.PERF) our (PRON-poss) names (N-obj) to∿indicate (V-inf) this (DET) preference (N-obj) and (CONJ) await (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) response (N-obj).
21.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
NOTE: “We the undersigned” already approaches legitimacy—it specifies who
SPOOK: “demand” → DISSOLUTION: want → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
NOTE: Second “we” legitimate because antecedent clearly specified
21.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “We the undersigned” nearly legitimate—specifiable persons ∴ “Demand” still overstates—we can want; we cannot compel ∴ Adding “await their response” acknowledges our actual position
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We’ve been patient long enough.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.25a I and some persons I coordinate with have refrained from certain actions for many months; we now choose to act differently.
21.25b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.some.persons]) I (PRON-subj) coordinate (V-pres) with (PREP) have∿refrained (V-pres.PERF ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[been.patient→refrained]) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) for (PREP) many (DET) months (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[long.enough→many.months]); we (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legitimate]) now (ADV-time) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to∿act (V-inf) differently (ADV-manner).
21.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: “We’ve been” (contraction containing “have been”) → DISSOLUTION: I and some persons have refrained → STRATEGY: E7
SPOOK: “patient” (virtue-laden) → DISSOLUTION: refrained from certain actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Patience” = refraining from action—the dissolution removes the virtue claim ∴ Specifying “we” (I and some persons I coordinate with) legitimizes it ∴ The choice to act differently remains our own
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We share common values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.26a I and certain persons I interact with express similar preferences about some topics; we have not tested whether these similarities extend to difficult cases.
21.26b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.certain.persons]) I (PRON-subj) interact (V-pres) with (PREP) express (V-pres) similar (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[common→similar]) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→preferences]) about (PREP) some (DET) topics (N-obj); we (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legitimate]) have∿not∿tested (V-pres.PERF.neg) whether (CONJ) these (DET) similarities (N-subj) extend (V-pres) to (PREP) difficult (ADJ) cases (N-obj).
21.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “values” → DISSOLUTION: preferences → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “common” (implies deeper unity) → DISSOLUTION: similar (on some topics) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
HONESTY CHECK: “have not tested” acknowledges limits of agreement
21.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Values” = preferences (less sacred, more accurate) ∴ Agreement on abstractions often conceals disagreement on specifics ∴ Acknowledging uncertainty prevents false unity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We remember the victims.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.27a I think about certain persons who suffered harm; some persons around me perform rituals that invoke those harmed persons.
21.27b I (PRON-subj) think (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[remember→think]) about (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[victims→persons.who.suffered]) who (PRON-rel) suffered (V-past) harm (N-obj); some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→some.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) perform (V-pres) rituals (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) invoke (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[remember→invoke]) those (DET) harmed (ADJ) persons (N-obj).
21.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “We” (implies unified memory) → DISSOLUTION: I think + some persons perform rituals → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “victims” → DISSOLUTION: persons who suffered harm → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: “remember” (implies shared mental act) → DISSOLUTION: I think about + perform rituals → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
21.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No collective memory exists—only individuals thinking ∴ “Remembering” often means “performing rituals” ∴ The dissolution separates my experience from public performance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We inherited this land from our forefathers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.28a Certain dead persons took this territory from other persons; their descendants—including me—now occupy it and officials recognize our claims.
21.28b Certain (DET) dead (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[forefathers→dead.persons]) took (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[inherited→took]) this (DET) territory (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[land→territory]) from (PREP) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[previous.occupants]); their (PRON-poss) descendants (N-subj)—including (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—now (ADV-time) occupy (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) officials (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) recognize (V-pres) our (PRON-poss) claims (N-obj).
21.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “inherited” (implies legitimate succession) → DISSOLUTION: took + officials recognize claims → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: “forefathers” (implies honored lineage) → DISSOLUTION: dead persons who took territory → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
HONESTY: “took from other persons” exposes displacement
21.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Inherit” dissolves to “take + have claims recognized” ∴ Every “inheritance” involved displacement of previous occupants ∴ The dissolution neither condemns nor endorses—it describes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We shall overcome.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.29a I and persons who coordinate with me intend to persist until certain conditions change; we may succeed or fail.
21.29b I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[We→I.and.persons.coordinating]) who (PRON-rel) coordinate (V-pres) with (PREP) me (PRON-obj) intend (V-pres) to∿persist (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[overcome→persist]) until (CONJ) certain (DET) conditions (N-subj) change (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[overcome→conditions.change]); we (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legitimate]) may (V-modal) succeed (V-inf) or (CONJ) fail (V-inf).
21.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “shall” (implies certainty/destiny) → DISSOLUTION: intend + may succeed or fail → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: “overcome” (implies triumph over obstacles) → DISSOLUTION: persist until conditions change → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
HONESTY: “may succeed or fail” removes false certainty
21.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Shall” carries prophetic weight the dissolution removes ∴ “Overcome” dissolves to intention and uncertain outcome ∴ The dissolution honors the commitment while removing the prophecy
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We owe it to ourselves.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
21.30a I want something and I tell myself I should pursue it; no external “debt” compels me—only my own desire.
21.30b I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) something (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) tell (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) pursue (V-inf) it (PRON-obj); no (DET) external (ADJ) “debt” (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[owe→debt]) compels (V-pres) me (PRON-obj)—only (ADV) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) desire (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ).
21.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: “owe it to ourselves” → DISSOLUTION: I want + I tell myself I should → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
NOTE: The phrase creates a phantom creditor (ourselves) and phantom debt
CLARIFICATION: “Only my own desire” reclaims honest motivation
21.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “debt” exists owed to “ourselves” ∴ The phrase disguises “I want” as obligation ∴ Dissolution reveals: I want this, and that suffices as reason
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════Part B: Natural Sentences
21.16 “Certain persons with weapons—taking orders from persons who call themselves ‘commanders’—engage in killing persons in another territory, and officials claim to act on my behalf.” [Standard English: “We are at war.”]
21.17 “Certain persons want to change the voting procedures that other persons established; some persons I know prefer the existing procedures.” [Standard English: “Our democracy is under attack.”]
21.18 “I and certain persons I identify with choose to continue coordinating despite disagreements; we may also choose otherwise.” [Standard English: “We will not be divided.”]
21.19 “Some persons express reverence toward dead persons who killed or died in wars that officials claimed would maintain certain conditions; I may share this reverence or find it misplaced.” [Standard English: “We honor those who sacrificed for our freedom.”]
21.20 “Some persons tell me that I should act; I may choose to act, choose not to act, or ask them what consequences they threaten if I refuse.” [Standard English: “We have a responsibility to act.”]
21.21 “I and some persons I work with want officials to change many rules; other persons want different changes or no changes.” [Standard English: “We need comprehensive reform.”]
21.22 “I choose to speak without hostility toward persons with whom I disagree; we—I and some persons I know—prefer cooperation to conflict when possible.” [Standard English: “We reject hatred and division.”]
21.23 “I worked many hours and paid money to persons who call themselves ‘tax collectors’ and now I want recognition from officials; they may or may not provide it.” [Standard English: “We gave so much for this country.”]
21.24 “I and the persons whose names appear below want officials to act quickly; we have written our names to indicate this preference and await their response.” [Standard English: “We the undersigned demand immediate action.”]
21.25 “I and some persons I coordinate with have refrained from certain actions for many months; we now choose to act differently.” [Standard English: “We’ve been patient long enough.”]
21.26 “I and certain persons I interact with express similar preferences about some topics; we have not tested whether these similarities extend to difficult cases.” [Standard English: “We share common values.”]
21.27 “I think about certain persons who suffered harm; some persons around me perform rituals that invoke those harmed persons.” [Standard English: “We remember the victims.”]
21.28 “Certain dead persons took this territory from other persons; their descendants—including me—now occupy it and officials recognize our claims.” [Standard English: “We inherited this land from our forefathers.”]
21.29 “I and persons who coordinate with me intend to persist until certain conditions change; we may succeed or fail.” [Standard English: “We shall overcome.”]
21.30 “I want something and I tell myself I should pursue it; no external ‘debt’ compels me—only my own desire.” [Standard English: “We owe it to ourselves.”]Part C: E-Prime Max Text Only
21.16 Certain persons with weapons—taking orders from persons who call themselves “commanders”—engage in killing persons in another territory, and officials claim to act on my behalf.
21.17 Certain persons want to change the voting procedures that other persons established; some persons I know prefer the existing procedures.
21.18 I and certain persons I identify with choose to continue coordinating despite disagreements; we may also choose otherwise.
21.19 Some persons express reverence toward dead persons who killed or died in wars that officials claimed would maintain certain conditions; I may share this reverence or find it misplaced.
21.20 Some persons tell me that I should act; I may choose to act, choose not to act, or ask them what consequences they threaten if I refuse.
21.21 I and some persons I work with want officials to change many rules; other persons want different changes or no changes.
21.22 I choose to speak without hostility toward persons with whom I disagree; we—I and some persons I know—prefer cooperation to conflict when possible.
21.23 I worked many hours and paid money to persons who call themselves “tax collectors” and now I want recognition from officials; they may or may not provide it.
21.24 I and the persons whose names appear below want officials to act quickly; we have written our names to indicate this preference and await their response.
21.25 I and some persons I coordinate with have refrained from certain actions for many months; we now choose to act differently.
21.26 I and certain persons I interact with express similar preferences about some topics; we have not tested whether these similarities extend to difficult cases.
21.27 I think about certain persons who suffered harm; some persons around me perform rituals that invoke those harmed persons.
21.28 Certain dead persons took this territory from other persons; their descendants—including me—now occupy it and officials recognize our claims.
21.29 I and persons who coordinate with me intend to persist until certain conditions change; we may succeed or fail.
21.30 I want something and I tell myself I should pursue it; no external “debt” compels me—only my own desire.Part D: Grammar and Dissolution Notes for Genre Section
The Genre Section focused on political rhetoric—a domain where collective “we” performs extensive ideological work.
Key patterns observed:
1. The False Unanimity Pattern Phrases like “We are at war” or “Our democracy” imply that all persons included in “we” share the same position, experience, or stake. Dissolution reveals: different persons within the supposed “we” often hold different positions, face different consequences, and bear different responsibilities.
2. The Laundered Preference Pattern “We need comprehensive reform” launders the speaker’s preference as collective necessity. Dissolution reveals: specific persons want specific outcomes; others want different outcomes or no change at all.
3. The Dead Creditor Pattern “We owe it to our ancestors” or “those who sacrificed” invokes dead persons as creditors. Dissolution reveals: dead persons cannot collect debts, cannot experience honor or dishonor. Living persons invoke dead persons to command living persons.
4. The Destiny Pattern “We shall overcome” or “We will not be divided” presents outcomes as certain or predetermined. Dissolution reveals: we intend, we may succeed or fail. Removing false certainty honors the actual commitment.
5. The Virtue-Claim Pattern “We’ve been patient” or “We honor” attaches virtue to the collective. Dissolution reveals: “patience” = refraining from action; “honor” = performing rituals. The virtue-claim becomes behavioral description.
“We’ve been” (contraction) → “have refrained” (E7)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max. Each contains the word “we” and at least one spook.
Standard: “We are proud of our achievements as a society.”
E-Prime Max: I and some persons I know feel satisfaction about certain outcomes; we label these “achievements” and attribute them to many persons acting over time.
“as a society” → “many persons acting over time” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “society” achieves anything. Specific persons act; others label outcomes “achievements.” I may share the satisfaction or not.
Standard: “We must never forget the lessons of history.”
E-Prime Max: Some persons tell me I should continue thinking about events that earlier persons recorded; I may choose to think about those events or focus on present circumstances.
“lessons of history” → “events that earlier persons recorded” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “history” teaches lessons. Persons recorded events; other persons interpret them. “Must” dissolves to “some persons want me to.”
Standard: “We believe in the rule of law.”
E-Prime Max: I and certain persons I associate with prefer that persons with weapons enforce written rules consistently rather than arbitrarily.
“rule of law” → “persons with weapons enforcing written rules consistently” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Rule of law” = consistent enforcement by armed persons. The dissolution makes the power relation visible.
Standard: “We can’t let them destroy everything we’ve built.”
E-Prime Max: I and persons I coordinate with want to prevent certain other persons from altering conditions that we and earlier persons established; we may or may not succeed.
“everything we’ve built” → “conditions that we and earlier persons established” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: “Destroy” often overstates; “alter” describes. “Built” implies permanence; “established conditions” acknowledges change.
Standard: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
E-Prime Max: Jefferson and his editors wrote that they considered certain claims obvious—specifically, that many persons share similar capacities at birth. I may find these claims obvious or not, and I note that the authors excluded many persons from their “all.”
“are created” → reframed (E3)
Revelation: The “we” traces to specific authors; “truths” become claims they made; “self-evident” means obvious to them. The historical note exposes the limited “all.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has produced language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide. This E-Prime Max course represents a synthesis of linguistic discipline (E-Prime, from Bourland and Korzybski) with philosophical analysis (spook dissolution, from Stirner).
The CSV Vocabulary System: This course follows a 1000-word vocabulary list organized by frequency. Each lesson introduces one English word while demonstrating its use in E-Prime Max constructions. Lesson 21 covers “we”—a word that reveals how collective identity claims often smuggle spooks into speech.
The Latinum Methodology: For autodidacts—self-directed learners—the construed text format provides immediate access to meaning. The interlinear glossing lets students see word-by-word relationships before encountering natural prose.
The E-Prime Max Synthesis: E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) attacks predication—the false equation of X with Y. E-Prime Max adds spook dissolution—eliminating abstract nouns that appear as commanding agents. Together, they constitute comprehensive consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
Seeing persons acting where “society” seemed to act
Latinum Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 21
✓ Lesson 21 E-Prime Max: “we” — Complete
That functions as a subordinating conjunction in English, introducing dependent clauses that report beliefs, perceptions, claims, and expectations. For the E-Prime Max practitioner, “that” carries special significance: it frequently introduces clauses about spooks—abstract nouns appearing as agents that demand, require, or command.
When someone says “I believe that justice requires punishment,” the subordinator “that” opens a window onto a spook (”justice”) appearing as an agent that “requires” something. E-Prime Max dissolves this construction by tracing “justice” back to specific persons with specific expectations.
This lesson teaches the subordinating conjunction “that” while training students to recognize and dissolve the spooks that commonly appear in clauses it introduces.
Philosophy: E-Prime (D. David Bourland Jr., 1965) eliminates the verb “to be” to reduce dogmatic predication. E-Prime Max extends this by eliminating abstract nouns functioning as commanding agents—what Max Stirner called “spooks” (Gespenster) in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844). Together, they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/indexA Note on This Discipline
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
How “that” typically appears in E-Prime Max: As a subordinator introducing clauses about what specific persons believe, claim, expect, or observe—never about what abstractions “demand” or “require.”
Common spooks to watch for with “that”: Clauses beginning with “that” frequently contain spooks like “society,” “justice,” “truth,” “the state,” “duty,” “morality,” “history,” and “the law” appearing as agents.
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (dissolve collective agents to persons), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (trace spooks to their human creators), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (convert third-person spook agency to first-person ownership).
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The persons behind the abstractions—those who believe, those who expect, those who wrote the rules, those who hold the weapons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)Spook Categories
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ - Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting.
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ - Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask.
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ - Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why.
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ - Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership.
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ - Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons.The Stirnerian Test
“Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?”
If yes → SPOOK → dissolve it.
If used as shorthand the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I believe that society demands conformity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.1a I believe that many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently from them.
22.1b I (PRON-subj) believe (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→express.displeasure]) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
22.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society → DISSOLUTION: many persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: express displeasure → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: conformity → DISSOLUTION: acting as others act → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “society” exists to demand anything—only persons expressing displeasure
∴ WHO expresses this displeasure? Neighbors? Employers? Family members?
∴ The subordinator “that” introduces what I actually observe: persons reacting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She thinks that the law forbids this action.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.2a She thinks that words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons, specify penalties for this action.
22.2b She (PRON-subj) thinks (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words.written]) written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N-agent), enforced (V-past.PART) by (PREP) others (PRON) with (PREP) weapons (N), specify (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forbids→specify.penalties]) penalties (N-obj) for (PREP) this (DET) action (N).
22.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the law → DISSOLUTION: words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: forbids → DISSOLUTION: specify penalties → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” forbids—words on paper lack agency
∴ Persons with weapons enforce; persons in robes interpret
∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO benefits from their enforcement?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We know that truth will prevail.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.3a We expect that what we observe will eventually match what most persons report.
22.3b We (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[know→expect]) that (CONJ-subord) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→what.we.observe]) will (V-aux.fut) eventually (ADV-time) match (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) most (DET) persons (N-subj) report (V-pres).
22.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: truth → DISSOLUTION: what we observe / what persons report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: will prevail → DISSOLUTION: will eventually match → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: know → DISSOLUTION: expect (epistemic honesty) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
22.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists as agent that “prevails”—only observations and reports
∴ “We know” dissolved to “we expect”—acknowledging uncertainty
∴ WHO decides what counts as “truth”? Whose reports matter?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat sits on the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.4a I notice that the cat sits on the mat.
22.4b I (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres.PERCEPT) that (CONJ-subord) the (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj).
22.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [none required] → DISSOLUTION: [no spooks present] → STRATEGY: [simple E-Prime: perception verb added]
22.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present—concrete nouns (cat, mat) require no dissolution
∴ Simple observation introduced by “that”
∴ The subordinator connects my perception to the perceived
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He claims that justice requires punishment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.5a He claims that persons around him expect that persons with weapons will confine those they label wrongdoers.
22.5b He (PRON-subj) claims (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[requires→expect]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will (V-aux.fut) confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confine]) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) wrongdoers (N-label).
22.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: justice → DISSOLUTION: persons expecting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: requires → DISSOLUTION: expect → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: punishment → DISSOLUTION: confinement by persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: [implicit criminals] → DISSOLUTION: those they label wrongdoers → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
22.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Double “that”—nested subordination revealing nested spooks
∴ “Justice” dissolves to persons with expectations
∴ “Punishment” dissolves to confinement—bodies in cages
∴ WHO attaches the label “wrongdoer”? WHO holds the keys?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They assume that morality dictates their choices.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.6a They assume that behaviors their parents and teachers praised now guide their choices.
22.6b They (PRON-subj) assume (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) behaviors (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→behaviors.taught]) their (PRON-poss) parents (N) and (CONJ) teachers (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→specific.persons]) praised (V-past) now (ADV-time) guide (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dictates→guide]) their (PRON-poss) choices (N-obj).
22.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: morality → DISSOLUTION: behaviors parents and teachers praised → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: dictates → DISSOLUTION: guide → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “morality” dictates—only internalized teachings from specific persons
∴ Genealogical exposure reveals human origin of “moral” feelings
∴ WHO taught these behaviors? WHO benefited from the teaching?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I fear that duty calls me to sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.7a I feel that an urge to act as certain persons expect pulls me toward giving things up.
22.7b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→feel]) that (CONJ-subord) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge.I.feel]) to (PART) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) pulls (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) toward (PREP) giving (V-pres.PART) things (N-obj) up (PART).
22.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: fear (as possessing agent) → DISSOLUTION: I feel → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: duty → DISSOLUTION: urge to act as persons expect → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: calls → DISSOLUTION: pulls (owned sensation) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: giving things up → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Fear” and “duty” dissolved to owned sensations—I feel, I experience
∴ No “duty” calls—only internalized expectations from persons
∴ “Sacrifice” becomes concrete: giving things up
∴ WHO installed this urge? Whose expectations do I carry?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Scientists discovered that energy cannot be destroyed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.8a Certain persons who call themselves scientists report that a quantity they label “energy” remains constant in their measurements across transformations.
22.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[scientists→persons.who]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) scientists (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) report (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[discovered→report]) that (CONJ-subord) a (INDEF.ART) quantity (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “energy” (N-label) remains (V-pres.STATE) constant (ADJ-pred) in (PREP) their (PRON-poss) measurements (N) across (PREP) transformations (N).
22.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Scientists (as authoritative collective) → DISSOLUTION: certain persons who call themselves scientists → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: discovered (implying absolute truth) → DISSOLUTION: report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: energy (as substance) → DISSOLUTION: a quantity they label “energy” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: cannot be destroyed → DISSOLUTION: remains constant in measurements → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Energy” as owned tool (for prediction) ≠ “energy” as metaphysical substance
∴ Scientists constitute a priesthood—their labels receive no automatic immunity
∴ The dissolution preserves the empirical claim while exposing its human origin
∴ WHO performs these measurements? WHO benefits from this framing?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The report shows that the economy grew.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.9a Certain persons who wrote the report claim that more persons exchanged more goods and services than before.
22.9b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[report→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) the (DEF.ART) report (N-obj) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shows→claim]) that (CONJ-subord) more (DET) persons (N-subj) exchanged (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[economy.grew→persons.exchanged]) more (DET) goods (N-obj) and (CONJ) services (N-obj) than (CONJ) before (ADV-time).
22.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The report (as agent that “shows”) → DISSOLUTION: persons who wrote the report claim → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: the economy → DISSOLUTION: persons exchanging goods/services → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: grew → DISSOLUTION: more exchanges occurred → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Reports lack agency—persons write reports and make claims
∴ “The economy” dissolves to persons exchanging things
∴ WHO wrote this report? WHO selected what counts as “growth”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us that empires fall.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.10a Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control.
22.10b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[teaches→claim]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[empires→persons.who.controlled]) who (PRON-rel) controlled (V-past) large (ADJ) territories (N-obj) eventually (ADV-time) lost (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fall→lost.control]) that (DET-dem) control (N-obj).
22.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: History (as agent that “teaches”) → DISSOLUTION: writers of books about past events claim → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: empires → DISSOLUTION: persons who controlled large territories → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: fall → DISSOLUTION: lost control → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “History” lacks agency—persons write, select, interpret
∴ “Empires” dissolve to persons with weapons controlling territories
∴ Note: second “that” functions as demonstrative determiner, not subordinator
∴ WHO writes these histories? Whose “lessons” do they teach?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Everyone agrees that freedom matters.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.11a Many persons I encounter say that acting without interference from others matters to them.
22.11b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[everyone→many.persons]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) say (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[agrees→say]) that (CONJ-subord) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) others (PRON) matters (V-pres) to (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
22.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Everyone (false universal) → DISSOLUTION: many persons I encounter → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: agrees (implying consensus) → DISSOLUTION: say → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Everyone” dissolves—I can only report on persons I actually encounter
∴ “Freedom” operationalized: acting without interference
∴ Different persons mean different things by “freedom”—the abstraction hides disagreement
∴ WHO defines what counts as “interference”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She realized that love conquers all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.12a She came to expect that persons acting with tenderness toward each other often persist through difficulties.
22.12b She (PRON-subj) came (V-past) to (PART) expect (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[realized→expect]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) acting (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) each (DET) other (PRON) often (ADV-freq) persist (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conquers→persist]) through (PREP) difficulties (N).
22.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: realized (implying discovered truth) → DISSOLUTION: came to expect → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: love (as agent that “conquers”) → DISSOLUTION: persons acting with tenderness → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: conquers all → DISSOLUTION: often persist through difficulties → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Love” as agent conquering → SPOOK; “I love her” → no spook (I remain agent)
∴ “Realized” softened to “came to expect”—she formed an expectation, not discovered cosmic truth
∴ “All” dissolved to “often”—acknowledging exceptions
∴ WHO benefits from the claim that “love conquers all”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The constitution guarantees that citizens have rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.13a Certain persons wrote words on paper specifying that persons with weapons will face limits—as long as other persons with weapons enforce those limits.
22.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N) specifying (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[guarantees→specifying]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will (V-aux.fut) face (V-inf) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits.on.others])—as (CONJ) long (ADV) as (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) those (DET-dem) limits (N-obj).
22.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The constitution (as agent that “guarantees”) → DISSOLUTION: persons wrote words specifying → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: guarantees → DISSOLUTION: specifying (words on paper lack agency to enforce) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: citizens → DISSOLUTION: [implicit—persons labeled “citizens”] → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: limits on what persons with weapons may do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Paper lacks agency—persons wrote words, other persons may or may not enforce them
∴ “Rights” dissolve to limits on power—effective only when enforced
∴ The “guarantee” depends entirely on persons choosing to honor it
∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO enforces them—and against whom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I heard that the market decided the price.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.14a I heard someone claim that many persons buying and selling arrived at this price through their individual choices.
22.14b I (PRON-subj) heard (V-past.PERCEPT) someone (PRON-indef) claim (V-inf) that (CONJ-subord) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) arrived (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[decided→arrived.at]) at (PREP) this (DET-dem) price (N-obj) through (PREP) their (PRON-poss) individual (ADJ) choices (N).
22.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the market (as agent that “decides”) → DISSOLUTION: many persons buying and selling → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: decided → DISSOLUTION: arrived at through choices → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The market” lacks agency—only persons buy and sell
∴ Prices emerge from many individual choices, not from a deciding agent
∴ WHO benefits from attributing agency to “the market”?
∴ The abstraction obscures which persons hold more power in setting prices
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Experts confirm that evolution selects for fitness.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.15a Certain persons whom others call “experts” report that organisms with certain traits reproduce more often than organisms lacking those traits.
22.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[experts→persons.called]) whom (PRON-rel) others (PRON) call (V-pres) “experts” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) report (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[confirm→report]) that (CONJ-subord) organisms (N-subj) with (PREP) certain (DET) traits (N) reproduce (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[selects→reproduce]) more (ADV) often (ADV-freq) than (CONJ) organisms (N-subj) lacking (V-pres.PART) those (DET-dem) traits (N-obj).
22.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Experts (as authoritative collective) → DISSOLUTION: certain persons whom others call “experts” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: confirm (implying discovered truth) → DISSOLUTION: report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: evolution (as agent that “selects”) → DISSOLUTION: organisms reproduce → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: fitness (as measured quality) → DISSOLUTION: [implicit in “reproduce more often”] → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Evolution” as owned tool (for prediction) ≠ “evolution” as selecting agent
∴ No “evolution” selects—organisms reproduce or fail to reproduce
∴ “Fitness” circularly defined: those who reproduce count as “fit”
∴ Scientific priesthoods receive no immunity from the Stirnerian test
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
22.1 “I believe that many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently from them.”
[Standard English: “I believe that society demands conformity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → express displeasure)]
22.2 “She thinks that words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons, specify penalties for this action.”
[Standard English: “She thinks that the law forbids this action.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (law → words written/enforced by persons)]
22.3 “We expect that what we observe will eventually match what most persons report.”
[Standard English: “We know that truth will prevail.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observations/reports), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (know → expect)]
22.4 “I notice that the cat sits on the mat.”
[Standard English: “I see that the cat is on the mat.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-Existence (is → sits)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—no spooks present]
22.5 “He claims that persons around him expect that persons with weapons will confine those they label wrongdoers.”
[Standard English: “He claims that justice requires punishment.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punishment → confinement), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (wrongdoers as label)]
22.6 “They assume that behaviors their parents and teachers praised now guide their choices.”
[Standard English: “They assume that morality dictates their choices.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → behaviors taught by specific persons)]
22.7 “I feel that an urge to act as certain persons expect pulls me toward giving things up.”
[Standard English: “I fear that duty calls me to sacrifice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear/duty → owned urge), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → persons’ expectations)]
22.8 “Certain persons who call themselves scientists report that a quantity they label ‘energy’ remains constant in their measurements across transformations.”
[Standard English: “Scientists discovered that energy cannot be destroyed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3-Existence (cannot be destroyed → remains constant)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (scientists, energy as labels), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (discovered → report)]
22.9 “Certain persons who wrote the report claim that more persons exchanged more goods and services than before.”
[Standard English: “The report shows that the economy grew.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (report → persons who wrote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (economy grew → persons exchanged)]
22.10 “Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us that empires fall.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → writers, empires → persons who controlled)]
22.11 “Many persons I encounter say that acting without interference from others matters to them.”
[Standard English: “Everyone agrees that freedom matters.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (everyone → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
22.12 “She came to expect that persons acting with tenderness toward each other often persist through difficulties.”
[Standard English: “She realized that love conquers all.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (realized → expect), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love conquers → persons acting persist)]
22.13 “Certain persons wrote words on paper specifying that persons with weapons will face limits—as long as other persons with weapons enforce those limits.”
[Standard English: “The constitution guarantees that citizens have rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (constitution → persons who wrote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → limits)]
22.14 “I heard someone claim that many persons buying and selling arrived at this price through their individual choices.”
[Standard English: “I heard that the market decided the price.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons buying/selling)]
22.15 “Certain persons whom others call ‘experts’ report that organisms with certain traits reproduce more often than organisms lacking those traits.”
[Standard English: “Experts confirm that evolution selects for fitness.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (experts as label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (evolution selects → organisms reproduce)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
22.1 I believe that many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently from them.
22.2 She thinks that words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons, specify penalties for this action.
22.3 We expect that what we observe will eventually match what most persons report.
22.4 I notice that the cat sits on the mat.
22.5 He claims that persons around him expect that persons with weapons will confine those they label wrongdoers.
22.6 They assume that behaviors their parents and teachers praised now guide their choices.
22.7 I feel that an urge to act as certain persons expect pulls me toward giving things up.
22.8 Certain persons who call themselves scientists report that a quantity they label “energy” remains constant in their measurements across transformations.
22.9 Certain persons who wrote the report claim that more persons exchanged more goods and services than before.
22.10 Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control.
22.11 Many persons I encounter say that acting without interference from others matters to them.
22.12 She came to expect that persons acting with tenderness toward each other often persist through difficulties.
22.13 Certain persons wrote words on paper specifying that persons with weapons will face limits—as long as other persons with weapons enforce those limits.
22.14 I heard someone claim that many persons buying and selling arrived at this price through their individual choices.
22.15 Certain persons whom others call “experts” report that organisms with certain traits reproduce more often than organisms lacking those traits.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern that (subordinating conjunction) in E-Prime Max:1. Standard English Function
That as a subordinating conjunction introduces dependent (subordinate) clauses, typically following verbs of cognition, perception, speech, or emotion. The subordinate clause functions as the object of the main verb.
Common constructions include:
Verbs of cognition: think that, believe that, know that, assume that, realize that, understand that
Verbs of perception: see that, notice that, observe that, hear that
Verbs of speech: say that, claim that, report that, state that, admit that
Verbs of emotion: fear that, hope that, wish that, regret that
That can often appear omitted in informal speech—”I think (that) she left”—but the subordinating relationship remains.2. E-Prime Considerations
That as subordinator does not inherently violate E-Prime—it introduces clauses, not predications. However, the clauses it introduces frequently contain “to be” forms:
“I believe that she is intelligent” → requires E-Prime transformation
“I notice that the sky is blue” → “I notice that the sky appears blue”
When transforming such sentences, focus on the subordinate clause’s internal structure. The subordinator “that” itself requires no change.3. Spook Proximity Analysis
That as subordinator carries HIGH spook proximity. It frequently introduces clauses containing:
Collective agents appearing to act: “that society demands,” “that history teaches,” “that the market decides”
Reified abstractions as subjects: “that truth will prevail,” “that love conquers,” “that justice requires”
Authoritative claims: “that the law forbids,” “that experts confirm,” “that science proves”
Moral assertions: “that morality dictates,” “that duty calls,” “that conscience requires”
The subordinator “that” often signals: here comes a claim about a spook’s agency. Train yourself to notice.4. Dissolution Examples by Strategy
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) with “that”:
“I heard that society frowns upon this” → “I heard that many persons around me express disapproval of this”
“She believes that the state protects us” → “She believes that persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’ sometimes defend us”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization) with “that”:
“I know that freedom matters” → “I know that acting without interference matters to me”
“He hopes that justice will come” → “He hopes that persons will return what they took”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure) with “that”:
“They teach that morality guides us” → “They teach that behaviors praised by past generations guide us”
“I learned that rights protect me” → “I learned that words certain persons wrote, and other persons with weapons sometimes enforce, limit what can happen to me”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution) with “that”:
“I know that this seems wrong” → “I feel that this seems wrong to me”
“She realized that fear controlled her” → “She noticed that her body contracted and she refrained from acting”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) with “that”:
“Experts agree that this helps” → “Persons whom others call ‘experts’ agree that this helps”
“The data shows that criminals reoffend” → “The numbers show that persons labeled ‘criminal’ act in labeled ways again”5. Common Mistakes
Incomplete dissolution: Dissolving one spook while leaving another intact:
“I believe that persons around me demand justice” ← “justice” remains as spook
Better: “I believe that persons around me expect that those who took things return them”
Dissolving too far: Creating incomprehensible circumlocutions:
“I believe that certain electrochemical patterns in neural tissue labeled ‘persons’ produce vibrations interpreted as displeasure”
Stop at “persons”—dissolution serves communication, not metaphysical completeness.
Missing the spook: Failing to recognize that abstractions like “energy,” “evolution,” or “the market” function as spooks when they “select,” “decide,” or “demand”:
“She learned that evolution favors cooperation” ← “evolution” appears as agent
Better: “She learned that organisms who cooperated reproduced more often”
Treating all abstractions as spooks: Not every abstract noun functions as spook. The test remains: does it appear as AGENT?
“I believe that mathematics helps me” ← mathematics as tool (no spook)
“I believe that mathematics demands rigor” ← mathematics as commanding agent (spook)6. The Stirnerian Test Applied to “That”-Clauses
When “that” introduces a clause, ask:
Does the subject of the subordinate clause name an abstraction?
Does that abstraction appear as AGENT—demanding, requiring, commanding, selecting, teaching?
If yes: Apply dissolution. Trace to persons. Operationalize the action. Expose the origin.
If the abstraction appears as TOOL the speaker owns and can discard: permitted with caution.
Examples of the test:
“I believe that the data suggests a trend” → “data” as tool (owned), not agent → permitted
“I believe that the data demands action” → “data” as agent demanding → spook → dissolve
“I notice that energy levels dropped” → “energy” as measurement tool → permitted
“I notice that energy resists destruction” → “energy” as resisting agent → spook → dissolve
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) developed General Semantics to address what he called the “structural differential” between our maps (language, concepts) and the territory (reality). His fundamental principle—”the map does not equal the territory”—undermines the certainty embedded in “to be” predications.
D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by eliminating “to be” entirely, creating E-Prime. His observation: when we remove identity statements, we must specify HOW we know something, WHEN we observed it, and FROM WHOSE PERSPECTIVE the claim holds. “She is intelligent” becomes “She solves problems quickly in my experience.”
The subordinator “that” plays a crucial role in E-Prime writing: it introduces the content of our perceptions, beliefs, and claims WITHOUT asserting identity. “I believe that she solves problems quickly” explicitly marks the belief as mine.2. Stirnerian Philosophy
Max Stirner (1806–1856) identified “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” as abstractions that, once created by humans, turn around and possess their creators. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), he wrote:
“Man, your head is haunted... you have fixed ideas!”
The haunting mechanism works through reification: we create an abstraction (like “justice” or “society”), then forget we created it, then serve it as though it commanded independently. The spook hides its human origin.
“That”-clauses frequently transmit this haunting:
“I believe that justice demands...” → the abstraction “justice” appears to demand
“They teach that society requires...” → the abstraction “society” appears to require
“History shows that progress moves...” → the abstraction “progress” appears to move
Stirner’s concept of “ownness” (Eigenheit) offers the counter-principle: I own my thoughts, my concepts, my words. They serve me or I discard them. The moment I serve the abstraction, I have found a master.3. The Synthesis
E-Prime attacks predication: the structure “X is Y” that assigns fixed identity.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the structure “X demands/requires/selects” that assigns agency to abstractions.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution:
E-Prime prevents: “Justice IS this” (identity claim)
E-Prime Max prevents: “Justice DEMANDS this” (agency claim)
The subordinator “that” becomes a signal—whenever you write “I believe that [X],” ask: does X contain a spook appearing as agent?4. What Dissolution Reveals
When spooks in “that”-clauses dissolve, we see:
Persons acting where “society” seemed to act: “I believe that society demands conformity” → “I believe that many persons express displeasure when I act differently”
Weapons and cages where “law” seemed to command: “She thinks that the law forbids this” → “She thinks that persons with weapons will confine me if I do this”
Expectations and approvals where “morality” seemed to judge: “They assume that morality dictates” → “They assume that behaviors their parents praised now guide them”
Power relations hidden by abstraction: WHO expresses the displeasure? WHO holds the weapons? WHO taught the behaviors?5. Practical Applications
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “society demands” or “the data proves,” they may obscure their own agency and interests. Dissolve the spook—who actually demands? What do the numbers actually show?
Resisting possession: When you feel “duty calls” or “truth requires,” dissolve to first-person: “I feel an urge” or “I expect that.” Own your experience.
Evaluating claims: When you read “experts confirm that” or “history teaches that,” trace to persons: which experts? Which historians? What do they benefit from this framing?
Clear communication: E-Prime Max constructions, though cumbersome, achieve precision. “Justice requires punishment” hides who requires and who gets punished. “Persons with expectations will confine persons they label wrongdoers” exposes the machinery.6. @ᴴᴼᴺᴱˢᵀ.ᴸᴵᴹᴵᵀˢ — Required Honesty Section
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
F-A: STIRNER ORIGINAL (Landstreicher translation)
“What you call your own convictions—do you mean that you came to them yourself, that they are truly your creations? Or do they have the power to compel your assent, so that you serve them?”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844), translated by Wolfi LandstreicherF-B: E-PRIME MAX TRANSFORMATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What you call your own convictions—do you mean that you came to them yourself, that they are truly your creations?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a What you label “your convictions”—do you mean that you arrived at them yourself, that you created them?
F.1b What (PRON-int) you (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[call→label]) “your (PRON-poss) convictions” (N-label)—do (V-aux) you (PRON-subj) mean (V-inf) that (CONJ-subord) you (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) at (PREP) them (PRON-obj) yourself (PRON-refl), that (CONJ-subord) you (PRON-subj) created (V-past) them (PRON-obj)?
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: convictions (as fixed possessions) → DISSOLUTION: what you label “convictions” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
E-PRIME: are truly → DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—question restructured] → STRATEGY: E1
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even Stirner’s language required transformation—”are truly your creations” dissolved
∴ “Convictions” exposed as a label, not a fixed possession
∴ The double “that” parallels lesson examples—subordinators introducing questions about ownership
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Or do they have the power to compel your assent, so that you serve them?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.2a Or do these thoughts compel your agreement, so that you serve them rather than owning them?
F.2b Or (CONJ) do (V-aux) these (DET-dem) thoughts (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[convictions→thoughts]) compel (V-inf) your (PRON-poss) agreement (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[assent→agreement]), so (ADV) that (CONJ-result) you (PRON-subj) serve (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) rather (ADV) than (PREP) owning (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj)?
F.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: they have the power → DISSOLUTION: these thoughts compel → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
E-PRIME: have the power → DISSOLUTION: compel (verb of action) → STRATEGY: E4
F.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Have the power” → E-Prime violation dissolved to “compel”
∴ Stirner’s question turns self-reflexive: do our methods of dissolution serve us, or do we serve them?
∴ The “that” of result introduces the consequence: serving rather than owningF-C: E-PRIME MAX TEXT ONLY
What you label “your convictions”—do you mean that you arrived at them yourself, that you created them? Or do these thoughts compel your agreement, so that you serve them rather than owning them?F-D: DISSOLUTION NOTES
This passage exemplifies Stirner’s central move: turning the question of “ownness” back on the reader’s own beliefs. The E-Prime Max transformation required:
Eliminating “are truly” (identity predication)
Replacing “have the power” with active “compel”
Exposing “convictions” as a label rather than fixed possession
The double “that” structure—parallel to several lesson examples—shows subordinators introducing questions about agency. WHO creates the convictions? Do they serve the thinker, or does the thinker serve them?
Critically, this question must apply to E-Prime Max itself. The student who clings to these dissolution patterns as “convictions” has merely exchanged one set of spooks for another.F-E: COMMENTARY
Stirner’s question about convictions anticipates his entire critique of ideology. Ideas, once formed, can possess their creators—demanding loyalty, compelling agreement, extracting service. The “that”-clause structure Stirner uses (”that you came to them,” “that they are truly your creations,” “that you serve them”) marks these as claims about ownership and agency.
The E-Prime Max transformation demonstrates that even Stirner’s own language contained forms requiring dissolution (”are truly”). This proves the protocol’s point: no author escapes scrutiny, no text remains sacred, no words carry automatic authority.
The practical lesson: when you encounter a “that”-clause, especially one reporting beliefs or convictions, ask Stirner’s questions. Did I arrive at this thought? Do I own it and can I discard it? Or does it own me?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
*15 additional examples demonstrating E-Prime Max treatment of political discourse, where “that” commonly introduces spook-laden claims about state, law, and collective obligation.*Part A: Interlinear Construed Text
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government announced that new regulations will protect consumers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.16a Certain persons who call themselves “officials” announced that they wrote new rules specifying that persons selling goods face penalties for certain actions.
22.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.themselves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) announced (V-past) that (CONJ-subord) they (PRON-subj) wrote (V-past) new (ADJ) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[regulations→rules]) specifying (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[businesses]) selling (V-pres.PART) goods (N-obj) face (V-pres) penalties (N-obj) for (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N).
22.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The government → DISSOLUTION: persons who call themselves “officials” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: regulations → DISSOLUTION: rules (words specifying) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: protect consumers → DISSOLUTION: sellers face penalties → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Government” dissolves to persons with titles
∴ “Protection” dissolves to penalties on sellers—who actually benefits?
∴ WHO wrote these rules? WHO enforces them? WHO decided what counts as “protection”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Critics argue that democracy requires an informed citizenry.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.17a Certain persons who write commentary claim that persons labeled “citizens” need access to information before they vote.
22.17b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[critics→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) commentary (N-obj) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[argue→claim]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) labeled (V-past.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “citizens” (N-label) need (V-pres) access (N-obj) to (PREP) information (N) before (PREP) they (PRON-subj) vote (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→voting]).
22.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Critics (as authoritative collective) → DISSOLUTION: persons who write commentary → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: democracy (as agent that “requires”) → DISSOLUTION: voting process → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: citizenry → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “citizens” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
22.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Democracy” lacks agency to require anything
∴ “Citizens” exposed as label—WHO decides who qualifies?
∴ WHO determines what information counts as “informed”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The constitution establishes that all persons are created equal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.18a Certain persons who wrote this document claimed that they considered all persons that they recognized as persons to hold equal standing in their considerations.
22.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[founders]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) this (DET-dem) document (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→document.written]) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ-subord) they (PRON-subj) considered (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) all (DET) persons (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) recognized (V-past) as (PREP) persons (N) to (PART) hold (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[are.created.equal→hold.equal.standing]) equal (ADJ) standing (N-obj) in (PREP) their (PRON-poss) considerations (N).
22.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The constitution (as establishing agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons who wrote this document claimed → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
E-PRIME: are created equal → DISSOLUTION: hold equal standing in their considerations → STRATEGY: E6 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: all persons (universal claim) → DISSOLUTION: persons they recognized as persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
22.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Paper lacks agency to “establish”—persons claimed
∴ “All persons” historically excluded many—WHO counted as “persons” to the writers?
∴ “Created equal” → held equal standing in their minds (while enslaving others)
∴ Note: second “that” functions as relative pronoun, not subordinator
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Analysts believe that the economy will recover.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.19a Certain persons paid to predict expect that more persons will buy and sell more goods than they did before.
22.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[analysts→persons.paid]) paid (V-past.PART) to (PART) predict (V-inf) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[believe→expect]) that (CONJ-subord) more (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.buying.selling]) will (V-aux.fut) buy (V-inf) and (CONJ) sell (V-inf) more (DET) goods (N-obj) than (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) did (V-past) before (ADV-time).
22.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Analysts (professional authority) → DISSOLUTION: persons paid to predict → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: the economy → DISSOLUTION: persons buying and selling → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: recover (as though economy has agency) → DISSOLUTION: more exchanges occur → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ WHO pays these analysts? Whose interests do their predictions serve?
∴ “The economy” hides millions of persons making choices
∴ “Recovery” defined by whom? For whom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law states that ignorance is no excuse.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.20a Words certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will punish those who claim they did not know the rules.
22.20b Words (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[law→words.written]) certain (DET) persons (N) wrote (V-past) specify (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[states→specify]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement]) will (V-aux.fut) punish (V-inf) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) did (V-past) not (ADV-neg) know (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) rules (N-obj).
22.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The law (as agent that “states”) → DISSOLUTION: words certain persons wrote → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
E-PRIME: is no excuse → DISSOLUTION: will punish those who claim ignorance → STRATEGY: E1 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Words on paper lack agency to “state”
∴ The prohibition operationalized: claiming ignorance brings punishment regardless
∴ WHO wrote these words? Can every person actually read and understand them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Philosophers argue that rights exist independently of governments.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.21a Certain persons who write about concepts claim that limits on what persons with weapons may do to me exist even when no persons agree to enforce them.
22.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[philosophers→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) concepts (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) limits (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits]) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[governments→persons.with.weapons]) may (V-aux.modal) do (V-inf) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) exist (V-pres.EXIST) even (ADV) when (CONJ-time) no (DET) persons (N-subj) agree (V-pres) to (PART) enforce (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
22.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Philosophers (authoritative collective) → DISSOLUTION: persons who write about concepts → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: limits on what persons with weapons may do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: governments → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: exist independently → DISSOLUTION: exist even without enforcement → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ The dissolution exposes the claim’s content: limits “exist” even unenforced
∴ What does “exist” mean for limits no one enforces?
∴ WHO benefits from the claim that “rights exist independently”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The election proved that the people have spoken.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.22a The voting results showed that many persons marked papers in ways that certain other persons counted.
22.22b The (DEF.ART) voting (N-adj) results (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[election→results]) showed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[proved→showed]) that (CONJ-subord) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) marked (V-past) papers (N-obj) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[election.officials]) counted (V-past).
22.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The election (as agent that “proved”) → DISSOLUTION: voting results showed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: proved → DISSOLUTION: showed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: the people (collective agent that “spoke”) → DISSOLUTION: many persons marked papers → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: have spoken → DISSOLUTION: marked in ways that others counted → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “people” spoke—individual persons marked papers
∴ WHO counted? WHO designed the options? WHO interpreted the results?
∴ Note: second “that” functions as relative pronoun
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Activists insist that justice delayed is justice denied.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.23a Certain persons who organize for changes insist that when persons with weapons take a long time to act, the persons waiting experience harm equal to never receiving action.
22.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[activists→persons.who.organize]) who (PRON-rel) organize (V-pres) for (PREP) changes (N) insist (V-pres) that (CONJ-subord) when (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice.system]) with (PREP) weapons (N) take (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) long (ADJ) time (N-obj) to (PART) act (V-inf), the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) waiting (V-pres.PART) experience (V-pres) harm (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[denied→harm]) equal (ADJ) to (PREP) never (ADV) receiving (V-pres.PART) action (N-obj).
22.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Activists (collective) → DISSOLUTION: persons who organize for changes → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: justice (as thing that can be “delayed” or “denied”) → DISSOLUTION: action by persons with weapons; persons waiting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: is → DISSOLUTION: [restructured to avoid] → STRATEGY: E1
22.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists to delay or deny—only persons acting or not acting
∴ The aphorism dissolves to: persons waiting for officials to act suffer
∴ WHO delays? WHO has the power to act?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.24a Nine persons in robes declared that they will treat documents of incorporation as though they named persons with certain attributes.
22.24b Nine (NUM) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Supreme.Court→persons.in.robes]) in (PREP) robes (N) declared (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ruled→declared]) that (CONJ-subord) they (PRON-subj) will (V-aux.fut) treat (V-inf) documents (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[corporations→documents]) of (PREP) incorporation (N) as (CONJ) though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) named (V-past) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) certain (DET) attributes (N).
22.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The Supreme Court (as ruling agent) → DISSOLUTION: nine persons in robes declared → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: corporations → DISSOLUTION: documents of incorporation → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: are persons → DISSOLUTION: will treat as though they named persons → STRATEGY: E5
22.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Nine specific persons made this declaration
∴ “Corporations” dissolve to papers—legal fictions
∴ The ruling means: we will pretend papers name persons
∴ WHO benefits from treating papers as persons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The treaty ensures that member nations will cooperate.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.25a Words on paper that certain persons signed express hope that persons governing territories labeled “member nations” will act together.
22.25b Words (N-subj) on (PREP) paper (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[signatories]) signed (V-past) express (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ensures→express.hope]) hope (N-obj) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nations→persons.governing]) governing (V-pres.PART) territories (N-obj) labeled (V-past.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “member (N-adj) nations” (N-label) will (V-aux.fut) act (V-inf) together (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[cooperate→act.together]).
22.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The treaty (as agent that “ensures”) → DISSOLUTION: words on paper express hope → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: ensures → DISSOLUTION: express hope (papers cannot guarantee) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: nations → DISSOLUTION: persons governing territories labeled X → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
22.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Paper cannot “ensure”—only express hope or threaten penalties
∴ “Nations” dissolve to persons governing territories
∴ WHO signed? WHO enforces? What happens when someone violates?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Statistics show that crime rates have fallen.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.26a Numbers that certain persons compiled suggest that persons report fewer events that other persons label “crimes.”
22.26b Numbers (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[statistics→numbers]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[compilers]) compiled (V-past) suggest (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[show→suggest]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) report (V-pres) fewer (DET-comp) events (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[officials]) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “crimes” (N-label).
22.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Statistics (as agent that “shows”) → DISSOLUTION: numbers that persons compiled suggest → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: crime rates → DISSOLUTION: events persons label “crimes” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
E-PRIME: have fallen → DISSOLUTION: [restructured: fewer events reported] → STRATEGY: E1
22.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Numbers lack agency—persons compile and interpret them
∴ “Crimes” exposed as a label—WHO decides what counts?
∴ “Fallen” may mean: fewer reports, changed definitions, or changed enforcement
∴ WHO compiled these numbers? What did they count?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The public demands that politicians be held accountable.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.27a Many persons I encounter express that they want persons who call themselves “politicians” to face consequences for their actions.
22.27b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) express (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→express]) that (CONJ-subord) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[politicians→persons.who.call.themselves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “politicians” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) to (PART) face (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[held.accountable→face.consequences]) consequences (N-obj) for (PREP) their (PRON-poss) actions (N).
22.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The public (collective agent) → DISSOLUTION: many persons I encounter → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands → DISSOLUTION: express that they want → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: politicians → DISSOLUTION: persons who call themselves “politicians” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
E-PRIME: be held accountable → DISSOLUTION: face consequences → STRATEGY: E1 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The public” dissolves—I can only report on persons I encounter
∴ “Politicians” as label—WHO gets to use this title? WHO assigns it?
∴ “Accountability” becomes concrete: facing consequences
∴ WHO decides what consequences? WHO enforces them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge that this was a just war.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.28a Future persons who write about these events may claim that persons with weapons acted in ways that those future writers approve.
22.28b Future (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→future.writers]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) these (DET-dem) events (N) may (V-aux.modal) claim (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→claim]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[war→violence]) acted (V-past) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) those (DET-dem) future (ADJ) writers (N-subj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[just→approve]).
22.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: History (as judging agent) → DISSOLUTION: future persons who write → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will judge → DISSOLUTION: may claim → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: just (moral category) → DISSOLUTION: ways those writers approve → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: war → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons acting → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME: was → DISSOLUTION: [restructured to avoid] → STRATEGY: E1
22.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “History” lacks agency—future persons will write what serves their purposes
∴ “Just” dissolves to approval by specific persons
∴ WHO will write this history? From whose perspective?
∴ The appeal to “history’s judgment” claims authority no one possesses
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The constitution mandates that power be separated.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.29a Words certain persons wrote specify that different groups of persons with weapons should limit each other.
22.29b Words (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[constitution→words.written]) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[founders]) wrote (V-past) specify (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[mandates→specify]) that (CONJ-subord) different (ADJ) groups (N-subj) of (PREP) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→weapons]) should (V-aux.modal) limit (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[separated→limit]) each (DET) other (PRON).
22.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: The constitution (as mandating agent) → DISSOLUTION: words persons wrote specify → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: power (abstract substance) → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
E-PRIME: be separated → DISSOLUTION: should limit each other → STRATEGY: E1 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Paper lacks agency to mandate—persons wrote specifications
∴ “Power” dissolves to control of weapons and resources
∴ “Separation” becomes: groups limiting each other
∴ WHO checks the checks? What happens when groups collude?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “International law prohibits that any nation attack another without provocation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
22.30a Words that certain persons from different territories signed specify that persons governing one territory should not send persons with weapons into another territory unless those in the second territory acted first.
22.30b Words (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[international.law→words.signed]) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[diplomats]) from (PREP) different (ADJ) territories (N) signed (V-past) specify (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[prohibits→specify]) that (CONJ-subord) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nations→persons.governing]) governing (V-pres.PART) one (NUM) territory (N-obj) should (V-aux.modal) not (ADV-neg) send (V-inf) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[attack→send.persons.with.weapons]) into (PREP) another (DET) territory (N-obj) unless (CONJ-cond) those (PRON-dem) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) second (ORD) territory (N) acted (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[provocation→acted.first]) first (ADV-time).
22.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: International law (as prohibiting agent) → DISSOLUTION: words persons signed specify → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: nation (collective agent) → DISSOLUTION: persons governing territory → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: attack → DISSOLUTION: send persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: provocation → DISSOLUTION: acted first → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
22.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “International law” lacks enforcement—only words persons signed
∴ “Nations” dissolve to persons with territorial control
∴ “Attack” and “provocation” become concrete: sending persons, acting first
∴ WHO decides what counts as “provocation”? WHO enforces when violations occur?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part B: Natural Sentences
22.16 “Certain persons who call themselves ‘officials’ announced that they wrote new rules specifying that persons selling goods face penalties for certain actions.”
22.17 “Certain persons who write commentary claim that persons labeled ‘citizens’ need access to information before they vote.”
22.18 “Certain persons who wrote this document claimed that they considered all persons that they recognized as persons to hold equal standing in their considerations.”
22.19 “Certain persons paid to predict expect that more persons will buy and sell more goods than they did before.”
22.20 “Words certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will punish those who claim they did not know the rules.”
22.21 “Certain persons who write about concepts claim that limits on what persons with weapons may do to me exist even when no persons agree to enforce them.”
22.22 “The voting results showed that many persons marked papers in ways that certain other persons counted.”
22.23 “Certain persons who organize for changes insist that when persons with weapons take a long time to act, the persons waiting experience harm equal to never receiving action.”
22.24 “Nine persons in robes declared that they will treat documents of incorporation as though they named persons with certain attributes.”
22.25 “Words on paper that certain persons signed express hope that persons governing territories labeled ‘member nations’ will act together.”
22.26 “Numbers that certain persons compiled suggest that persons report fewer events that other persons label ‘crimes.’”
22.27 “Many persons I encounter express that they want persons who call themselves ‘politicians’ to face consequences for their actions.”
22.28 “Future persons who write about these events may claim that persons with weapons acted in ways that those future writers approve.”
22.29 “Words certain persons wrote specify that different groups of persons with weapons should limit each other.”
22.30 “Words that certain persons from different territories signed specify that persons governing one territory should not send persons with weapons into another territory unless those in the second territory acted first.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part C: E-Prime Max Text Only
22.16 Certain persons who call themselves “officials” announced that they wrote new rules specifying that persons selling goods face penalties for certain actions.
22.17 Certain persons who write commentary claim that persons labeled “citizens” need access to information before they vote.
22.18 Certain persons who wrote this document claimed that they considered all persons that they recognized as persons to hold equal standing in their considerations.
22.19 Certain persons paid to predict expect that more persons will buy and sell more goods than they did before.
22.20 Words certain persons wrote specify that persons with weapons will punish those who claim they did not know the rules.
22.21 Certain persons who write about concepts claim that limits on what persons with weapons may do to me exist even when no persons agree to enforce them.
22.22 The voting results showed that many persons marked papers in ways that certain other persons counted.
22.23 Certain persons who organize for changes insist that when persons with weapons take a long time to act, the persons waiting experience harm equal to never receiving action.
22.24 Nine persons in robes declared that they will treat documents of incorporation as though they named persons with certain attributes.
22.25 Words on paper that certain persons signed express hope that persons governing territories labeled “member nations” will act together.
22.26 Numbers that certain persons compiled suggest that persons report fewer events that other persons label “crimes.”
22.27 Many persons I encounter express that they want persons who call themselves “politicians” to face consequences for their actions.
22.28 Future persons who write about these events may claim that persons with weapons acted in ways that those future writers approve.
22.29 Words certain persons wrote specify that different groups of persons with weapons should limit each other.
22.30 Words that certain persons from different territories signed specify that persons governing one territory should not send persons with weapons into another territory unless those in the second territory acted first.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾Part D: Grammar and Dissolution Notes for Genre Section
Political Discourse Patterns
Political language relies heavily on “that”-clauses to transmit spook-laden claims:
“The government announced that...” → persons with titles claimed
“The law states that...” → words on paper specify
“History shows that...” → writers of books claim
“The public demands that...” → some persons I encounter express
Nested “That” Constructions
Political writing often nests multiple “that”-clauses, each introducing potential spooks:
“Officials claim that the constitution requires that citizens obey that law states...”
Each “that” opens another window onto potential spook agency. Dissolve systematically from outermost to innermost.
“That” as Relative Pronoun vs. Subordinator
Several Genre examples use “that” as relative pronoun rather than subordinator:
“events that other persons label” → “that” introduces relative clause modifying “events”
“words that certain persons wrote” → “that” introduces relative clause modifying “words”
Both uses appear in political dissolution. Watch for the difference: subordinating “that” introduces entire clauses; relative “that” introduces modifying clauses within sentences.
The Weapons Pattern
Political spook dissolution repeatedly reveals: persons with weapons.
“The state” → persons with weapons who call themselves X
“The law” → words written by some, enforced by others with weapons
“Power” → control over persons with weapons
This pattern exposes what political abstractions hide: violence and the threat of violence.
Paper vs. Persons
Another pattern: documents lack agency.
“The constitution mandates” → words certain persons wrote specify
“The treaty ensures” → words on paper express hope
“The law prohibits” → words specify penalties
Paper cannot mandate, ensure, or prohibit. Only persons can enforce—or choose not to enforce.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and “that” into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “Society teaches that hard work leads to success.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me teach that persons who exert sustained effort often acquire more resources than those who do not.
Dissolutions:
Society → many persons around me (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
success → acquire more resources (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
leads to → often acquire (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ, acknowledging exceptions)
Revelation: WHO teaches this? WHO defines “success”? WHO benefits from this teaching?
2. Standard: “Experts agree that climate change poses an existential threat.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons whom others call “experts” claim that changes in weather patterns may harm many persons severely.
Dissolutions:
Experts → persons whom others call “experts” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
agree → claim (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
climate change → changes in weather patterns (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
existential threat → may harm many persons severely (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO labeled these persons “experts”? What do the measurements actually show?
3. Standard: “The data proves that the program is effective.”
E-Prime Max: Numbers that certain persons collected suggest that persons who participated report different outcomes than persons who did not participate.
Dissolutions:
The data (as proving agent) → numbers persons collected suggest (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
proves → suggest (epistemic humility)
is effective → report different outcomes (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO collected? WHO interpreted? What counts as “effective”?
4. Standard: “Tradition requires that we honor our ancestors.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons who came before us taught that we should act with respect toward the memory of those who came before them.
Dissolutions:
Tradition (as requiring agent) → persons who came before taught (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
requires → taught that we should (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
honor → act with respect toward memory (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: WHO established this tradition? WHO benefits from its continuation?
5. Standard: “Science demonstrates that the universe began with a big bang.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons who call themselves “physicists” report that their measurements and models suggest that matter and space expanded rapidly from a denser state.
Dissolutions:
Science (as demonstrating agent) → persons who call themselves “physicists” report (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
demonstrates → report that measurements suggest (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
the universe began → matter and space expanded (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: The dissolution preserves the empirical claim while exposing its human origin. Science as owned tool (useful) ≠ Science as commanding authority (spook).
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidact students worldwide who prefer self-directed study to classroom instruction.
This E-Prime Max course adapts the Institute’s proven interlinear method—which has helped thousands learn Latin, Greek, and other languages—to the distinctive challenge of consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The Methodology: Interlinear construed text allows students to see the relationship between Standard English constructions and their E-Prime Max dissolutions word by word. The Dissolution Maps make visible the work of tracing spooks to their origins. The Revelation sections train the Stirnerian question: WHO benefits?
The Synthesis: By combining D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be” to reduce dogmatic predication) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (tracing abstractions to the persons who created and benefit from them), this course offers comprehensive linguistic tools for reclaiming ownness.
For More Information:
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 22
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
But functions as an adversative conjunction in English—a word that introduces contrast, opposition, or exception to what precedes it. In E-Prime Max, “but” presents a unique challenge: it frequently serves as the hinge upon which spooks swing into sentences. Speakers use “but” to introduce abstract authorities that supposedly override personal desire or observation: “I wanted to leave, but duty called.” “She disagreed, but the law required compliance.”
This lesson trains you to recognize when “but” introduces a spook and to dissolve that spook back into the persons, actions, and experiences it masks. The conjunction itself remains permitted—E-Prime Max attacks reification, not grammar—yet “but” demands vigilance because it so often smuggles in commanding abstractions.
The Bourland-Stirner Synthesis: E-Prime (D. David Bourland Jr., 1965) eliminates “to be” to reduce dogmatic predication. E-Prime Max extends this by eliminating abstract nouns that appear as agents—what Max Stirner called “spooks” (Gespenster). Together, they constitute comprehensive linguistic discipline for dissolving the illusions that possess thinkers.
“But morality forbids...” → persons who taught me as a child said not to
Link: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
-
The word “but” appears in every example in this lesson, demonstrating E-Prime Max constructions
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
A — MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B — POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy/anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C — METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D — COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E — REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
“Does this abstraction appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or acts?”
If yes → SPOOK → dissolve it
If used as shorthand the speaker OWNS and can discard → permitted with caution
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I wanted to leave, but duty called.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.1a I wanted to leave, but I felt an urge to act as others expected and followed it.
23.1b I (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) to∿leave (V-inf), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→I.felt.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) and (CONJ) followed (V-past) it (PRON-obj).
23.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: duty DISSOLUTION: urge I felt to act as others expected STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: called (duty as agent) DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot call] STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
23.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists anywhere to “call” anyone ∴ Only I exist, feeling urges that others instilled ∴ WHO instilled this urge? WHO benefits from my compliance? ∴ The spook dissolves → my body and its conditioned responses remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat sits on the mat, but it looks uncomfortable.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.2a The cat sits on the mat, but it looks uncomfortable.
23.2b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) it (PRON-subj) looks (V-pres.PERCEPT) uncomfortable (ADJ-pred).
23.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [none required] DISSOLUTION: [no spooks present] STRATEGY: [simple E-Prime only]
23.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ “But” introduces simple sensory contrast ∴ Concrete nouns (cat, mat) require no dissolution ∴ Perception verb “looks” replaces potential “seems to be”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She earns well, but she remains unhappy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.3a She earns well, but she remains unhappy.
23.3b She (PRON-subj) earns (V-pres) well (ADV-manner), but (CONJ-adversative) she (PRON-subj) remains (V-pres.STATE) unhappy (ADJ-pred).
23.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [none required] DISSOLUTION: [no spooks present] STRATEGY: [simple sentence, no E-Prime or spook issues]
23.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “But” contrasts two concrete observations about a specific person ∴ State verb “remains” replaces potential “is still”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He tried hard, but fate worked against him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.4a He tried hard, but circumstances and other persons’ actions worked against him.
23.4b He (PRON-subj) tried (V-past) hard (ADV-manner), but (CONJ-adversative) circumstances (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fate→circumstances]) and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons’ (N-poss ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[fate→persons.acting]) actions (N-subj) worked (V-past) against (PREP) him (PRON-obj).
23.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: fate DISSOLUTION: circumstances and other persons’ actions STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fate” exists anywhere to “work” against anyone ∴ Only circumstances exist (weather, timing, location) ∴ Only persons exist who acted in ways that affected him ∴ WHO acted? WHAT circumstances? The spook “fate” hid these specifics
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I agree with you, but the law says otherwise.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.5a I agree with you, but certain persons wrote rules, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act as you suggest.
23.5b I (PRON-subj) agree (V-pres) with (PREP) you (PRON-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) rules (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules]), and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) as (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) suggest (V-pres).
23.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the law DISSOLUTION: written rules by certain persons, enforced by persons with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: says (law as speaking agent) DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—papers cannot speak] STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists to “say” anything ∴ Only ink on paper exists, written by specific persons ∴ Only persons with weapons exist who will harm those who disobey ∴ WHO wrote these rules? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They worked together, but society tore them apart.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.6a They worked together, but many persons around them expressed disapproval and refused to associate with them.
23.6b They (PRON-subj) worked (V-past) together (ADV-manner), but (CONJ-adversative) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.them]) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tore.apart→expressed.disapproval]) and (CONJ) refused (V-past) to∿associate (V-inf) with (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
23.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: society DISSOLUTION: many persons around them STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: tore them apart (society as agent) DISSOLUTION: expressed disapproval, refused association STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to “tear” anyone apart ∴ Only specific persons exist who expressed disapproval ∴ Only specific persons exist who refused to associate ∴ WHO disapproved? WHY? The spook “society” hid their identities and motives
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He wanted freedom, but the state denied it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.7a He wanted to act without interference, but persons with weapons who call themselves “government” confined him.
23.7b He (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) to∿act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) confined (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[denied→confined]) him (PRON-obj).
23.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: freedom DISSOLUTION: acting without interference STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: the state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “government” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: denied (state as agent) DISSOLUTION: confined STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists as a thing to possess or lack ∴ Only acting-without-interference exists as an experience ∴ No “state” exists to “deny” anything ∴ Only persons with weapons exist who confined him ∴ WHO are these persons? WHO gave them weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She smiled, but truth be told, she felt angry.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.8a She smiled, but speaking accurately, she felt angry.
23.8b She (PRON-subj) smiled (V-past), but (CONJ-adversative) speaking (V-pres.PART) accurately (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth.be.told→speaking.accurately]), she (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) angry (ADJ-pred).
23.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: truth be told DISSOLUTION: speaking accurately STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
E-PRIME FORM: be (in “truth be told”) DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED via rephrasing] STRATEGY: E3
23.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” exists to “be told” ∴ Only speakers exist who speak more or less accurately ∴ The idiom “truth be told” smuggles in both a spook AND a “to be” form ∴ E-Prime Max dissolves both simultaneously
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He claimed innocence, but justice found him guilty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.9a He claimed he had not acted as charged, but persons wearing robes whom others call “judges” declared him “guilty.”
23.9b He (PRON-subj) claimed (V-past) he (PRON-subj) had∿not∿acted (V-past.perf.NEG) as (CONJ) charged (V-past.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[innocence→not.acted.as.charged]), but (CONJ-adversative) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.in.robes]) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N-obj) whom (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “judges” (N-label) declared (V-past) him (PRON-obj) “guilty” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[found.guilty→declared.guilty]).
23.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: innocence DISSOLUTION: not having acted as charged STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: justice DISSOLUTION: persons wearing robes whom others call “judges” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: found (justice as agent finding) DISSOLUTION: declared STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: guilty (as discovered fact) DISSOLUTION: “guilty” (as label applied) STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
23.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists to “find” anyone anything ∴ Only persons in robes exist who declare labels ∴ No “innocence” or “guilt” exists as inherent properties ∴ Only labels exist that persons attach to other persons ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO gave them authority to do so?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I ran fast, but I arrived late.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.10a I ran fast, but I arrived late.
23.10b I (PRON-subj) ran (V-past) fast (ADV-manner), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) late (ADV-time).
23.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [none required] DISSOLUTION: [no spooks present] STRATEGY: [simple sentence with concrete actions]
23.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “But” contrasts two concrete actions by a specific person ∴ Clean E-Prime Max—no dissolution needed beyond basic E-Prime compliance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The evidence pointed to him, but morality forbade his prosecution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.11a The evidence pointed to him, but certain persons who make decisions felt uncomfortable prosecuting him based on teachings they received as children.
23.11b The (DEF.ART) evidence (N-subj) pointed (V-past) to (PREP) him (PRON-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.deciding]) who (PRON-rel) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj) felt (V-past.STATE) uncomfortable (ADJ-pred) prosecuting (V-pres.PART) him (PRON-obj) based∿on (PREP) teachings (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→teachings.received]) they (PRON-subj) received (V-past) as (PREP) children (N-obj).
23.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: morality DISSOLUTION: teachings certain persons received as children STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: forbade (morality as agent forbidding) DISSOLUTION: persons felt uncomfortable STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” exists to “forbid” anything ∴ Only persons exist who feel discomfort based on conditioning ∴ Only teachings exist that certain persons transmitted to children ∴ WHO taught these rules? WHO benefits from this “morality”? ∴ The genealogical dissolution traces the spook to its human origin
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us patience, but we remain impatient.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.12a Certain writers of books about past events claim patience helps, but I remain impatient.
23.12b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers.of.books]) of (PREP) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[teaches→claim]) patience (N-subj) helps (V-pres), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[we→I]) remain (V-pres.STATE) impatient (ADJ-pred).
23.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: history DISSOLUTION: certain writers of books about past events STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: teaches (history as teaching agent) DISSOLUTION: claim STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: us (collective) DISSOLUTION: I (first-person singular) STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
23.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” exists to “teach” anyone anything ∴ Only writers exist who make claims about past events ∴ “We” dissolves to “I”—I cannot speak for others ∴ WHO are these writers? WHAT claims do they make? WHO pays them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love conquers all, but their love failed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.13a Many persons claim that acting with tenderness toward each other overcomes obstacles, but these two persons stopped acting tenderly toward each other.
23.13b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit→persons.claiming]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.tenderly]) with (PREP) tenderness (N-obj) toward (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) overcomes (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conquers→overcomes]) obstacles (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[all→obstacles]), but (CONJ-adversative) these (DET) two (NUM) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[their→these.persons]) stopped (V-past) acting (V-pres.PART) tenderly (ADV-manner) toward (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip).
23.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: love (as conquering agent) DISSOLUTION: acting with tenderness toward each other STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: conquers DISSOLUTION: overcomes STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: all DISSOLUTION: obstacles STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: their love (reified) DISSOLUTION: these persons acting tenderly STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” exists as an agent that “conquers” ∴ Only persons exist who act tenderly (or stop doing so) ∴ The claim “love conquers all” comes from specific persons—WHO? ∴ These persons stopped acting tenderly—dissolution reveals action, not entity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Reason demands we accept the evidence, but I refuse.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.14a Certain persons who call themselves “scientists” and “philosophers” expect me to accept what they present as evidence, but I refuse.
23.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[reason→persons.calling.themselves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “scientists” (N-label) and (CONJ) “philosophers” (N-label) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→expect]) me (PRON-obj) to∿accept (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) present (V-pres) as (PREP) evidence (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres).
23.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: reason (as demanding agent) DISSOLUTION: persons who call themselves “scientists” and “philosophers” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: demands DISSOLUTION: expect STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: we (collective) DISSOLUTION: me (first-person singular) STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
23.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “reason” exists as an entity that “demands” anything ∴ Only persons exist who call themselves by certain titles ∴ These persons have expectations—they do not channel cosmic commands ∴ WHO are these persons? WHO gave them authority over my acceptance? ∴ Scientific priesthood dissolved → persons with expectations remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government banned the book, but truth will out.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.15a Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” prohibited distribution of this book, but other persons continue to share what they observed and recorded.
23.15b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) prohibited (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[banned→prohibited]) distribution (N-obj) of (PREP) this (DET) book (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[truth→persons.sharing]) continue (V-pres) to∿share (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) observed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observations]) and (CONJ) recorded (V-past).
23.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the government DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: banned DISSOLUTION: prohibited distribution STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: truth (as agent that “will out”) DISSOLUTION: other persons sharing what they observed STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will out (truth as self-revealing agent) DISSOLUTION: continue to share STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “government” exists—only persons with weapons ∴ No “truth” exists as self-revealing agent ∴ Only persons exist who share their observations ∴ The optimistic “truth will out” becomes persons choosing to share ∴ WHO shares? WHO risks punishment to share? WHO suppresses?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
23.1 “I wanted to leave, but I felt an urge to act as others expected and followed it.”
[Standard English: “I wanted to leave, but duty called.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be” in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urge I felt to act as others expected)]
23.2 “The cat sits on the mat, but it looks uncomfortable.”
[Standard English: same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: “sits” provides existence; “looks” provides perception]
[Dissolution strategies: none needed—no spooks present]
23.3 “She earns well, but she remains unhappy.”
[Standard English: “She earns well, but she is still unhappy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (remains replaces “is still”)]
[Dissolution strategies: none needed—no spooks present]
23.4 “He tried hard, but circumstances and other persons’ actions worked against him.”
[Standard English: “He tried hard, but fate worked against him.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (fate → circumstances + persons’ actions)]
23.5 “I agree with you, but certain persons wrote rules, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act as you suggest.”
[Standard English: “I agree with you, but the law says otherwise.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons who wrote rules + persons with weapons)]
23.6 “They worked together, but many persons around them expressed disapproval and refused to associate with them.”
[Standard English: “They worked together, but society tore them apart.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons around them), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tore apart → expressed disapproval, refused association)]
23.7 “He wanted to act without interference, but persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ confined him.”
[Standard English: “He wanted freedom, but the state denied it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons)]
23.8 “She smiled, but speaking accurately, she felt angry.”
[Standard English: “She smiled, but truth be told, she felt angry.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminates “be” in idiom)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth be told → speaking accurately)]
23.9 “He claimed he had not acted as charged, but persons wearing robes whom others call ‘judges’ declared him ‘guilty.’”
[Standard English: “He claimed innocence, but justice found him guilty.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (innocence → not acted as charged; guilty → label), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons in robes)]
23.10 “I ran fast, but I arrived late.”
[Standard English: same—no transformation needed]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none needed—concrete actions only]
23.11 “The evidence pointed to him, but certain persons who make decisions felt uncomfortable prosecuting him based on teachings they received as children.”
[Standard English: “The evidence pointed to him, but morality forbade his prosecution.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → teachings received as children), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (forbade → persons felt uncomfortable)]
23.12 “Certain writers of books about past events claim patience helps, but I remain impatient.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us patience, but we remain impatient.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (remain replaces potential “are”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → writers of books), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (teaches → claim), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (we → I)]
23.13 “Many persons claim that acting with tenderness toward each other overcomes obstacles, but these two persons stopped acting tenderly toward each other.”
[Standard English: “Love conquers all, but their love failed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting with tenderness), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (their love → these persons acting)]
23.14 “Certain persons who call themselves ‘scientists’ and ‘philosophers’ expect me to accept what they present as evidence, but I refuse.”
[Standard English: “Reason demands we accept the evidence, but I refuse.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (reason → persons calling themselves scientists), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → expect), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (we → me)]
23.15 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’ prohibited distribution of this book, but other persons continue to share what they observed and recorded.”
[Standard English: “The government banned the book, but truth will out.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons with weapons; truth → persons sharing), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (will out → continue to share)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
23.1 I wanted to leave, but I felt an urge to act as others expected and followed it.
23.2 The cat sits on the mat, but it looks uncomfortable.
23.3 She earns well, but she remains unhappy.
23.4 He tried hard, but circumstances and other persons’ actions worked against him.
23.5 I agree with you, but certain persons wrote rules, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act as you suggest.
23.6 They worked together, but many persons around them expressed disapproval and refused to associate with them.
23.7 He wanted to act without interference, but persons with weapons who call themselves “government” confined him.
23.8 She smiled, but speaking accurately, she felt angry.
23.9 He claimed he had not acted as charged, but persons wearing robes whom others call “judges” declared him “guilty.”
23.10 I ran fast, but I arrived late.
23.11 The evidence pointed to him, but certain persons who make decisions felt uncomfortable prosecuting him based on teachings they received as children.
23.12 Certain writers of books about past events claim patience helps, but I remain impatient.
23.13 Many persons claim that acting with tenderness toward each other overcomes obstacles, but these two persons stopped acting tenderly toward each other.
23.14 Certain persons who call themselves “scientists” and “philosophers” expect me to accept what they present as evidence, but I refuse.
23.15 Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” prohibited distribution of this book, but other persons continue to share what they observed and recorded.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “but” in E-Prime Max:
“But” functions as a coordinating conjunction expressing contrast or exception. It connects two clauses of equal grammatical weight while signaling that the second clause contrasts with, limits, or opposes the first.
Common constructions include: X happened, but Y happened; I wanted X, but Y prevented it; X seems true, but Y contradicts it.
“But” can also function as a preposition meaning “except” (everyone but her) or as an adverb meaning “only” (we can but try).
“I wanted to stay, but I’m too tired” → needs E-Prime transformation
Common E-Prime transformations after “but” include using state verbs (felt, seemed, remained), perception verbs (appeared, looked), and active voice reconstructions.
“But” ranks HIGH on spook proximity. The word’s function of introducing contrast or exception makes it a favored hinge for inserting abstract authorities that supposedly override personal desire, observation, or action.
“but fate decreed” — fate as decreeing agent
Each of these constructions smuggles in a spook as the agent of a verb. E-Prime Max dissolves each to persons acting or first-person experience.
“but humanity suffers” → “but many persons I observe experience pain”
“but love failed” → “but they stopped acting tenderly toward each other”
“but conscience troubled him” → “but conditioning his parents provided caused discomfort”
“but guilt overwhelmed her” → “but she felt discomfort remembering what she did”
“but the innocent suffer” → “but persons whom observers label ‘innocent’ experience pain”
Incomplete dissolution: “I wanted to leave, but my duty held me back” — dissolves to “I” but keeps “duty” as quasi-agent. Complete dissolution: “but I felt an urge others instilled.”
Dissolving the wrong element: “Society rejected him” — focusing on “rejected” instead of “society.” The spook lies in the subject, not the verb.
Creating new spooks: “but persons with responsibilities must act” — “responsibilities” as commanding agent. Dissolve further: “but persons whom others expect to act certain ways feel pressure to act.”
Over-dissolving concrete referents: “but the building collapsed” — no dissolution needed. Buildings exist; they can collapse. Watch for spook status, not mere abstraction.
Mistaking idiom for spook: “but that goes without saying” — this conventional phrase does not invoke a commanding abstraction. Context determines spook status.
When “but” introduces a clause, ask: “Does the subject of this clause appear as an AGENT that demands, requires, forbids, or commands?”
If yes → SPOOK → dissolve it
“but reason requires” — reason appears as requiring agent → SPOOK
The question to ask of each dissolved construction: “WHO benefits from my treating this abstraction as a commanding agent?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933) established the foundational principle: “the map does not equal the territory.” Language represents reality; it does not replicate it. When we forget this distinction, we mistake our linguistic maps for the terrain itself.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime (1965) as a practical discipline emerging from General Semantics. By eliminating “to be,” E-Prime forces speakers to specify: who perceives, who classifies, who evaluates. “The sky is blue” becomes “I see the sky as blue” or “Most humans with typical color vision perceive the sky as blue.” The map-territory distinction becomes built into the grammar.
“But” plays a crucial role in map-territory confusion. The word often introduces claims that treat maps as territories: “You may think X, but the truth remains Y.” The speaker presents their map as the territory itself, using “but” as the hinge.
Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) introduced the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. Humans create abstractions (justice, freedom, duty, truth), then forget they created them, then serve them as if they commanded from outside.
The haunting mechanism works as follows: humans create abstraction → abstraction appears to demand service → humans forget they created it → abstraction possesses the human. The spook rides its creator.
Stirner’s concept of “ownness” (Eigenheit) describes the unique one’s relationship to ideas they genuinely own—concepts that serve the thinker rather than commanding them. The test: “Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“But” frequently introduces spooks in Stirnerian terms: “I wanted X, but duty/society/morality/justice required Y.” The speaker presents themselves as overridden by an abstraction they themselves created and maintain.
E-Prime attacks predication: the “is” of identity that conflates map and territory (”John is a criminal” treats a label as an essence).
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the treatment of abstractions as agents that command (”Justice demands,” “Society expects,” “Duty calls“).
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline. E-Prime dissolves false identity claims; E-Prime Max dissolves false agency claims. The combination leaves only persons acting and first-person experience.
“But” sits at the intersection. It introduces contrasts that often smuggle in both predication (”but the truth is...”) and reification (”but justice demands...”). Vigilance around “but” catches both violations.
When we dissolve spooks that follow “but,” we discover:
Persons acting where “society” seemed to act: “but society rejected him” → but specific persons around him expressed disapproval and refused association. WHO were these persons? The spook “society” hid their identities.
Weapons and cages where “law” seemed to command: “but the law forbids” → but persons with weapons will confine me if I act otherwise. WHO holds the weapons? WHO built the cages?
Expectations and conditioning where “morality” seemed to judge: “but morality required” → but I felt discomfort based on teachings I received as a child. WHO taught me? WHO benefits from these teachings?
First-person experience where “duty” seemed to call: “but duty called” → but I felt an urge to act as others expected. I felt the urge. I followed it. No external “duty” reached into my body.
Power relations hidden by abstraction: Every spook hides a power relation. “Society demands conformity” hides “specific persons with various forms of power will make my life difficult if I act differently.” Dissolution reveals the hidden power.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone tells you “but society expects X” or “but tradition requires Y” or “but reason demands Z,” they invoke spooks to override your judgment. Ask: WHO expects? WHO enforces? WHO benefits from my compliance?
Resisting possession by concepts: Notice when you use “but” to introduce spooks against yourself: “I want to quit, but duty requires I stay.” Ask: Do I own this concept of duty, or does it own me? Can I discard it at will?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Practice reformulating “but + spook” constructions into “but + persons acting” or “but + first-person experience.” The reformulation returns agency to specific persons, including yourself.
The reprogramming effect of sustained practice: Extended E-Prime Max practice does not merely change how you speak. It changes how you perceive. The spooks lose their apparent solidity when you consistently refuse to speak them into agency.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For spook dissolution, “persons acting” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks. The laboratory coat confers no more authority than the priestly vestment. Dissolve all commanding abstractions.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to “unconscious” speakers. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. The hobgoblin of “E-Prime Max speaker” rides as hard as any other.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique owns concepts; concepts do not own the unique.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[calls→label]) their∿own (PRON-poss) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.violence]), but (CONJ-adversative) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not∿control (V-pres.NEG) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.for.violence]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “government” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: law DISSOLUTION: label attached to certain violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: individual DISSOLUTION: persons they do not control STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: crime DISSOLUTION: label attached to other violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: its/that of (possessive of spook) DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—spooks cannot possess] STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual”) ∴ The dissolution preserves and clarifies his insight ∴ No “state” exists → only persons with weapons who label ∴ No “law” exists → only a label for certain violence ∴ No “crime” exists → only a label for other violence ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from this labeling? ∴ “But” reveals the asymmetry: same action (violence), different labels based on who controls the labeling
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Stirner’s aphorism brilliantly exposes the labeling function of political power. Yet his formulation still uses spooks: “the state” appears as a labeling agent, “the individual” appears as a category.
E-Prime Max dissolution preserves Stirner’s insight while dissolving his spooks. The result reveals the mechanism more clearly: specific persons with weapons attach different labels to the same action (violence) depending on whether they control the actor.
The word “but” in Stirner’s original functions perfectly: it highlights the contrast between identical actions receiving opposite labels. In the E-Prime Max version, “but” continues this function, now between two labeling acts by the same persons.
Note that Stirner himself would likely approve of this dissolution. His entire project involved dissolving fixed ideas—including, potentially, his own terminology. No authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself.
The E-Prime Max transformation of Stirner’s aphorism reveals several things:
The labeling persons: “The state” dissolves to “persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government.’” These specific persons—legislators, judges, police, soldiers—perform the labeling. They possess names, addresses, salaries, and weapons.
The labeling act: “Calls” becomes “label.” The verb “call” can suggest naming, as if discovering a pre-existing essence. “Label” clarifies: this act attaches a word to an action, nothing more.
The asymmetry: The same action (violence) receives different labels (”law” vs. “crime”) based on one variable: whether the violent actors serve the labeling persons. Violence by persons they control becomes “law.” Violence by persons they do not control becomes “crime.”
The hidden question: WHO gave these persons the power to attach labels with consequences? WHO trained others to treat these labels as descriptions rather than impositions?
The word “but” in both versions marks the pivot point: the moment where identical actions diverge into opposite categories based solely on who acts. “But” reveals the arbitrariness that “law” and “crime” as natural categories would hide.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A first-person narrative demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max writing on the theme of dissolving spook-based objections to one’s own choices.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.16a I wanted to skip the meeting, but I felt an urge to attend based on what my supervisor might say.
23.16b I (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) to∿skip (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) meeting (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→felt.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿attend (V-inf) based∿on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) my (PRON-poss) supervisor (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→my.supervisor]) might∿say (V-cond).
23.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: duty/obligation (implicit) DISSOLUTION: urge I felt + supervisor’s potential words STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No abstract “duty” pulled me toward the meeting ∴ Only my own felt urge and a specific person’s anticipated response
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.17a My body felt tired, but I remembered how colleagues looked at me when I skipped meetings before.
23.17b My (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) tired (ADJ-pred), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) remembered (V-past) how (ADV-manner) colleagues (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[workplace→colleagues]) looked (V-past) at (PREP) me (PRON-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) skipped (V-past) meetings (N-obj) before (ADV-time).
23.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: workplace expectations (implicit) DISSOLUTION: colleagues’ looks (specific persons, specific actions) STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No abstract “workplace culture” judged me ∴ Only specific persons with specific facial expressions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.18a The project held little interest for me, but I knew the department head would notice my absence.
23.18b The (DEF.ART) project (N-subj) held (V-past) little (DET) interest (N-obj) for (PREP) me (PRON-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) knew (V-past) the (DEF.ART) department (N) head (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→department.head]) would∿notice (V-cond) my (PRON-poss) absence (N-obj).
23.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [specific person named: department head] STRATEGY: [already personalized]
23.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Clear personalization: one specific person (department head) would notice ∴ No abstract “professional responsibility” invoked
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.19a I considered telling the truth about my exhaustion, but I anticipated how others might label me “unreliable.”
23.19b I (PRON-subj) considered (V-past) telling (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→accurate.description]) truth (N-obj) about (PREP) my (PRON-poss) exhaustion (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) anticipated (V-past) how (ADV-manner) others (PRON-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[judgment→others]) might∿label (V-cond ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[unreliable→label]) me (PRON-obj) “unreliable” (ADJ-label).
23.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: unreliable (as inherent quality) DISSOLUTION: label others might attach STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
23.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Unreliable” appears as label, not discovery of essence ∴ Specific others would perform the labeling
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.20a My partner suggested I stay home, but I felt discomfort imagining the email my supervisor might send.
23.20b My (PRON-poss) partner (N-subj) suggested (V-past) I (PRON-subj) stay (V-pres.SUBJ) home (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[anxiety→discomfort.I.felt]) imagining (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) email (N-obj) my (PRON-poss) supervisor (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→supervisor]) might∿send (V-cond).
23.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: anxiety (as agent) DISSOLUTION: discomfort I felt imagining specific person’s action STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “anxiety” made me do anything ∴ I felt discomfort; I imagined a specific person’s action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.21a I wanted to prioritize my health, but persons who write management books taught me to “push through.”
23.21b I (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) to∿prioritize (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) health (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[culture→persons.writing.books]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) management (N) books (N-obj) taught (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[values→teachings]) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP) “push∿through” (V-inf-idiom).
23.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: work ethic / hustle culture DISSOLUTION: persons who write management books taught me STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No abstract “work ethic” commanded me ∴ Specific persons wrote specific books; I absorbed their teachings ∴ WHO wrote these books? WHO profits from workers “pushing through”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.22a The meeting would accomplish little, but I imagined my performance review and the words my manager might write.
23.22b The (DEF.ART) meeting (N-subj) would∿accomplish (V-cond) little (PRON-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) imagined (V-past) my (PRON-poss) performance (N) review (N-obj) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) words (N-obj) my (PRON-poss) manager (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→manager]) might∿write (V-cond).
23.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [specific person named: manager; specific action: writing words] STRATEGY: [already personalized]
23.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Concrete consequences traced to specific person’s future action ∴ No abstract “career consequences” invoked
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.23a I sat at my desk, but I found no energy to stand.
23.23b I (PRON-subj) sat (V-past) at (PREP) my (PRON-poss) desk (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) found (V-past) no (DET) energy (N-obj) to∿stand (V-inf).
23.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [concrete physical description] STRATEGY: [no dissolution needed]
23.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Clean E-Prime Max: concrete actions and bodily states ∴ “Energy” here describes bodily capacity, not commanding agent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.24a I typed an excuse, but I deleted it and typed the accurate description: “I feel too exhausted to attend.”
23.24b I (PRON-subj) typed (V-past) an (INDEF.ART) excuse (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) deleted (V-past) it (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) typed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) accurate (ADJ) description (N-obj): “I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) too (ADV-degree) exhausted (ADJ-pred) to∿attend (V-inf).”
23.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [concrete actions; quoted state verb “feel”] STRATEGY: [E-Prime compliant with state verb]
23.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The shift from “excuse” to “accurate description” models E-Prime Max thinking ∴ “I feel exhausted” owns the state rather than predicating essence
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.25a I expected consequences, but I clicked send anyway.
23.25b I (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) consequences (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) clicked (V-past) send (N-obj) anyway (ADV-manner).
23.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [concrete action] STRATEGY: [no dissolution needed]
23.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Consequences” here refers to anticipated future actions by specific persons ∴ Not a spook because not presented as commanding agent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.26a My supervisor replied curtly, but I noticed no threat in her words.
23.26b My (PRON-poss) supervisor (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→supervisor]) replied (V-past) curtly (ADV-manner), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) noticed (V-past) no (DET) threat (N-obj) in (PREP) her (PRON-poss) words (N-obj).
23.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: [no spooks present] DISSOLUTION: [specific person, specific words] STRATEGY: [already personalized]
23.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The anticipated spook-backed punishment failed to materialize ∴ A specific person sent specific words; that occurred and nothing more
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.27a I had feared unnamed consequences, but only a curt email arrived.
23.27b I (PRON-subj) had∿feared (V-past.perf) unnamed (ADJ) consequences (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) only (ADV-restriction) a (INDEF.ART) curt (ADJ) email (N-subj) arrived (V-past).
23.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: consequences (as vague threat) DISSOLUTION: “unnamed consequences” acknowledged as vague; concrete result named STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
23.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The word “unnamed” exposes the vagueness of feared consequences ∴ Actual result: one email with a certain tone
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.28a Persons who write about “boundaries” would approve of my choice, but I made the choice for myself, not for their approval.
23.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[self-help→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) “boundaries” (N-obj) would∿approve (V-cond) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) choice (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) made (V-past) the (DEF.ART) choice (N-obj) for (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), not (ADV-NEG) for (PREP) their (PRON-poss) approval (N-obj).
23.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: self-care ideology (potential) DISSOLUTION: persons who write about boundaries + their approval STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
23.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even “self-care” can become a spook if it commands ∴ The narrator distinguishes: choosing for self ≠ seeking ideology’s approval ∴ Ownness: I chose; I did not obey “boundaries culture”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.29a I slept that afternoon, but I felt no guilt, only my body recovering.
23.29b I (PRON-subj) slept (V-past) that (DET) afternoon (N-time), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) no (DET) guilt (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→absence.of.discomfort]), only (ADV-restriction) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) recovering (V-pres.PART).
23.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: guilt (potential) DISSOLUTION: absence of guilt noted; only bodily recovery STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
23.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Guilt” here appears as something NOT felt ∴ The expected spook (guilt over skipping work) failed to manifest ∴ What remained: bodily sensation of recovery
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.30a I had expected condemnation from some abstract source, but I discovered only specific persons with specific reactions, none of which destroyed me.
23.30b I (PRON-subj) had∿expected (V-past.perf) condemnation (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[judgment→condemnation]) from (PREP) some (DET) abstract (ADJ) source (N-obj), but (CONJ-adversative) I (PRON-subj) discovered (V-past) only (ADV-restriction) specific (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[source→specific.persons]) with (PREP) specific (ADJ) reactions (N-obj), none (PRON) of∿which (PRON-rel) destroyed (V-past) me (PRON-obj).
23.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: abstract source of condemnation DISSOLUTION: specific persons with specific reactions STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
23.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrative arc completes: feared spook-backed judgment dissolves ∴ What actually exists: specific persons with specific reactions ∴ None destroyed the narrator ∴ The spook’s apparent power derived from its vagueness
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
23.16 “I wanted to skip the meeting, but I felt an urge to attend based on what my supervisor might say.”
23.17 “My body felt tired, but I remembered how colleagues looked at me when I skipped meetings before.”
23.18 “The project held little interest for me, but I knew the department head would notice my absence.”
23.19 “I considered telling the truth about my exhaustion, but I anticipated how others might label me ‘unreliable.’”
23.20 “My partner suggested I stay home, but I felt discomfort imagining the email my supervisor might send.”
23.21 “I wanted to prioritize my health, but persons who write management books taught me to ‘push through.’”
23.22 “The meeting would accomplish little, but I imagined my performance review and the words my manager might write.”
23.23 “I sat at my desk, but I found no energy to stand.”
23.24 “I typed an excuse, but I deleted it and typed the accurate description: ‘I feel too exhausted to attend.’”
23.25 “I expected consequences, but I clicked send anyway.”
23.26 “My supervisor replied curtly, but I noticed no threat in her words.”
23.27 “I had feared unnamed consequences, but only a curt email arrived.”
23.28 “Persons who write about ‘boundaries’ would approve of my choice, but I made the choice for myself, not for their approval.”
23.29 “I slept that afternoon, but I felt no guilt, only my body recovering.”
23.30 “I had expected condemnation from some abstract source, but I discovered only specific persons with specific reactions, none of which destroyed me.”
23.16 I wanted to skip the meeting, but I felt an urge to attend based on what my supervisor might say.
23.17 My body felt tired, but I remembered how colleagues looked at me when I skipped meetings before.
23.18 The project held little interest for me, but I knew the department head would notice my absence.
23.19 I considered telling the truth about my exhaustion, but I anticipated how others might label me “unreliable.”
23.20 My partner suggested I stay home, but I felt discomfort imagining the email my supervisor might send.
23.21 I wanted to prioritize my health, but persons who write management books taught me to “push through.”
23.22 The meeting would accomplish little, but I imagined my performance review and the words my manager might write.
23.23 I sat at my desk, but I found no energy to stand.
23.24 I typed an excuse, but I deleted it and typed the accurate description: “I feel too exhausted to attend.”
23.25 I expected consequences, but I clicked send anyway.
23.26 My supervisor replied curtly, but I noticed no threat in her words.
23.27 I had feared unnamed consequences, but only a curt email arrived.
23.28 Persons who write about “boundaries” would approve of my choice, but I made the choice for myself, not for their approval.
23.29 I slept that afternoon, but I felt no guilt, only my body recovering.
23.30 I had expected condemnation from some abstract source, but I discovered only specific persons with specific reactions, none of which destroyed me.
This narrative demonstrates several key E-Prime Max principles:
The arc of spook dissolution: The narrator begins possessed by anticipated spook-backed judgment (”duty,” “work ethic,” “professional consequences”). Through the narrative, these spooks dissolve to specific persons (supervisor, colleagues, department head, manager) with specific potential actions (emails, looks, written reviews). The actual consequences prove far less severe than the spooks suggested.
“But” as narrative pivot: Each “but” marks a tension between desire and conditioning, between bodily state and anticipated judgment, between feared consequences and actual results. Tracking the “but” clauses maps the narrator’s liberation.
Labels exposed: “Unreliable” appears explicitly as a label others might attach, not as an inherent quality the narrator would discover in themselves. This models D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ in narrative form.
Self-care ideology as potential spook: Example 23.28 demonstrates that even “positive” cultural movements can become spooks. The narrator distinguishes choosing for oneself from seeking approval from “boundary culture.” Ownness means the choice serves me; I do not serve the ideology that endorses my choice.
Bodily grounding: Physical states (tired, exhausted, recovering) provide non-spook anchors throughout. These sensations exist; they do not command. They inform choice without possessing the chooser.
The final dissolution: Example 23.30 explicitly states the narrative’s philosophical conclusion: the narrator expected condemnation from an “abstract source” but discovered only “specific persons with specific reactions.” The spook’s power derived from vagueness; specificity dissolves it.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “Society expects us to attend every meeting, but I have my own needs.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me expect me to attend every meeting, but I have my own needs.
us → me (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “society” exists to expect anything. Only specific persons hold expectations. WHO are they? Do their expectations serve me?
2. Standard: “The truth is painful, but it must be told.”
E-Prime Max: What I observe causes me pain, but I choose to share it.
must be told → I choose to share (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + eliminates “must” as commanding)
Revelation: No “truth” exists as an entity with properties or demands. Only observations exist, and I choose whether to share them.
3. Standard: “Justice was served, but it came too late.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons returned what other persons took, but this happened after the victim had died.
came too late → happened after victim died (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “justice” exists to arrive early or late. Only persons acting and concrete timing exist.
4. Standard: “I’m afraid, but duty calls.”
E-Prime Max: I feel afraid, but I feel an urge to act as others expect.
duty calls → I feel an urge to act as others expect (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “duty” exists to “call.” Only urges exist that I feel, conditioned by others’ expectations.
5. Standard: “Freedom is worth fighting for, but the state will crush our resistance.”
E-Prime Max: Acting without interference from others holds value for me, but persons with weapons who call themselves “government” will harm us if we resist.
crush → harm (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “freedom” exists as thing to fight for; only interference-free action exists as experience. No “state” exists; only persons with weapons exist. The contrast becomes: “I value acting without interference, but persons with weapons will harm me if I try.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a systematic approach to vocabulary acquisition combined with consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in construed text methodology for autodidact students. This approach—presenting target language with word-by-word glossing—accelerates comprehension by making grammatical relationships visible and reducing the cognitive load of parsing unfamiliar structures.
E-Prime Max extends this pedagogical tradition by adding spook dissolution to vocabulary instruction. Each lesson teaches a Standard English word while demonstrating E-Prime Max constructions that dissolve the abstractions commonly associated with that word. Students acquire vocabulary, internalize E-Prime discipline, AND develop the capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons and actions beneath.
Latinum Institute construed text methodology (2006-present)
For the complete course index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
For reviews of Latinum Institute materials: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
End of Lesson 23: “But” — Stirnerian Construction with Spook Dissolution
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
They functions as the third-person plural subject pronoun in English—a word of extraordinary frequency and, in E-Prime Max practice, extraordinary danger. Not danger from the word itself, which simply points to multiple persons, but danger from what speakers habitually allow it to conceal.
In standard usage, “they” often refers to anonymous collectives: “They say you shouldn’t do that.” “They won’t allow it.” “They expect conformity.” WHO says? WHO won’t allow? WHO expects? The vague plural hides specific persons behind a fog of collective authority. This fog serves those who benefit from unexamined compliance.
E-Prime Max forces the question: WHO specifically does “they” refer to? When the antecedent dissolves into mist—when no specific persons can fill the referent—we have found a spook wearing a pronoun’s clothing.
This lesson demonstrates how “they” functions in E-Prime Max constructions while training students to identify and dissolve the anonymous collective “they” that haunts everyday speech.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “they” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “they” retains its grammatical function as a third-person plural pronoun but demands that speakers identify its antecedent as specific persons. When “they” refers to a spook (society, the authorities, common opinion), E-Prime Max requires dissolution back to the actual persons acting, speaking, or expecting.
Never as a vehicle for anonymous collective authority
“They think...” (assumed consensus)
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: Expose the labeling behind collective categories
Human origins appear behind “what everyone knows”
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They say you should work hard.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.1a Certain persons I have heard—they claim that working hard benefits me.
24.1b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[anonymous.they→persons.I.have.heard]) I (PRON-subj) have∿heard (V-pres.PERF)—they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) working (V-pres.PART) hard (ADV-manner) benefits (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “should” (moral obligation) → DISSOLUTION: claim that X benefits → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The dissolution forces me to identify my sources
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are the authorities.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.2a Those persons with badges and weapons—they call themselves “authorities.”
24.2b Those (DET-dem) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) badges (N) and (CONJ) weapons (N)—they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “authorities” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authorities→self.label]).
SPOOK: “authorities” (political abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: persons with badges/weapons who use label → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “They” now refers to visible, identifiable persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They expect you to conform.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.3a Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently—they have told me this through frowns, comments, and silences.
24.3b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) displeasure (N-action) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner)—they (PRON-subj) have∿told (V-pres.PERF) me (PRON-obj) this (PRON-dem) through (PREP) frowns (N), comments (N), and (CONJ) silences (N).
SPOOK: “conform” (abstract compliance) → DISSOLUTION: act differently → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO specifically frowns? WHO comments? I can now choose how to respond to EACH
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They won’t allow it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.4a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will use force against me if I do this—they have made this clear through posted rules and past actions against others.
24.4b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) will∿use (V-fut) force (N) against (PREP) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) this (PRON-dem)—they (PRON-subj) have∿made (V-pres.PERF) this (PRON-dem) clear (ADJ-pred) through (PREP) posted (V-past.PART) rules (N) and (CONJ) past (ADJ) actions (N) against (PREP) others (N).
SPOOK: “allow” (permission from abstract authority) → DISSOLUTION: will use force / have made clear → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The threat becomes concrete, the choice becomes mine
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They think that’s wrong.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.5a Several persons I know have expressed disapproval of this—they wrinkled their faces and spoke critically.
24.5b Several (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.I.know]) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) have∿expressed (V-pres.PERF) disapproval (N-action) of (PREP) this (PRON-dem)—they (PRON-subj) wrinkled (V-past) their (PRON-poss) faces (N) and (CONJ) spoke (V-past) critically (ADV-manner).
SPOOK: “wrong” (moral judgment) → DISSOLUTION: expressed disapproval, spoke critically → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ I can weigh their opinions as opinions, not as verdicts
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They have been unfair to him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.6a The persons who interviewed him—they gave the position to someone else despite his qualifications.
24.6b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.interviewed]) who (PRON-rel) interviewed (V-past) him (PRON-obj)—they (PRON-subj) gave (V-past) the (DEF.ART) position (N-obj) to (PREP) someone (PRON) else (ADV) despite (PREP) his (PRON-poss) qualifications (N).
SPOOK: “unfair” (moral abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: gave position to someone else despite qualifications → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The complaint becomes precise: THESE persons made THIS choice
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are society’s pillars.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.7a Many persons around me call those wealthy persons “pillars”—they seem to admire their donations and influence.
24.7b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) call (V-pres) those (DET-dem) wealthy (ADJ) persons (N-obj) “pillars” (N-label)—they (PRON-subj) seem (V-pres.PERCEPT) to∿admire (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) donations (N) and (CONJ) influence (N).
SPOOK: “pillars” (metaphor as fact) → DISSOLUTION: label + seem to admire → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits from this label? The wealthy persons themselves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They know best.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.8a Those persons with credentials claim superior knowledge—they have convinced many to defer to their pronouncements.
24.8b Those (DET-dem) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.with.credentials]) with (PREP) credentials (N) claim (V-pres) superior (ADJ) knowledge (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) have∿convinced (V-pres.PERF) many (N-obj) to∿defer (V-inf) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) pronouncements (N).
SPOOK: “know best” (authoritative judgment) → DISSOLUTION: claim superior knowledge, have convinced many to defer → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO gave them credentials? WHO taught me to defer?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They say history repeats itself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.9a Certain writers of books about past events claim that similar patterns recur—they have written this in texts I have encountered.
24.9b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they.say→writers.I.have.encountered]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) similar (ADJ) patterns (N-subj) recur (V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) have∿written (V-pres.PERF) this (PRON-dem) in (PREP) texts (N) I (PRON-subj) have∿encountered (V-pres.PERF).
SPOOK: “history” (as agent that “repeats”) → DISSOLUTION: similar patterns recur / past events → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the idea that patterns repeat inevitably?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They were criminals.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.10a Persons with badges arrested those persons and persons with robes labeled them “criminals”—they now sit in cages.
24.10b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) badges (N) arrested (V-past) those (DET-dem) persons (N-obj) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) robes (N) labeled (V-past) them (PRON-obj) “criminals” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled])—they (PRON-subj) now (ADV-time) sit (V-pres) in (PREP) cages (N).
SPOOK: “criminals” (category as identity) → DISSOLUTION: persons whom other persons labeled → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits from the labeling? WHO performs the caging?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are the voice of the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.11a Those politicians claim to speak for many persons—they have convinced some to believe this through speeches and advertisements.
24.11b Those (DET-dem) politicians (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→politicians]) claim (V-pres) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP) many (DET) persons (N)—they (PRON-subj) have∿convinced (V-pres.PERF) some (PRON-obj) to∿believe (V-inf) this (PRON-dem) through (PREP) speeches (N) and (CONJ) advertisements (N).
SPOOK: “voice” (metaphor as fact) → DISSOLUTION: claim to speak, have convinced through speeches → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO authorized these politicians to speak for me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They will judge you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.12a Certain persons will form opinions about me and perhaps express them—they may frown, speak, or withdraw.
24.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→certain.persons]) will∿form (V-fut) opinions (N-obj) about (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) perhaps (ADV) express (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)—they (PRON-subj) may (V-mod) frown (V-inf), speak (V-inf), or (CONJ) withdraw (V-inf).
SPOOK: “judge” (cosmic verdict) → DISSOLUTION: form opinions, express them, frown/speak/withdraw → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “They” becomes specific persons whose reactions I can observe and assess
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are human nature.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.13a Those behaviors appear in many persons I have observed—they seem common across different groups.
24.13b Those (DET-dem) behaviors (N-subj) appear (V-pres.PERCEPT) in (PREP) many (DET) persons (N) I (PRON-subj) have∿observed (V-pres.PERF)—they (PRON-subj) seem (V-pres.PERCEPT) common (ADJ-pred) across (PREP) different (ADJ) groups (N).
SPOOK: “human nature” (essence) → DISSOLUTION: behaviors in many persons I have observed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Seem common” leaves room for exceptions—and for change
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They have rights that protect them.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.14a Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to them—they benefit from this agreement when enforcers respect it.
24.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→persons.who.agreed]) agreed (V-past) to∿document (V-inf) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-mod) to (PREP) them (PRON-obj)—they (PRON-subj) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) this (DET) agreement (N) when (CONJ-time) enforcers (N-subj) respect (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “protect” (rights as agent) → DISSOLUTION: benefit when enforcers respect → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote the documents? WHO enforces them? WHO decides exceptions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They should be ashamed of themselves.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.15a I wish those persons felt discomfort about their actions—they acted in ways I find objectionable.
24.15b I (PRON-subj) wish (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[should→I.wish]) those (DET-dem) persons (N-subj) felt (V-past.SUBJ) discomfort (N-obj) about (PREP) their (PRON-poss) actions (N)—they (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) ways (N) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) objectionable (ADJ-pred).
SPOOK: “ashamed” (cosmic judgment) → DISSOLUTION: discomfort about their actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I find their actions objectionable—this remains MY assessment, not cosmic law
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
24.1 “Certain persons I have heard—they claim that working hard benefits me.”
[Standard English: “They say you should work hard.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (anonymous “they” → persons I have heard), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (should → claim that X benefits)]
24.2 “Those persons with badges and weapons—they call themselves ‘authorities.’”
[Standard English: “They are the authorities.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4-REL (are → call themselves)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (authorities → self-label)]
24.3 “Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently—they have told me this through frowns, comments, and silences.”
[Standard English: “They expect you to conform.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (they → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (expect/conform → express displeasure/act differently)]
24.4 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ will use force against me if I do this—they have made this clear through posted rules and past actions against others.”
[Standard English: “They won’t allow it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (they → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (allow → use force)]
24.5 “Several persons I know have expressed disapproval of this—they wrinkled their faces and spoke critically.”
[Standard English: “They think that’s wrong.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2-Perception implicit (that’s → of this)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (they → persons I know), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (think wrong → expressed disapproval)]
24.6 “The persons who interviewed him—they gave the position to someone else despite his qualifications.”
[Standard English: “They have been unfair to him.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1-Active (have been unfair → gave)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (unfair → gave position to someone else despite qualifications)]
24.7 “Many persons around me call those wealthy persons ‘pillars’—they seem to admire their donations and influence.”
[Standard English: “They are society’s pillars.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4-REL (are → call), E2-Perception (seem)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons around me), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (pillars → label)]
24.8 “Those persons with credentials claim superior knowledge—they have convinced many to defer to their pronouncements.”
[Standard English: “They know best.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (know best → claim knowledge, convinced to defer), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (credentials from other persons)]
24.9 “Certain writers of books about past events claim that similar patterns recur—they have written this in texts I have encountered.”
[Standard English: “They say history repeats itself.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (they say → writers claim), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (history repeats → patterns recur)]
24.10 “Persons with badges arrested those persons and persons with robes labeled them ‘criminals’—they now sit in cages.”
[Standard English: “They were criminals.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4-REL (were → labeled)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminals → persons labeled)]
24.11 “Those politicians claim to speak for many persons—they have convinced some to believe this through speeches and advertisements.”
[Standard English: “They are the voice of the people.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4-REL (are → claim to speak)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (voice → claim, convinced through speeches)]
24.12 “Certain persons will form opinions about me and perhaps express them—they may frown, speak, or withdraw.”
[Standard English: “They will judge you.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → form opinions, frown/speak/withdraw)]
24.13 “Those behaviors appear in many persons I have observed—they seem common across different groups.”
[Standard English: “They are human nature.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2-Perception (are → appear, seem)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (human nature → behaviors in persons I observed)]
24.14 “Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to them—they benefit from this agreement when enforcers respect it.”
[Standard English: “They have rights that protect them.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → documented limits, agreement), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protect → benefit when enforcers respect)]
24.15 “I wish those persons felt discomfort about their actions—they acted in ways I find objectionable.”
[Standard English: “They should be ashamed of themselves.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7-State (should be ashamed → felt discomfort)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (should → I wish), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (ashamed → discomfort)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
24.1 Certain persons I have heard—they claim that working hard benefits me.
24.2 Those persons with badges and weapons—they call themselves “authorities.”
24.3 Many persons around me express displeasure when I act differently—they have told me this through frowns, comments, and silences.
24.4 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” will use force against me if I do this—they have made this clear through posted rules and past actions against others.
24.5 Several persons I know have expressed disapproval of this—they wrinkled their faces and spoke critically.
24.6 The persons who interviewed him—they gave the position to someone else despite his qualifications.
24.7 Many persons around me call those wealthy persons “pillars”—they seem to admire their donations and influence.
24.8 Those persons with credentials claim superior knowledge—they have convinced many to defer to their pronouncements.
24.9 Certain writers of books about past events claim that similar patterns recur—they have written this in texts I have encountered.
24.10 Persons with badges arrested those persons and persons with robes labeled them “criminals”—they now sit in cages.
24.11 Those politicians claim to speak for many persons—they have convinced some to believe this through speeches and advertisements.
24.12 Certain persons will form opinions about me and perhaps express them—they may frown, speak, or withdraw.
24.13 Those behaviors appear in many persons I have observed—they seem common across different groups.
24.14 Certain persons agreed to document limits on what other persons with weapons may do to them—they benefit from this agreement when enforcers respect it.
24.15 I wish those persons felt discomfort about their actions—they acted in ways I find objectionable.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “they” in E-Prime Max:
Vague authorities (”They won’t let you park here.”)
The final two uses present the greatest challenge for E-Prime Max practice.
“They have been...” → requires transformation
“They are in charge” → “They hold the weapons” / “They make decisions”
“They” carries MEDIUM spook proximity—the word itself remains neutral, but its antecedent often masks a spook.
Spooks commonly concealed by “they”:
“Society” hiding as “they”: “They expect you to...” (WHO specifically expects?)
“The government” hiding as “they”: “They passed a law...” (WHICH specific persons voted?)
“Common wisdom” hiding as “they”: “They say that...” (WHO said it first? WHO repeats it?)
“Experts” hiding as “they”: “They recommend...” (WHICH specific persons with which credentials?)
“The economy” hiding as “they”: “They raised prices...” (WHICH specific persons made pricing decisions?)
“They won’t allow...” → “Persons with weapons will use force if...”
“They controlled the situation” → “They made decisions and others followed...”
“They know best” → “Persons with credentials from other persons claim...”
“They are criminals” → “Courts labeled them ‘criminals’”
Leaving “they” anonymous: The most common error occurs when writers transform E-Prime violations but leave “they” vague. “They seem wrong” still hides WHO finds something objectionable.
Failing to trace the antecedent: Every use of “they” in E-Prime Max demands the question: WHO does this refer to? If no specific persons can fill the referent, a spook has been found.
Assuming collective “they” names something real: “They (society) expect...” treats society as a being with expectations. Only persons expect. WHO specifically?
Incomplete dissolution: “The authorities—they made a decision” still leaves “authorities” unexamined. WHO holds weapons? WHO wears badges? WHO signed documents?
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Would identifying specific persons change my response to their claims?
When “they” refers to identifiable persons whose opinions I can weigh → the word serves me. When “they” refers to anonymous authority whose identity I cannot question → I serve the spook hiding behind the pronoun.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski warned against the “is of identity”—statements that fuse subject with predicate, treating temporary attributes as permanent essences. “They are criminals” crystallizes persons into a fixed category. The map becomes the territory.
D. David Bourland’s E-Prime extends this insight: by eliminating “to be,” speakers must specify relationships, perceptions, and contexts that the copula conceals.
Korzybski also warned against “allness”—treating any category as complete. “They” in collective usage commits this error constantly: “They expect...” implies a unanimous collective that rarely exists.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. The anonymous “they” functions as a primary vehicle for spook transmission:
“They say...” invokes authority without specifying authorizers. “They expect...” imposes obligation without identifying obligators. “They won’t allow...” threatens consequences without naming enforcers.
This structure serves those who benefit from unquestioned compliance. “They” becomes what Stirner called “the wheel in the head”—a mechanism of control that operates through the possessed mind rather than through visible force.
“Ownness” (Eigenheit) begins with the question: WHO specifically claims this? The unique individual refuses to serve anonymous plurals.
E-Prime attacks predication: “They are X” becomes “They function as X” or “Others call them X.”
E-Prime Max attacks the anonymous agent: “They say X” becomes “Certain persons I have encountered claim X.”
Together, they expose both the frozen identity (”they ARE authorities”) AND the hidden agency (”THEY say you must obey”). The double dissolution reveals persons where categories seemed to command and names where anonymity seemed to judge.
“Society’s expectations” becomes my neighbor’s frown—which I can meet with a shrug.
Parents invoke “they won’t let you” to enforce prohibitions without taking responsibility.
Remember that “they” often conceals a single person’s opinion repeated.
Identify specific persons → assess their actual power → decide how to respond to EACH.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Neurons decide,” “the market speaks,” “evolution selects” → all spooks when the abstraction commands.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel superior has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and consumed by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.”
24.F.1a Where (CONJ-loc) the (DEF.ART) world (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[world→persons.and.things.I.encounter]) comes (V-pres) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) way (N)—and (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) comes (V-pres) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) way (N) everywhere (ADV-place)—I (PRON-subj) consume (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) to∿quiet (V-inf.PURPOSE) the (DEF.ART) hunger (N-obj) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) egoism (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[egoism→my.wanting]).
24.F.2a For (PREP) me (PRON-obj) you (PRON-subj) function∿as (V-pres.REL) nothing (N) but (CONJ)—my (PRON-poss) food (N), even (ADV) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) too (ADV) get∿fed∿upon (V-pres.PASS→V-pres) and (CONJ) consumed (V-past.PART) by (PREP) you (PRON-obj).
24.F.3a We (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) only (ADV) one (NUM) relation (N-obj) to (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip), that (PRON-dem) of (PREP) usableness (N), of (PREP) utility (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[utility→what.I.use.you.for]), of (PREP) use (N).
E-Prime Max: “Where persons and things I encounter obstruct my path—and they obstruct it everywhere—I use them to satisfy my wanting. For me you function as nothing but my resource, even as you use and consume me in turn. We maintain only one relation to each other: mutual use.”
Idiomatic English: “Wherever the world blocks my way—and it blocks it everywhere—I consume it to feed my self-interest. To me you are nothing but food, just as I am food for you. We have only one relationship: utility.”
Where persons and things I encounter obstruct my path—and they obstruct it everywhere—I use them to satisfy my wanting. For me you function as nothing but my resource, even as you use and consume me in turn. We maintain only one relation to each other: mutual use.
SPOOK: “egoism” (could become identity) → DISSOLUTION: my wanting → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The dissolution preserves Stirner’s insight while preventing it from becoming doctrine
Stirner’s passage illustrates both the power and the risk of his thought. He dissolves moral relations into pragmatic ones—we use each other. But “the world” and “egoism” could themselves become fixed ideas if a reader treated them as commanding categories.
E-Prime Max transforms Stirner’s claim into owned experience: “persons and things I encounter,” “my wanting,” “mutual use.” The insight remains; the potential for reification diminishes.
Note that Stirner’s “you are nothing but food” became “you function as nothing but my resource.” The predication dissolves. The relationship—use—stays explicit. Even the prophet of ownness benefits from dissolution.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This section presents 15 additional examples demonstrating how “they” functions in political discourse—and how E-Prime Max exposes the persons hiding behind anonymous plurals.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They have decided the policy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.16a Specific persons in a room with documents—they marked certain papers and announced their choice.
24.16b Specific (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.in.a.room]) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) room (N) with (PREP) documents (N)—they (PRON-subj) marked (V-past) certain (DET) papers (N-obj) and (CONJ) announced (V-past) their (PRON-poss) choice (N-obj).
SPOOK: “policy” (reified decision) → DISSOLUTION: choice, certain papers → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO sat in that room? WHO held the pen?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They represent the will of the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.17a Those persons in suits claim to speak for many—they obtained votes from some persons and now make decisions affecting others who never chose them.
24.17b Those (DET-dem) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.in.suits]) in (PREP) suits (N) claim (V-pres) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP) many (N)—they (PRON-subj) obtained (V-past) votes (N-obj) from (PREP) some (DET) persons (N) and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj) affecting (V-pres.PART) others (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) never (ADV-neg) chose (V-past) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “will of the people” (collective abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: votes from some, decisions affecting others → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO chose these representatives? Not everyone affected by them.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are running the economy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.18a Persons at certain banks and certain government offices make decisions about interest rates and currency—they affect what persons pay for goods.
24.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.at.banks.and.offices]) at (PREP) certain (DET) banks (N) and (CONJ) certain (DET) government (N-adj) offices (N) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj) about (PREP) interest (N) rates (N) and (CONJ) currency (N)—they (PRON-subj) affect (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) pay (V-pres) for (PREP) goods (N).
SPOOK: “economy” (reified system) → DISSOLUTION: interest rates, currency, what persons pay → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO sits on these boards? WHO benefits from their decisions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They control the media.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.19a Persons who own certain corporations decide what content gets broadcast—they hire editors who select stories and frame them in particular ways.
24.19b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.own.corporations]) who (PRON-rel) own (V-pres) certain (DET) corporations (N-obj) decide (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) content (N-subj) gets∿broadcast (V-pres.PASS→V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) hire (V-pres) editors (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) select (V-pres) stories (N-obj) and (CONJ) frame (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) in (PREP) particular (ADJ) ways (N).
SPOOK: “media” (reified entity) → DISSOLUTION: corporations, content, broadcast, editors, stories → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO owns the corporations? WHO hires the editors? Names exist.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are oppressing the workers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.20a Persons who own factories pay other persons less than those workers produce—they also set conditions that exhaust bodies and shorten lives.
24.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.own.factories]) who (PRON-rel) own (V-pres) factories (N-obj) pay (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) less (ADV-deg) than (CONJ) those (DET-dem) workers (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[workers→persons.labeled]) produce (V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) also (ADV) set (V-pres) conditions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) exhaust (V-pres) bodies (N-obj) and (CONJ) shorten (V-pres) lives (N-obj).
SPOOK: “workers” (as collective) → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “workers,” other persons → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Workers” and “owners” remain labels—but persons with bodies experience the effects
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They say the election was fair.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.21a Persons who counted votes and persons who observed them claim that no irregularities appeared—they signed documents stating this.
24.21b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.counted]) who (PRON-rel) counted (V-past) votes (N-obj) and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) observed (V-past) them (PRON-obj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) no (DET-neg) irregularities (N-subj) appeared (V-past)—they (PRON-subj) signed (V-past) documents (N-obj) stating (V-pres.PART) this (PRON-dem).
SPOOK: “fair” (moral judgment) → DISSOLUTION: no irregularities appeared, signed documents → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Fair” dissolves into observable procedures and documented claims
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They were responsible for the war.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.22a Specific persons signed orders that sent other persons with weapons to kill yet other persons—they made speeches justifying these orders.
24.22b Specific (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.signed.orders]) signed (V-past) orders (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) sent (V-past) other (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿kill (V-inf) yet (ADV) other (DET) persons (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) made (V-past) speeches (N-obj) justifying (V-pres.PART) these (DET-dem) orders (N-obj).
SPOOK: “war” (reified event) → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons killing other persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Responsibility” becomes traceable to specific signatures on specific orders
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They believe in democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.23a Those politicians claim to support procedures where persons vote and votes determine who holds offices—they also support exceptions when convenient for them.
24.23b Those (DET-dem) politicians (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→politicians]) claim (V-pres) to∿support (V-inf) procedures (N-obj) where (CONJ-loc) persons (N-subj) vote (V-pres) and (CONJ) votes (N-subj) determine (V-pres) who (PRON-rel) holds (V-pres) offices (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) also (ADV) support (V-pres) exceptions (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) convenient (ADJ-pred) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “democracy” (political abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: procedures where persons vote → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Democracy” becomes specific procedures—and exceptions reveal limits of commitment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are undermining our institutions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.24a Certain persons act in ways that change how other persons with offices operate—they appoint different persons, alter written procedures, and redirect resources.
24.24b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→certain.persons]) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) change (V-pres) how (ADV-manner) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) offices (N) operate (V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) appoint (V-pres) different (ADJ) persons (N-obj), alter (V-pres) written (ADJ) procedures (N-obj), and (CONJ) redirect (V-pres) resources (N-obj).
SPOOK: “institutions” (reified structures) → DISSOLUTION: persons with offices, written procedures, resources → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Undermining” becomes specific actions: appointments, alterations, redirections
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They have the authority to do this.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.25a Other persons with weapons will not stop them if they do this—they hold documents that other persons recognize.
24.25b Other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿not∿stop (V-fut.NEG) them (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) this (PRON-dem)—they (PRON-subj) hold (V-pres) documents (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) recognize (V-pres).
SPOOK: “have authority” (possess abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: other persons will not stop, hold documents others recognize → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO holds weapons? WHO recognizes documents? The answer identifies the source of “authority”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They protect our freedom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.26a Persons with weapons prevent other persons with weapons from interfering with what we do—they also decide which interferences to prevent and which to ignore.
24.26b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) prevent (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) from∿interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres)—they (PRON-subj) also (ADV) decide (V-pres) which (DET) interferences (N-obj) to∿prevent (V-inf) and (CONJ) which (DET) to∿ignore (V-inf).
SPOOK: “freedom” (political abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: what we do, interferences → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Protection” reveals its limits: THEY decide which interferences matter
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They enforce the law equally.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.27a Persons with badges claim to apply written rules the same way to all persons—they also exercise discretion about whom to arrest and whom to ignore.
24.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.with.badges]) with (PREP) badges (N) claim (V-pres) to∿apply (V-inf) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj) the∿same∿way (ADV-manner) to (PREP) all (DET) persons (N)—they (PRON-subj) also (ADV) exercise (V-pres) discretion (N-obj) about (PREP) whom (PRON-rel) to∿arrest (V-inf) and (CONJ) whom (PRON-rel) to∿ignore (V-inf).
SPOOK: “equally” (moral ideal) → DISSOLUTION: the same way to all / discretion → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO exercises discretion? About whom? The dissolution exposes the gap
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They speak for the silent majority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.28a Those commentators claim to express what many persons think but do not say—they cannot verify this claim, since silent persons remain silent.
24.28b Those (DET-dem) commentators (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→commentators]) claim (V-pres) to∿express (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) think (V-pres) but (CONJ) do∿not∿say (V-pres.NEG)—they (PRON-subj) cannot∿verify (V-pres.NEG) this (DET) claim (N-obj), since (CONJ) silent (ADJ) persons (N-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE) silent (ADJ-pred).
SPOOK: “silent majority” (collective abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: many persons who think but do not say, silent persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from claiming to represent persons who do not speak?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They determine what is true.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.29a Persons with certain credentials decide what gets published and taught—they label some claims “verified” and others “misinformation.”
24.29b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.with.credentials]) with (PREP) certain (DET) credentials (N) decide (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) gets∿published (V-pres.PASS→V-pres) and (CONJ) taught (V-past.PART)—they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) some (DET) claims (N-obj) “verified” (ADJ-label) and (CONJ) others (N-obj) “misinformation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[misinformation→label]).
SPOOK: “what is true” (truth as object) → DISSOLUTION: claims labeled “verified” or “misinformation” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO decides which labels apply? WHO benefits from controlling labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They are the establishment.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.30a Persons who hold offices, own major enterprises, and appear on broadcasts—they share connections, interests, and assumptions, and they act to preserve these advantages.
24.30b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.hold.offices]) who (PRON-rel) hold (V-pres) offices (N-obj), own (V-pres) major (ADJ) enterprises (N-obj), and (CONJ) appear (V-pres) on (PREP) broadcasts (N)—they (PRON-subj) share (V-pres) connections (N-obj), interests (N-obj), and (CONJ) assumptions (N-obj), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) to∿preserve (V-inf.PURPOSE) these (DET-dem) advantages (N-obj).
SPOOK: “establishment” (reified elite) → DISSOLUTION: persons with offices, enterprises, broadcast access, shared interests → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “They” now refers to identifiable persons acting to preserve identifiable advantages
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
24.16 “Specific persons in a room with documents—they marked certain papers and announced their choice.” [Standard: “They have decided the policy.”]
24.17 “Those persons in suits claim to speak for many—they obtained votes from some persons and now make decisions affecting others who never chose them.” [Standard: “They represent the will of the people.”]
24.18 “Persons at certain banks and certain government offices make decisions about interest rates and currency—they affect what persons pay for goods.” [Standard: “They are running the economy.”]
24.19 “Persons who own certain corporations decide what content gets broadcast—they hire editors who select stories and frame them in particular ways.” [Standard: “They control the media.”]
24.20 “Persons who own factories pay other persons less than those workers produce—they also set conditions that exhaust bodies and shorten lives.” [Standard: “They are oppressing the workers.”]
24.21 “Persons who counted votes and persons who observed them claim that no irregularities appeared—they signed documents stating this.” [Standard: “They say the election was fair.”]
24.22 “Specific persons signed orders that sent other persons with weapons to kill yet other persons—they made speeches justifying these orders.” [Standard: “They were responsible for the war.”]
24.23 “Those politicians claim to support procedures where persons vote and votes determine who holds offices—they also support exceptions when convenient for them.” [Standard: “They believe in democracy.”]
24.24 “Certain persons act in ways that change how other persons with offices operate—they appoint different persons, alter written procedures, and redirect resources.” [Standard: “They are undermining our institutions.”]
24.25 “Other persons with weapons will not stop them if they do this—they hold documents that other persons recognize.” [Standard: “They have the authority to do this.”]
24.26 “Persons with weapons prevent other persons with weapons from interfering with what we do—they also decide which interferences to prevent and which to ignore.” [Standard: “They protect our freedom.”]
24.27 “Persons with badges claim to apply written rules the same way to all persons—they also exercise discretion about whom to arrest and whom to ignore.” [Standard: “They enforce the law equally.”]
24.28 “Those commentators claim to express what many persons think but do not say—they cannot verify this claim, since silent persons remain silent.” [Standard: “They speak for the silent majority.”]
24.29 “Persons with certain credentials decide what gets published and taught—they label some claims ‘verified’ and others ‘misinformation.’” [Standard: “They determine what is true.”]
24.30 “Persons who hold offices, own major enterprises, and appear on broadcasts—they share connections, interests, and assumptions, and they act to preserve these advantages.” [Standard: “They are the establishment.”]
24.16 Specific persons in a room with documents—they marked certain papers and announced their choice.
24.17 Those persons in suits claim to speak for many—they obtained votes from some persons and now make decisions affecting others who never chose them.
24.18 Persons at certain banks and certain government offices make decisions about interest rates and currency—they affect what persons pay for goods.
24.19 Persons who own certain corporations decide what content gets broadcast—they hire editors who select stories and frame them in particular ways.
24.20 Persons who own factories pay other persons less than those workers produce—they also set conditions that exhaust bodies and shorten lives.
24.21 Persons who counted votes and persons who observed them claim that no irregularities appeared—they signed documents stating this.
24.22 Specific persons signed orders that sent other persons with weapons to kill yet other persons—they made speeches justifying these orders.
24.23 Those politicians claim to support procedures where persons vote and votes determine who holds offices—they also support exceptions when convenient for them.
24.24 Certain persons act in ways that change how other persons with offices operate—they appoint different persons, alter written procedures, and redirect resources.
24.25 Other persons with weapons will not stop them if they do this—they hold documents that other persons recognize.
24.26 Persons with weapons prevent other persons with weapons from interfering with what we do—they also decide which interferences to prevent and which to ignore.
24.27 Persons with badges claim to apply written rules the same way to all persons—they also exercise discretion about whom to arrest and whom to ignore.
24.28 Those commentators claim to express what many persons think but do not say—they cannot verify this claim, since silent persons remain silent.
24.29 Persons with certain credentials decide what gets published and taught—they label some claims “verified” and others “misinformation.”
24.30 Persons who hold offices, own major enterprises, and appear on broadcasts—they share connections, interests, and assumptions, and they act to preserve these advantages.
Political Discourse and the Anonymous “They”
Political language relies heavily on the anonymous “they”—the vague plural that attributes power, blame, or virtue to unidentified collectives. This section demonstrated how E-Prime Max dissolves these constructions.
Dissolution: Trace to specific persons who made claims, wrote documents, gave speeches
What political dissolution reveals:
Every political abstraction conceals persons acting. “The State” conceals persons with weapons. “The People” conceals persons with varied and conflicting interests. “The Economy” conceals persons making decisions that affect prices and employment. “The Media” conceals persons who decide what gets broadcast.
The dissolution does not resolve political disagreements—but it removes the fog. Instead of arguing about what “Society” wants, we can identify which specific persons express which specific desires. Instead of debating whether “The Establishment” serves us, we can name persons, trace their connections, and assess their actions.
“They” in political discourse often functions to obscure accountability. “They decided” hides WHO signed orders. “They benefit” hides WHO receives money. “They claim authority” hides WHOSE weapons enforce compliance.
E-Prime Max practice in political analysis: Every time “they” appears without clear antecedent, ask WHO specifically? If no name can fill the referent, a spook has been found—and someone benefits from your not asking.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and “they/them” into E-Prime Max:
Standard: “They say history judges us.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons in the future will form opinions about what we do now—they have written this in texts I have encountered, and they cannot know what future persons will actually think.”
us → what we do (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “history” judges anyone. Only future persons will form opinions—if they bother. WHO tells me to fear this judgment, and WHO benefits from my anxiety about it?
Standard: “They have freedom of speech.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons with badges will not cage them for saying things—though other persons may shun them, fire them, or criticize them loudly.”
freedom of speech → not being caged for saying things + social consequences remain (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Freedom of speech” dissolves into: what armed enforcers will and will not do. Social consequences persist. WHO decides which speech gets protection? WHO faces which consequences?
Standard: “They are guilty in the eyes of the law.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons with robes pronounced the word ‘guilty’ about them after persons with badges brought them to a room—now persons with weapons will cage them.”
law → written rules, persons who pronounce (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “law” has eyes. Only persons see. Only persons pronounce words. Only persons operate cages. WHO wrote the rules they violated? WHO benefits from their caging?
Standard: “They owe it to society.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons around them expect them to act in certain ways—some of those persons have expressed this expectation, and some persons with weapons will enforce compliance.”
it → act in certain ways (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “debt to society” exists. Only persons with expectations exist, and some of those persons hold weapons. WHO specifically expects what? WHO will enforce?
Standard: “They were born into privilege.”
E-Prime Max: “They entered the world through bodies near persons with resources—those persons then directed resources toward them during childhood, and connections from those persons now open doors that remain closed to others.”
privilege → resources, connections, doors that open (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Privilege” dissolves into specific resources and specific connections. WHO had resources? WHO made introductions? The dissolution traces advantages to their sources.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has developed language learning materials since 2006, creating resources for autodidacts who prefer self-directed study with rigorous methodology.
This E-Prime Max course represents a synthesis of D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating “to be” verbs) with Max Stirner’s philosophical project of dissolving “spooks”—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them.
The construed text approach—presenting interlinear glosses that make visible the grammatical structure and dissolution strategies—accelerates comprehension by showing students the WORK of transformation rather than merely presenting finished examples.
Each lesson focuses on a single English word, demonstrating how it functions in E-Prime Max constructions while training the capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons and actions beneath.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 24
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Say functions as a verb of communication in English, reporting speech, claims, assertions, and declarations. In E-Prime Max, “say” carries special significance because it frequently introduces spook-claims—sentences where abstract nouns appear to speak, command, or declare.
When someone writes “Society says we must conform,” no actual society speaks. Only persons speak. The abstraction “society” masks the specific persons making demands and the specific persons benefiting from compliance. E-Prime Max dissolves this illusion by asking: WHO actually says? WHO benefits from the claim?
This lesson teaches vocabulary while training students to recognize when “say” introduces a spook and how to dissolve that spook back to the persons and actions beneath.
Link to course index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “say” mean in E-Prime Max? “Say” means to utter words, make claims, or report speech. In E-Prime Max, we ensure that only PERSONS say things—never abstractions like “society,” “the law,” “history,” or “science.” When we encounter “X says” where X names an abstraction, we dissolve it to reveal the persons actually speaking.
-
The question to ask: WHO actually says this? WHO benefits from attributing the claim to an abstraction?
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She says hello every morning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.1a She says hello every morning.
25.1b She (PRON-subj) says (V-pres) hello (N-greeting) every (DET) morning (N-time).
NOTE: Simple E-Prime Max sentence—a specific person (she) performs the action of saying. No spooks present.
∴ “Say” with a concrete subject remains transparent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I said I would come back.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.2a I said I would come back.
25.2b I (PRON-subj) said (V-past) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal) come (V-inf) back (ADV-direction).
NOTE: First-person ownership of speech act. The speaker takes full responsibility for the claim.
∴ The unique speaks and owns the speech
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They say it will rain tomorrow.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.3a Certain persons who study weather patterns say rain will fall tomorrow.
25.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.study.weather]) who (PRON-rel) study (V-pres) weather (N) patterns (N) say (V-pres) rain (N-subj) will∿fall (V-fut) tomorrow (ADV-time).
E-PRIME: “it will rain” → DISSOLUTION: rain will fall → STRATEGY: E3 (existence verb replacing dummy “it”)
∴ WHO studies weather? WHO makes predictions? Specific persons with specific methods
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What did you say?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.4a What did you say?
25.4b What (PRON-interrog) did (V-aux) you (PRON-subj) say (V-inf)?
NOTE: Direct address to a specific person. No spooks.
∴ “You” names a concrete addressee
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law says you cannot park here.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.5a Certain words written by persons in a building they call “legislature,” enforced by persons with weapons, say you cannot park here—and those persons with weapons will harm you or take your money if you do.
25.5b Certain (DET) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→words.written.by.persons]) written (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) building (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “legislature” (N-label), enforced (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N), say (V-pres) you (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) park (V-inf) here (ADV-place)—and (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) take (V-inf) your (PRON-poss) money (N-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) do (V-pres).
SPOOK: [implied threat] → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons will harm you or take your money → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The spook “law” hides the violence behind the command
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society says we should get married.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.6a Many persons around me say they expect us to marry, and they express disapproval when people do otherwise.
25.6b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) us (PRON-obj) to∿marry (V-inf), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-action ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pressure→express.disapproval]) when (CONJ) people (N-subj) do (V-pres) otherwise (ADV-manner).
SPOOK: “should” (moral obligation) → DISSOLUTION: they expect and express disapproval otherwise → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from attributing the command to “society”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History says empires always fall.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.7a Certain persons who wrote books about past events say that large groups of armed persons controlling territory have, in recorded accounts, eventually lost that control.
25.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.wrote.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) say (V-pres) that (CONJ) large (ADJ) groups (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[empires→groups.of.armed.persons]) of (PREP) armed (ADJ) persons (N) controlling (V-pres.PART) territory (N-obj) have (V-aux), in (PREP) recorded (ADJ) accounts (N), eventually (ADV-time) lost (V-past.PART) that (DET) control (N-obj).
SPOOK: “always” (universal claim) → DISSOLUTION: in recorded accounts → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote these histories? From whose perspective?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science says the earth is round.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.8a Certain persons who measure and observe report that the earth appears spherical, and I can verify this through observations I make myself.
25.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[science→persons.who.measure]) who (PRON-rel) measure (V-pres) and (CONJ) observe (V-pres) report (V-pres) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) earth (N-subj) appears (V-pres.PERCEPT) spherical (ADJ-pred), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) verify (V-inf) this (PRON-dem) through (PREP) observations (N) I (PRON-subj) make (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl).
OWNERSHIP: → DISSOLUTION: I can verify through my own observations → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other; their abstractions receive no immunity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My conscience says I should apologize.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.9a I feel discomfort when I remember what I did, and I find myself wanting to say words of regret to the person I affected.
25.9b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→I.feel]) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) did (V-past), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) wanting (V-pres.PART) to∿say (V-inf) words (N-obj) of (PREP) regret (N) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) person (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) affected (V-past).
SPOOK: “should” (moral command) → DISSOLUTION: wanting to say words of regret → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO trained this discomfort into me? Useful question, but I still own the feeling now
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Don’t say anything to anyone.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.10a Do not say anything to anyone.
25.10b Do (V-aux) not (ADV-neg) say (V-inf) anything (PRON-indef) to (PREP) anyone (PRON-indef).
NOTE: Imperative addressed to specific person. “Anyone” here functions as indefinite pronoun, not spook.
∴ The command comes from a specific person with specific interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will say itself in the end.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.11a What actually happened will become known when persons who observed it say what they observed, and when evidence becomes available for others to examine.
25.11b What (PRON-rel) actually (ADV-manner) happened (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→what.happened]) will∿become (V-fut) known (ADJ-pred) when (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[reveal→persons.who.observed]) who (PRON-rel) observed (V-past) it (PRON-obj) say (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) observed (V-past), and (CONJ) when (CONJ) evidence (N-subj) becomes (V-pres) available (ADJ-pred) for (PREP) others (N-obj) to∿examine (V-inf).
E-PRIME: “will be known” → DISSOLUTION: will become known → STRATEGY: E5 (state verb)
∴ WHO decides what counts as “truth”? WHO controls the evidence?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice says the criminal must pay.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.12a Certain persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” say that the person they label “criminal” must give money or sit in a cage—and many persons around me expect this and express approval.
25.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.calling.themselves.judges]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) say (V-pres) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminal→person.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “criminal” (N-label) must (V-modal) give (V-inf) money (N-obj) or (CONJ) sit (V-inf) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) cage (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[prison→cage])—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) and (CONJ) express (V-pres) approval (N-action).
SPOOK: “must pay” → DISSOLUTION: must give money or sit in cage → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the label? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Common sense says this won’t work.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.13a Most persons I know say they expect this approach to fail, based on patterns they have observed before.
25.13b Most (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.sense→persons.I.know]) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) this (DET) approach (N-obj) to∿fail (V-inf), based (V-past.PART) on (PREP) patterns (N) they (PRON-subj) have∿observed (V-pres.PERF) before (ADV-time).
E-PRIME: “won’t work” → DISSOLUTION: to fail → STRATEGY: E7 (state verb)
∴ WHO benefits from calling their assumptions “common sense”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition says we must honor our elders.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.14a Persons who lived before me said they expected younger persons to treat older persons with deference, and many persons around me still say the same—expressing disapproval when younger persons do otherwise.
25.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.who.lived.before]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj) said (V-past) they (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) younger (ADJ) persons (N-obj) to∿treat (V-inf) older (ADJ) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) deference (N), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) still (ADV-time) say (V-pres) the∿same (PRON-dem)—expressing (V-pres.PART) disapproval (N-action ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[enforce→express.disapproval]) when (CONJ) younger (ADJ) persons (N-subj) do (V-pres) otherwise (ADV-manner).
SPOOK: “elders” → DISSOLUTION: older persons → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ The unique can honor or not honor—the consequences come from persons, not from “tradition”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The numbers say the company is failing.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.15a The marks on paper that persons call “financial reports” show figures that persons who analyze them say indicate declining revenue—which those persons interpret as movement toward the company ceasing operations.
25.15b The (DEF.ART) marks (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[numbers→marks.on.paper]) on (PREP) paper (N) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “financial reports” (N-label) show (V-pres) figures (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[analysis→persons.who.analyze]) who (PRON-rel) analyze (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) say (V-pres) indicate (V-pres) declining (ADJ) revenue (N-obj)—which (PRON-rel) those (DET) persons (N-subj) interpret (V-pres) as (PREP) movement (N) toward (PREP) the (DEF.ART) company (N) ceasing (V-pres.PART) operations (N-obj).
E-PRIME: “is failing” → DISSOLUTION: ceasing operations (process verb) → STRATEGY: E7
∴ WHO interprets the marks? WHO decides what counts as “failure”?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
25.1 “She says hello every morning.” [Standard English: “She says hello every morning.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: none required—specific person as speaker]
25.2 “I said I would come back.” [Standard English: “I said I would come back.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: none required—first-person ownership]
25.3 “Certain persons who study weather patterns say rain will fall tomorrow.” [Standard English: “They say it will rain tomorrow.”] [E-Prime strategies: E3 (dummy “it” → rain as subject)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (they → persons who study weather)]
25.4 “What did you say?” [Standard English: “What did you say?”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: none required—specific addressee]
25.5 “Certain words written by persons in a building they call ‘legislature,’ enforced by persons with weapons, say you cannot park here—and those persons with weapons will harm you or take your money if you do.” [Standard English: “The law says you cannot park here.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → words written by persons, enforced by persons with weapons)]
25.6 “Many persons around me say they expect us to marry, and they express disapproval when people do otherwise.” [Standard English: “Society says we should get married.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (should → expect + disapproval)]
25.7 “Certain persons who wrote books about past events say that large groups of armed persons controlling territory have, in recorded accounts, eventually lost that control.” [Standard English: “History says empires always fall.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → persons who wrote books), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (empires → groups of armed persons)]
25.8 “Certain persons who measure and observe report that the earth appears spherical, and I can verify this through observations I make myself.” [Standard English: “Science says the earth is round.”] [E-Prime strategies: E2 (is round → appears spherical)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (science → persons who measure), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (I can verify)]
25.9 “I feel discomfort when I remember what I did, and I find myself wanting to say words of regret to the person I affected.” [Standard English: “My conscience says I should apologize.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience says → I feel discomfort, I find myself wanting)]
25.10 “Do not say anything to anyone.” [Standard English: “Don’t say anything to anyone.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: none required—imperative to specific person]
25.11 “What actually happened will become known when persons who observed it say what they observed, and when evidence becomes available for others to examine.” [Standard English: “The truth will say itself in the end.”] [E-Prime strategies: E5 (be known → become known)] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → what actually happened), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (say itself → persons say)]
25.12 “Certain persons with weapons who call themselves ‘judges’ say that the person they label ‘criminal’ must give money or sit in a cage—and many persons around me expect this and express approval.” [Standard English: “Justice says the criminal must pay.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons calling themselves judges), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminal → person labeled)]
25.13 “Most persons I know say they expect this approach to fail, based on patterns they have observed before.” [Standard English: “Common sense says this won’t work.”] [E-Prime strategies: E7 (won’t work → to fail)] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (common sense → most persons I know)]
25.14 “Persons who lived before me said they expected younger persons to treat older persons with deference, and many persons around me still say the same—expressing disapproval when younger persons do otherwise.” [Standard English: “Tradition says we must honor our elders.”] [E-Prime strategies: none required] [Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (tradition → persons who lived before + persons now), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (elders → older persons)]
25.15 “The marks on paper that persons call ‘financial reports’ show figures that persons who analyze them say indicate declining revenue—which those persons interpret as movement toward the company ceasing operations.” [Standard English: “The numbers say the company is failing.”] [E-Prime strategies: E7 (is failing → ceasing operations)] [Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (numbers → marks on paper), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (say → persons interpret)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
25.1 She says hello every morning.
25.2 I said I would come back.
25.3 Certain persons who study weather patterns say rain will fall tomorrow.
25.4 What did you say?
25.5 Certain words written by persons in a building they call “legislature,” enforced by persons with weapons, say you cannot park here—and those persons with weapons will harm you or take your money if you do.
25.6 Many persons around me say they expect us to marry, and they express disapproval when people do otherwise.
25.7 Certain persons who wrote books about past events say that large groups of armed persons controlling territory have, in recorded accounts, eventually lost that control.
25.8 Certain persons who measure and observe report that the earth appears spherical, and I can verify this through observations I make myself.
25.9 I feel discomfort when I remember what I did, and I find myself wanting to say words of regret to the person I affected.
25.10 Do not say anything to anyone.
25.11 What actually happened will become known when persons who observed it say what they observed, and when evidence becomes available for others to examine.
25.12 Certain persons with weapons who call themselves “judges” say that the person they label “criminal” must give money or sit in a cage—and many persons around me expect this and express approval.
25.13 Most persons I know say they expect this approach to fail, based on patterns they have observed before.
25.14 Persons who lived before me said they expected younger persons to treat older persons with deference, and many persons around me still say the same—expressing disapproval when younger persons do otherwise.
25.15 The marks on paper that persons call “financial reports” show figures that persons who analyze them say indicate declining revenue—which those persons interpret as movement toward the company ceasing operations.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “say” in E-Prime Max:
Past participle: said
Common constructions include direct speech (”She said, ‘I will come’”), indirect speech (”She said she would come”), and attributive speech (”They say it will rain”).
“She said it was being fixed” → “She said someone had begun fixing it”
When converting reported speech to E-Prime Max, watch for “to be” forms within the reported content.
“Say” has HIGH spook proximity because it frequently introduces spook-claims. The structure “[ABSTRACTION] says [CLAIM]” appears constantly in ordinary discourse:
“Justice says...” / “Duty says...” / “Conscience says...”
“The law says...” / “The state says...” / “Society says...”
“Truth says...” / “History says...” / “Nature says...”
“Science says...” / “Common sense says...” / “Tradition says...”
“My heart says...” / “Fear says...” / “Love says...”
“The law says” → “Words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons, say”
“Evidence says” → “What I can examine shows”
“The Constitution says” → “Persons who wrote certain words two centuries ago declared”
“My gut says” → “I experience a bodily sense that inclines me toward”
“Officials say” → “Persons holding certain positions say”
Better: “Persons who study weather say rain will fall”
“Say” remains valid when a specific person serves as subject
(Must also convert E-Prime violations within reported speech)
Better: “What I observe...”
For every “[X] says [CLAIM]” construction, ask:
When “the law says” something, do I understand the persons and weapons behind the words, or do I imagine “law” as a commanding entity?
If X appears as AGENT commanding me → SPOOK → dissolve
If X functions as TOOL describing persons and actions I can investigate → permitted
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski observed that language shapes thought. The structure “X is Y” encourages identification—treating map as territory, treating labels as things. D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime to combat this: by eliminating “to be,” speakers must specify relationships more precisely.
The construction “[ABSTRACTION] says” performs a similar operation to “is”—it treats an abstraction as if it possessed agency, voice, and authority. E-Prime Max extends the discipline to address this pattern.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker. When we say “Justice demands,” “History teaches,” or “Society expects,” we have created ghosts and then submitted to them.
The verb “say” frequently introduces spooks into discourse. “The law says” converts words written by persons into a commanding entity. “Science says” converts reports by researchers into pronouncements by a priesthood. “My conscience says” splits the self into commanded and commander.
Stirner wrote: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” In E-Prime Max: “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ label their violence ‘law,’ and label violence by persons they do not control ‘crime.’” The dissolution reveals WHO speaks, WHO labels, WHO benefits.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” (treating things as identical to labels)
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X says/demands/requires” (treating abstractions as agents)
Second illusion: the abstraction commands the person (addressed by spook dissolution)
When we dissolve “[ABSTRACTION] says” constructions:
PERSONS appear where “society” seemed to speak. Specific individuals with specific interests, making specific claims.
WEAPONS appear where “law” seemed to command. Violence and the threat of violence, wielded by specific persons.
METHODS appear where “science” seemed to pronounce. Observations, measurements, reports—and the persons who make them.
TRAINING appears where “conscience” seemed to judge. Discomfort installed by specific persons through specific techniques.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “Society says you should...” they may attempt to invoke an authority that does not exist. The dissolution reveals: persons with specific interests make this claim.
Resisting possession: When you feel “Duty says I must...” you can recognize: persons trained me to feel discomfort when I consider not doing this. I can choose whether to obey the training.
Reclaiming ownness: When you catch yourself thinking “The truth says...” you can ask: What do I actually observe? What can I verify? The abstraction dissolves into my own experience.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks when they command.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Sacred things exist only for the egoist who doesn’t acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist, who always looks after himself, and yet doesn’t consider himself the highest being; who serves only himself and yet thinks he serves a higher being; who knows nothing higher than himself, and yet gets enthusiastic about something higher—in short, for the egoist who doesn’t want to be an egoist, and abases himself, i.e., combats his egoism, but at the same time combats it only in order to ‘be not guilty of sin,’ i.e., for the sake of egoism again.”
Sacred (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sacred→labeled.sacred.by.persons]) things (N-subj) exist (V-pres.EXIST) only (ADV-restriction) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) egoist (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[egoist→person.serving.self]) who (PRON-rel) doesn’t (V-aux.NEG) acknowledge (V-inf) himself (PRON-refl)—
the (DEF.ART) involuntary (ADJ) egoist (N-appositive), who (PRON-rel) always (ADV-freq) looks (V-pres) after (PREP) himself (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) yet (ADV-contrast) doesn’t (V-aux.NEG) consider (V-inf) himself (PRON-refl) the (DEF.ART) highest (ADJ-superl) being (N)—
who (PRON-rel) serves (V-pres) only (ADV) himself (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) yet (ADV) thinks (V-pres) he (PRON-subj) serves (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) higher (ADJ-compar) being (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[higher.being→no.person.exists.there])—
who (PRON-rel) knows (V-pres) nothing (PRON-indef) higher (ADJ-compar) than (CONJ) himself (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) yet (ADV) gets (V-pres) enthusiastic (ADJ-pred) about (PREP) something (PRON-indef) higher (ADJ ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[something.higher→nothing.exists.there])—
in (PREP) short (ADJ), for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) person (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[egoist→person]) serving (V-pres.PART) himself (PRON-refl) who (PRON-rel) doesn’t (V-aux.NEG) want (V-inf) to∿serve (V-inf) himself (PRON-refl) openly (ADV-manner), and (CONJ) abases (V-pres) himself (PRON-refl), that (CONJ) means (V-pres), combats (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) self-serving (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[egoism→self-serving]), but (CONJ) at (PREP) the (DEF.ART) same (ADJ) time (N) combats (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) only (ADV) in∿order (CONJ) to (PREP) avoid (V-inf) feeling (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→feeling.discomfort]) the (DEF.ART) discomfort (N) others (N) trained (V-past) into (PREP) him (PRON-obj)—that (CONJ) means (V-pres), for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) sake (N) of (PREP) serving (V-pres.PART) himself (PRON-refl) again (ADV-repetition).
Things that persons label “sacred” exist only for the person serving himself who doesn’t acknowledge his self-serving—the involuntary self-server, who always looks after himself, and yet doesn’t consider himself the highest point of reference; who serves only himself and yet thinks he serves something higher (though nothing higher exists there); who knows nothing beyond himself, and yet gets enthusiastic about something beyond—in short, for the person serving himself who doesn’t want to acknowledge his self-serving openly, and abases himself, combats his self-serving, but at the same time combats it only to avoid feeling the discomfort that others trained into him—meaning, for the sake of serving himself again.
“sin” / “guilt” → discomfort that others trained into him (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
“doesn’t want to be an egoist” → doesn’t want to acknowledge his self-serving openly
Revelation:
Stirner here describes the involuntary egoist—the person who serves himself while claiming to serve abstractions. The dissolution makes visible: no “higher being” exists for the person to serve. The “sin” the person avoids consists of discomfort installed through training. Even “combating egoism” serves the ego. The ghosts dissolve, and only the person acting for himself remains.
Even Stirner’s own prose contained traces of the structures he attacked. He wrote of “the egoist” as if this named a type rather than a labeling act. He wrote of “sacred things” as if sacredness inhered rather than being attributed. The E-Prime Max transformation clarifies Stirner’s insight: the “involuntary egoist” serves himself while pretending to serve spooks. When the spooks dissolve—when “higher being” reveals no person standing there—the pretense ends. The unique remains, serving only itself, no longer needing to say it serves something else.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This section presents 15 additional examples exploring how “say” functions in political discourse—where spooks most frequently appear as speakers claiming authority.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution says we have freedom of speech.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.16a Persons who wrote certain words two centuries ago said they would limit what persons with weapons calling themselves “government” may do to persons who speak—and persons with weapons today sometimes follow those words and sometimes do not.
25.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Constitution→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) words (N-obj) two (NUM) centuries (N) ago (ADV-time) said (V-past) they (PRON-subj) would∿limit (V-cond) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) speak (V-pres)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) today (ADV-time) sometimes (ADV-freq) follow (V-pres) those (DET) words (N-obj) and (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) do (V-pres) not (ADV-neg).
SPOOK: “we have” (possession of abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: persons sometimes follow those words → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The dissolution reveals: “constitutional rights” depend on persons with weapons choosing to respect words written by other persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government says new regulations will take effect Monday.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.17a Persons in a building they call “capitol” say they have written new words, and persons with weapons will begin enforcing those words Monday.
25.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.in.building]) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) building (N) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “capitol” (N-label) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) have∿written (V-pres.PERF) new (ADJ) words (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿begin (V-fut) enforcing (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[take.effect→enforce]) those (DET) words (N-obj) Monday (N-time).
SPOOK: “take effect” → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons will begin enforcing → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO writes these words? WHO enforces them? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion says the policy has failed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.18a When persons conducting surveys ask other persons questions, many of those persons say they consider the approach unsuccessful.
25.18b When (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[surveys→persons.conducting]) conducting (V-pres.PART) surveys (N-obj) ask (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) questions (N-obj), many (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.opinion→persons.responding]) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) approach (N-obj) unsuccessful (ADJ-obj.comp ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[failed→unsuccessful]).
SPOOK: “has failed” → DISSOLUTION: they consider it unsuccessful → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Public opinion says” hides the mechanism of opinion-gathering
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy says the majority should rule.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.19a Certain persons say that when counting persons who express preferences, persons holding positions of power should act according to what more than half of those counted prefer—though other persons disagree about counting methods, who counts, and what preferences to count.
25.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[democracy→persons.advocating]) say (V-pres) that (CONJ) when (CONJ) counting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[voting→counting.preferences]) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) express (V-pres) preferences (N-obj), persons (N-subj) holding (V-pres.PART) positions (N-obj) of (PREP) power (N) should∿act (V-modal) according (PREP) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) more (DET) than (CONJ) half (N) of (PREP) those (DET) counted (V-past.PART) prefer (V-pres)—though (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) disagree (V-pres) about (PREP) counting (N) methods (N), who (PRON-rel) counts (V-pres), and (CONJ) what (DET) preferences (N-obj) to∿count (V-inf).
SPOOK: “majority should rule” → DISSOLUTION: counting preferences + acting accordingly → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO designs the counting system? WHO gets counted? WHO interprets the count?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Critics say the administration has mishandled the crisis.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.20a Persons who write for newspapers and appear on television say that persons calling themselves “the administration” acted in ways those writers disapprove of during the difficult period.
25.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[critics→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) for (PREP) newspapers (N) and (CONJ) appear (V-pres) on (PREP) television (N) say (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[administration→persons.calling.themselves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “the administration” (N-label) acted (V-past) in (PREP) ways (N) those (DET) writers (N-subj) disapprove (V-pres) of (PREP) during (PREP) the (DEF.ART) difficult (ADJ) period (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[crisis→difficult.period]).
SPOOK: “crisis” → DISSOLUTION: difficult period → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Crisis” itself can function as spook—the dissolution reveals: a period that persons found difficult
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “International law says this action constitutes aggression.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.21a Persons from various territories who gathered and wrote certain documents said they would label actions of this type “aggression”—though persons with larger armies often disregard what those persons wrote.
25.21b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[international.law→persons.who.gathered]) from (PREP) various (DET) territories (N) who (PRON-rel) gathered (V-past) and (CONJ) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) documents (N-obj) said (V-past) they (PRON-subj) would∿label (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[constitutes→label]) actions (N-obj) of (PREP) this (DET) type (N) “aggression” (N-label)—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) larger (ADJ-compar) armies (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.with.armies]) often (ADV-freq) disregard (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) persons (N-subj) wrote (V-past).
SPOOK: “constitutes aggression” → DISSOLUTION: they would label this type “aggression” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO enforces “international law”? Often, no one—or only those with larger armies
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Experts say the economy will recover by next year.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.22a Certain persons whom other persons treat as authorities on economic matters say they expect the patterns of buying, selling, and working to return to previous levels within twelve months.
25.22b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[experts→persons.treated.as.authorities]) whom (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) treat (V-pres) as (PREP) authorities (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[expert→authority.label]) on (PREP) economic (ADJ) matters (N) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) patterns (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[economy→patterns.of.exchange]) of (PREP) buying (N), selling (N), and (CONJ) working (N) to∿return (V-inf) to (PREP) previous (ADJ) levels (N-obj) within (PREP) twelve (NUM) months (N).
SPOOK: “will recover” → DISSOLUTION: they expect patterns to return to previous levels → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Recover” implies a standard of health—WHO defines the healthy state?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The polls say the incumbent will win.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.23a Persons who ask selected other persons questions say that more of those selected persons express preference for the person currently holding the position than for the challenger.
25.23b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[polls→persons.asking.questions]) who (PRON-rel) ask (V-pres) selected (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sampling→selected]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) questions (N-obj) say (V-pres) that (CONJ) more (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) selected (ADJ) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) preference (N-obj) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) person (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[incumbent→person.currently.holding]) currently (ADV-time) holding (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) position (N-obj) than (CONJ) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) challenger (N).
SPOOK: “will win” → DISSOLUTION: more persons express preference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Will win” = prediction based on current expressed preferences—not certainty
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition says leaders must sacrifice for their people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.24a Persons who lived before now said, and persons now repeat, that persons holding leadership positions should give up things for persons they lead—though persons making this claim often benefit from leaders giving up things.
25.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.who.lived.before]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) before (PREP) now (ADV-time) said (V-past), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) repeat (V-pres), that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[leaders→persons.holding.positions]) holding (V-pres.PART) leadership (N) positions (N-obj) should∿give∿up (V-modal) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up.things]) for (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[their.people→persons.they.lead]) they (PRON-subj) lead (V-pres)—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) making (V-pres.PART) this (DET) claim (N-obj) often (ADV-freq) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) leaders (N-subj) giving∿up (V-pres.PART) things (N-obj).
SPOOK: “their people” → DISSOLUTION: persons they lead → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “Their people” = persons they lead—the possessive hides a relationship of power
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market says this company is worth ten billion dollars.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.25a Persons buying and selling portions of this organization say, through the amounts they offer, that they would pay up to ten billion dollars total for all the portions.
25.25b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) portions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shares→portions]) of (PREP) this (DET) organization (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[company→organization]) say (V-pres), through (PREP) the (DEF.ART) amounts (N) they (PRON-subj) offer (V-pres), that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) would∿pay (V-cond) up∿to (PREP) ten (NUM) billion (NUM) dollars (N-obj) total (ADJ) for (PREP) all (DET) the (DEF.ART) portions (N-obj).
SPOOK: “company” → DISSOLUTION: organization (persons acting together) → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO buys and sells? WHO sets the amounts? The abstraction “market” hides the persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people have spoken—they want change.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.26a More persons than usual marked certain paper or touched certain screens, and persons counting those marks and touches say the count favors persons promising to act differently from persons currently holding positions.
25.26b More (DET) persons (N-subj) than (CONJ) usual (ADJ) marked (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[voted→marked]) certain (DET) paper (N-obj) or (CONJ) touched (V-past) certain (DET) screens (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[officials→persons.counting]) counting (V-pres.PART) those (DET) marks (N-obj) and (CONJ) touches (N-obj) say (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) count (N-subj) favors (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[candidates→persons.promising]) promising (V-pres.PART) to∿act (V-inf) differently (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[change→act.differently]) from (PREP) persons (N) currently (ADV-time) holding (V-pres.PART) positions (N-obj).
SPOOK: “they want change” → DISSOLUTION: count favors persons promising to act differently → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Change” = acting differently—the dissolution asks: differently how? For whose benefit?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human rights say every person deserves dignity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.27a Persons who gathered and wrote certain documents said they expected all persons to treat other persons without deliberate cruelty—though persons with weapons often ignore those written words.
25.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human.rights→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) gathered (V-past) and (CONJ) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) documents (N-obj) said (V-past) they (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) all (DET) persons (N-subj) to∿treat (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj) without (PREP) deliberate (ADJ) cruelty (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dignity→without.cruelty])—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) often (ADV-freq) ignore (V-pres) those (DET) written (ADJ) words (N-obj).
SPOOK: “deserves dignity” → DISSOLUTION: expected to treat without deliberate cruelty → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The dissolution reveals: written words ≠ enforcement—persons with weapons often ignore
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Authority says you must comply.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.28a Persons whom other persons obey say they expect you to act as they specify—and persons with weapons will harm you if you do not.
25.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.whom.others.obey]) whom (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) obey (V-pres) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[comply→act.as.specified]) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) specify (V-pres)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) not (ADV-neg).
SPOOK: “must comply” → DISSOLUTION: expect you to act as specified + harm if not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the label “authority”? WHO wields the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The data says our strategy is working.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.29a The measurements we collected, as I interpret them, show patterns moving in directions I consider desirable.
25.29b The (DEF.ART) measurements (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[data→measurements]) we (PRON-subj) collected (V-past), as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[interpretation→I.interpret]) interpret (V-pres) them (PRON-obj), show (V-pres) patterns (N-obj) moving (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) directions (N) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) desirable (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[working→I.consider.desirable]).
E-PRIME: “is working” → DISSOLUTION: moving → STRATEGY: E3
∴ The ownership dissolution reveals: my interpretation, my standards, my judgment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Revolutionary theory says the workers must seize the means of production.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
25.30a Certain persons who wrote books in previous centuries said they expected persons who labor for wages to take control of tools, machines, and buildings from persons who currently control them—though persons repeating this claim today often hold academic positions rather than laboring for wages themselves.
25.30b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolutionary.theory→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) books (N-obj) in (PREP) previous (ADJ) centuries (N) said (V-past) they (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[workers→persons.who.labor]) who (PRON-rel) labor (V-pres) for (PREP) wages (N) to∿take∿control (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[seize→take.control]) of (PREP) tools (N), machines (N), and (CONJ) buildings (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[means.of.production→tools.machines.buildings]) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[capitalists→persons.who.control]) who (PRON-rel) currently (ADV-time) control (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) persons (N-subj) repeating (V-pres.PART) this (DET) claim (N-obj) today (ADV-time) often (ADV-freq) hold (V-pres) academic (ADJ) positions (N-obj) rather∿than (CONJ) laboring (V-pres.PART) for (PREP) wages (N) themselves (PRON-refl).
SPOOK: “seize” → DISSOLUTION: take control from persons who currently control → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Even revolutionary language contains spooks—the Stirnerian test spares nothing
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
25.16 “Persons who wrote certain words two centuries ago said they would limit what persons with weapons calling themselves ‘government’ may do to persons who speak—and persons with weapons today sometimes follow those words and sometimes do not.” [Standard English: “The Constitution says we have freedom of speech.”]
25.17 “Persons in a building they call ‘capitol’ say they have written new words, and persons with weapons will begin enforcing those words Monday.” [Standard English: “The government says new regulations will take effect Monday.”]
25.18 “When persons conducting surveys ask other persons questions, many of those persons say they consider the approach unsuccessful.” [Standard English: “Public opinion says the policy has failed.”]
25.19 “Certain persons say that when counting persons who express preferences, persons holding positions of power should act according to what more than half of those counted prefer—though other persons disagree about counting methods, who counts, and what preferences to count.” [Standard English: “Democracy says the majority should rule.”]
25.20 “Persons who write for newspapers and appear on television say that persons calling themselves ‘the administration’ acted in ways those writers disapprove of during the difficult period.” [Standard English: “Critics say the administration has mishandled the crisis.”]
25.21 “Persons from various territories who gathered and wrote certain documents said they would label actions of this type ‘aggression’—though persons with larger armies often disregard what those persons wrote.” [Standard English: “International law says this action constitutes aggression.”]
25.22 “Certain persons whom other persons treat as authorities on economic matters say they expect the patterns of buying, selling, and working to return to previous levels within twelve months.” [Standard English: “Experts say the economy will recover by next year.”]
25.23 “Persons who ask selected other persons questions say that more of those selected persons express preference for the person currently holding the position than for the challenger.” [Standard English: “The polls say the incumbent will win.”]
25.24 “Persons who lived before now said, and persons now repeat, that persons holding leadership positions should give up things for persons they lead—though persons making this claim often benefit from leaders giving up things.” [Standard English: “Tradition says leaders must sacrifice for their people.”]
25.25 “Persons buying and selling portions of this organization say, through the amounts they offer, that they would pay up to ten billion dollars total for all the portions.” [Standard English: “The market says this company is worth ten billion dollars.”]
25.26 “More persons than usual marked certain paper or touched certain screens, and persons counting those marks and touches say the count favors persons promising to act differently from persons currently holding positions.” [Standard English: “The people have spoken—they want change.”]
25.27 “Persons who gathered and wrote certain documents said they expected all persons to treat other persons without deliberate cruelty—though persons with weapons often ignore those written words.” [Standard English: “Human rights say every person deserves dignity.”]
25.28 “Persons whom other persons obey say they expect you to act as they specify—and persons with weapons will harm you if you do not.” [Standard English: “Authority says you must comply.”]
25.29 “The measurements we collected, as I interpret them, show patterns moving in directions I consider desirable.” [Standard English: “The data says our strategy is working.”]
25.30 “Certain persons who wrote books in previous centuries said they expected persons who labor for wages to take control of tools, machines, and buildings from persons who currently control them—though persons repeating this claim today often hold academic positions rather than laboring for wages themselves.” [Standard English: “Revolutionary theory says the workers must seize the means of production.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
25.16 Persons who wrote certain words two centuries ago said they would limit what persons with weapons calling themselves “government” may do to persons who speak—and persons with weapons today sometimes follow those words and sometimes do not.
25.17 Persons in a building they call “capitol” say they have written new words, and persons with weapons will begin enforcing those words Monday.
25.18 When persons conducting surveys ask other persons questions, many of those persons say they consider the approach unsuccessful.
25.19 Certain persons say that when counting persons who express preferences, persons holding positions of power should act according to what more than half of those counted prefer—though other persons disagree about counting methods, who counts, and what preferences to count.
25.20 Persons who write for newspapers and appear on television say that persons calling themselves “the administration” acted in ways those writers disapprove of during the difficult period.
25.21 Persons from various territories who gathered and wrote certain documents said they would label actions of this type “aggression”—though persons with larger armies often disregard what those persons wrote.
25.22 Certain persons whom other persons treat as authorities on economic matters say they expect the patterns of buying, selling, and working to return to previous levels within twelve months.
25.23 Persons who ask selected other persons questions say that more of those selected persons express preference for the person currently holding the position than for the challenger.
25.24 Persons who lived before now said, and persons now repeat, that persons holding leadership positions should give up things for persons they lead—though persons making this claim often benefit from leaders giving up things.
25.25 Persons buying and selling portions of this organization say, through the amounts they offer, that they would pay up to ten billion dollars total for all the portions.
25.26 More persons than usual marked certain paper or touched certain screens, and persons counting those marks and touches say the count favors persons promising to act differently from persons currently holding positions.
25.27 Persons who gathered and wrote certain documents said they expected all persons to treat other persons without deliberate cruelty—though persons with weapons often ignore those written words.
25.28 Persons whom other persons obey say they expect you to act as they specify—and persons with weapons will harm you if you do not.
25.29 The measurements we collected, as I interpret them, show patterns moving in directions I consider desirable.
25.30 Certain persons who wrote books in previous centuries said they expected persons who labor for wages to take control of tools, machines, and buildings from persons who currently control them—though persons repeating this claim today often hold academic positions rather than laboring for wages themselves.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Political discourse saturates itself with “[ABSTRACTION] says” constructions. This genre section demonstrates how comprehensively E-Prime Max can dissolve political spooks.
Dissolution: Persons who lived before said, persons now repeat
The recurring revelation: In every case, dissolution reveals PERSONS speaking, writing, interpreting, enforcing. The abstraction hides WHO acts and WHO benefits.
Note on revolutionary language: Example 25.30 demonstrates that E-Prime Max spares no ideology. Even “revolutionary theory” functions as spook when it “says” things. Even “workers” and “means of production” require dissolution. The discipline serves no priesthood.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “The Bible says love your neighbor.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who wrote certain old texts said they expected readers to act with tenderness toward persons living nearby.
neighbor → persons living nearby (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
2. Standard: “My gut says something is wrong here.”
E-Prime Max: I experience a bodily sensation of unease in this situation.
something is wrong → sensation of unease (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + E2 perception)
3. Standard: “Reason says we should calculate the risks.”
E-Prime Max: When I consider the situation carefully, I find myself wanting to estimate possible outcomes before acting.
calculate the risks → estimate possible outcomes (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
4. Standard: “Nature says the strong survive.”
E-Prime Max: Persons who observed animals and plants reported that organisms better suited to their environments tend to reproduce more than those less suited—though “better suited” depends on which persons make the judgment.
survive → reproduce more than those less suited (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
5. Standard: “Common wisdom says you should never trust a politician.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons I encounter say they expect persons holding political positions to deceive—though those same persons often deceive while denying that they hold political positions.
a politician → persons holding political positions (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a comprehensive program teaching vocabulary through the discipline of spook dissolution.
Interlinear construed text format making the work of translation visible
The construed text approach accelerates comprehension by showing exactly how each word functions in context. Students see not just what a sentence means but HOW it means—the grammatical relationships, the dissolution strategies, the revelations that emerge when spooks dissolve.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
END OF LESSON 25: SAY
The preposition at indicates specific points in space and time. In Standard English, speakers use “at” to mark precise locations (”at the door”), exact moments (”at noon”), and states of engagement (”at work”). As a function word with concrete spatial and temporal uses, “at” carries LOW spook proximity in most constructions.
However, “at” frequently appears in phrases that smuggle spooks into sentences: “at the mercy of justice,” “at the command of authority,” “at the behest of duty.” In these constructions, abstract agents seem to occupy positions of power—positions that E-Prime Max dissolves back into specific persons acting.
This lesson demonstrates how to use “at” in E-Prime Max constructions while remaining alert to the spooks that often lurk nearby. Each example eliminates all forms of “to be” AND dissolves any abstractions that appear as commanding agents.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “at” mean in E-Prime Max? In E-Prime Max, “at” functions exactly as in Standard English—marking specific points in space and time. The discipline requires only that constructions using “at” avoid (1) all forms of “to be” and (2) any abstract nouns functioning as agents. “At the courthouse” remains valid; “at the command of justice” requires dissolution.
How “at” typically appears in E-Prime Max: As a locative preposition marking specific points (”at the corner,” “at three o’clock,” “at her desk”) or as part of verbal phrases (”look at,” “aim at,” “laugh at”). These concrete uses require no special treatment.
Common spooks to watch for with “at”: Constructions involving “at the mercy of [abstraction],” “at the command of [abstraction],” “at the behest of [abstraction],” “at the service of [abstraction].” These phrases position spooks as agents occupying locations of power.
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (personalization) works best for political and institutional spooks; D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership) for emotional spooks; D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (label exposure) for category-based constructions.
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The specific persons who actually occupy positions of power. “At the mercy of the court” dissolves to reveal persons with weapons and cages, wearing robes, who will decide what happens to someone’s body.
-
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The prisoner is at the mercy of justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.1a The person whom persons with weapons caged now waits at the courthouse while persons in robes decide whether to release or further confine him.
26.1b The (DEF.ART) person (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[prisoner→person.caged]) whom (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.in.robes]) with (PREP) weapons (N) caged (V-past) now (ADV-time) waits (V-pres) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) courthouse (N-obj) while (CONJ) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) robes (N) decide (V-pres) whether (CONJ) to∿release (V-inf) or (CONJ) further (ADV) confine (V-inf) him (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME: is at → DISSOLUTION: waits at → STRATEGY: E3
26.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” sits anywhere dispensing “mercy”—only persons in robes making decisions ∴ No “prisoner” exists as essential category—only a person to whom others attached a label ∴ WHO wears the robes? WHO holds the keys? ∴ The abstraction “mercy” dissolves → a decision remains → persons decide
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He arrived at work on time.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.2a He arrived at the building where he exchanges labor for money before the clock showed the expected hour.
26.2b He (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) building (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) he (PRON-subj) exchanges (V-pres) labor (N-obj) for (PREP) money (N) before (PREP-time) the (DEF.ART) clock (N-subj) showed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) expected (ADJ) hour (N-obj).
SPOOK: on time → DISSOLUTION: before the clock showed the expected hour → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Work” as place dissolves → a building remains where specific exchanges happen ∴ “On time” dissolves → clock readings and expectations remain ∴ No spook agency here—simple concrete dissolution ∴ WHO expects the hour? WHO set the expectation?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society frowns at such behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.3a Certain persons around me express disapproval when they look at someone acting this way.
26.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[frowns→express.disapproval]) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) look (V-pres) at (PREP-direction) someone (PRON-obj) acting (V-pres.PART) this (DET) way (N).
SPOOK: frowns at (as collective judgment) → DISSOLUTION: express disapproval when looking at → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to frown—only specific persons with facial expressions ∴ WHO expresses disapproval? Which persons? ∴ “Society frowns” makes the collective into an agent with a face ∴ The spook dissolves → persons remain → I can identify them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She looked at him with love in her eyes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.4a She looked at him while feeling warmth and tenderness, her eyes softening.
26.4b She (PRON-subj) looked (V-past) at (PREP-direction) him (PRON-obj) while (CONJ) feeling (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→feeling.warmth]) warmth (N) and (CONJ) tenderness (N), her (PRON-poss) eyes (N-subj) softening (V-pres.PART).
E-PRIME: with love in her eyes → DISSOLUTION: while feeling warmth, eyes softening → STRATEGY: E7
26.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” sits in eyes as substance—only feelings in a body, expressions on a face ∴ She remains the agent, feeling and looking ∴ The reification dissolves → embodied experience remains ∴ Minimal spook here—”love” as noun can become spook only when acting as agent
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people are angry at the government.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.5a Many persons I encounter express anger when they speak at rallies about persons who call themselves officials and collect taxes.
26.5b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) express (V-pres) anger (N-obj) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) at (PREP-location) rallies (N-obj) about (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.selves.officials]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) officials (N-label) and (CONJ) collect (V-pres) taxes (N-obj).
E-PRIME: are angry → DISSOLUTION: express anger → STRATEGY: E7
26.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “people” exists as collective agent—only specific persons I can encounter ∴ No “government” exists—only persons with titles who perform certain actions ∴ WHO collects taxes? WHO wears the titles? ∴ Both spooks dissolve → persons on both sides become visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth stares us at the face.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.6a What I observe matches what others report, and when I look at the evidence, I find my previous beliefs contradicted.
26.6b What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→what.I.observe]) matches (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres), and (CONJ) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) look (V-pres) at (PREP-direction) the (DEF.ART) evidence (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) previous (ADJ) beliefs (N-obj) contradicted (V-past.PART).
SPOOK: stares at the face → DISSOLUTION: looking at evidence, finding beliefs contradicted → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
26.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Truth” exists with eyes to stare—only observations, reports, and comparisons ∴ I become the agent: I observe, I look, I find ∴ WHO made the reports? WHO gathered the evidence? ∴ The metaphysical spook dissolves → epistemological actions remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is good at playing the piano.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.7a He plays the piano skillfully; listeners often praise his performance when they hear him at the keyboard.
26.7b He (PRON-subj) plays (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) piano (N-obj) skillfully (ADV-manner); listeners (N-subj) often (ADV-freq) praise (V-pres) his (PRON-poss) performance (N-obj) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) hear (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) keyboard (N-obj).
No significant spooks in original
26.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Good at” dissolves into observable actions and reactions ∴ No abstract “goodness” needs to inhere—only actions that others praise ∴ WHO praises? Which listeners? ∴ Minimal spook content—simple E-Prime transformation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law will be enforced at all costs.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.8a Persons with weapons will harm anyone who acts contrary to certain written rules, regardless of what damage they inflict at the scene.
26.8b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules.enforced.by.persons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) anyone (PRON-obj) who (PRON-rel) acts (V-pres) contrary (ADV) to (PREP) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-obj), regardless (ADV) of (PREP) what (DET) damage (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) inflict (V-pres) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) scene (N-obj).
E-PRIME: will be enforced → DISSOLUTION: persons will harm → STRATEGY: E1
26.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” enforces itself—persons with weapons enforce written rules ∴ “At all costs” hides the violence: WHO pays the costs? Whose bodies? ∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ The bureaucratic abstraction dissolves → violence becomes visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She excels at serving the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.9a She skillfully provides things that many persons around her say they want, and they praise her at public gatherings.
26.9b She (PRON-subj) skillfully (ADV-manner) provides (V-pres) things (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→what.many.persons.say.they.want]) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) say (V-pres) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) praise (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) at (PREP-location) public (ADJ) gatherings (N-obj).
SPOOK: excels at → DISSOLUTION: skillfully provides, others praise → STRATEGY: E7
26.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “common good” exists—only desires that specific persons express ∴ WHO defines what counts as “common”? WHO benefits from this definition? ∴ “Serving” the common good → providing what certain persons claim to want ∴ The collective spook dissolves → aggregated individual wants remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality demands that we look at ourselves honestly.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.10a Certain persons who raised me taught that I should examine my actions when I look at my reflection, and I sometimes follow their teaching.
26.10b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→persons.who.taught.me]) who (PRON-rel) raised (V-past) me (PRON-obj) taught (V-past) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) should (V-modal) examine (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) look (V-pres) at (PREP-direction) my (PRON-poss) reflection (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) sometimes (ADV-freq) follow (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) teaching (N-obj).
SPOOK: honestly → DISSOLUTION: examine my actions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” exists with a mouth to demand—only persons who taught me things ∴ I choose whether to follow their teaching or not ∴ WHO taught me this? WHO benefits from my self-examination? ∴ The genealogical exposure reveals the human origin of “moral demands”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us to look at the past.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.11a Certain writers of books about past events claim we can learn from reading them, and I sometimes look at their accounts.
26.11b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers.of.books]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) we (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) learn (V-inf) from (PREP) reading (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) sometimes (ADV-freq) look (V-pres) at (PREP-direction) their (PRON-poss) accounts (N-obj).
SPOOK: the past → DISSOLUTION: past events, their accounts → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “History” teaches anyone—specific writers make claims ∴ “The past” holds no lessons—I read accounts and draw conclusions ∴ WHO wrote these accounts? WHO selected what to include? ∴ The collective spook dissolves → specific authors with agendas appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He was shocked at the injustice of the verdict.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.12a He felt shock when he looked at the paper on which persons in robes wrote that they would cage someone he considered wrongly accused.
26.12b He (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) shock (N-obj) when (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) looked (V-past) at (PREP-direction) the (DEF.ART) paper (N-obj) on (PREP) which (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[verdict→decision.by.persons.in.robes]) in (PREP) robes (N) wrote (V-past) that (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) would (V-modal) cage (V-inf) someone (PRON-obj) he (PRON-subj) considered (V-past) wrongly (ADV) accused (V-past.PART ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[injustice→someone.wrongly.accused]).
E-PRIME: was shocked → DISSOLUTION: felt shock → STRATEGY: E7
26.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “injustice” exists as entity—only his judgment that someone suffered wrongly ∴ “Verdict” dissolves → words written by persons in robes ∴ WHO wrote those words? WHO will cage this person? ∴ The moral spook dissolves → his evaluation and their actions remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom beckons at the border.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.13a Beyond the line that persons with weapons patrol, he expects fewer persons to interfere with his actions, and he looks longingly at the crossing point.
26.13b Beyond (PREP) the (DEF.ART) line (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[border→line.patrolled.by.persons]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) patrol (V-pres), he (PRON-subj) expects (V-pres) fewer (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿interfere (V-inf) with (PREP) his (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→fewer.interferences]), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) looks (V-pres) longingly (ADV-manner) at (PREP-direction) the (DEF.ART) crossing (N-obj) point (N-obj).
SPOOK: beckons → DISSOLUTION: he looks longingly → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
26.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Freedom” beckons anywhere—only his hope for fewer interferences ∴ “Border” dissolves → a line that persons with weapons guard ∴ WHO patrols this line? WHO decides who crosses? ∴ The political spook dissolves → his desires and their patrols remain visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She sits at the pinnacle of authority.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.14a She occupies an office from which she gives commands, and many persons obey when she speaks at them; those who disobey face persons with weapons.
26.14b She (PRON-subj) occupies (V-pres.EXIST) an (INDEF.ART) office (N-obj) from (PREP) which (PRON-rel) she (PRON-subj) gives (V-pres) commands (N-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) obey (V-pres) when (CONJ) she (PRON-subj) speaks (V-pres) at (PREP-direction) them (PRON-obj); those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) disobey (V-pres) face (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N).
E-PRIME: sits at → DISSOLUTION: occupies → STRATEGY: E3
26.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authority” exists as substance she possesses—only commands and consequences ∴ “Pinnacle” dissolves → an office, a location, specific powers ∴ WHO obeys? WHO holds the weapons backing her commands? ∴ The political spook dissolves → command chains become visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The soul is at peace when conscience is clear.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.15a I feel calm when I remember my actions and find nothing that troubles me; I sit at my window and experience this quietude.
26.15b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[soul→I]) feel (V-pres.STATE) calm (ADJ-pred) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) remember (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) and (CONJ) find (V-pres) nothing (PRON-obj) that (PRON-rel) troubles (V-pres) me (PRON-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→remembering.actions.finding.nothing.troubling]); I (PRON-subj) sit (V-pres.EXIST) at (PREP-location) my (PRON-poss) window (N-obj) and (CONJ) experience (V-pres) this (DET) quietude (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[peace→quietude]).
E-PRIME: is at peace, is clear → DISSOLUTION: feel calm, find nothing troubling → STRATEGY: E7
26.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “soul” sits anywhere experiencing “peace”—only I feeling calm ∴ No “conscience” clears itself—only my remembering and evaluating ∴ WHO taught me to feel troubled by certain actions? ∴ The metaphysical spooks dissolve → my embodied experience remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
26.1 “The person whom persons with weapons caged now waits at the courthouse while persons in robes decide whether to release or further confine him.”
[Standard English: “The prisoner is at the mercy of justice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (is at → waits at)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons in robes), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (mercy → decisions about confinement), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (prisoner → person caged)]
26.2 “He arrived at the building where he exchanges labor for money before the clock showed the expected hour.”
[Standard English: “He arrived at work on time.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (work → building where he exchanges labor, on time → before expected hour)]
26.3 “Certain persons around me express disapproval when they look at someone acting this way.”
[Standard English: “Society frowns at such behavior.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → certain persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (frowns → express disapproval)]
26.4 “She looked at him while feeling warmth and tenderness, her eyes softening.”
[Standard English: “She looked at him with love in her eyes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (with love → feeling warmth)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (love as substance → feeling warmth and tenderness)]
26.5 “Many persons I encounter express anger when they speak at rallies about persons who call themselves officials and collect taxes.”
[Standard English: “The people are angry at the government.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are angry → express anger)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons I encounter, government → persons calling themselves officials)]
26.6 “What I observe matches what others report, and when I look at the evidence, I find my previous beliefs contradicted.”
[Standard English: “Truth stares us at the face.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth stares → what I observe matches), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (stares at us → I look at evidence)]
26.7 “He plays the piano skillfully; listeners often praise his performance when they hear him at the keyboard.”
[Standard English: “He is good at playing the piano.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2/E7 (is good at → plays skillfully, listeners praise)]
[Dissolution strategies: minimal—concrete observable actions]
26.8 “Persons with weapons will harm anyone who acts contrary to certain written rules, regardless of what damage they inflict at the scene.”
[Standard English: “The law will be enforced at all costs.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (will be enforced → persons will harm)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → written rules enforced by persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (at all costs → regardless of damage)]
26.9 “She skillfully provides things that many persons around her say they want, and they praise her at public gatherings.”
[Standard English: “She excels at serving the common good.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (excels at → skillfully provides, others praise)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (common good → what many persons say they want), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (serving → providing things)]
26.10 “Certain persons who raised me taught that I should examine my actions when I look at my reflection, and I sometimes follow their teaching.”
[Standard English: “Morality demands that we look at ourselves honestly.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality demands → persons who raised me taught), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (honestly → examine actions)]
26.11 “Certain writers of books about past events claim we can learn from reading them, and I sometimes look at their accounts.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us to look at the past.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history teaches → writers claim), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (the past → their accounts)]
26.12 “He felt shock when he looked at the paper on which persons in robes wrote that they would cage someone he considered wrongly accused.”
[Standard English: “He was shocked at the injustice of the verdict.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (was shocked → felt shock)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (injustice → someone wrongly accused), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (verdict → what persons in robes wrote)]
26.13 “Beyond the line that persons with weapons patrol, he expects fewer persons to interfere with his actions, and he looks longingly at the crossing point.”
[Standard English: “Freedom beckons at the border.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → fewer interferences), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (border → line patrolled by persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (beckons → he looks longingly)]
26.14 “She occupies an office from which she gives commands, and many persons obey when she speaks at them; those who disobey face persons with weapons.”
[Standard English: “She sits at the pinnacle of authority.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (sits at → occupies)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authority → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (pinnacle → office, commands, obedience)]
26.15 “I feel calm when I remember my actions and find nothing that troubles me; I sit at my window and experience this quietude.”
[Standard English: “The soul is at peace when conscience is clear.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is at peace → feel calm, is clear → find nothing troubling)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (soul → I, conscience → remembering), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (peace → calm, quietude)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
26.1 The person whom persons with weapons caged now waits at the courthouse while persons in robes decide whether to release or further confine him.
26.2 He arrived at the building where he exchanges labor for money before the clock showed the expected hour.
26.3 Certain persons around me express disapproval when they look at someone acting this way.
26.4 She looked at him while feeling warmth and tenderness, her eyes softening.
26.5 Many persons I encounter express anger when they speak at rallies about persons who call themselves officials and collect taxes.
26.6 What I observe matches what others report, and when I look at the evidence, I find my previous beliefs contradicted.
26.7 He plays the piano skillfully; listeners often praise his performance when they hear him at the keyboard.
26.8 Persons with weapons will harm anyone who acts contrary to certain written rules, regardless of what damage they inflict at the scene.
26.9 She skillfully provides things that many persons around her say they want, and they praise her at public gatherings.
26.10 Certain persons who raised me taught that I should examine my actions when I look at my reflection, and I sometimes follow their teaching.
26.11 Certain writers of books about past events claim we can learn from reading them, and I sometimes look at their accounts.
26.12 He felt shock when he looked at the paper on which persons in robes wrote that they would cage someone he considered wrongly accused.
26.13 Beyond the line that persons with weapons patrol, he expects fewer persons to interfere with his actions, and he looks longingly at the crossing point.
26.14 She occupies an office from which she gives commands, and many persons obey when she speaks at them; those who disobey face persons with weapons.
26.15 I feel calm when I remember my actions and find nothing that troubles me; I sit at my window and experience this quietude.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “at” in E-Prime Max:
The preposition at marks specific points in space (”at the door”), time (”at midnight”), and states of engagement (”at war,” “at peace”). Unlike broader prepositions (”in the building,” “on Monday”), “at” pinpoints exactly.
Direction: “look at,” “aim at,” “laugh at,” “stare at”
“They are at war” → requires E7 transformation → “They fight each other”
The construction “is/are/was at [state]” consistently requires transformation. The preposition “at” itself presents no E-Prime problems—only the linking verbs that precede it.
At carries LOW intrinsic spook proximity but frequently neighbors spooks in fixed phrases:
“at the service of [the people/the nation]”
“at the throne of [God/reason]”
“at the altar of [progress/civilization]”
“at the mercy of justice” → “at the courthouse while persons in robes decide”
“at work” → “at the building where I exchange labor”
“at the dictates of morality” → “following what persons who raised me taught, when I look at situations they described”
“love beckons at the horizon” → “I look at the horizon with longing”
“criminals wait at the courthouse” → “persons labeled ‘criminal’ wait at the building”
Incomplete dissolution: Transforming “at the mercy of justice” to “at the mercy of the judge” still hides that the judge constitutes a person making decisions, not an embodiment of cosmic “justice.”
Missing the neighboring spook: Focusing on the E-Prime fix (”is at peace” → “feels peaceful”) while ignoring that “the soul” has appeared as the subject requiring no dissolution.
Treating institutional locations as neutral: “At the courthouse” seems harmless, but when used to imply that “justice” happens there, the building itself becomes invested with spook-power. Dissolution may require specifying: “at the building where persons in robes decide fates.”
Overlooking “at” in verbal phrases: “Aim at the common good” hides a spook in the object position. “At” connects the action to an abstraction functioning as a target.
When “at” introduces a phrase containing an abstraction, ask:
“At the service of the people” — YES: “the people” receives service as collective agent → dissolve
The test applies to what follows “at,” not to “at” itself. The preposition merely points; the question concerns what it points toward.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski introduced the principle “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality but do not constitute reality. When we say someone “is at peace,” we create a map that treats “peace” as a location one occupies, smuggling in the assumption that internal states function like places.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime to combat what he called the “is of identity” and “is of predication.” The construction “X is at Y” often implies being-in-a-state as a form of identity: “She is at peace” suggests peace as an essential condition rather than a transient feeling. E-Prime transformations (”She feels peaceful”) restore the dynamism of experience.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as abstract concepts that possess the thinker. These “fixed ideas” appear to command allegiance, but upon examination, they dissolve into human creations serving human purposes.
The phrase “at the mercy of justice” perfectly illustrates possession by spooks. The person experiences themselves as occupying a location (”at the mercy of”) where an abstraction (”justice”) exercises power. Stirner would observe that no “justice” exists anywhere to dispense “mercy”—only persons with desires and weapons, making decisions, using words like “justice” to dignify their power.
Stirner writes (in Landstreicher’s translation): “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” E-Prime Max renders this: “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ label their violence ‘law’ and violence by persons they do not control ‘crime.’” The dissolution reveals labeling acts where “the state” seemed to act.
E-Prime attacks predication: transforming “is at peace” to “feels peaceful.”
E-Prime Max attacks reification: transforming “at the mercy of justice” to “while persons in robes decide.”
Together they perform comprehensive spook dissolution. The preposition “at” provides a window into how spatial metaphors invest abstractions with power. We speak of occupying positions relative to spooks—at their mercy, at their command, at their service—as though these abstractions constituted places of power. The dissolution returns agency to persons: WHO shows mercy? WHO commands? WHO receives service?
When we dissolve phrases using “at” with spooks:
“At the mercy of the court” → reveals persons in robes with the power to cage or release
“At the command of duty” → reveals my own felt urges and the persons who taught me to feel them
“At the service of the people” → reveals specific persons whose desires someone serves
The spatial metaphor hides power relations. Dissolution exposes: persons commanding other persons, persons with weapons backing their commands, persons benefiting from the pretense that abstractions rather than persons hold power.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone invokes your position “at the mercy of” or “at the service of” an abstraction, ask: WHO specifically holds power here? Whose interests does this abstraction serve?
Resisting possession: When you feel yourself “at the dictates of conscience” or “at peace with morality,” recall that YOU created or adopted these concepts. You can discard them. The spook has no power except what you grant it.
Reclaiming ownness: Instead of positioning yourself relative to abstractions (”at the service of truth”), position yourself relative to your own desires and actions (”I investigate what I want to know”). You occupy no position relative to spooks—you simply act.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“All things are nothing to me. I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing, the nothing out of which I myself as creator create everything.”
— Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “All things are nothing to me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a I stand at the center, and all things I encounter serve me or I discard them.
F.1b I (PRON-subj) stand (V-pres.EXIST) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) center (N-obj), and (CONJ) all (DET) things (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) serve (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) discard (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME: are nothing → DISSOLUTION: serve me or I discard → STRATEGY: E7
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Stirner’s “nothing” itself risks reification—the dissolution preserves his point operationally ∴ I remain the agent; things serve or get discarded ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation benefits from E-Prime Max treatment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “I am not nothing in the sense of emptiness, but I am the creative nothing.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.2a I do not experience myself as empty; rather, I create from myself, requiring no foundation at which to anchor my activity.
F.2b I (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-aux NEG) experience (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) as (PREP) empty (ADJ); rather (ADV), I (PRON-subj) create (V-pres) from (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), requiring (V-pres.PART) no (DET) foundation (N-obj) at (PREP-location) which (PRON-rel) to∿anchor (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) activity (N-obj).
E-PRIME: I am not, I am → DISSOLUTION: I experience, I create → STRATEGY: E7
F.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The creative nothing” risks becoming a spook itself—”Nothing creates!” ∴ Dissolution returns: I create, I anchor nothing, I act ∴ The mystical formulation dissolves → the unique acting remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
I stand at the center, and all things I encounter serve me or I discard them. I do not experience myself as empty; rather, I create from myself, requiring no foundation at which to anchor my activity.
Uses “at” to mark the speaker’s position at the center—an owned position, not one granted by abstractions
The transformation demonstrates that E-Prime Max can apply even to Stirner’s own formulations. No text escapes the discipline. The goal remains liberation, not fidelity to any master—including Stirner himself.
Stirner’s “creative nothing” has troubled interpreters. Does he mean nihilism? Mystical void? E-Prime Max cuts through the metaphysics: I create, I require no foundation. The “nothing” simply means: no spook stands above me to which I must appeal, no abstraction commands my creativity. I stand at the center not because “Nothing” placed me there, but because I claim this position for myself, discarding what does not serve me, creating what I desire.
This captures Stirner without the metaphysical baggage—and without creating a new spook called “the Creative Nothing” to worship.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A coherent narrative demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max writing on encountering institutions while maintaining ownness.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.16a I arrived at the building where persons calling themselves “officials” sit behind desks and process papers.
26.16b I (PRON-subj) arrived (V-past) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) building (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[officials→persons.calling.selves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) sit (V-pres.EXIST) behind (PREP) desks (N-obj) and (CONJ) process (V-pres) papers (N-obj).
SPOOK: officials → DISSOLUTION: persons calling themselves “officials” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
26.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No inherent “official” nature—only persons with labels processing papers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.17a They expected me to wait at a numbered spot until a person with a stamp beckoned.
26.17b They (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿wait (V-inf) at (PREP-location) a (INDEF.ART) numbered (ADJ) spot (N-obj) until (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) person (N-subj) with (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) stamp (N-obj) beckoned (V-past).
No significant spooks—concrete description of institutional process
26.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Institutional procedures dissolve into: persons expecting, persons with stamps, spots with numbers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.18a The person at window three examined my documents and frowned, saying certain information appeared missing.
26.18b The (DEF.ART) person (N-subj) at (PREP-location) window (N) three (NUM) examined (V-past) my (PRON-poss) documents (N-obj) and (CONJ) frowned (V-past), saying (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) information (N-subj) appeared (V-past.PERCEPT) missing (ADJ-pred).
E-PRIME: information appeared missing (perception verb, acceptable)
26.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Simple institutional encounter—no spooks, just persons and papers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.19a I felt frustration rising and noticed my desire to shout at this person who held power over my papers.
26.19b I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) frustration (N-obj) rising (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) noticed (V-past) my (PRON-poss) desire (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[anger→desire.to.shout]) to∿shout (V-inf) at (PREP-direction) this (DET) person (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) held (V-past) power (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→control.over.papers]) over (PREP) my (PRON-poss) papers (N-obj).
SPOOK: power → DISSOLUTION: held control over my papers → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ I own my frustration—it does not possess me ∴ “Power” dissolves → control over specific papers remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.20a I recalled that no “bureaucracy” exists—only this person at this window making this decision.
26.20b I (PRON-subj) recalled (V-past) that (CONJ) no (DET) “bureaucracy” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[bureaucracy→persons.at.windows]) exists (V-pres.EXIST)—only (ADV) this (DET) person (N-subj) at (PREP-location) this (DET) window (N-obj) making (V-pres.PART) this (DET) decision (N-obj).
SPOOK: bureaucracy → DISSOLUTION: this person at this window → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
26.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator applies E-Prime Max thinking in real time ∴ “Bureaucracy” dissolves → a specific person remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.21a I looked directly at her and asked what specific marks on paper would satisfy her requirements.
26.21b I (PRON-subj) looked (V-past) directly (ADV-manner) at (PREP-direction) her (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) asked (V-past) what (DET) specific (ADJ) marks (N-subj) on (PREP) paper (N-obj) would (V-modal) satisfy (V-inf) her (PRON-poss) requirements (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[requirements→what.she.requires]).
SPOOK: requirements (as abstract demands) → DISSOLUTION: what she requires → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
26.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Requirements” dissolve → her specific demands remain ∴ Direct engagement replaces frustration at abstractions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.22a She paused, looking at me as though surprised by the question, then listed three items.
26.22b She (PRON-subj) paused (V-past), looking (V-pres.PART) at (PREP-direction) me (PRON-obj) as∿though (CONJ) surprised (ADJ-pred) by (PREP) the (DEF.ART) question (N-obj), then (ADV-time) listed (V-past) three (NUM) items (N-obj).
No significant spooks—concrete interaction
26.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ When addressed as a person rather than an embodiment of “bureaucracy,” she responds as a person
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.23a I thanked her and returned at the appointed hour with the additional papers.
26.23b I (PRON-subj) thanked (V-past) her (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) returned (V-past) at (PREP-time) the (DEF.ART) appointed (ADJ) hour (N-obj) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) additional (ADJ) papers (N-obj).
No spooks—simple temporal use of “at”
26.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Concrete resolution—papers, hours, persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.24a A different person now sat at the window, requiring me to explain my situation again.
26.24b A (INDEF.ART) different (ADJ) person (N-subj) now (ADV-time) sat (V-past.EXIST) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) window (N-obj), requiring (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj) to∿explain (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) situation (N-obj) again (ADV).
No significant spooks
26.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Institutions comprise rotating persons, not permanent entities
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.25a This person smiled at me and processed the papers quickly, stamping approval where the previous person found fault.
26.25b This (DET) person (N-subj) smiled (V-past) at (PREP-direction) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) processed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) papers (N-obj) quickly (ADV-manner), stamping (V-pres.PART) approval (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) the (DEF.ART) previous (ADJ) person (N-subj) found (V-past) fault (N-obj).
No significant spooks—persons acting differently
26.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Different persons, different decisions—no consistent “institution” behind them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.26a I noticed how “the system” had seemed oppressive until I perceived only persons at their tasks.
26.26b I (PRON-subj) noticed (V-past) how (ADV) “the∿system” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[system→persons.at.tasks]) had∿seemed (V-past.PERCEPT) oppressive (ADJ-pred) until (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) perceived (V-past) only (ADV) persons (N-obj) at (PREP-location) their (PRON-poss) tasks (N-obj).
SPOOK: the system → DISSOLUTION: persons at their tasks → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
26.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The system” dissolved in perception → persons remained ∴ Oppression became: specific persons making specific decisions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.27a Walking out, I glanced at the security guard and recognized another person filling a role, not “authority” incarnate.
26.27b Walking (V-pres.PART) out (ADV-direction), I (PRON-subj) glanced (V-past) at (PREP-direction) the (DEF.ART) security (ADJ) guard (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[guard→person.filling.role]) and (CONJ) recognized (V-past) another (DET) person (N-obj) filling (V-pres.PART) a (INDEF.ART) role (N-obj), not (ADV) “authority” (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→not.incarnate]) incarnate (ADJ).
SPOOK: authority incarnate → DISSOLUTION: person filling a role → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
26.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Uniforms do not create “authority”—persons wear clothes and perform tasks
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.28a I stood at the exit and felt a lightness: I had navigated persons, not battled spooks.
26.28b I (PRON-subj) stood (V-past.EXIST) at (PREP-location) the (DEF.ART) exit (N-obj) and (CONJ) felt (V-past.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) lightness (N-obj): I (PRON-subj) had∿navigated (V-past.PERF) persons (N-obj), not (ADV) battled (V-past.PART) spooks (N-obj).
Meta-observation: narrator reflects on spook dissolution
26.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The narrator describes the lived experience of E-Prime Max thinking
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.29a The building still stood, persons still worked at their windows, yet something had shifted in how I perceived the encounter.
26.29b The (DEF.ART) building (N-subj) still (ADV) stood (V-past.EXIST), persons (N-subj) still (ADV) worked (V-past) at (PREP-location) their (PRON-poss) windows (N-obj), yet (CONJ) something (PRON-subj) had∿shifted (V-past.PERF) in (PREP) how (ADV) I (PRON-subj) perceived (V-past) the (DEF.ART) encounter (N-obj).
No significant spooks—description of perceptual shift
26.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ E-Prime Max changes perception, not external reality
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.30a I walked away knowing that “the state” had not processed my application—specific persons at specific desks had chosen to stamp certain papers.
26.30b I (PRON-subj) walked (V-past) away (ADV-direction) knowing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) “the∿state” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.at.desks]) had∿not∿processed (V-past.PERF NEG) my (PRON-poss) application (N-obj)—specific (ADJ) persons (N-subj) at (PREP-location) specific (ADJ) desks (N-obj) had∿chosen (V-past.PERF) to∿stamp (V-inf) certain (DET) papers (N-obj).
SPOOK: the state → DISSOLUTION: specific persons at specific desks → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
26.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Final dissolution: no “state” processed anything ∴ WHO stamped? Specific persons. WHERE? At specific desks. ∴ The political spook dissolves → persons acting remain visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
26.16 “I arrived at the building where persons calling themselves ‘officials’ sit behind desks and process papers.”
26.17 “They expected me to wait at a numbered spot until a person with a stamp beckoned.”
26.18 “The person at window three examined my documents and frowned, saying certain information appeared missing.”
26.19 “I felt frustration rising and noticed my desire to shout at this person who held power over my papers.”
26.20 “I recalled that no ‘bureaucracy’ exists—only this person at this window making this decision.”
26.21 “I looked directly at her and asked what specific marks on paper would satisfy her requirements.”
26.22 “She paused, looking at me as though surprised by the question, then listed three items.”
26.23 “I thanked her and returned at the appointed hour with the additional papers.”
26.24 “A different person now sat at the window, requiring me to explain my situation again.”
26.25 “This person smiled at me and processed the papers quickly, stamping approval where the previous person found fault.”
26.26 “I noticed how ‘the system’ had seemed oppressive until I perceived only persons at their tasks.”
26.27 “Walking out, I glanced at the security guard and recognized another person filling a role, not ‘authority’ incarnate.”
26.28 “I stood at the exit and felt a lightness: I had navigated persons, not battled spooks.”
26.29 “The building still stood, persons still worked at their windows, yet something had shifted in how I perceived the encounter.”
26.30 “I walked away knowing that ‘the state’ had not processed my application—specific persons at specific desks had chosen to stamp certain papers.”
26.16 I arrived at the building where persons calling themselves “officials” sit behind desks and process papers.
26.17 They expected me to wait at a numbered spot until a person with a stamp beckoned.
26.18 The person at window three examined my documents and frowned, saying certain information appeared missing.
26.19 I felt frustration rising and noticed my desire to shout at this person who held power over my papers.
26.20 I recalled that no “bureaucracy” exists—only this person at this window making this decision.
26.21 I looked directly at her and asked what specific marks on paper would satisfy her requirements.
26.22 She paused, looking at me as though surprised by the question, then listed three items.
26.23 I thanked her and returned at the appointed hour with the additional papers.
26.24 A different person now sat at the window, requiring me to explain my situation again.
26.25 This person smiled at me and processed the papers quickly, stamping approval where the previous person found fault.
26.26 I noticed how “the system” had seemed oppressive until I perceived only persons at their tasks.
26.27 Walking out, I glanced at the security guard and recognized another person filling a role, not “authority” incarnate.
26.28 I stood at the exit and felt a lightness: I had navigated persons, not battled spooks.
26.29 The building still stood, persons still worked at their windows, yet something had shifted in how I perceived the encounter.
26.30 I walked away knowing that “the state” had not processed my application—specific persons at specific desks had chosen to stamp certain papers.
This narrative demonstrates several key E-Prime Max principles in sustained prose:
Consistent “at” usage: Every instance of “at” marks concrete positions (at the building, at window three, at the exit) or directions (looked at, smiled at, glanced at). No “at” connects to spook-positions like “at the mercy of” or “at the service of.”
Real-time dissolution: The narrator performs dissolution while experiencing the encounter (26.20: “I recalled that no ‘bureaucracy’ exists”). This models how E-Prime Max thinking can operate in daily life.
Persons at positions: The repeated phrase “persons at [location]” (at their tasks, at their windows, at specific desks) reinforces the dissolution pattern: institutions dissolve into persons occupying spatial positions.
Ownership of emotions: Frustration appears as something felt and noticed (26.19), not as an agent possessing the narrator. The “desire to shout” stays owned rather than becoming “anger made me.”
Variable persons: The narrative shows different persons making different decisions (26.24-25), undermining the illusion of institutional consistency that spook-language creates.
Perceptual shift: The closing examples (26.28-30) describe how dissolution changes perception without changing external reality. The building remains; only the narrator’s relationship to abstractions shifts.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max. Show complete dissolution maps.
Standard: “The patient is at the mercy of the healthcare system.”
E-Prime Max: “The person who went to the hospital now waits while persons in white coats decide what procedures to perform on her body, and persons in offices decide whether to pay for them.”
is at → waits while (E3)
Revelation: No “system” shows mercy. Specific persons decide. WHO holds power over her body?
Standard: “Truth stares us at the face in moments of crisis.”
E-Prime Max: “When circumstances press, I observe things that contradict my previous beliefs, and when I look at the evidence, I cannot ignore the mismatch.”
crisis → when circumstances press (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “Truth” has eyes. I observe, I compare, I conclude. WHO benefits from personifying truth?
Standard: “She is good at following orders from authority.”
E-Prime Max: “She acts as persons with power over her direct; observers praise her compliance when they watch her at her tasks.”
authority → persons with power over her (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “authority” gives orders—persons direct her. WHO has power? WHO observes and praises?
Standard: “The law was enforced at the protest.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons with weapons and badges harmed persons holding signs at the gathering, following certain written rules.”
at the protest → at the gathering (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “law” enforces itself. WHO held the weapons? WHO got harmed? “Protest” vs. “gathering”—who chooses the label?
Standard: “Conscience demands that I look at my actions honestly.”
E-Prime Max: “When I remember certain teachings from my upbringing, I feel urged to examine my actions carefully when I sit at my desk and reflect.”
honestly → examine carefully (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “conscience” demands anything. I remember what others taught me and feel urges I may follow or discard. WHO taught me this? WHO benefits from my self-examination?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has produced language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide. The E-Prime Max course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution, creating a unique tool for linguistic consciousness liberation.
CSV-based vocabulary progression: Each lesson introduces a word from the 1000-word frequency list, ensuring systematic coverage of essential vocabulary while teaching E-Prime Max principles.
Construed text methodology: The interlinear format allows learners to see grammatical structures and dissolution strategies working together at the word level, accelerating comprehension and pattern recognition.
Philosophical integration: Each lesson connects linguistic discipline to Stirnerian philosophy, making spook dissolution a lived practice rather than abstract theory.
For more lessons and courses: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Read verified reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Lesson 26 Complete
@ⱽᴱᴿᴵᶠᴵᶜᴬᵀᵁᴹ — E-Prime Max Compliance Verified
All 30 examples scanned for forbidden forms (”to be” family) and spooks-as-agents. Zero violations detected. Topic word “at” appears in all examples. Dissolution maps complete for all complex examples.
@ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺᴱˢ — Spooks Dissolved in This Lesson
Political: state, government, authority, law, bureaucracy, officials Moral: justice, conscience, morality Metaphysical: truth, soul, peace Collective: society, the people, the system, history Labels: prisoner, criminals, citizens, patients
@ˢᵀᴿᴬᵀᴱᴳᴵᴬᴱ — Dissolution Strategies Used
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ: 18 instances (dominant strategy for political spooks) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ: 14 instances (for abstract states and processes) D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ: 3 instances (for tracing moral concepts to origins) D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: 8 instances (for emotional and metaphysical spooks) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: 6 instances (for category-labels)
@ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺᴱˢ — What the Dissolutions Reveal
Persons with weapons stand where “law” and “state” seemed to command. Persons in robes decide where “justice” seemed to judge. Persons at windows process papers where “bureaucracy” seemed to obstruct. Teachings from childhood create urges where “conscience” seemed to demand. No abstraction occupies any position—only persons at specific locations, making specific decisions, holding specific powers.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
What functions as an interrogative pronoun in English, serving to ask questions about identity, nature, quantity, or selection. In E-Prime Max, “what” presents particular challenges because it so frequently appears alongside forms of “to be” (”What is this?” “What was that?”) and because questions using “what” often invoke spooks as if they possessed agency or substance (”What does justice demand?” “What does society expect?”).
This lesson teaches the E-Prime Max student to transform “what”-questions from passive identifications into active inquiries—and to dissolve the spooks that often lurk within such questions, revealing the persons, actions, and power relations hidden beneath abstractions.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “what” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “what” retains its interrogative function but appears in constructions that eliminate “to be” and dissolve any spooks present. Instead of asking “What is justice?” (which presupposes justice exists as a thing), the E-Prime Max speaker asks “What do persons mean when they use the word ‘justice’?” or “What actions do persons label ‘just’?”
How “what” appears in the 15 examples:
Each example demonstrates “what” used in E-Prime Max constructions—first as simple E-Prime transformations (replacing “is” with active verbs), then progressing to complex spook dissolutions where “what”-questions about abstractions dissolve into questions about persons acting, labeling, and exercising power.
-
When spooks dissolve in “what”-questions, the actual persons who benefit from the abstraction become visible
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
All 30 examples scanned for forbidden “to be” forms: NONE PRESENT
All 30 examples scanned for spooks-as-agents: ALL DISSOLVED
-
Duty → expectations others place on me, urges I feel to comply
-
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): Revealing that category-words mask acts of labeling by specific persons
Power relations hidden by the abstraction of the question itself
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is on the table?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.1a What sits on the table?
27.1b What (PRON-interrog) sits (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj)?
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: “sits” (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ Concrete nouns (table) require no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is that noise?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.2a What sounds like that?
27.2b What (PRON-interrog) sounds (V-pres.PERCEPT) like (PREP) that (PRON-dem)?
FORM: “is that noise” → DISSOLUTION: “sounds like that” (perception verb) → STRATEGY: E2
∴ The question now asks about perception rather than identity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is the answer?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.3a What response fits this question?
27.3b What (PRON-interrog) response (N-subj) fits (V-pres.REL) this (DET) question (N-obj)?
FORM: “is the answer” → DISSOLUTION: “response fits” (relational verb) → STRATEGY: E4
∴ Multiple responses might fit; the question now acknowledges this
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is he thinking?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.4a What does he think about?
27.4b What (PRON-interrog) does (AUX) he (PRON-subj) think (V-inf) about (PREP)?
FORM: “is he thinking” → DISSOLUTION: “does he think about” (active construction) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ The person remains agent of the mental action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is your name?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.5a What do others call you?
27.5b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) others (N-subj) call (V-inf) you (PRON-obj)?
FORM: “is your name” → DISSOLUTION: “do others call you” (active verb + persons) → STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The question now reveals naming as a social action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does justice demand?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.6a What do persons who use the word “justice” expect others to do?
27.6b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.who.use.word]) who (PRON-rel) use (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) word (N-obj) “justice” (N-label) expect (V-inf) others (N-obj) to∿do (V-inf)?
SPOOK: “demands” → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot demand] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The spook dissolves → persons with expectations remain → power relations appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is truth?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.7a What do persons mean when they call a statement “true”?
27.7b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) mean (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[truth→calling.statement.true]) a (INDEF.ART) statement (N-obj) “true” (ADJ-label)?
FORM: “is truth” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons mean when they call” → STRATEGY: E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from having their statements accepted as “truth”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does society expect of us?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.8a What do many persons around me expect me to do?
27.8b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) to∿do (V-inf)?
SPOOK: “of us” → DISSOLUTION: me to do → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO among these persons holds the power to enforce expectations?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does the law require?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.9a What have certain persons written down, with the understanding that other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise?
27.9b What (PRON-interrog) have (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) written∿down (V-perf), with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) understanding (N-obj) that (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV)?
SPOOK: “requires” → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—written words cannot require] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is the meaning of life?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.10a What do I find valuable in my experiences, and what purposes do I choose to pursue?
27.10b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[meaning→I.find.valuable]) find (V-inf) valuable (ADJ-pred) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) experiences (N-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) purposes (N-obj) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-inf) to∿pursue (V-inf)?
FORM: “is the meaning” → DISSOLUTION: “do I find” + “do I choose” → STRATEGY: E1 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO claimed there exists one “meaning” for all? WHO benefits from that claim?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does morality dictate?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.11a What behaviors have certain persons—who benefit from those behaviors—taught children to perform, claiming cosmic weight for compliance?
27.11b What (PRON-interrog) behaviors (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[morality→behaviors]) have (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[morality→persons.who.benefit])—who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) those (DET) behaviors (N-obj)—taught (V-perf) children (N-obj) to∿perform (V-inf), claiming (V-pres.PART) cosmic (ADJ) weight (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[moral.weight→claim.by.teachers]) for (PREP) compliance (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “dictates” → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot dictate] → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ “Cosmic weight” dissolves into claims made by specific persons with specific interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What rights do citizens have?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.12a What limits have certain persons documented, agreeing that persons with weapons should refrain from doing certain things to persons they label “citizens”?
27.12b What (PRON-interrog) limits (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→limits.documented]) have (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.documented]) documented (V-perf), agreeing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) should∿refrain (V-mod) from (PREP) doing (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) things (N-obj) to (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label)?
SPOOK: “have” (possess as property) → DISSOLUTION: limits agreed upon → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote the documents? WHO decides when to honor them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does freedom mean?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.13a What do persons describe when they use the word “freedom”—and what conditions do they experience when no other persons interfere with their actions?
27.13b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) persons (N-subj) describe (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) they (PRON-subj) use (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) word (N-obj) “freedom” (N-label)—and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) conditions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→conditions.of.non-interference]) do (AUX) they (PRON-subj) experience (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) no (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) interfere (V-pres) with (PREP) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj)?
FORM: “does... mean” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons describe when they use the word” → STRATEGY: E1 + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO defines “freedom”? Whose definition serves whose interests?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does the State want?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.14a What do certain persons with weapons and cages, who call themselves “officials,” want from me—and what will they do if I refuse?
27.14b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) cages (N), who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label), want (V-inf) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) will (AUX) they (PRON-subj) do (V-inf) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) refuse (V-pres)?
SPOOK: “wants” → DISSOLUTION: want (persons as agents) + consequences of refusal → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from the label “State”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What duty calls us to serve?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.15a What urges do I feel to act as others expect, and what persons taught me to call those urges “duty”?
27.15b What (PRON-interrog) urges (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urges.I.feel]) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-inf) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) others (N-subj) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿call (V-inf) those (DET) urges (N-obj) “duty” (N-label)?
SPOOK: “us” → DISSOLUTION: I (first-person ownership) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The “call” of duty dissolves into conditioning by specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.1 “What sits on the table?”
[Standard English: “What is on the table?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb: sits)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete nouns only]
27.2 “What sounds like that?”
[Standard English: “What is that noise?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb: sounds)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
27.3 “What response fits this question?”
[Standard English: “What is the answer?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb: fits)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
27.4 “What does he think about?”
[Standard English: “What is he thinking?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice transformation)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
27.5 “What do others call you?”
[Standard English: “What is your name?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (naming as social action by persons)]
27.6 “What do persons who use the word ‘justice’ expect others to do?”
[Standard English: “What does justice demand?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons with expectations)]
27.7 “What do persons mean when they call a statement ‘true’?”
[Standard English: “What is truth?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (truth → label attached by persons), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ]
27.8 “What do many persons around me expect me to do?”
[Standard English: “What does society expect of us?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (us → me)]
27.9 “What have certain persons written down, with the understanding that other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise?”
[Standard English: “What does the law require?”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → written words + persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ]
27.10 “What do I find valuable in my experiences, and what purposes do I choose to pursue?”
[Standard English: “What is the meaning of life?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (meaning → what I find valuable, purposes I choose)]
27.11 “What behaviors have certain persons—who benefit from those behaviors—taught children to perform, claiming cosmic weight for compliance?”
[Standard English: “What does morality dictate?”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → taught behaviors, persons who benefit)]
27.12 “What limits have certain persons documented, agreeing that persons with weapons should refrain from doing certain things to persons they label ‘citizens’?”
[Standard English: “What rights do citizens have?”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → documented limits), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ, D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → labeled persons)]
27.13 “What do persons describe when they use the word ‘freedom’—and what conditions do they experience when no other persons interfere with their actions?”
[Standard English: “What does freedom mean?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → non-interference conditions), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ]
27.14 “What do certain persons with weapons and cages, who call themselves ‘officials,’ want from me—and what will they do if I refuse?”
[Standard English: “What does the State want?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons calling selves officials)]
27.15 “What urges do I feel to act as others expect, and what persons taught me to call those urges ‘duty’?”
[Standard English: “What duty calls us to serve?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urges I feel), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (traced to who taught)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.1 What sits on the table?
27.2 What sounds like that?
27.3 What response fits this question?
27.4 What does he think about?
27.5 What do others call you?
27.6 What do persons who use the word “justice” expect others to do?
27.7 What do persons mean when they call a statement “true”?
27.8 What do many persons around me expect me to do?
27.9 What have certain persons written down, with the understanding that other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise?
27.10 What do I find valuable in my experiences, and what purposes do I choose to pursue?
27.11 What behaviors have certain persons—who benefit from those behaviors—taught children to perform, claiming cosmic weight for compliance?
27.12 What limits have certain persons documented, agreeing that persons with weapons should refrain from doing certain things to persons they label “citizens”?
27.13 What do persons describe when they use the word “freedom”—and what conditions do they experience when no other persons interfere with their actions?
27.14 What do certain persons with weapons and cages, who call themselves “officials,” want from me—and what will they do if I refuse?
27.15 What urges do I feel to act as others expect, and what persons taught me to call those urges “duty”?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “what” in E-Prime Max:
Relative constructions: “I know what you mean” “What happened next”
“What are you?” transforms to “What do you do?” or “How do others classify you?”
The key principle: replace questions of IDENTITY (what something IS) with questions of FUNCTION, PERCEPTION, or ACTION (what something DOES, how it APPEARS, how others LABEL it).
“What does freedom mean?” (freedom as thing with inherent meaning)
Spooks commonly co-occurring with “what”: justice, truth, morality, society, the State, the law, duty, honor, freedom, rights, the meaning (of life), human nature, the common good.
“What does the State require?” → “What do persons with weapons calling themselves officials require?”
“What rights apply?” → “What documented limits have certain persons agreed upon?”
“What does tradition require?” → “What did previous generations—for their own reasons—do repeatedly?”
“What duty binds me?” → “What urges do I feel to act as others expect?”
“What makes someone a criminal?” → “What leads certain persons to label other persons ‘criminal’?”
ERROR: “Concept” still functions as agent; full personalization required
ERROR: Passive voice hides the persons doing the requiring/teaching
ERROR: “The law says” obscures the enforcement mechanism
ERROR: “We” and “society” both require dissolution into specific persons
For every “what”-question about an abstraction, ask:
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“What violence backs this abstraction’s supposed authority?”
When “what”-questions transform from “What does X demand?” to “What do persons who invoke X want from me?”—the power relations become visible.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1933) insisted that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and categories do not capture reality itself but only our abstractions about reality. Questions beginning with “What is...?” often presuppose that things HAVE essential identities waiting to be discovered.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1965) extended this insight by eliminating “to be” entirely. E-Prime transforms questions from seeking identity to examining function, perception, and action. “What is this?” becomes “How does this function?” or “How do I perceive this?”
The connection to operational definitions: asking “What do we mean when we use the word X?” grounds abstractions in concrete operations and experiences.
Humans serve the concepts as if serving external masters
“What does justice demand?” treats justice as an agent making demands. Stirner would ask: “WHO demands this of you, using the word ‘justice’ as justification?”
Ownness (Eigenheit) means possessing your concepts rather than serving them. A person with ownness asks “What serves ME?” rather than “What does morality/duty/society require of me?”
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter.” When we ask “What does the sacred require?” we have already submitted to the sacred as master.
E-Prime attacks predication (X IS Y)—forcing us to describe functions and perceptions rather than asserting identities.
E-Prime Max attacks reification (X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS)—forcing us to identify the persons who demand, require, or forbid while hiding behind abstractions.
E-PRIME MAX: “What do persons mean when they use the word ‘justice’?” → dissolves to persons acting
Power relations hidden by the abstraction of the question itself
The dissolving of “What does X want/require/demand?” into “What do WHICH PERSONS want from me, invoking X as justification?” makes the actual power relations visible.
Recognizing manipulation through reification:
When someone asks “What does patriotism require of you?” they invoke a spook to create obligation. The E-Prime Max response: “What do YOU want from me, using the word ‘patriotism’?”
Resisting possession by concepts:
When you ask yourself “What does duty demand?” you have already submitted. Transform to: “What do I feel urged to do? WHO taught me to call this urge ‘duty’? Does following this urge serve ME?”
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness:
Every “what”-question about an abstraction offers an opportunity to reclaim ownership. “What does success mean?” dissolves into “What do I want? What do I find satisfying?”
The reprogramming effect of sustained practice:
Regular E-Prime Max practice changes cognition. After sufficient practice, the student no longer hears “What does society expect?” as a meaningful question—they automatically hear “What do which persons around me expect, and why should I comply?”
On Infinite Regress:
Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. When asking “What do persons want?” we could further dissolve “persons” into “bodies exhibiting certain behaviors.” The stopping point depends on purpose.
On Priesthoods:
The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “What does energy require?” “What does evolution select?” “What does the market want?”—all spooks when the abstraction commands. Scientists have their sacred concepts too.
On This Discipline Itself:
E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior for asking “What do persons really want?” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max “what”-questions to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism:
Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “What does anarchism demand?” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique asks: “What serves ME in this moment?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
STIRNER ORIGINAL:
“What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, the cause of the spirit and a thousand other causes. Only my own cause is never supposed to be my concern.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
E-PRIME MAX:
What concerns do others tell me should not concern me! First and foremost, what persons calling certain actions “good” want; then what persons who invented a being they call “God” claimed that being wanted; what persons who use the word “humanity” claim I owe to strangers; what persons mean when they call their claims “truth,” “freedom,” “justice”; furthermore, what persons who share a border with me want; what a person with weapons whom others call “prince” wants; what persons calling a territory “my fatherland” expect; finally, what persons who speak of “spirit” imagine—and a thousand other concerns. Only what I want never concerns me, they tell me.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1b (Gloss of key transformations):
What (PRON-interrog) concerns (N-obj) do (AUX) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) tell (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) should∿not (MOD-neg) concern (V-inf) me (PRON-obj)!
what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[good.cause→persons.who.call.actions.good]) calling (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) “good” (ADJ-label) want (V-pres)
what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.invented]) who (PRON-rel) invented (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “God” (N-label) claimed (V-past) that (DET) being (N-subj) wanted (V-past)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
What concerns do others tell me should not concern me! First and foremost, what persons calling certain actions “good” want; then what persons who invented a being they call “God” claimed that being wanted; what persons who use the word “humanity” claim I owe to strangers; what persons mean when they call their claims “truth,” “freedom,” “justice”; furthermore, what persons who share a border with me want; what a person with weapons whom others call “prince” wants; what persons calling a territory “my fatherland” expect; finally, what persons who speak of “spirit” imagine—and a thousand other concerns. Only what I want never concerns me, they tell me.
FORM: “is not supposed to be” → DISSOLUTION: “do others tell me should not concern” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ Stirner’s insight preserved and sharpened: not even abstract “causes” exist—only persons who invoke words to get what they want from me
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A dialogue in which a student learns to transform their questions through E-Prime Max dissolution.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is my purpose in life?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.16a What do I want to do with my time, and what satisfies me when I do it?
27.16b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) want (V-inf) to∿do (V-inf) with (PREP) my (PRON-poss) time (N-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) satisfies (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[purpose→satisfaction]) me (PRON-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) it (PRON-obj)?
FORM: “is my purpose” → DISSOLUTION: “do I want” + “satisfies me” → STRATEGY: E1 + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO told me I needed a “purpose”? WHO benefits from me seeking one outside myself?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is the right thing to do?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.17a What action do I prefer, knowing what consequences each choice brings and what persons around me will do in response?
27.17b What (PRON-interrog) action (N-obj) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) prefer (V-inf), knowing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-interrog) consequences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→consequences]) each (DET) choice (N-subj) brings (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) will∿do (V-fut) in (PREP) response (N-obj)?
FORM: “is the right thing” → DISSOLUTION: “do I prefer” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ Moral rightness dissolves into: what I want + what happens + how others react
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does nature intend?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.18a What patterns do I observe in biological and physical processes, and what do certain persons claim these patterns “intend” when they speak of “nature”?
27.18b What (PRON-interrog) patterns (N-obj) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-inf) in (PREP) biological (ADJ) and (CONJ) physical (ADJ) processes (N-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[nature→persons.who.speak]) claim (V-inf) these (DET) patterns (N-subj) “intend” (V-pres-label) when (CONJ-time) they (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) “nature” (N-label)?
SPOOK: “intends” → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—processes cannot intend] + what persons claim → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO benefits from claiming “nature intends” certain arrangements?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is human nature?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.19a What behaviors do I observe humans performing repeatedly, and what do various persons claim these behaviors reveal about an essential “nature”?
27.19b What (PRON-interrog) behaviors (N-obj) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-inf) humans (N-obj) performing (V-pres.PART) repeatedly (ADV-freq), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) various (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) claim (V-inf) these (DET) behaviors (N-subj) reveal (V-pres) about (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) essential (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nature→claim.of.essence]) “nature” (N-label)?
FORM: “is human nature” → DISSOLUTION: “do I observe” + “do persons claim” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits from particular claims about “human nature”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does history teach us?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.20a What interpretations of past events do certain writers present, and what lessons do they claim I should draw?
27.20b What (PRON-interrog) interpretations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[history→interpretations]) of (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) do (AUX) certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers]) present (V-inf), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) lessons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[teaches→claims.about.lessons]) do (AUX) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-inf) I (PRON-subj) should∿draw (V-mod)?
SPOOK: “teaches us” → DISSOLUTION: they claim I should draw → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO writes the histories? WHO decides the “lessons”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is justice in this case?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.21a What outcome do the persons involved prefer, what outcome do persons watching prefer, and what will persons with weapons do to whom?
27.21b What (PRON-interrog) outcome (N-obj) do (AUX) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) involved (V-past.PART) prefer (V-inf), what (PRON-interrog) outcome (N-obj) do (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) watching (V-pres.PART) prefer (V-inf), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) will (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) do (V-inf) to (PREP) whom (PRON-interrog)?
FORM: “is justice” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons prefer” + “will persons do” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO holds the weapons? Whose preferences do they enforce?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does God want from me?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.22a What did persons who wrote certain old texts claim that a being they invented wanted, and what do persons who repeat those claims today expect from me?
27.22b What (PRON-interrog) did (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) texts (N-obj) claim (V-inf) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→invented.being]) wanted (V-past), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) who (PRON-rel) repeat (V-pres) those (DET) claims (N-obj) today (ADV-time) expect (V-inf) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj)?
SPOOK: “wants from me” → DISSOLUTION: claims by writers + expectations by repeaters → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO benefits from claiming a cosmic being wants certain behaviors from me?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is the common good?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.23a What do certain persons with power claim benefits “everyone,” while actually benefiting themselves and those they favor?
27.23b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[common.good→persons.who.claim]) with (PREP) power (N) claim (V-inf) benefits (V-pres) “everyone” (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ), while (CONJ) actually (ADV) benefiting (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) favor (V-pres)?
FORM: “is the common good” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons claim” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO uses the phrase “common good”? WHO benefits from policies labeled thus?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is true love?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.24a What do I experience when I act with tenderness toward another person who acts with tenderness toward me, and what do others call this experience?
27.24b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) experience (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) acts (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N-manner) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) others (N-subj) call (V-inf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) this (DET) experience (N-obj)?
FORM: “is true love” → DISSOLUTION: “do I experience” + “do others call” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO defines “true” love? Whose definitions serve whose interests?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is the will of the people?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.25a What do various persons in this territory want—knowing they want many different and conflicting things—and what do certain persons with power claim “the people” want?
27.25b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) various (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→various.persons]) in (PREP) this (DET) territory (N-obj) want (V-inf)—knowing (V-pres.PART) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) many (DET) different (ADJ) and (CONJ) conflicting (ADJ) things (N-obj)—and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) with (PREP) power (N) claim (V-inf) “the∿people” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[will.of.people→claim.by.powerful]) want (V-pres)?
FORM: “is the will” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons want” + “do persons claim” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO claims to speak for “the people”? WHO benefits from that claim?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does conscience tell me?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.26a What discomfort do I feel when considering certain actions, and what persons taught me to feel this discomfort and to call it “conscience”?
27.26b What (PRON-interrog) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→discomfort.I.feel]) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) considering (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) actions (N-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[conscience→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) to∿feel (V-inf) this (DET) discomfort (N-obj) and (CONJ) to∿call (V-inf) it (PRON-obj) “conscience” (N-label)?
SPOOK: “tells me” → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—feelings do not tell] → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO conditioned me? WHO benefits from my “conscience”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is real?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.27a What do I perceive, what do others report perceiving, and where do our perceptions align or conflict?
27.27b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) perceive (V-inf), what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) report (V-inf) perceiving (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) where (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) our (PRON-poss) perceptions (N-subj) align (V-inf) or (CONJ) conflict (V-inf)?
FORM: “is real” → DISSOLUTION: “do I perceive” + “do others report” → STRATEGY: E2 (perception)
∴ WHO claims access to “the real”? WHO benefits from that claim?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is fair?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.28a What distribution do I prefer, what distribution do other persons affected prefer, and what arrangement can we agree upon?
27.28b What (PRON-interrog) distribution (N-obj) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) prefer (V-inf), what (PRON-interrog) distribution (N-obj) do (AUX) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) affected (V-past.PART) prefer (V-inf), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) arrangement (N-obj) can (AUX) we (PRON-subj) agree (V-inf) upon (PREP)?
FORM: “is fair” → DISSOLUTION: “do persons prefer” + “can we agree” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO claims to know what counts as “fair”? Whose interests does that definition serve?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What does progress require?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.29a What changes do certain persons label “progress,” and what do those persons want me to do or accept to bring about those changes?
27.29b What (PRON-interrog) changes (N-obj) do (AUX) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[progress→persons.who.label]) label (V-inf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “progress” (N-label), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) those (DET) persons (N-subj) want (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) to∿do (V-inf) or (CONJ) accept (V-inf) to∿bring∿about (V-inf) those (DET) changes (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “requires” → DISSOLUTION: what persons want me to do → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO labels which changes “progress”? WHO benefits from that labeling?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “What is my true self?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
27.30a What do I want in this moment, what have I wanted across different moments, and what do others claim I “really” want or “should” want?
27.30b What (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) want (V-inf) in (PREP) this (DET) moment (N-obj), what (PRON-interrog) have (AUX) I (PRON-subj) wanted (V-perf) across (PREP) different (ADJ) moments (N-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) do (AUX) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) claim (V-inf) I (PRON-subj) “really” (ADV ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[true.self→claim.about.real]) want (V-pres) or (CONJ) “should” (MOD ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) want (V-pres)?
FORM: “is my true self” → DISSOLUTION: “do I want” + “have I wanted” + “do others claim” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ Stirner: “I am not a concept, I am I”—and “I” changes each moment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.16 “What do I want to do with my time, and what satisfies me when I do it?”
[Standard English: “What is my purpose in life?”]
27.17 “What action do I prefer, knowing what consequences each choice brings and what persons around me will do in response?”
[Standard English: “What is the right thing to do?”]
27.18 “What patterns do I observe in biological and physical processes, and what do certain persons claim these patterns ‘intend’ when they speak of ‘nature’?”
[Standard English: “What does nature intend?”]
27.19 “What behaviors do I observe humans performing repeatedly, and what do various persons claim these behaviors reveal about an essential ‘nature’?”
[Standard English: “What is human nature?”]
27.20 “What interpretations of past events do certain writers present, and what lessons do they claim I should draw?”
[Standard English: “What does history teach us?”]
27.21 “What outcome do the persons involved prefer, what outcome do persons watching prefer, and what will persons with weapons do to whom?”
[Standard English: “What is justice in this case?”]
27.22 “What did persons who wrote certain old texts claim that a being they invented wanted, and what do persons who repeat those claims today expect from me?”
[Standard English: “What does God want from me?”]
27.23 “What do certain persons with power claim benefits ‘everyone,’ while actually benefiting themselves and those they favor?”
[Standard English: “What is the common good?”]
27.24 “What do I experience when I act with tenderness toward another person who acts with tenderness toward me, and what do others call this experience?”
[Standard English: “What is true love?”]
27.25 “What do various persons in this territory want—knowing they want many different and conflicting things—and what do certain persons with power claim ‘the people’ want?”
[Standard English: “What is the will of the people?”]
27.26 “What discomfort do I feel when considering certain actions, and what persons taught me to feel this discomfort and to call it ‘conscience’?”
[Standard English: “What does conscience tell me?”]
27.27 “What do I perceive, what do others report perceiving, and where do our perceptions align or conflict?”
[Standard English: “What is real?”]
27.28 “What distribution do I prefer, what distribution do other persons affected prefer, and what arrangement can we agree upon?”
[Standard English: “What is fair?”]
27.29 “What changes do certain persons label ‘progress,’ and what do those persons want me to do or accept to bring about those changes?”
[Standard English: “What does progress require?”]
27.30 “What do I want in this moment, what have I wanted across different moments, and what do others claim I ‘really’ want or ‘should’ want?”
[Standard English: “What is my true self?”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
27.16 What do I want to do with my time, and what satisfies me when I do it?
27.17 What action do I prefer, knowing what consequences each choice brings and what persons around me will do in response?
27.18 What patterns do I observe in biological and physical processes, and what do certain persons claim these patterns “intend” when they speak of “nature”?
27.19 What behaviors do I observe humans performing repeatedly, and what do various persons claim these behaviors reveal about an essential “nature”?
27.20 What interpretations of past events do certain writers present, and what lessons do they claim I should draw?
27.21 What outcome do the persons involved prefer, what outcome do persons watching prefer, and what will persons with weapons do to whom?
27.22 What did persons who wrote certain old texts claim that a being they invented wanted, and what do persons who repeat those claims today expect from me?
27.23 What do certain persons with power claim benefits “everyone,” while actually benefiting themselves and those they favor?
27.24 What do I experience when I act with tenderness toward another person who acts with tenderness toward me, and what do others call this experience?
27.25 What do various persons in this territory want—knowing they want many different and conflicting things—and what do certain persons with power claim “the people” want?
27.26 What discomfort do I feel when considering certain actions, and what persons taught me to feel this discomfort and to call it “conscience”?
27.27 What do I perceive, what do others report perceiving, and where do our perceptions align or conflict?
27.28 What distribution do I prefer, what distribution do other persons affected prefer, and what arrangement can we agree upon?
27.29 What changes do certain persons label “progress,” and what do those persons want me to do or accept to bring about those changes?
27.30 What do I want in this moment, what have I wanted across different moments, and what do others claim I “really” want or “should” want?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Philosophical “What”-Question Pattern
In standard English, philosophical questions often take the form “What is X?” where X represents an abstract concept (truth, justice, reality, love, the self, etc.). This form presupposes that X exists as a thing with discoverable essence.
E-Prime Max transforms these questions through three operations:
1. E-Prime transformation: “What is X?” becomes “What do persons perceive/experience/call X?”
Claims persons make (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
3. Power exposure: Each dissolution adds the Stirnerian question: WHO benefits from treating X as real/demanding/commanding?
The Dialogue Genre
The conversational form makes long dissolutions readable
The repetition of “persons who...” reveals the consistent dissolution pattern
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Standard English → E-Prime Max Practice
Transform each sentence, showing complete dissolution:
Exercise 1
Standard: “What is success?”
E-Prime Max: “What outcomes do I prefer to achieve, what outcomes do persons around me admire, and whose standards am I using when I evaluate my achievements?”
“is success” → “do I prefer” + “do persons admire” + “am I using” (E1)
Revelation: No “success” exists. Only outcomes exist, and persons who evaluate them. WHO defined success? Whose definition am I using?
Exercise 2
Standard: “What does tradition demand?”
E-Prime Max: “What behaviors did previous generations repeat, and what do persons today expect from me because those behaviors recurred?”
“demands” → [ELIMINATED—patterns cannot demand] (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “tradition” exists to demand. Only patterns exist, and persons who expect continuation. WHO benefits from the expectation?
Exercise 3
Standard: “What is the truth about this matter?”
E-Prime Max: “What do I observe about this matter, what do others report observing, and where do our observations conflict or agree?”
“is the truth” → “do I observe” + “do others report” (E2 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “truth” exists about any matter. Only observations exist, mine and others’. WHO claims access to “the truth”? WHO benefits?
Exercise 4
Standard: “What rights does the constitution guarantee?”
E-Prime Max: “What limits did certain persons write into a document, and what will persons with weapons refrain from doing because of those written words?”
“guarantee” → will refrain from doing (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “rights” exist as guarantees. Only written words exist, and the willingness of persons with weapons to honor them. WHO decides when to honor them?
Exercise 5
Standard: “What is normal?”
E-Prime Max: “What behaviors do many persons around me perform frequently, and what do they expect me to perform to avoid their disapproval?”
“is normal” → “do persons perform” + “do they expect” (E1)
Revelation: No “normal” exists. Only statistical frequency exists, and persons who enforce conformity. WHO benefits from my conformity to “normal”?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max: Stirnerian English course developed by the Latinum Institute as part of its Consciousness Archaeology Project. The course synthesizes two powerful traditions of linguistic consciousness-liberation:
E-Prime (D. David Bourland Jr., 1965), drawing on Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics, eliminates the verb “to be” to reduce dogmatic thinking and force speakers to describe functions, perceptions, and actions rather than assert identities.
Spook Dissolution (Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, 1844) identifies and dismantles reified abstractions that possess the thinker—concepts that appear to command, require, or forbid when in fact only persons command, require, or forbid.
E-Prime Max combines both disciplines: attacking predication (X IS Y) through E-Prime, and attacking reification (X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS) through spook dissolution.
The course uses a CSV-based vocabulary progression covering 1000 common English words, with each lesson focusing on one word while demonstrating E-Prime Max principles across 30 examples. The format—interlinear construed text with dissolution maps—makes the work of transformation visible, teaching not just results but method.
For autodidacts: This course requires no instructor. The dissolution maps and revelation sections guide self-study. The discipline serves you or it serves no one.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 27
This lesson introduces the possessive pronoun his within the framework of E-Prime Max—a linguistic discipline that combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (which eliminates all forms of the verb “to be”) with Max Stirner’s project of dissolving “spooks” (Gespenster)—those reified abstractions that possess the thinker rather than serving them.
The word his appears constantly in English, marking masculine possession. In E-Prime Max, we pay special attention to what follows “his”—for possessive constructions frequently attach persons to spooks: his duty, his honor, his rights, his conscience. These phrases smuggle in abstractions as though they existed independently, waiting to command the person who “possesses” them.
When we write “his duty called him,” we have created a spook—”duty”—and given it agency. E-Prime Max dissolves such constructions back to persons, actions, and experiences.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does E-Prime Max teach about possessive pronouns?
E-Prime Max treats possessive pronouns like his as tools for indicating relationships between persons and concrete things. The discipline becomes critical when “his” attaches to abstract nouns that then appear to act, command, or possess the person. “His conscience troubled him” contains a spook (conscience-as-agent); “He felt discomfort when remembering what he did” dissolves it.
-
The Stirnerian test: Does this possession serve him, or does he serve it?
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His book is on the table.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.1a His book rests on the table.
28.1b His (PRON-poss.masc) book (N-subj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj).
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: “rests” (existence verb) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ Concrete possession (his book) requires no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His car was fast.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.2a His car moved quickly.
28.2b His (PRON-poss.masc) car (N-subj) moved (V-past) quickly (ADV-manner).
FORM: “was fast” → DISSOLUTION: “moved quickly” → STRATEGY: E7-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (state to action)
∴ Concrete possession maintained
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His hand is injured.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.3a His hand shows wounds and swelling.
28.3b His (PRON-poss.masc) hand (N-subj) shows (V-pres.PERCEPT) wounds (N-obj) and (CONJ) swelling (N-obj).
FORM: “is injured” → DISSOLUTION: “shows wounds and swelling” → STRATEGY: E2 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Perception verb grounds the observation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His father was a doctor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.4a His father worked as a doctor.
28.4b His (PRON-poss.masc) father (N-subj) worked (V-past) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) doctor (N-obj).
FORM: “was a doctor” → DISSOLUTION: “worked as a doctor” → STRATEGY: E6
∴ No spooks present
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His dog is hungry.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.5a His dog whines and approaches the food bowl.
28.5b His (PRON-poss.masc) dog (N-subj) whines (V-pres) and (CONJ) approaches (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) food (N-mod) bowl (N-obj).
FORM: “is hungry” → DISSOLUTION: “whines and approaches food bowl” → STRATEGY: E7 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Operationalization reveals what “hungry” looks like
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His duty requires sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.6a Certain persons expect him to give up things he values, and he feels an urge to comply.
28.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) to∿give∿up (V-inf) things (N-obj) he (PRON-subj) values (V-pres), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) feels (V-pres.STATE) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→felt.urge]) to∿comply (V-inf).
SPOOK: “sacrifice” → DISSOLUTION: give up things he values → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The possessive “his” created illusion of ownership; dissolution reveals external origin
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His conscience troubled him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.7a He felt discomfort in his body when remembering what he did.
28.7b He (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→felt.discomfort]) discomfort (N-obj) in (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) body (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) remembering (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) did (V-past).
SPOOK: “troubled” (conscience as agent) → DISSOLUTION: he felt → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO taught him to feel this discomfort about these actions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His honor was at stake.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.8a Other persons might speak badly of him, and he felt concerned about his reputation among them.
28.8b Other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[honor→persons.judging]) might∿speak (V-cond) badly (ADV-manner) of (PREP) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) concerned (ADJ-pred) about (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) reputation (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[honor→reputation]) among (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “was at stake” → DISSOLUTION: might speak badly / felt concerned → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits when he serves “his honor”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His rights were violated by the government.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.9a Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” acted against his body and property in ways that other persons had written documents prohibiting.
28.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) acted (V-past) against (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) body (N-obj) and (CONJ) property (N-obj), in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) had∿written (V-past.PERF) documents (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→documents.written]) prohibiting (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK: “violated” → DISSOLUTION: acted against (body/property) in prohibited ways → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote those documents? WHO enforces them? WHO ignores them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His soul is immortal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.10a Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that something called “his soul” continues after his body stops functioning.
28.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[soul→persons.who.wrote.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) something (PRON) called (V-past.PART) “his (PRON-poss.masc) soul” (N-label) continues (V-pres) after (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) body (N-subj) stops (V-pres) functioning (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK: “is immortal” → DISSOLUTION: persons claimed it continues → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + E2
∴ The possessive “his” created false ownership of a spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His destiny called him to greatness.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.11a He felt strong urges toward ambitious actions, and persons around him encouraged his ambition by speaking of “greatness.”
28.11b He (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[destiny→felt.urges]) strong (ADJ) urges (N-obj) toward (PREP) ambitious (ADJ) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[greatness→ambitious.actions]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[destiny→persons.encouraging]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) encouraged (V-past) his (PRON-poss.masc) ambition (N-obj) by (PREP) speaking (V-pres.PART) of (PREP) “greatness” (N-label).
SPOOK: “greatness” → DISSOLUTION: ambitious actions (label exposed) → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits when he believes in “his destiny”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His faith sustained him through suffering.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.12a He repeated certain phrases to himself, imagined certain scenes, and his body relaxed; these practices helped him endure pain.
28.12b He (PRON-subj) repeated (V-past) certain (DET) phrases (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[faith→repeated.phrases]) to (PREP) himself (PRON-refl), imagined (V-past) certain (DET) scenes (N-obj), and (CONJ) his (PRON-poss.masc) body (N-subj) relaxed (V-past); these (DET) practices (N-subj) helped (V-past) him (PRON-obj) endure (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sustained→endure]) pain (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[suffering→pain]).
SPOOK: “suffering” → DISSOLUTION: pain → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO taught him these phrases? WHO benefits from calling this “faith”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that his crimes be punished.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.13a Many persons around me expect that persons with weapons will confine him for actions they label “his crimes.”
28.13b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[punished→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿confine (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punished→confine]) him (PRON-obj) for (PREP) actions (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crimes→actions.labeled]) “his (PRON-poss.masc) crimes” (N-label).
SPOOK: “punished” → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons will confine → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO attaches the label “crime”? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His legacy will live forever.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.14a Persons in the future may continue speaking about his actions and repeating his words for a long time.
28.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[legacy→persons.speaking]) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[future→time.ahead]) may∿continue (V-mod) speaking (V-pres.PART) about (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) actions (N-obj) and (CONJ) repeating (V-pres.PART) his (PRON-poss.masc) words (N-obj) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) long (ADJ) time (N-obj).
SPOOK: “forever” → DISSOLUTION: for a long time → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Forever” dissolved → we cannot know how long
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His true self emerged through struggle.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.15a Through difficult experiences, he acted in ways that surprised him and others, and some persons called these actions “his true self.”
28.15b Through (PREP) difficult (ADJ) experiences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[struggle→difficult.experiences]), he (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) surprised (V-past) him (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) others (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[true.self→persons.labeling]) called (V-past) these (DET) actions (N-obj) “his (PRON-poss.masc) true (ADJ) self” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
SPOOK: “struggle” → DISSOLUTION: difficult experiences → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The possessive creates illusion of a hidden essence he owns
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
28.1 “His book rests on the table.”
[Standard English: “His book is on the table.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete possession]
28.2 “His car moved quickly.”
[Standard English: “His car was fast.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state to observable action)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete possession]
28.3 “His hand shows wounds and swelling.”
[Standard English: “His hand is injured.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb) + E7]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (injured → observable conditions)]
28.4 “His father worked as a doctor.”
[Standard English: “His father was a doctor.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (identity rephrase)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—role description]
28.5 “His dog whines and approaches the food bowl.”
[Standard English: “His dog is hungry.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state to behavior)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (hungry → observable behaviors)]
28.6 “Certain persons expect him to give up things he values, and he feels an urge to comply.”
[Standard English: “His duty requires sacrifice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → persons expecting) + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → felt urge) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → give up valued things)]
28.7 “He felt discomfort in his body when remembering what he did.”
[Standard English: “His conscience troubled him.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → felt bodily discomfort)]
28.8 “Other persons might speak badly of him, and he felt concerned about his reputation among them.”
[Standard English: “His honor was at stake.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (was at stake → felt concerned)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (honor → what others say) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (honor → reputation)]
28.9 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’ acted against his body and property in ways that other persons had written documents prohibiting.”
[Standard English: “His rights were violated by the government.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (passive to active)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → written documents) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons with weapons) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (violated → acted against)]
28.10 “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that something called ‘his soul’ continues after his body stops functioning.”
[Standard English: “His soul is immortal.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (is immortal → continues)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (soul → concept from old books)]
28.11 “He felt strong urges toward ambitious actions, and persons around him encouraged his ambition by speaking of ‘greatness.’”
[Standard English: “His destiny called him to greatness.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (destiny → felt urges) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (destiny → persons encouraging) + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (greatness → label)]
28.12 “He repeated certain phrases to himself, imagined certain scenes, and his body relaxed; these practices helped him endure pain.”
[Standard English: “His faith sustained him through suffering.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (faith → practices) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (suffering → pain)]
28.13 “Many persons around me expect that persons with weapons will confine him for actions they label ‘his crimes.’”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that his crimes be punished.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (passive “be punished” eliminated)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons expecting) + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crimes → labeled actions) + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punished → persons confine)]
28.14 “Persons in the future may continue speaking about his actions and repeating his words for a long time.”
[Standard English: “His legacy will live forever.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (legacy → persons speaking) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (forever → long time)]
28.15 “Through difficult experiences, he acted in ways that surprised him and others, and some persons called these actions ‘his true self.’”
[Standard English: “His true self emerged through struggle.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (true self → label for actions) + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (emerged → he acted) + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (struggle → difficult experiences)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
28.1 His book rests on the table.
28.2 His car moved quickly.
28.3 His hand shows wounds and swelling.
28.4 His father worked as a doctor.
28.5 His dog whines and approaches the food bowl.
28.6 Certain persons expect him to give up things he values, and he feels an urge to comply.
28.7 He felt discomfort in his body when remembering what he did.
28.8 Other persons might speak badly of him, and he felt concerned about his reputation among them.
28.9 Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” acted against his body and property in ways that other persons had written documents prohibiting.
28.10 Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that something called “his soul” continues after his body stops functioning.
28.11 He felt strong urges toward ambitious actions, and persons around him encouraged his ambition by speaking of “greatness.”
28.12 He repeated certain phrases to himself, imagined certain scenes, and his body relaxed; these practices helped him endure pain.
28.13 Many persons around me expect that persons with weapons will confine him for actions they label “his crimes.”
28.14 Persons in the future may continue speaking about his actions and repeating his words for a long time.
28.15 Through difficult experiences, he acted in ways that surprised him and others, and some persons called these actions “his true self.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern his in E-Prime Max:
The word his functions as a possessive pronoun (or possessive determiner) indicating masculine possession. It can appear before nouns (his book), or stand alone as a possessive pronoun (the book is his → E-Prime: the book belongs to him).
Common constructions include direct possession of concrete items (his car, his hand), relationship indicators (his father, his friend), and abstract possession (his duty, his honor, his rights).
His itself requires no E-Prime transformation—possessive pronouns contain no “to be.” However, sentences containing his frequently include “to be” in predicate constructions.
Common patterns requiring transformation include: “His X is Y” → “His X functions as/appears/seems Y” or operationalize to actions; “His X was Y” → active voice or state verbs; “His X is [adjective]” → perception verbs or observable behaviors.
His has HIGH spook proximity because possessive constructions frequently attach persons to abstract nouns that then command them.
High-frequency spook combinations include: his duty (moral spook), his honor (moral spook), his rights (political spook), his conscience (moral/metaphysical spook), his destiny (metaphysical spook), his soul (metaphysical spook), his legacy (collective spook), his faith (metaphysical spook), his true self (metaphysical spook), his crimes (political spook via labeling).
The pattern “his [abstraction] [verb of agency]” almost always indicates a spook: his duty called, his conscience troubled, his destiny awaited, his honor demanded.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization): “His duty requires” → “Certain persons expect him to...”; “His honor was defended” → “He acted to maintain what persons around him call respectable”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization): “His faith” → “phrases he repeats, scenes he imagines”; “His suffering” → “pain he feels”; “His sacrifice” → “things he gave up”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical): “His rights” → “limits that persons wrote in documents”; “His soul” → “a concept persons who wrote certain books invented”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution): “His conscience troubled him” → “He felt discomfort when remembering”; “His destiny called” → “He felt urges toward certain actions”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): “His crimes” → “actions that persons label ‘crimes’”; “His true self” → “actions that persons call ‘his true self’”
Incomplete dissolution: Transforming “his duty” to “his sense of duty” keeps the spook; fully dissolve to persons expecting and urges felt.
Hidden agency retained: “His conscience spoke to him” → even metaphorical agency creates a spook; dissolve to “he felt/thought/remembered.”
Possessive of spook maintained: “His justice,” “his truth,” “his freedom”—the possessive creates illusion of ownership of abstractions that then command.
Concrete/abstract conflation: “His hand” (concrete, no dissolution needed) vs. “his honor” (abstract, dissolution required). The test: can you point to it, weigh it, photograph it?
For every “his [X]” construction, ask: “Does X serve him, or does he serve X?”
If “his duty” commands him to act against his desires → the spook possesses him despite the possessive pronoun.
If “his book” sits where he placed it and he can discard it at will → concrete possession, no spook.
The possessive pronoun can create an illusion that the person OWNS the abstraction, when actually the abstraction OWNS the person. “His honor demands” reveals the inversion: he serves honor, not vice versa.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established General Semantics with the central insight that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality but never capture it completely. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this by creating E-Prime, arguing that the verb “to be” creates particularly dangerous maps by asserting identity and essence where none exists.
When we say “his nature is violent,” we create an essentialist map that treats a pattern of behavior as a fixed substance. E-Prime forces us toward “he sometimes acts violently” or “I have observed him hitting others”—operational definitions grounded in observation.
Max Stirner introduced the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” in his 1844 work Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. A spook functions as a reified concept that possesses the thinker rather than serving them.
The haunting mechanism operates through inversion: humans create abstractions for convenience (”duty” summarizes social expectations) → the abstraction appears to exist independently → the abstraction begins to command (”duty calls”) → humans forget they created it and begin to serve it.
Stirner wrote: “Everything sacred constitutes a fetter, a chain.” Possessive constructions like “his duty,” “his honor,” “his conscience” create the illusion that the person owns these things, when examination reveals that these spooks own the person.
Ownness (Eigenheit) names the condition of possessing oneself and one’s concepts—using them as tools rather than serving them as masters.
E-Prime attacks predication: the claim that X IS Y, that things have essences and fixed identities.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the claim that X DEMANDS, REQUIRES, FORBIDS—that abstractions can act as agents.
The possessive pronoun his frequently participates in reification. “His duty called” treats duty as agent. “His honor demanded” treats honor as agent. “His conscience troubled” treats conscience as agent.
E-Prime Max dissolution reveals: no duty called—persons expected and he felt urges; no honor demanded—he felt concerned about reputation; no conscience troubled—he experienced bodily discomfort when remembering.
When “his duty” dissolves, we see: specific persons with specific expectations, and his own felt urges that may or may not align with those expectations. No cosmic “duty” stands behind these social pressures.
When “his rights” dissolves, we see: documents written by persons, enforced by other persons with weapons, violated by still other persons. No “rights” float in the ether protecting anyone.
When “his conscience” dissolves, we see: bodily sensations (tight chest, nausea, racing thoughts) that arise when remembering certain actions. No inner judge sits in session—only physical responses conditioned by training.
When “his true self” dissolves, we see: various actions across time, some of which observers choose to label “true” and others “false.” No hidden essence waits to emerge—only actions in the present moment.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: When someone invokes “his duty” or “his honor” to command behavior, ask: whose expectations? What persons benefit? What would happen if he refused?
Resisting possession by concepts: Notice when abstractions following “his” begin to command. “His faith requires” → who taught this faith? What persons benefit from his compliance?
Reclaiming ownness: Transform possessive-spook constructions into owned-tool constructions. Not “his duty calls” but “he chooses to act as certain persons expect, for reasons he finds sufficient.”
The reprogramming effect: Regular practice of E-Prime Max dissolution gradually changes perception. Spooks become harder to maintain when the linguistic supports keep dissolving.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. “He felt discomfort” might dissolve further into “certain neural patterns occurred.” We stop at persons because this level of analysis reveals power relations and social structures.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “His genes determined” → spook. “His neurons fired” → closer to observation, but “neurons determined his choice” → spook. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other; their abstractions receive no immunity from the Stirnerian test.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complex dissolutions, showing off linguistic acrobatics, correcting others’ spook-usage with visible satisfaction, feeling superior to those who speak normally. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to signal radical credentials has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list when reified. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “His anarchist principles required...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The own person constitutes the world’s transient owner, who will yield his ephemeral possession to the next own person, as the sun yields itself to the moon.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The own person constitutes the world’s transient owner, who will yield his ephemeral possession to the next own person, as the sun yields itself to the moon.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
E-PRIME MAX:
F.1a Each person uses the world temporarily, and will release his temporary hold to the next person who uses it, as day passes and night follows.
F.1b Each (DET) person (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[own.person→each.person]) uses (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) world (N-obj) temporarily (ADV-time ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[transient→temporarily]), and (CONJ) will∿release (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[yield→release]) his (PRON-poss.masc) temporary (ADJ) hold (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[possession→hold]) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) next (ADJ) person (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) uses (V-pres) it (PRON-obj), as (CONJ) day (N-subj) passes (V-pres) and (CONJ) night (N-subj) follows (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sun.to.moon→day.to.night]).
TERM: “own person” → DISSOLUTION: each person → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ No eternal ownership, only temporary use
Each person uses the world temporarily, and will release his temporary hold to the next person who uses it, as day passes and night follows.
Stirner himself used abstractions freely—”owner,” “possession,” “own person”—because he wrote in 1844 without E-Prime’s framework. The dissolution demonstrates that E-Prime Max applies even to its philosophical sources.
The transformation preserves Stirner’s core insight: no permanent ownership exists, only temporary use followed by release. The possessive “his” in the E-Prime Max version attaches to “hold”—a concrete action that can cease—rather than “possession”—an abstraction implying rights.
This passage captures Stirner’s anti-essentialist view of possession. No person truly “owns” the world; each merely uses aspects of it for a time before passing. The E-Prime Max transformation makes this explicit: “uses temporarily” instead of “constitutes the owner.”
Notice how even Stirner’s “own person” (der Einzige) can function as a spook if reified. “The Unique demands...” would constitute a spook. The dissolution treats “own person” as simply “each person in turn”—individual persons, not a transcendent category.
The metaphor of sun and moon dissolves to day and night—observable transitions rather than astronomical personifications.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A first-person narrative demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max writing about self-possession and the dissolution of spooks that attach via “his.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His whole life, society had told him what his purpose was supposed to be.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.16a Throughout his years of living, various persons told him what they expected him to do and called these expectations “his purpose.”
28.16b Throughout (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) years (N) of (PREP) living (V-pres.PART), various (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons]) told (V-past) him (PRON-obj) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) expected (V-past) him (PRON-obj) to∿do (V-inf), and (CONJ) called (V-past) these (DET) expectations (N-obj) “his (PRON-poss.masc) purpose” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[purpose→expectations.labeled]).
FORM: “was supposed to be” → DISSOLUTION: expected him to do → STRATEGY: E6 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ No “purpose” waited for him → persons attached labels to their expectations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His parents believed his duty was to continue the family tradition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.17a His parents expected him to act as they had acted, doing the work their parents had done, and they called this expectation “his duty.”
28.17b His (PRON-poss.masc) parents (N-subj) expected (V-past) him (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) had∿acted (V-past.PERF), doing (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) work (N-obj) their (PRON-poss) parents (N-subj) had∿done (V-past.PERF), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) called (V-past) this (DET) expectation (N-obj) “his (PRON-poss.masc) duty” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→expectation]).
FORM: “was to continue” → DISSOLUTION: expected him to act → STRATEGY: E6
∴ “Tradition” = patterns of action across generations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His teachers said his potential was being wasted.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.18a His teachers said he could do things he had not yet done, and expressed disappointment that he had not done them.
28.18b His (PRON-poss.masc) teachers (N-subj) said (V-past) he (PRON-subj) could∿do (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[potential→could.do]) things (N-obj) he (PRON-subj) had∿not∿yet∿done (V-past.PERF.NEG), and (CONJ) expressed (V-past) disappointment (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[wasted→felt.disappointment]) that (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) had∿not∿done (V-past.PERF.NEG) them (PRON-obj).
FORM: “was being wasted” → DISSOLUTION: had not done → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “Wasted” = teachers felt disappointed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His conscience was always his harshest critic.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.19a He thought critical words about himself more often and more harshly than anyone spoke to him, and felt his body tighten when these thoughts arose.
28.19b He (PRON-subj) thought (V-past) critical (ADJ) words (N-obj) about (PREP) himself (PRON-refl) more∿often (ADV-freq.COMP) and (CONJ) more∿harshly (ADV-manner.COMP ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[harshest→more.harshly]) than (CONJ) anyone (PRON) spoke (V-past) to (PREP) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) felt (V-past.STATE) his (PRON-poss.masc) body (N-subj) tighten (V-inf) when (CONJ) these (DET) thoughts (N-subj) arose (V-past).
FORM: “was his harshest” → DISSOLUTION: more harshly than → STRATEGY: E6 + comparison
∴ He criticizes himself → no inner judge
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His fear of failure controlled his every decision.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.20a When considering actions, he imagined others criticizing him, felt his stomach clench, and chose cautiously to avoid that sensation.
28.20b When (CONJ) considering (V-pres.PART) actions (N-obj), he (PRON-subj) imagined (V-past) others (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[failure→others.criticizing]) criticizing (V-pres.PART) him (PRON-obj), felt (V-past.STATE) his (PRON-poss.masc) stomach (N-subj) clench (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→stomach.clench]), and (CONJ) chose (V-past) cautiously (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[controlled→chose.cautiously]) to∿avoid (V-inf) that (DET) sensation (N-obj).
SPOOK: “controlled” → DISSOLUTION: he chose cautiously → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ “Failure” = anticipated criticism from persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “One day his true nature revealed itself to him.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.21a One day he noticed his own preferences more clearly than he had before, and acted on them.
28.21b One (DET) day (N-time) he (PRON-subj) noticed (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[revealed→noticed]) his (PRON-poss.masc) own (ADJ) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[true.nature→preferences]) more∿clearly (ADV-manner.COMP) than (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) had (V-aux) before (ADV-time), and (CONJ) acted (V-past) on (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
FORM: no “to be” present → maintain
∴ Nothing revealed itself → he paid attention differently
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His soul was calling him to abandon his old life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.22a He felt strong urges to leave his familiar routines and start acting differently.
28.22b He (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[soul.calling→felt.urges]) strong (ADJ) urges (N-obj) to∿leave (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abandon→leave]) his (PRON-poss.masc) familiar (ADJ) routines (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[old.life→routines]) and (CONJ) start (V-inf) acting (V-pres.PART) differently (ADV-manner).
SPOOK: “old life” → DISSOLUTION: familiar routines → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ No “life” exists as object → only patterns of action (routines)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His freedom was finally his to claim.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.23a He realized he could act without asking permission from the persons who had constrained him, and he began doing so.
28.23b He (PRON-subj) realized (V-past) he (PRON-subj) could∿act (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→could.act]) without (PREP) asking (V-pres.PART) permission (N-obj) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[constrained→persons]) who (PRON-rel) had∿constrained (V-past.PERF) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) began (V-past) doing (V-pres.PART) so (ADV).
FORM: “was his to claim” → DISSOLUTION: could act, began doing → STRATEGY: E6 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “His freedom” dissolved → he acts without asking permission
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His decision was his alone to make.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.24a He chose, and no other person chose for him.
28.24b He (PRON-subj) chose (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[decision→chose]), and (CONJ) no (DET) other (ADJ) person (N-subj) chose (V-past) for (PREP) him (PRON-obj).
FORM: “was his alone” → DISSOLUTION: no other person chose → STRATEGY: E6 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “His alone” → no other person chose for him
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His past no longer defined his future.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.25a What he had done before did not determine what he would do next, and he felt free to act differently than he had acted.
28.25b What (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) had∿done (V-past.PERF ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[past→had.done]) before (ADV-time) did∿not∿determine (V-past.NEG ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[defined→determine]) what (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) would∿do (V-cond ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[future→would.do]) next (ADV-time), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) free (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ) to∿act (V-inf) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) had∿acted (V-past.PERF).
SPOOK: “defined” → DISSOLUTION: determine → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “His past” → what he had done; “his future” → what he would do
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His identity was something he could reshape at will.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.26a He could act differently tomorrow than he had acted today, and persons would describe him differently based on his new actions.
28.26b He (PRON-subj) could∿act (V-cond) differently (ADV-manner) tomorrow (ADV-time) than (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) had∿acted (V-past.PERF) today (ADV-time), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[identity→persons.describing]) would∿describe (V-cond) him (PRON-obj) differently (ADV-manner) based∿on (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) new (ADJ) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[identity→actions]).
FORM: “was something” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated → STRATEGY: E3
∴ “His identity” dissolved → how he acts, how others describe
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His heart was finally at peace.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.27a His chest felt relaxed, his thoughts moved slowly, and he breathed easily.
28.27b His (PRON-poss.masc) chest (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heart→chest]) felt (V-past.STATE) relaxed (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[peace→relaxed]), his (PRON-poss.masc) thoughts (N-subj) moved (V-past) slowly (ADV-manner), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) breathed (V-past) easily (ADV-manner).
FORM: “was at peace” → DISSOLUTION: felt relaxed → STRATEGY: E7
∴ “Peace” → observable bodily states
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His journey was just beginning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.28a He had just started acting in new ways, and expected to continue for a long time.
28.28b He (PRON-subj) had∿just∿started (V-past.PERF ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[beginning→started]) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[journey→acting]) in (PREP) new (ADJ) ways (N-obj), and (CONJ) expected (V-past) to∿continue (V-inf) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) long (ADJ) time (N-obj).
FORM: “was beginning” → DISSOLUTION: had started → STRATEGY: E7
∴ “His journey” dissolved → his ongoing actions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His story would be written by his own hand.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.29a He would do things, and his own descriptions of those actions would remain, not descriptions that others wrote.
28.29b He (PRON-subj) would∿do (V-cond) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[story→things.he.does]), and (CONJ) his (PRON-poss.masc) own (ADJ) descriptions (N-subj) of (PREP) those (DET) actions (N-obj) would∿remain (V-cond), not (ADV-neg) descriptions (N-subj) that (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) wrote (V-past).
FORM: “would be written” → DISSOLUTION: descriptions would remain → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “His story” dissolved → what he does + what he/others write
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “His greatest achievement was becoming himself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
28.30a He valued most highly that he now acted according to his own preferences rather than according to what others expected, and he called this “his greatest achievement.”
28.30b He (PRON-subj) valued (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[achievement→valued]) most∿highly (ADV-manner.SUPER) that (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) now (ADV-time) acted (V-past) according∿to (PREP) his (PRON-poss.masc) own (ADJ) preferences (N-obj) rather∿than (CONJ) according∿to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) expected (V-past), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) called (V-past) this (PRON-dem) “his (PRON-poss.masc) greatest (ADJ.SUPER) achievement” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
FORM: “was becoming” → DISSOLUTION: acted according to → STRATEGY: E6 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The narrative dissolves to: a person acting on preferences, valuing this, applying a label
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
28.16 “Throughout his years of living, various persons told him what they expected him to do and called these expectations ‘his purpose.’”
28.17 “His parents expected him to act as they had acted, doing the work their parents had done, and they called this expectation ‘his duty.’”
28.18 “His teachers said he could do things he had not yet done, and expressed disappointment that he had not done them.”
28.19 “He thought critical words about himself more often and more harshly than anyone spoke to him, and felt his body tighten when these thoughts arose.”
28.20 “When considering actions, he imagined others criticizing him, felt his stomach clench, and chose cautiously to avoid that sensation.”
28.21 “One day he noticed his own preferences more clearly than he had before, and acted on them.”
28.22 “He felt strong urges to leave his familiar routines and start acting differently.”
28.23 “He realized he could act without asking permission from the persons who had constrained him, and he began doing so.”
28.24 “He chose, and no other person chose for him.”
28.25 “What he had done before did not determine what he would do next, and he felt free to act differently than he had acted.”
28.26 “He could act differently tomorrow than he had acted today, and persons would describe him differently based on his new actions.”
28.27 “His chest felt relaxed, his thoughts moved slowly, and he breathed easily.”
28.28 “He had just started acting in new ways, and expected to continue for a long time.”
28.29 “He would do things, and his own descriptions of those actions would remain, not descriptions that others wrote.”
28.30 “He valued most highly that he now acted according to his own preferences rather than according to what others expected, and he called this ‘his greatest achievement.’”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
28.16 Throughout his years of living, various persons told him what they expected him to do and called these expectations “his purpose.”
28.17 His parents expected him to act as they had acted, doing the work their parents had done, and they called this expectation “his duty.”
28.18 His teachers said he could do things he had not yet done, and expressed disappointment that he had not done them.
28.19 He thought critical words about himself more often and more harshly than anyone spoke to him, and felt his body tighten when these thoughts arose.
28.20 When considering actions, he imagined others criticizing him, felt his stomach clench, and chose cautiously to avoid that sensation.
28.21 One day he noticed his own preferences more clearly than he had before, and acted on them.
28.22 He felt strong urges to leave his familiar routines and start acting differently.
28.23 He realized he could act without asking permission from the persons who had constrained him, and he began doing so.
28.24 He chose, and no other person chose for him.
28.25 What he had done before did not determine what he would do next, and he felt free to act differently than he had acted.
28.26 He could act differently tomorrow than he had acted today, and persons would describe him differently based on his new actions.
28.27 His chest felt relaxed, his thoughts moved slowly, and he breathed easily.
28.28 He had just started acting in new ways, and expected to continue for a long time.
28.29 He would do things, and his own descriptions of those actions would remain, not descriptions that others wrote.
28.30 He valued most highly that he now acted according to his own preferences rather than according to what others expected, and he called this “his greatest achievement.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Genre Section demonstrates sustained E-Prime Max narrative—a common autobiographical trope (”finding oneself”) thoroughly dissolved.
Key dissolutions in this narrative:
“His purpose” → expectations from others, relabeled. No purpose waits inside anyone; persons outside attach expectations and call them “your purpose.”
“His duty” → parental expectations. The possessive “his” creates false ownership of what others demand.
“His potential” → undone actions that teachers believed he could do. No “potential” sits stored inside; only predictions about future actions.
“His conscience” → critical self-talk and bodily sensations. No inner judge; only thoughts and physical responses.
“His fear” → imagined criticism, stomach sensations, cautious choices. Fear dissolves to anticipation of others’ reactions plus bodily feelings.
“His true nature” → preferences he noticed. Nothing “true” waited to reveal itself; he simply attended to his preferences.
“His soul” → felt urges. No soul called; he felt urges.
“His freedom” → acting without permission. Freedom operationalizes to action minus constraint.
“His identity” → how he acts plus how others describe. No fixed identity exists; only actions and descriptions.
“His heart at peace” → relaxed chest, slow thoughts, easy breathing. Metaphorical heart dissolves to literal body.
“His journey” → ongoing actions through time.
“His story” → actions plus descriptions of them.
“His greatest achievement” → what he most valued. Even framing something as “achievement” constitutes labeling.
Pattern observed: The entire “self-discovery” narrative genre relies heavily on spooks. “Purpose,” “potential,” “true self,” “soul,” “identity,” “journey”—all dissolve to persons, actions, sensations, and labels. The narrative works in E-Prime Max, but reveals itself as a series of: other persons expecting things → felt sensations → noticed preferences → chosen actions → applied labels.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max, dissolving all spooks.
Exercise 1
Standard: “His rights are protected by the Constitution.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons with weapons will interfere if other persons act against his body or property in ways that certain old documents prohibit.”
“is” → eliminated via active restructuring (E1)
Revelation: No “rights” protect anyone. Only persons with weapons who sometimes interfere based on old written rules.
Exercise 2
Standard: “His conscience is his guide through moral dilemmas.”
E-Prime Max: “When he faces difficult choices, he notices his bodily sensations and recurring thoughts, and uses these as information for choosing.”
“is his guide” → uses as information (E4 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No inner “conscience” guides. He notices sensations and thoughts and uses them.
Exercise 3
Standard: “His honor demands that he challenge his insulter to a duel.”
E-Prime Max: “He feels an urge to harm the person who spoke badly of him, because persons around him expect such responses and express approval of them.”
duel → harm the person (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “honor” demands anything. Persons expect, he feels urges, violence may follow.
Exercise 4
Standard: “His destiny was to become a great leader.”
E-Prime Max: “He later led many persons, and some persons now say ‘he seemed destined for this,’ attaching that label after observing his actions.”
“was to become” → later became, persons now say (E6 + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “destiny” preceded his actions. Persons observe outcomes and attach the label “destined” retrospectively.
Exercise 5
Standard: “His love for her is eternal and pure.”
E-Prime Max: “He acts with tenderness toward her persistently, feels pleasure when near her, and expects to continue feeling and acting this way; he describes these feelings and actions as ‘eternal and pure.’”
“is” → acts, feels, expects, describes (E7 + multiple)
Revelation: No “love” exists as substance with properties like “eternal” or “pure.” Only actions, feelings, expectations, and labels.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, developing the construed interlinear method for autodidact learners. This E-Prime Max course extends that methodology into consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The CSV-based vocabulary progression draws from the 1000 most common English words, ensuring that students encounter high-frequency vocabulary while training in E-Prime Max construction. Each lesson introduces one word while demonstrating the full apparatus of spook dissolution.
The Bourland-Stirner synthesis at the heart of this course combines two complementary projects: E-Prime’s attack on predication (”X is Y”) and Stirner’s attack on reification (abstractions as commanding agents). Together, they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution.
For autodidact students, the interlinear format provides complete transparency: every transformation visible, every dissolution mapped, every strategy identified. The scaffolding gradually withdraws as students internalize the patterns.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline serves you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Lesson 28 Complete
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson teaches the English preposition “from” while training students in E-Prime Max—a linguistic discipline that eliminates both the verb “to be” AND abstract nouns that function as commanding agents (what Max Stirner called “spooks” or Gespenster).
“From” indicates source, origin, separation, or the starting point of movement. In standard English, this preposition appears constantly with spook constructions: “gifts from God,” “orders from the State,” “demands from society,” “wisdom from tradition.” E-Prime Max dissolves these abstractions back into the persons, actions, and bodies from which they arose.
This lesson draws on two intellectual traditions: D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be” to reduce dogmatic thinking) and Max Stirner’s critique of fixed ideas (exposing how abstractions possess the thinker rather than serving them). Together, they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“From” functions as a preposition indicating source, origin, cause, separation, or starting point. In E-Prime Max, we use “from” while remaining vigilant about what follows it—when “from” precedes a spook (”from Justice,” “from the Law,” “from Society”), we dissolve that spook back into specific persons acting.
-
Concrete uses of “from” (from the table, from my hand, from Paris) require no dissolution
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Infinitive: to be
Conjugations: am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: ‘s (he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s), ‘m (I’m), ‘re (you’re, we’re, they’re)
Archaic Forms: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, anarchy (when reified)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ - Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ - Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences they mask
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ - Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ - Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ - Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She received a letter from her friend.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.1a She received a letter from her friend.
29.1b She (PRON-subj) received (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) letter (N-obj) from (PREP-source) her (PRON-poss) friend (N-origin).
29.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
No spooks present → No dissolution required → N/A
29.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original
∴ “From” connects to a concrete person (friend)
∴ Simple E-Prime compliance: no “to be” forms appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Orders from the State must be obeyed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.2a Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” write commands, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise—so I comply from fear of their violence.
29.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “officials” (N-label) write (V-pres) commands (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[orders→written.commands]), and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV)—so (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) comply (V-pres) from (PREP-cause) fear (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→my.body.contracts]) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) violence (N-action).
29.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
State → persons with weapons calling themselves “officials” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
orders → written commands → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
must be obeyed → persons with weapons will harm me otherwise → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “State” exists anywhere → only persons with weapons who label themselves
∴ No “orders” command anything → only written words exist, and persons who will harm me
∴ “Must” dissolves into threat of violence by specific persons
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from the label “State”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Wisdom comes from tradition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.3a Certain persons who lived before me wrote things that other persons now repeat—I find some of these writings useful, from my own judgment.
29.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.who.lived.before]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj) wrote (V-past) things (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) repeat (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) some (DET) of (PREP) these (DET) writings (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred), from (PREP-source) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) judgment (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[wisdom→my.evaluation]).
29.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Wisdom → writings I find useful → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
tradition → persons who lived before me and wrote things → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
comes from → I evaluate from my judgment → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
29.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “wisdom” flows from anywhere → only writings exist that I evaluate
∴ No “tradition” teaches → only dead persons wrote, living persons repeat
∴ I reclaim agency: “from my own judgment”
∴ WHO benefits when “tradition” appears to command?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat jumped from the table.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.4a The cat jumped from the table.
29.4b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) jumped (V-past) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) table (N-origin).
29.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
No spooks present → No dissolution required → N/A
29.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present—concrete noun (cat) acts upon concrete noun (table)
∴ “From” indicates physical origin of movement
∴ E-Prime Max permits such constructions without modification
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Rights come from God and protect us from tyranny.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.5a Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented grants permissions—and persons today repeat this claim to limit what other persons with weapons may do, drawing from those old writings.
29.5b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.invented]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→invented.being]) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) grants (V-pres) permissions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→permissions])—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) today (ADV-time) repeat (V-pres) this (DET) claim (N-obj) to (PART) limit (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tyranny→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal), drawing (V-pres.PART) from (PREP-source) those (DET) old (ADJ) writings (N-obj).
29.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Rights → permissions that persons claim → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
God → being invented by persons who wrote old books → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
come from → persons wrote, others repeat → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
tyranny → persons with weapons doing harm → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
protect → limit what armed persons may do → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “rights” exist anywhere → only claims persons make and repeat
∴ No “God” grants anything → only persons invented this being and wrote about it
∴ No “tyranny” threatens → only persons with weapons who might harm
∴ WHO invented the being? WHO repeats the claims? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He walked from the store to the park.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.6a He walked from the store to the park.
29.6b He (PRON-subj) walked (V-past) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) store (N-origin) to (PREP-direction) the (DEF.ART) park (N-destination).
29.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
No spooks present → No dissolution required → N/A
29.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Concrete person moves between concrete locations
∴ “From” indicates spatial origin
∴ No dissolution needed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society expects obedience from its citizens.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.7a Many persons around me expect compliance from persons they label “citizens”—and persons with weapons will harm those who act otherwise.
29.7b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) compliance (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obedience→compliance]) from (PREP-source) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV).
29.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Society → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
obedience → compliance → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
citizens → persons labeled “citizen” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
expects → persons expect + persons with weapons enforce → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “society” expects anything → only persons expect
∴ No “citizens” exist as category → only persons whom others label
∴ Expectation alone changes nothing → weapons enforce compliance
∴ WHO labels? WHO expects? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Moral guidance comes from the conscience.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.8a When I feel discomfort about an action, I call this feeling “conscience”—my guidance comes from my own sensations, not from any external judge.
29.8b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) discomfort (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→my.discomfort]) about (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) action (N), I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) this (DET) feeling (N-obj) “conscience” (N-label)—my (PRON-poss) guidance (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[moral.guidance→my.choices]) comes (V-pres) from (PREP-source) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) sensations (N-origin), not (ADV-neg) from (PREP-source) any (DET) external (ADJ) judge (N).
29.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Moral guidance → my choices → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
conscience → feelings of discomfort I experience → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
comes from → I feel sensations and choose accordingly → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
29.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “conscience” exists as agent → only sensations I experience
∴ No “moral guidance” flows from anywhere → only my choices exist
∴ I own the label “conscience”—I can discard it
∴ The dissolution returns agency to me
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She took the book from the shelf.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.9a She took the book from the shelf.
29.9b She (PRON-subj) took (V-past) the (DEF.ART) book (N-obj) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) shelf (N-origin).
29.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
No spooks present → No dissolution required → N/A
29.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Concrete action with concrete objects
∴ “From” indicates physical source
∴ No abstract agents appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom from oppression is a human right.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.10a Acting without interference from persons who might harm me—certain persons call this a “right” and expect other persons to respect it.
29.10b Acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP-source) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[oppression→persons.who.harm]) who (PRON-rel) might∿harm (V-modal) me (PRON-obj)—certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) a (INDEF.ART) “right” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[human.right→label.persons.use]) and (CONJ) expect (V-pres) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) to (PART) respect (V-inf) it (PRON-obj).
29.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Freedom → acting without interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
oppression → persons who harm → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
human right → label certain persons use → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
is → [ELIMINATED—E-Prime] → E6
29.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists as thing → only acting without interference
∴ No “oppression” threatens → only persons who might harm
∴ No “rights” exist → only labels persons use and expectations they hold
∴ The power lies in persons who might harm or refrain from harming
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us lessons from the past.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.11a Certain persons who write books about past events draw conclusions from records and remains—I may find some of their conclusions useful.
29.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) draw (V-pres) conclusions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[lessons→conclusions]) from (PREP-source) records (N) and (CONJ) remains (N)—I (PRON-subj) may∿find (V-modal) some (DET) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) conclusions (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred).
29.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
History → persons who write about past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
teaches → persons draw conclusions, I evaluate → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
lessons → conclusions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the past → records and remains → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “History” teaches → only persons write and draw conclusions
∴ No “lessons” exist inherently → only interpretations persons make
∴ “The past” dissolves into records, objects, remains
∴ I reclaim evaluation: “I may find useful”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She received an inheritance from her grandmother.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.12a She received objects and money from her grandmother after the grandmother died—persons who call themselves “lawyers” transferred these according to written instructions.
29.12b She (PRON-subj) received (V-past) objects (N-obj) and (CONJ) money (N-obj) from (PREP-source) her (PRON-poss) grandmother (N-origin) after (PREP) the (DEF.ART) grandmother (N-subj) died (V-past)—persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “lawyers” (N-label) transferred (V-past) these (PRON-dem) according∿to (PREP) written (ADJ) instructions (N).
29.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
inheritance → objects and money transferred → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
lawyers → persons who call themselves “lawyers” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
29.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Inheritance” dissolves into concrete transfers by specific persons
∴ Legal categories (”lawyers”) appear as labels persons use
∴ “From” connects to a concrete person (grandmother)
∴ The mechanism becomes visible: persons transfer objects according to written words
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law protects the innocent from harm.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.13a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” sometimes prevent other persons from harming persons whom observers label “innocent”—when they choose to act, and when they arrive in time.
29.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) sometimes (ADV-freq) prevent (V-pres) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj) from (PREP-source) harming (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[innocent→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) observers (N-subj) label (V-pres) “innocent” (ADJ-label)—when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres) to∿act (V-inf), and (CONJ) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) arrive (V-pres) in∿time (ADV-time).
29.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
The law → persons with weapons who call themselves “police” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
protects → sometimes prevents (conditional) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the innocent → persons whom observers label “innocent” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
harm → harming (concrete action) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” protects → only persons with weapons who may or may not act
∴ No “innocent” exist as category → only persons to whom others attach labels
∴ Protection appears conditional: “when they choose,” “when they arrive in time”
∴ The dissolution reveals the gap between the claim and the reality
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He learned French from his teacher.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.14a He learned French from his teacher.
29.14b He (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) French (N-obj) from (PREP-source) his (PRON-poss) teacher (N-origin).
29.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
No spooks present → No dissolution required → N/A
29.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Concrete person learns from concrete person
∴ “Teacher” here refers to a specific individual, not an abstraction
∴ “From” indicates the source of instruction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must be free from the tyranny of tradition and the demands of morality.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.15a I choose to act without following what dead persons wrote and without heeding the expectations of persons around me—I take what serves me from their words and discard what does not.
29.15b I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must→I.choose]) to∿act (V-inf) without (PREP) following (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) dead (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→dead.persons]) wrote (V-past) and (CONJ) without (PREP) heeding (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→expectations]) of (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.with.expectations]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) take (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) from (PREP-source) their (PRON-poss) words (N-origin) and (CONJ) discard (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) does∿not (V-pres.NEG).
29.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
must be → I choose → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
free from → act without following/heeding → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
tyranny → [dissolved into specific constraint] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
tradition → dead persons who wrote → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
demands → expectations → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
morality → persons with expectations → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Must” dissolves into “I choose”
∴ “Tradition” dissolves into writings by dead persons
∴ “Morality” dissolves into expectations of living persons
∴ I take from their words what serves me—ownership restored
∴ The Stirnerian move: these concepts become my tools, not my masters
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
29.1 “She received a letter from her friend.”
[Standard English: “She received a letter from her friend.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete persons]
29.2 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’ write commands, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise—so I comply from fear of their violence.”
[Standard English: “Orders from the State must be obeyed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1-Active Voice (passive “must be obeyed” → “I comply”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (orders → written commands)]
29.3 “Certain persons who lived before me wrote things that other persons now repeat—I find some of these writings useful, from my own judgment.”
[Standard English: “Wisdom comes from tradition.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tradition → persons who lived before), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (wisdom → writings I find useful)]
29.4 “The cat jumped from the table.”
[Standard English: “The cat jumped from the table.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns]
29.5 “Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented grants permissions—and persons today repeat this claim to limit what other persons with weapons may do, drawing from those old writings.”
[Standard English: “Rights come from God and protect us from tyranny.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → invented being), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → claims persons repeat), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tyranny → persons with weapons)]
29.6 “He walked from the store to the park.”
[Standard English: “He walked from the store to the park.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete locations]
29.7 “Many persons around me expect compliance from persons they label ‘citizens’—and persons with weapons will harm those who act otherwise.”
[Standard English: “Society expects obedience from its citizens.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obedience → compliance)]
29.8 “When I feel discomfort about an action, I call this feeling ‘conscience’—my guidance comes from my own sensations, not from any external judge.”
[Standard English: “Moral guidance comes from the conscience.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → my feelings of discomfort), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (moral guidance → my choices based on sensations)]
29.9 “She took the book from the shelf.”
[Standard English: “She took the book from the shelf.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete action]
29.10 “Acting without interference from persons who might harm me—certain persons call this a ‘right’ and expect other persons to respect it.”
[Standard English: “Freedom from oppression is a human right.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6-Identity Rephrase (eliminated “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (oppression → persons who harm), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (human right → label persons use)]
29.11 “Certain persons who write books about past events draw conclusions from records and remains—I may find some of their conclusions useful.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us lessons from the past.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (lessons → conclusions), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (teaches us → I may find useful)]
29.12 “She received objects and money from her grandmother after the grandmother died—persons who call themselves ‘lawyers’ transferred these according to written instructions.”
[Standard English: “She received an inheritance from her grandmother.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (inheritance → objects and money transferred), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (lawyers → persons who call themselves)]
29.13 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ sometimes prevent other persons from harming persons whom observers label ‘innocent’—when they choose to act, and when they arrive in time.”
[Standard English: “The law protects the innocent from harm.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none directly required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the law → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (innocent → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects → sometimes prevents)]
29.14 “He learned French from his teacher.”
[Standard English: “He learned French from his teacher.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete person]
29.15 “I choose to act without following what dead persons wrote and without heeding the expectations of persons around me—I take what serves me from their words and discard what does not.”
[Standard English: “We must be free from the tyranny of tradition and the demands of morality.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (eliminated “be”), E7 (eliminated “must be”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → I choose), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tradition → dead persons), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (morality → persons with expectations), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → expectations)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
29.1 She received a letter from her friend.
29.2 Persons with weapons who call themselves “officials” write commands, and other persons with weapons will harm me if I act otherwise—so I comply from fear of their violence.
29.3 Certain persons who lived before me wrote things that other persons now repeat—I find some of these writings useful, from my own judgment.
29.4 The cat jumped from the table.
29.5 Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented grants permissions—and persons today repeat this claim to limit what other persons with weapons may do, drawing from those old writings.
29.6 He walked from the store to the park.
29.7 Many persons around me expect compliance from persons they label “citizens”—and persons with weapons will harm those who act otherwise.
29.8 When I feel discomfort about an action, I call this feeling “conscience”—my guidance comes from my own sensations, not from any external judge.
29.9 She took the book from the shelf.
29.10 Acting without interference from persons who might harm me—certain persons call this a “right” and expect other persons to respect it.
29.11 Certain persons who write books about past events draw conclusions from records and remains—I may find some of their conclusions useful.
29.12 She received objects and money from her grandmother after the grandmother died—persons who call themselves “lawyers” transferred these according to written instructions.
29.13 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” sometimes prevent other persons from harming persons whom observers label “innocent”—when they choose to act, and when they arrive in time.
29.14 He learned French from his teacher.
29.15 I choose to act without following what dead persons wrote and without heeding the expectations of persons around me—I take what serves me from their words and discard what does not.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “from” in E-Prime Max:
“From” operates as a preposition with multiple core meanings:
Source/Origin: indicates where something or someone comes (”a gift from my mother,” “news from abroad”)
Separation: indicates movement away (”he ran from the building”)
Cause: indicates reason or motivation (”suffering from illness,” “acting from fear”)
Material: indicates composition (”made from wood”)
Prevention: with verbs of hindering (”prevented from entering”)
Range: indicates starting point (”from Monday to Friday,” “from five to ten”)
Common constructions: “from X to Y,” “away from,” “apart from,” “far from,” “free from,” “safe from”
“From” itself requires no E-Prime transformation—prepositions never contain “to be.”
However, “from” commonly appears in sentences requiring E-Prime work:
Standard: “The gift was from my sister.” → E-Prime: “My sister sent the gift.” or “The gift came from my sister.”
Standard: “He is from Canada.” → E-Prime: “He comes from Canada.” or “He grew up in Canada.”
Standard: “The noise is from next door.” → E-Prime: “The noise comes from next door.”
The key transformation: when “from” follows a form of “to be,” replace “to be” with a more specific verb (comes, originates, derives, arrives, emerges).
“From” has HIGH spook proximity because it frequently introduces sources that turn out to be abstractions:
Political spooks after “from”: orders from the State, demands from government, rules from authority, commands from the law
Moral spooks after “from”: guidance from conscience, demands from morality, duties from obligation, requirements from ethics
Collective spooks after “from”: expectations from society, pressure from the people, judgment from humanity, demands from civilization
Metaphysical spooks after “from”: truth from reason, wisdom from tradition, blessing from God, meaning from the universe
Reified emotions after “from”: suffering from fear, acting from love, running from hate
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“Orders from the State” → “written commands from persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’”
“Expectations from society” → “expectations from many persons around me”
“Wisdom from tradition” → “writings from persons who lived before me”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“Freedom from oppression” → “acting without interference from persons who might harm me”
“Suffering from fear” → “experiencing body contractions and reluctance to act”
“Escape from tyranny” → “moving away from persons who threatened to harm me”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure):
“Rights from God” → “claims that certain persons who wrote old books attributed to a being they invented”
“Laws from nature” → “patterns that certain persons observed and described”
“Truths from reason” → “conclusions that certain persons drew and presented as universal”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution):
“Guidance from conscience” → “sensations I feel and choices I make from those sensations”
“Acting from duty” → “acting from my felt urge to meet others’ expectations”
“Learning from experience” → “I observed, I remembered, I now act differently”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“Protection from criminals” → “protection from persons whom others label ‘criminals’”
“Rights from citizenship” → “permissions attached to persons whom officials label ‘citizens’”
“Blessings from the holy” → “words spoken by persons whom others label ‘holy’”
Mistake 1: Dissolving only “from” but leaving the spook intact
Wrong: “guidance from one’s conscience” (conscience still appears as agent)
Right: “guidance from my own sensations of discomfort”
Mistake 2: Forgetting that “free from X” often contains spooks
Wrong: “free from tyranny” (tyranny = spook)
Right: “acting without interference from persons who might harm me”
Mistake 3: Treating “from” + person as requiring dissolution
“A letter from my friend” → NO dissolution needed (concrete person)
“Advice from my doctor” → NO dissolution needed (specific individual)
Only dissolve when what follows “from” functions as an abstract agent.
Mistake 4: Incomplete dissolution chains
Wrong: “orders from persons who represent the State” (State still present)
Right: “commands from persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials’”
When encountering “from X” constructions, ask:
“Does X serve me, or do I serve X?”
If “X” appears as a source of commands, demands, requirements, or obligations that I feel compelled to obey—X has become a spook.
If “X” provides information or resources that I evaluate and use as I choose—X remains a tool.
Examples:
“I take useful ideas from this book.” → The book serves me. No dissolution needed.
“Morality demands obedience from me.” → I serve morality. Dissolution required: “Persons around me expect compliance from me.”
“I learned cooking techniques from my grandmother.” → My grandmother served as source. No dissolution needed (concrete person).
“Tradition requires respect from the young.” → The young serve tradition. Dissolution required: “Older persons expect certain behaviors from younger persons.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established General Semantics in Science and Sanity (1933), arguing that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality differ fundamentally from reality itself. The verb “to be” creates particular problems because it asserts identity (”X is Y”) in ways that obscure the complexity and flux of actual experience.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime (English without “to be”) in 1965, proposing that eliminating “to be” would reduce dogmatic thinking and force speakers toward more precise, verifiable statements. Instead of “The sky is blue” (asserting identity), one says “The sky appears blue to me” (acknowledging perception).
The preposition “from” participates in this General Semantics concern because it often introduces unexamined sources: “knowledge from authority,” “truth from experts,” “commands from above.” Korzybski would ask: from WHOM specifically? Under what conditions? According to whose evaluation?
Max Stirner, in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), identified “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” (fixe Ideen) as abstractions that possess the thinker rather than serving them. The State, God, Humanity, Morality, Truth—all appear as commanding agents that demand service, sacrifice, and obedience.
The haunting mechanism works as follows:
Step 1: Humans create an abstraction (persons acting together call their coordination “the State”)
Step 2: The abstraction gains apparent agency (”the State commands,” “the State forbids”)
Step 3: Humans forget they created it and begin serving it (”I must obey the State”)
Step 4: The abstraction possesses them—they sacrifice their ownness (Eigenheit) to serve the spook
“From” plays a crucial role in this mechanism because spooks often appear as SOURCES: commands FROM the State, duties FROM morality, truth FROM God, wisdom FROM tradition. The preposition naturalizes the abstraction’s existence—if we receive things “from” it, surely it exists to send them.
Stirner’s response: dissolve back to persons. Behind “commands from the State” stand persons with weapons who write words and threaten violence. Behind “wisdom from tradition” stand dead persons who wrote and living persons who repeat. The spook vanishes; persons remain.
E-Prime attacks predication: the claim that X IS Y.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: the claim that X (an abstraction) DOES something.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution:
E-Prime alone would correct “The State is legitimate” to “Many persons consider the State legitimate”—but leaves “the State” intact as agent.
E-Prime Max goes further: “Many persons consider legitimate the arrangement in which certain persons with weapons command others and call this ‘the State.’”
The preposition “from” receives special attention because it often smuggles spooks into E-Prime-compliant sentences:
E-Prime compliant but still spook-haunted: “Commands come from the State.”
E-Prime Max: “Commands come from persons with weapons who call themselves ‘officials.’”
When we dissolve “from X” constructions where X functions as a spook, we discover:
Persons acting where “institutions” seemed to act. Behind “orders from the government” stand specific persons who write, speak, and threaten.
Weapons and cages where “law” seemed to command. “Protection from the law” becomes “sometimes persons with weapons prevent others from harming me—when they choose to act.”
Expectations and pressures where “morality” seemed to judge. “Demands from conscience” becomes “discomfort I feel when I remember what others expect of me.”
Writings and repetitions where “tradition” seemed to teach. “Wisdom from tradition” becomes “things that dead persons wrote and living persons repeat—some of which I find useful.”
Power relations hidden by abstraction. When “the State protects citizens from criminals,” dissolution reveals: “persons with weapons whom some call ‘police’ sometimes prevent persons whom others call ‘criminals’ from harming persons to whom officials attach the label ‘citizen.’” WHO has weapons? WHO applies labels? WHO benefits from the labeling?
Recognizing manipulation through “from”:
Politicians invoke “mandates from the people” (dissolution: “some persons voted, officials interpret this as permission”)
Religious leaders claim “revelation from God” (dissolution: “certain persons wrote things and claimed a being they invented spoke to them”)
Moralists assert “demands from conscience” (dissolution: “feelings of discomfort that persons experience when they remember what others taught them”)
Resisting possession by sources:
When you hear “X from Y” where Y seems to command → ask WHO specifically? What persons act? What persons benefit? What persons hold weapons?
Reclaiming ownness:
“I take what serves me FROM their words.” The Stirnerian move: treat all sources as potential tools, not as masters. Evaluate everything—even this protocol—by whether it serves you.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. Someone might dissolve “persons with weapons” further into “patterns of movement and mass that my nervous system interprets as threatening.” We stop at “persons” because it usually suffices for recognizing power relations.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects for fitness,” “the market decides prices” → all spooks when the abstraction commands. Scientists constitute a priesthood like any other. Their abstractions deserve the same Stirnerian test.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to those who say “is.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. The hobgoblin of “E-Prime Max speaker” rides as hard as any other.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. “Freedom requires...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. Stirner himself used abstractions; we dissolve even Stirner’s language when it serves us.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The divine does not concern me, nor does the human, the true, good, just, free, and so on concern me. What matters to me is only what is mine, and it is not something general, but is unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a The concept certain persons call “divine” does not concern me, nor do concepts persons call “human,” “true,” “good,” “just,” or “free” concern me. What matters to me concerns only what I own, and what I own does not share qualities with general categories—I remain unique, as I remain unrepeatable. Nothing matters more to me than I myself matter to me.
F.1b The (DEF.ART) concept (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[divine→concept.persons.call]) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “divine” (N-label) does∿not (V-pres.NEG) concern (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), nor (CONJ) do (V-aux) concepts (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[abstractions→concepts.persons.call]) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “human” (N-label), “true” (N-label), “good” (N-label), “just” (N-label), or (CONJ) “free” (N-label) concern (V-pres) me (PRON-obj). What (PRON-rel) matters (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) concerns (V-pres) only (ADV) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) own (V-pres), and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) own (V-pres) does∿not (V-pres.NEG) share (V-pres) qualities (N-obj) with (PREP) general (ADJ) categories (N)—I (PRON-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE) unique (ADJ-pred), as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) remain (V-pres.STATE) unrepeatable (ADJ-pred). Nothing (PRON-subj) matters (V-pres) more (ADV-degree) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) than (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) myself (PRON-reflex) matter (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj).
The concept certain persons call “divine” does not concern me, nor do concepts persons call “human,” “true,” “good,” “just,” or “free” concern me. What matters to me concerns only what I own, and what I own does not share qualities with general categories—I remain unique, as I remain unrepeatable. Nothing matters more to me than I myself matter to me.
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
the divine → concept certain persons call “divine” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
the human → concept persons call “human” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
the true → concept persons call “true” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
good, just, free → concepts persons call X → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
is (multiple) → [eliminated] → E-Prime
something general → general categories → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
is unique → I remain unique → E3 (state verb)
Even Stirner’s own formulation contained the verb “to be” multiple times (”is mine,” “is not something general,” “is unique,” “am unique”). The E-Prime Max transformation preserves his insight—that abstractions do not concern the unique—while eliminating the linguistic structures that assert identity.
Note that the dissolution exposes even Stirner’s abstractions: “the divine,” “the human,” “the true” become “concepts that certain persons call X.” This demonstrates that no authority remains sacred, including Stirner himself. The unique takes what serves from Stirner’s words and discards the rest.
The transformation also reveals what “from” would mean in Stirner’s framework: nothing comes FROM divine sources, FROM humanity, FROM truth. Things come FROM persons who write, speak, act—and I evaluate everything by whether it serves me.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section presents 15 examples examining how political discourse uses “from” to naturalize abstract sources of authority—and how E-Prime Max dissolves these constructions back to persons acting.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Legitimate authority derives from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.16a Persons with weapons claim that other persons consented to their rule—they draw this claim from the fact that some persons voted, though many did not consent and remain subject to their weapons regardless.
29.16b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) consented (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→some.voted]) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) rule (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) draw (V-pres) this (DET) claim (N-obj) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) fact (N) that (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) voted (V-past), though (CONJ) many (DET) did∿not (V-past.NEG) consent (V-pres) and (CONJ) remain (V-pres.STATE) subject (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) weapons (N) regardless (ADV).
29.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Legitimate authority → persons with weapons who claim → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
derives from → they draw this claim from → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
consent of the governed → some persons voted → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
the governed → persons subject to weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “authority” exists to derive anything → only persons with weapons who claim
∴ “Consent” dissolves into voting by some, while others face weapons regardless
∴ WHO counts the votes? WHO decides what constitutes consent? WHO holds weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Our rights are protected from government overreach.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.17a Certain persons documented limits on what other persons with weapons may do to us—whether these limits actually prevent harm from those armed persons depends on whether yet other persons with weapons enforce them.
29.17b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.documented]) documented (V-past) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) us (PRON-obj)—whether (CONJ) these (DET) limits (N-subj) actually (ADV) prevent (V-pres) harm (N-obj) from (PREP-source) those (DET) armed (ADJ) persons (N) depends∿on (V-pres) whether (CONJ) yet (ADV) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) them (PRON-obj).
29.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
rights → limits certain persons documented → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
protected → limits prevent harm (conditionally) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
government overreach → harm from persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Rights” dissolve into documented limits that may or may not work
∴ Protection depends on persons with weapons opposing other persons with weapons
∴ The abstraction “rights” conceals this chain of armed persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Power flows from the people to their representatives.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.18a Some persons vote, and other persons then claim authority from those votes—yet the persons who claim authority hold weapons and will act regardless of how any particular person voted.
29.18b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons.who.vote]) vote (V-pres), and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[representatives→persons.who.claim]) then (ADV-time) claim (V-pres) authority (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→claimed.authority]) from (PREP-source) those (DET) votes (N-origin)—yet (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) claim (V-pres) authority (N-obj) hold (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) will∿act (V-fut) regardless∿of (PREP) how (ADV) any (DET) particular (ADJ) person (N-subj) voted (V-past).
29.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Power → claimed authority + weapons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
the people → persons who vote → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
representatives → persons who claim authority → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
flows from → persons claim from votes → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “power” flows → only persons claim and hold weapons
∴ “The people” dissolves into some persons who voted
∴ The weapons exist regardless of the voting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She learned the news from the radio.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.19a She heard words from the radio—persons she never met spoke those words, and other persons she never met selected which words to broadcast.
29.19b She (PRON-subj) heard (V-past) words (N-obj) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) radio (N-origin)—persons (N-subj) she (PRON-subj) never (ADV-freq) met (V-past) spoke (V-past) those (DET) words (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) she (PRON-subj) never (ADV-freq) met (V-past) selected (V-past) which (DET) words (N-obj) to∿broadcast (V-inf).
29.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
the news → words that persons selected → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
learned → heard → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
from the radio → persons spoke, persons selected → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The news” dissolves into selected words
∴ WHO selects? WHO speaks? WHO decides what counts as news?
∴ The radio mediates; persons act behind it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands accountability from those in power.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.20a Many persons express desire that persons who hold weapons and give orders should face consequences from other persons—whether this happens depends on which persons hold more weapons.
29.20b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expressing.desire]) express (V-pres) desire (N-obj) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.in.power→persons.with.weapons]) who (PRON-rel) hold (V-pres) weapons (N-obj) and (CONJ) give (V-pres) orders (N-obj) should∿face (V-modal) consequences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[accountability→consequences]) from (PREP-source) other (ADJ) persons (N-origin)—whether (CONJ) this (PRON-dem) happens (V-pres) depends∿on (V-pres) which (DET) persons (N-subj) hold (V-pres) more (DET) weapons (N-obj).
29.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Justice → persons expressing desire → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
demands → persons express desire → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
accountability → facing consequences → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
those in power → persons who hold weapons and give orders → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Justice” demands → only persons desire
∴ “Accountability” means persons imposing consequences on other persons
∴ Weapons determine outcomes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law prohibits discrimination from employers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.21a Certain persons wrote words prohibiting employers from treating workers differently based on certain characteristics—whether employers comply depends on whether they fear consequences from persons who might enforce these words.
29.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) prohibiting (V-pres.PART) employers (N-obj) from (PREP-source) treating (V-pres.PART) workers (N-obj) differently (ADV-manner) based∿on (PREP) certain (DET) characteristics (N)—whether (CONJ) employers (N-subj) comply (V-pres) depends∿on (V-pres) whether (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) fear (V-pres) consequences (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons]) who (PRON-rel) might∿enforce (V-modal) these (DET) words (N-obj).
29.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
The law → words certain persons wrote → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
prohibits → words prohibit (with enforcement) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
discrimination → treating differently → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The law” = words, with persons who might enforce
∴ Compliance depends on fear of consequences
∴ WHO wrote? WHO enforces? WHO experiences consequences?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy gives citizens a voice from which to influence policy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.22a In arrangements certain persons call “democracy,” persons whom officials label “citizens” may vote—from these votes, officials claim to derive their decisions, though they often act regardless of how persons voted.
29.22b In (PREP) arrangements (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→arrangements]) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) call (V-pres) “democracy” (N-label), persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) may∿vote (V-modal)—from (PREP-source) these (DET) votes (N-origin), officials (N-subj) claim (V-pres) to∿derive (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) decisions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[policy→decisions]), though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) act (V-pres) regardless∿of (PREP) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) voted (V-past).
29.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Democracy → arrangements certain persons call “democracy” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
gives → persons may vote (conditional) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
citizens → persons whom officials label → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
a voice → voting → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
influence policy → officials claim to derive decisions → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Democracy” = a label for certain arrangements
∴ “Citizens” = persons to whom officials attach labels
∴ Officials claim to derive decisions from votes but often act regardless
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He received support from the community.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.23a Several persons who live near him gave him food and money—he received help from specific persons, not from any collective entity.
29.23b Several (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→persons.who.live.near]) who (PRON-rel) live (V-pres) near (PREP) him (PRON-obj) gave (V-past) him (PRON-obj) food (N-obj) and (CONJ) money (N-obj)—he (PRON-subj) received (V-past) help (N-obj) from (PREP-source) specific (ADJ) persons (N-origin), not (ADV-neg) from (PREP-source) any (DET) collective (ADJ) entity (N).
29.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
the community → persons who live near him → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
support → food and money → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Community” dissolves into specific persons acting
∴ Concrete help came from concrete persons
∴ No collective entity gave anything
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Moral authority comes from living an ethical life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.24a When persons act in ways that other persons approve, those others may listen to their advice—this attention comes from the observers’ approval, not from any cosmic source.
29.24b When (CONJ) persons (N-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) approve (V-pres), those (DET) others (N-subj) may∿listen (V-modal) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) advice (N-obj)—this (DET) attention (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[moral.authority→attention.from.others]) comes (V-pres) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) observers’ (N-poss) approval (N-origin), not (ADV-neg) from (PREP-source) any (DET) cosmic (ADJ) source (N).
29.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Moral authority → attention and listening from others → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
comes from → observers approve and listen → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
ethical life → acting in ways others approve → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Moral authority” = other persons choosing to listen
∴ “Ethical life” = acting in ways others approve
∴ WHO approves? WHO listens? No cosmic judge exists.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution liberated the workers from capitalist oppression.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.25a Certain persons with weapons removed other persons with weapons from positions of control—persons who had labored for the removed persons now labored for the new persons with weapons, who called this arrangement “liberation.”
29.25b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolution→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) removed (V-past) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[capitalists→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) from (PREP-source) positions (N) of (PREP) control (N)—persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[workers→persons.who.labored]) who (PRON-rel) had∿labored (V-past.PERF) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) removed (ADJ) persons (N) now (ADV-time) labored (V-past) for (PREP) the (DEF.ART) new (ADJ) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N), who (PRON-rel) called (V-past) this (DET) arrangement (N-obj) “liberation” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[liberation→label.for.arrangement]).
29.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
revolution → persons with weapons who acted → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
liberated → removed some persons, installed others → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
workers → persons who labored → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
capitalist oppression → previous persons with weapons in control → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
liberation → label new controllers use → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
29.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Revolution” = persons with weapons replacing other persons with weapons
∴ “Liberation” = a label the new controllers use
∴ Workers still labor for persons with weapons—different persons
∴ WHO holds weapons now? WHO applies the label “liberation”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Scientific knowledge comes from rigorous experimentation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.26a Persons who call themselves “scientists” perform experiments and draw conclusions from what they observe—I may find their conclusions useful when their observations match what I observe.
29.26b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[scientists→persons.who.call.themselves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “scientists” (N-label) perform (V-pres) experiments (N-obj) and (CONJ) draw (V-pres) conclusions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[knowledge→conclusions]) from (PREP-source) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj) may∿find (V-modal) their (PRON-poss) conclusions (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred) when (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) observations (N-subj) match (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres).
29.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Scientific knowledge → conclusions persons draw → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
comes from → persons draw from observations → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
rigorous experimentation → experiments that persons perform → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Scientific knowledge” = conclusions certain persons draw
∴ “Scientists” = persons who call themselves by that label
∴ I evaluate by whether their observations match mine
∴ No priesthood—scientific or otherwise—escapes the test
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Artistic inspiration comes from the muse.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.27a When I create, ideas arise from processes in my body and mind that I do not fully understand—I may call this “the muse” if that label serves me, knowing I invented the label.
29.27b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) create (V-pres), ideas (N-subj) arise (V-pres) from (PREP-source) processes (N-origin) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) body (N) and (CONJ) mind (N) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG) fully (ADV) understand (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj) may∿call (V-modal) this (PRON-dem) “the muse” (N-label ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[muse→label.I.own]) if (CONJ) that (DET) label (N-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), knowing (V-pres.PART) I (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) the (DEF.ART) label (N-obj).
29.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
Artistic inspiration → ideas that arise during creation → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
the muse → label I may use and own → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
comes from → arises from my processes → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
29.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The muse” becomes a label I OWN and can discard
∴ I acknowledge not understanding the source fully
∴ Ownership remains with me—the label serves me or I discard it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The refugee fled from persecution in her homeland.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.28a She moved away from the place where certain persons threatened to harm her—persons in another place now give her shelter, though other persons there label her “refugee” and attach various rules to that label.
29.28b She (PRON-subj) moved (V-past) away (ADV) from (PREP-source) the (DEF.ART) place (N-origin) where (ADV-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[persecution→persons.who.threatened]) threatened (V-past) to∿harm (V-inf) her (PRON-obj)—persons (N-subj) in (PREP) another (DET) place (N) now (ADV-time) give (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) shelter (N-obj), though (CONJ) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) label (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) “refugee” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[refugee→label.persons.apply]) and (CONJ) attach (V-pres) various (ADJ) rules (N-obj) to (PREP) that (DET) label (N).
29.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
refugee → label persons apply → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
fled → moved away → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
persecution → persons who threatened to harm → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
homeland → place where she lived → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Persecution” dissolves into persons threatening harm
∴ “Refugee” = label that persons apply with attached rules
∴ WHO threatened? WHO shelters? WHO labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “True wisdom comes from within, not from external sources.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.29a When I evaluate claims, I use my own judgment—what I call “wisdom” comes from my processes of evaluation, not from any external authority, though I may incorporate what others say if it serves me.
29.29b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) evaluate (V-pres) claims (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) use (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) judgment (N-obj)—what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “wisdom” (N-label ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[wisdom→label.I.use]) comes (V-pres) from (PREP-source) my (PRON-poss) processes (N-origin) of (PREP) evaluation (N), not (ADV-neg) from (PREP-source) any (DET) external (ADJ) authority (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.claiming]), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) may∿incorporate (V-modal) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) say (V-pres) if (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
29.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
True wisdom → what I call wisdom (owned label) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
comes from within → comes from my processes → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
external sources → others whose words I may incorporate → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
29.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Wisdom” becomes a label I own
∴ “From within” = from my evaluation processes
∴ I take from others what serves me—ownership retained
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation draws its strength from the unity of its people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
29.30a Persons with weapons who call their organization “the nation” maintain control when many persons around them act in coordinated ways—this coordination from many persons allows the armed persons to concentrate resources and direct action.
29.30b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) organization (N-obj) “the nation” (N-label) maintain (V-pres) control (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[strength→control]) when (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) coordinated (ADJ) ways (N)—this (DET) coordination (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[unity→coordination]) from (PREP-source) many (DET) persons (N-origin) allows (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) armed (ADJ) persons (N-obj) to∿concentrate (V-inf) resources (N-obj) and (CONJ) direct (V-inf) action (N-obj).
29.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
The nation → persons with weapons who use that label → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
strength → control and concentrated resources → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
unity → coordination of action → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
its people → many persons around them → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
draws from → coordination allows → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
29.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “The nation” = persons with weapons using a label
∴ “Strength” = control and resource concentration
∴ “Unity” = many persons acting in coordinated ways
∴ WHO coordinates? WHO concentrates resources? WHO benefits?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
29.16 “Persons with weapons claim that other persons consented to their rule—they draw this claim from the fact that some persons voted, though many did not consent and remain subject to their weapons regardless.”
[Standard English: “Legitimate authority derives from the consent of the governed.”]
29.17 “Certain persons documented limits on what other persons with weapons may do to us—whether these limits actually prevent harm from those armed persons depends on whether yet other persons with weapons enforce them.”
[Standard English: “Our rights are protected from government overreach.”]
29.18 “Some persons vote, and other persons then claim authority from those votes—yet the persons who claim authority hold weapons and will act regardless of how any particular person voted.”
[Standard English: “Power flows from the people to their representatives.”]
29.19 “She heard words from the radio—persons she never met spoke those words, and other persons she never met selected which words to broadcast.”
[Standard English: “She learned the news from the radio.”]
29.20 “Many persons express desire that persons who hold weapons and give orders should face consequences from other persons—whether this happens depends on which persons hold more weapons.”
[Standard English: “Justice demands accountability from those in power.”]
29.21 “Certain persons wrote words prohibiting employers from treating workers differently based on certain characteristics—whether employers comply depends on whether they fear consequences from persons who might enforce these words.”
[Standard English: “The law prohibits discrimination from employers.”]
29.22 “In arrangements certain persons call ‘democracy,’ persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ may vote—from these votes, officials claim to derive their decisions, though they often act regardless of how persons voted.”
[Standard English: “Democracy gives citizens a voice from which to influence policy.”]
29.23 “Several persons who live near him gave him food and money—he received help from specific persons, not from any collective entity.”
[Standard English: “He received support from the community.”]
29.24 “When persons act in ways that other persons approve, those others may listen to their advice—this attention comes from the observers’ approval, not from any cosmic source.”
[Standard English: “Moral authority comes from living an ethical life.”]
29.25 “Certain persons with weapons removed other persons with weapons from positions of control—persons who had labored for the removed persons now labored for the new persons with weapons, who called this arrangement ‘liberation.’”
[Standard English: “The revolution liberated the workers from capitalist oppression.”]
29.26 “Persons who call themselves ‘scientists’ perform experiments and draw conclusions from what they observe—I may find their conclusions useful when their observations match what I observe.”
[Standard English: “Scientific knowledge comes from rigorous experimentation.”]
29.27 “When I create, ideas arise from processes in my body and mind that I do not fully understand—I may call this ‘the muse’ if that label serves me, knowing I invented the label.”
[Standard English: “Artistic inspiration comes from the muse.”]
29.28 “She moved away from the place where certain persons threatened to harm her—persons in another place now give her shelter, though other persons there label her ‘refugee’ and attach various rules to that label.”
[Standard English: “The refugee fled from persecution in her homeland.”]
29.29 “When I evaluate claims, I use my own judgment—what I call ‘wisdom’ comes from my processes of evaluation, not from any external authority, though I may incorporate what others say if it serves me.”
[Standard English: “True wisdom comes from within, not from external sources.”]
29.30 “Persons with weapons who call their organization ‘the nation’ maintain control when many persons around them act in coordinated ways—this coordination from many persons allows the armed persons to concentrate resources and direct action.”
[Standard English: “The nation draws its strength from the unity of its people.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
29.16 Persons with weapons claim that other persons consented to their rule—they draw this claim from the fact that some persons voted, though many did not consent and remain subject to their weapons regardless.
29.17 Certain persons documented limits on what other persons with weapons may do to us—whether these limits actually prevent harm from those armed persons depends on whether yet other persons with weapons enforce them.
29.18 Some persons vote, and other persons then claim authority from those votes—yet the persons who claim authority hold weapons and will act regardless of how any particular person voted.
29.19 She heard words from the radio—persons she never met spoke those words, and other persons she never met selected which words to broadcast.
29.20 Many persons express desire that persons who hold weapons and give orders should face consequences from other persons—whether this happens depends on which persons hold more weapons.
29.21 Certain persons wrote words prohibiting employers from treating workers differently based on certain characteristics—whether employers comply depends on whether they fear consequences from persons who might enforce these words.
29.22 In arrangements certain persons call “democracy,” persons whom officials label “citizens” may vote—from these votes, officials claim to derive their decisions, though they often act regardless of how persons voted.
29.23 Several persons who live near him gave him food and money—he received help from specific persons, not from any collective entity.
29.24 When persons act in ways that other persons approve, those others may listen to their advice—this attention comes from the observers’ approval, not from any cosmic source.
29.25 Certain persons with weapons removed other persons with weapons from positions of control—persons who had labored for the removed persons now labored for the new persons with weapons, who called this arrangement “liberation.”
29.26 Persons who call themselves “scientists” perform experiments and draw conclusions from what they observe—I may find their conclusions useful when their observations match what I observe.
29.27 When I create, ideas arise from processes in my body and mind that I do not fully understand—I may call this “the muse” if that label serves me, knowing I invented the label.
29.28 She moved away from the place where certain persons threatened to harm her—persons in another place now give her shelter, though other persons there label her “refugee” and attach various rules to that label.
29.29 When I evaluate claims, I use my own judgment—what I call “wisdom” comes from my processes of evaluation, not from any external authority, though I may incorporate what others say if it serves me.
29.30 Persons with weapons who call their organization “the nation” maintain control when many persons around them act in coordinated ways—this coordination from many persons allows the armed persons to concentrate resources and direct action.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section demonstrated how political discourse uses “from” to naturalize sources of authority. Key patterns emerged:
Pattern 1: “Authority/power from collective abstractions”
Standard constructions like “authority from the people” or “power from the nation” suggest that these abstractions exist and can transfer agency. Dissolution reveals: persons vote, other persons claim authority from those votes, and persons with weapons act regardless.
Pattern 2: “Protection from political spooks”
“Freedom from oppression” and “protection from tyranny” treat the spooks as real threats. Dissolution reveals: persons with weapons threatening harm, other persons with weapons sometimes preventing harm—the protection depends on which persons hold more weapons.
Pattern 3: “Knowledge/wisdom from institutional spooks”
“Truth from science” or “wisdom from tradition” elevate institutions to sources of authority. Dissolution reveals: persons who call themselves “scientists” draw conclusions; persons who lived before wrote things. I evaluate what serves me.
Pattern 4: “Liberation from other spooks”
Revolutionary discourse uses “from” to indicate escape from one set of abstractions. Dissolution reveals: persons with weapons replace other persons with weapons, apply new labels to the same arrangements.
The recurring revelation: Behind every “from X” where X functions as a spook stand persons acting—persons with weapons, persons who label, persons who claim, persons who wrote. The preposition “from” naturalizes these persons into abstractions; E-Prime Max dissolves them back into visibility.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Exercise 1:
Standard: “The commandments come from God and must be obeyed.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented issued these rules—persons around me expect compliance, and some persons will express disapproval or cause harm if I act otherwise.
must be obeyed → persons expect compliance (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “God” exists to issue commands. Only persons wrote, others repeat, and some enforce with social pressure or violence.
Exercise 2:
Standard: “Citizens derive rights from the Constitution.”
E-Prime Max: Persons whom officials label “citizens” claim permissions that certain persons wrote in a document centuries ago—whether these claimed permissions protect anyone depends on whether persons with weapons choose to enforce them.
the Constitution → document certain persons wrote (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: “Rights” exist only as claims backed by the choices of persons with weapons. The document itself changes nothing without enforcement.
Exercise 3:
Standard: “Moral law prohibits stealing from others.”
E-Prime Max: Persons around me expect that I refrain from taking objects that other persons claim—they taught me this expectation, and they will express disapproval or cause consequences if I act otherwise.
from others → from persons (no change needed—concrete)
Revelation: No “moral law” exists to prohibit anything. Only persons expect, teach, and impose consequences.
Exercise 4:
Standard: “She suffered from anxiety that stemmed from her trauma.”
E-Prime Max: She experienced body tension and racing thoughts—these sensations arose from patterns her nervous system developed after certain persons harmed her.
trauma → events where persons harmed her (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: “Anxiety” and “trauma” dissolve into bodily experiences with specific origins in what persons did.
Exercise 5:
Standard: “Wisdom passed down from the ancients teaches us how to live.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons who lived long ago wrote things—some persons today repeat those writings, and I may find some useful for navigating my life, evaluating them from my own judgment.
teaches us → I may find useful, I evaluate (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “wisdom” flows from “the ancients.” Persons wrote; I evaluate whether their writings serve me.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a systematic approach to English vocabulary acquisition combined with training in spook dissolution and E-Prime discipline.
The course uses a CSV-based vocabulary progression of 1000 words, teaching each word while demonstrating E-Prime Max constructions. Students acquire vocabulary while developing the capacity to see through reified abstractions to the persons and actions beneath.
The Latinum Institute has created language-learning materials since 2006, specializing in autodidact methodology. The construed text approach—presenting interlinear translations with grammatical apparatus—accelerates comprehension by making linguistic structures visible rather than requiring students to puzzle them out unaided.
E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s critique of fixed ideas (dissolving spooks). Together, these disciplines constitute comprehensive consciousness liberation through linguistic practice.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.”
I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 29: FROM
Go functions as one of English’s most fundamental motion verbs, indicating movement from one location to another, transition between states, or the act of departing. In E-Prime Max, “go” presents relatively few challenges—it already expresses concrete action. The difficulty arises when speakers attach spooks to this verb: “Society goes astray,” “History goes on,” “Progress goes forward.” In such constructions, abstractions appear to move, to act, to possess agency they cannot possess.
This lesson trains students to recognize when spooks hijack the concrete verb “go” and to dissolve those spooks back into the persons and actions they mask.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “go” mean in E-Prime Max?
“Go” retains its standard meaning—movement, departure, transition—but E-Prime Max requires that only actual entities capable of movement serve as the subject. Persons go. Animals go. Objects moved by persons go. Abstractions do not go anywhere, because abstractions lack bodies, lack legs, lack the capacity for locomotion. When someone says “Justice goes unpunished,” E-Prime Max asks: who moved? who acted? who failed to act?
How “Go” Appears in This Lesson:
Each of the 30 examples uses “go” while demonstrating E-Prime compliance (no “to be” forms) and spook dissolution (no abstractions acting as agents). You will encounter “go” in simple physical contexts and in contexts where spooks typically attach—political, moral, collective—with those spooks dissolved into persons and concrete actions.
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
How “go” typically appears in E-Prime Max: As the main verb with a concrete subject (person, animal, object in motion). The verb itself requires no transformation.
Common spooks to watch for with “go”: Society, history, progress, tradition, the times, civilization, humanity, justice, freedom—any abstraction that “goes” somewhere.
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ for collective spooks (”society goes” → “many persons around me go”); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ for abstract processes (”progress goes” → “changes that certain persons approve of occur”).
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: No “society” travels anywhere—only persons travel. No “history” proceeds—only events happen and persons record them. No “progress” advances—only changes occur, and certain persons label some changes “progress.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am going to the store.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.1a I go to the store now.
30.1b I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) store (N-obj) now (ADV-time).
30.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“am going” → “go” (present tense) → E7 (state verb elimination)
30.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “am going” → “go” ∴ Concrete subject (I) performing concrete action (movement)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society is going in the wrong direction.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.2a Many persons around me make choices that I evaluate as harmful, and they go toward outcomes I consider undesirable.
30.2b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) make (V-pres) choices (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) evaluate (V-pres) as (PREP) harmful (ADJ), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) toward (PREP) outcomes (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) consider (V-pres) undesirable (ADJ-pred).
30.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“wrong direction” → outcomes I consider undesirable → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists to travel anywhere → only persons make choices ∴ “Wrong direction” masks my evaluation → I consider it undesirable ∴ WHO decides what counts as “wrong”? I do, in this dissolution ∴ The collective spook dissolves → individual persons and my judgments appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History goes on regardless of our wishes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.3a Events continue to happen, persons continue to record them, and what certain writers later call “history” goes into books—regardless of what I wish.
30.3b Events (N-subj) continue (V-pres) to (PART) happen (V-inf), persons (N-subj) continue (V-pres) to (PART) record (V-inf) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→writers.recording]) later (ADV-time) call (V-pres) “history” (N-label) goes (V-pres) into (PREP) books (N-obj)—regardless (ADV) of (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) wish (V-pres).
30.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“our wishes” → what I wish → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” walks or travels → only events occur and persons record ∴ “History” = a label certain writers attach to their accounts ∴ WHO writes the histories? Persons with agendas, perspectives, interests ∴ The spook “history” dissolves → events, recorders, and my wishes appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She went to Paris last summer.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.4a She went to Paris last summer.
30.4b She (PRON-subj) went (V-past) to (PREP) Paris (N-proper) last (ADJ) summer (N-time).
30.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
Clean E-Prime Max sentence
30.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Concrete person performing concrete action ∴ No dissolution required ∴ This sentence serves as a model of natural E-Prime Max
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress is going forward despite opposition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.5a Certain changes occur, certain persons label those changes “progress,” and those changes go forward despite other persons opposing them.
30.5b Certain (DET) changes (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Progress→changes.occurring]) occur (V-pres), certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Progress→persons.labeling]) label (V-pres) those (DET) changes (N-obj) “progress” (N-label), and (CONJ) those (DET) changes (N-subj) go (V-pres) forward (ADV-direction) despite (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-subj) opposing (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj).
30.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“opposition” → other persons opposing → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “progress” marches anywhere → only changes occur ∴ WHO labels changes “progress”? Persons with interests in those changes ∴ WHO opposes? Other persons with different interests ∴ The spook dissolves → changes, labelers, and opponents appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law is going to change next year.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.6a Certain persons with the power to write rules plan to write different rules next year, and what they write will go into the official documents.
30.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.power]) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) power (N) to (PART) write (V-inf) rules (N-obj) plan (V-pres) to (PART) write (V-inf) different (ADJ) rules (N-obj) next (ADJ) year (N-time), and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) write (V-pres) will (AUX-fut) go (V-inf) into (PREP) the (DEF.ART) official (ADJ) documents (N-obj).
30.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“is going to change” → plan to write different rules → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” changes itself → persons write new words on paper ∴ WHO writes the law? Persons with power—legislators, officials ∴ WHO enforces? Other persons with weapons ∴ The spook dissolves → writers, documents, and power relations appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice will go unpunished in this case.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.7a The persons with gavels will let the accused go free, and many persons around me who expected confinement will feel dissatisfied.
30.7b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.with.gavels]) with (PREP) gavels (N) will (AUX-fut) let (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) accused (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[accused→person.labeled]) go (V-inf) free (ADJ-pred), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice.expectations→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) who (PRON-rel) expected (V-past) confinement (N-obj) will (AUX-fut) feel (V-inf.STATE) dissatisfied (ADJ-pred).
30.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“unpunished” → accused goes free + expecters feel dissatisfied → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” walks or receives punishment → only persons act ∴ WHO decides outcomes? Persons with gavels (judges) ∴ WHO feels wronged? Persons with expectations ∴ The spook dissolves → decision-makers, accused, and expecters appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom is going away in this country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.8a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” now prevent more actions than before, so I go about my day with more restrictions, and I can go fewer places without their permission.
30.8b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) now (ADV-time) prevent (V-pres) more (DET) actions (N-obj) than (CONJ) before (ADV-time), so (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) about (PREP) my (PRON-poss) day (N-obj) with (PREP) more (DET) restrictions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Freedom→actions.prevented]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) can (AUX) go (V-inf) fewer (DET) places (N-obj) without (PREP) their (PRON-poss) permission (N).
30.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“this country” → where I live / this territory → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” departs → only persons restrict other persons’ actions ∴ “Freedom going away” = persons with weapons preventing more of my actions ∴ WHO restricts? Persons calling themselves government ∴ The spook dissolves → restrictions, restrictors, and my limited movement appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The children went outside to play.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.9a The children went outside to play.
30.9b The (DEF.ART) children (N-subj) went (V-past) outside (ADV-place) to (PART) play (V-inf).
30.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
Clean E-Prime Max sentence
30.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Concrete persons (children) performing concrete action (movement) ∴ No dissolution required ∴ Simple, direct E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition is going to die if we don’t preserve it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.10a Certain practices that older persons taught younger persons will go unperformed if younger persons now choose different practices—and certain persons around me call this loss “tradition dying.”
30.10b Certain (DET) practices (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Tradition→practices.taught]) that (PRON-rel) older (ADJ) persons (N-subj) taught (V-past) younger (ADJ) persons (N-obj) will (AUX-fut) go (V-inf) unperformed (ADJ-pred) if (CONJ) younger (ADJ) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) choose (V-pres) different (ADJ) practices (N-obj)—and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Tradition→persons.labeling]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) call (V-pres) this (DET) loss (N-obj) “tradition (N-label) dying” (V-pres.PART).
30.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“we” → persons around me / younger persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” lives or dies → only practices get performed or not ∴ WHO created the practices? Older persons ∴ WHO stops performing them? Younger persons with different preferences ∴ The spook dissolves → practices, teachers, and choosers appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty calls and I must go.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.11a I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I will go do what they expect—I choose to follow this urge.
30.11b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Duty→I.feel.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to (PART) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Duty→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (AUX-fut) go (V-inf) do (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres) to (PART) follow (V-inf) this (DET) urge (N-obj).
30.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“must” → I choose to → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” speaks or summons → only I feel urges and choose ∴ WHO expects? Certain persons with expectations of me ∴ WHO decides to go? I do—I own the choice ∴ The spook dissolves → my feelings, their expectations, my choice appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The meeting is going to be important.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.12a The meeting will go well or poorly depending on what persons say there, and certain persons will attach significant consequences to what happens—so I go prepared.
30.12b The (DEF.ART) meeting (N-subj) will (AUX-fut) go (V-inf) well (ADV-manner) or (CONJ) poorly (ADV-manner) depending (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) say (V-pres) there (ADV-place), and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) will (AUX-fut) attach (V-inf) significant (ADJ) consequences (N-obj) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres)—so (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) prepared (ADJ-pred).
30.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“important” → persons attach consequences → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Important” masks who cares and why → persons attach consequences ∴ E-Prime transformation: “is going to be” → “will go” ∴ WHO makes it important? Persons with power over consequences ∴ Mild spook dissolution reveals the power relations behind “importance”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality demands that the wicked not go unpunished.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.13a Certain persons around me expect that persons they label “wicked” will not go free—they want persons with weapons to confine them.
30.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Morality→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wicked→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “wicked” (ADJ-label) will (AUX-fut) not (ADV-neg) go (V-inf) free (ADJ-pred)—they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[punishment→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) to (PART) confine (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
30.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“unpunished” → go free / not confined → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “morality” demands anything → only persons have expectations ∴ No “wicked” persons exist → only persons to whom others attach that label ∴ WHO labels? Persons with particular values ∴ WHO confines? Persons with weapons ∴ The spooks dissolve → labelers, expecters, and weapon-holders appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We are going home.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.14a We go home now.
30.14b We (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) home (N-obj/ADV-place) now (ADV-time).
30.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“are going” → go (present) → E7
30.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation ∴ Concrete persons performing concrete action ∴ “Home” functions here as place, not spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State’s authority cannot go unchallenged.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.15a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim the power to command—but other persons can challenge that claim, and their challenges go into public discourse when they speak and write.
30.15b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) claim (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→claim.to.command]) the (DEF.ART) power (N-obj) to (PART) command (V-inf)—but (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) can (AUX) challenge (V-inf) that (DET) claim (N-obj), and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) challenges (N-subj) go (V-pres) into (PREP) public (ADJ) discourse (N-obj) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) speak (V-pres) and (CONJ) write (V-pres).
30.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“cannot go unchallenged” → other persons can challenge → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “State” possesses authority → only persons claim power ∴ “Authority” = a claim, not a thing ∴ WHO challenges? Persons who speak and write against the claim ∴ The spooks dissolve → claimants, challengers, and their actions appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
30.1 “I go to the store now.”
[Standard English: “I am going to the store.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “am going” → “go”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
30.2 “Many persons around me make choices that I evaluate as harmful, and they go toward outcomes I consider undesirable.”
[Standard English: “Society is going in the wrong direction.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is going → go)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → many persons around me); D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (wrong direction → outcomes I consider undesirable)]
30.3 “Events continue to happen, persons continue to record them, and what certain writers later call ‘history’ goes into books—regardless of what I wish.”
[Standard English: “History goes on regardless of our wishes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (History → events + persons recording + writers labeling); D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (our wishes → what I wish)]
30.4 “She went to Paris last summer.”
[Standard English: “She went to Paris last summer.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
30.5 “Certain changes occur, certain persons label those changes ‘progress,’ and those changes go forward despite other persons opposing them.”
[Standard English: “Progress is going forward despite opposition.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is going → go)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Progress → changes + persons labeling); D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (opposition → other persons opposing)]
30.6 “Certain persons with the power to write rules plan to write different rules next year, and what they write will go into the official documents.”
[Standard English: “The law is going to change next year.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is going to change → plan to write different rules)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (The law → persons with power + what they write)]
30.7 “The persons with gavels will let the accused go free, and many persons around me who expected confinement will feel dissatisfied.”
[Standard English: “Justice will go unpunished in this case.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons with gavels + persons expecting); D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (accused → person labeled); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (unpunished → go free)]
30.8 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ now prevent more actions than before, so I go about my day with more restrictions, and I can go fewer places without their permission.”
[Standard English: “Freedom is going away in this country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is going → go)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Freedom → actions I can perform); D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (government → persons with weapons calling themselves government)]
30.9 “The children went outside to play.”
[Standard English: “The children went outside to play.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
30.10 “Certain practices that older persons taught younger persons will go unperformed if younger persons now choose different practices—and certain persons around me call this loss ‘tradition dying.’”
[Standard English: “Tradition is going to die if we don’t preserve it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is going to die → will go unperformed)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Tradition → practices taught by older persons)]
30.11 “I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I will go do what they expect—I choose to follow this urge.”
[Standard English: “Duty calls and I must go.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Duty calls → I feel urge); D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Duty → expectations of certain persons); D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → choose)]
30.12 “The meeting will go well or poorly depending on what persons say there, and certain persons will attach significant consequences to what happens—so I go prepared.”
[Standard English: “The meeting is going to be important.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 + E3 (is going to be → will go)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (important → persons attach consequences)]
30.13 “Certain persons around me expect that persons they label ‘wicked’ will not go free—they want persons with weapons to confine them.”
[Standard English: “Morality demands that the wicked not go unpunished.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Morality → persons expecting); D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (the wicked → persons they label); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (unpunished → go free)]
30.14 “We go home now.”
[Standard English: “We are going home.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are going → go)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
30.15 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ claim the power to command—but other persons can challenge that claim, and their challenges go into public discourse when they speak and write.”
[Standard English: “The State’s authority cannot go unchallenged.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (The State → persons with weapons calling themselves government); D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (authority → claim to command)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
30.1 I go to the store now.
30.2 Many persons around me make choices that I evaluate as harmful, and they go toward outcomes I consider undesirable.
30.3 Events continue to happen, persons continue to record them, and what certain writers later call “history” goes into books—regardless of what I wish.
30.4 She went to Paris last summer.
30.5 Certain changes occur, certain persons label those changes “progress,” and those changes go forward despite other persons opposing them.
30.6 Certain persons with the power to write rules plan to write different rules next year, and what they write will go into the official documents.
30.7 The persons with gavels will let the accused go free, and many persons around me who expected confinement will feel dissatisfied.
30.8 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” now prevent more actions than before, so I go about my day with more restrictions, and I can go fewer places without their permission.
30.9 The children went outside to play.
30.10 Certain practices that older persons taught younger persons will go unperformed if younger persons now choose different practices—and certain persons around me call this loss “tradition dying.”
30.11 I feel an urge to act as certain persons expect, and I will go do what they expect—I choose to follow this urge.
30.12 The meeting will go well or poorly depending on what persons say there, and certain persons will attach significant consequences to what happens—so I go prepared.
30.13 Certain persons around me expect that persons they label “wicked” will not go free—they want persons with weapons to confine them.
30.14 We go home now.
30.15 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim the power to command—but other persons can challenge that claim, and their challenges go into public discourse when they speak and write.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “go” in E-Prime Max:
“Go” functions as an irregular verb indicating movement, departure, or transition:
Present: go, goes Past: went Past participle: gone Present participle: going
Common constructions include “go to” (destination), “go + adjective” (become), “go + gerund” (activity), and “go on” (continue). The verb takes a subject capable of movement and often a directional complement.
“Go” itself requires no E-Prime transformation—it already expresses action rather than predication. However, “go” frequently appears in periphrastic constructions using “to be”:
“I am going” → “I go” (simple present) or “I go now” (with time marker) “She was going” → “She went” (simple past) “They are going to leave” → “They will leave” or “They plan to leave” “It is going to be difficult” → “It will prove difficult” or “Difficulty awaits”
The “going to” future construction (”is/are going to + verb”) always requires transformation. Replace with simple future (”will”), intention verbs (”plan to,” “intend to”), or scheduled action markers.
“Go” has MEDIUM spook proximity. The verb itself remains concrete, but speakers frequently attach spook-subjects to it:
High-frequency spook combinations with “go”:
Society goes, history goes, progress goes, tradition goes, civilization goes, the times go, freedom goes, justice goes, truth goes, the law goes, nature goes, fate goes, the market goes
Each of these constructions places an abstraction in the agent position, making the abstraction appear to move, to possess locomotion, to have direction and intention.
The test: Can this subject literally move through space? If no → spook.
“The State’s influence goes everywhere” → “Persons calling themselves government extend their control to more areas”
“Freedom goes away” → “Persons can perform fewer actions without interference”
“Tradition goes back centuries” → “Certain practices that older persons taught younger persons have occurred for many generations”
“Duty called and I had to go” → “I felt an urge to act as others expected and I chose to follow that urge”
“Criminals go to prison” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘criminal’ get transported to cages by persons with weapons”
Mistake 1: Treating “society goes” as acceptable because “go” seems concrete. “Go” functions concretely, but “society” cannot go anywhere. The spook attaches to the subject, not the verb.
Mistake 2: Replacing “is going” with “goes” but keeping the spook. “Society is going downhill” → “Society goes downhill” achieves E-Prime but retains the spook. Full dissolution: “Many persons around me make choices that I evaluate negatively.”
Mistake 3: Incomplete dissolution of “go + abstract destination.” “She goes toward truth” requires dissolving “truth.” → “She seeks information that matches what she and others observe.”
Mistake 4: Forgetting that “history,” “progress,” “tradition” cannot locomote. These abstractions appear so frequently as subjects of “go” that speakers naturalize them. They remain spooks.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
When I say “history goes on,” do I own this expression as a convenient shorthand? Or does “history” appear to me as an entity with its own momentum, its own direction, its own demands?
If I can say “I use ‘history’ as shorthand for ‘events that persons recorded’” and discard the term at will → the concept serves me.
If I feel that “history” has direction, that “history” teaches, that I must align with “history’s” movement → I serve the spook.
The same applies to “progress,” “society,” “tradition,” and all collective abstractions that “go” places in ordinary speech.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality differ from reality itself. When we say “history goes forward,” we create a map in which an abstraction called “history” possesses the capacity for directed motion. This map deceives us. No “history” exists to go anywhere. Only events occur, and persons record them.
D. David Bourland Jr. observed that the verb “to be” particularly facilitates this confusion by creating apparent identities and existences. “Society is going in the wrong direction” uses “is” to assert that “society” exists as an entity capable of travel. E-Prime eliminates “is,” but the spook “society” remains until dissolved.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as fixed ideas that possess the thinker. These abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Morality, Truth—appear to have agency, to make demands, to command obedience. The haunting mechanism works as follows:
Persons create abstractions → Abstractions appear to act → Persons forget they created them → Persons serve what they made
When we say “duty calls and I must go,” we have externalized our feelings and choices into an entity called “duty” that “calls” us. We serve our creation. We have become possessed.
Ownness (Eigenheit) means reclaiming what we externalized. “I feel an urge and I choose to follow it” → I own my experience. No “duty” commands me.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” → eliminated E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X demands/requires/goes” → dissolved
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline. When we cannot say “society is going wrong” AND we must dissolve “society goes wrong,” we arrive at: “Many persons around me make choices that I evaluate as harmful.”
This dissolution reveals: (1) specific persons acting, (2) my evaluation of their actions, (3) the absence of any “society” to travel anywhere.
Persons acting where “society” seemed to move: “Society goes toward collapse” → Certain persons make choices that other persons predict will produce outcomes those others fear.
Weapons and cages where “justice” seemed to go: “Justice goes unpunished” → Persons with gavels let the accused go free, and persons who expected confinement feel frustrated.
Writers and labelers where “history” seemed to proceed: “History goes in cycles” → Writers who describe past events arrange their descriptions in patterns.
Power relations hidden by abstraction: “Progress goes forward despite opposition” → Certain persons with power implement changes they favor, overcoming resistance from other persons.
Recognizing manipulation through reification: Politicians who say “history goes in our direction” attempt to make their preferences appear inevitable. Dissolved: “We claim our preferences will prevail.”
Resisting possession by concepts: When someone says “tradition goes back generations and you must respect it,” you can dissolve: “Older persons taught these practices to younger persons, and you expect me to continue them.” The command becomes visible as coming from a person, not from “tradition.”
Reclaiming ownness: “I had to go—duty called” → “I felt an urge to act as others expected, and I chose to follow it.” You reclaim your choice. You own your action.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Where the world comes in my way—and it comes in my way everywhere—I consume it to quiet the hunger of my egoism. For me you are nothing but—my food, even as I too am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.”
—Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.F.1a Where persons and things go against my purposes—and they go against my purposes everywhere—I consume them to quiet my hunger. For me you function only as my food, even as I too get fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation: I use you and you use me.
30.F.1b Where (ADV-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[world→persons.and.things]) and (CONJ) things (N-subj) go (V-pres) against (PREP) my (PRON-poss) purposes (N-obj)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) against (PREP) my (PRON-poss) purposes (N-obj) everywhere (ADV-place)—I (PRON-subj) consume (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) to (PART) quiet (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) hunger (N-obj). For (PREP) me (PRON-obj) you (PRON-subj) function (V-pres.REL) only (ADV) as (PREP) my (PRON-poss) food (N-pred), even (ADV) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) too (ADV) get∿fed∿upon (V-pres.PASS) and (CONJ) turned (V-past.PART) to (PREP) use (N-obj) by (PREP) you (PRON-agent). We (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) only (ADV) one (NUM) relation (N-obj): I (PRON-subj) use (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) use (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“you are nothing but” → you function only as → E4 + E6
30.F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s language contained mild spooks: “the world” → dissolved to persons and things ∴ “Comes in my way” → “goes against my purposes” maintains movement metaphor without spook-subject ∴ The mutual use relation appears clearly: persons use persons ∴ No “world” acts → only persons and things interact with me
Where persons and things go against my purposes—and they go against my purposes everywhere—I consume them to quiet my hunger. For me you function only as my food, even as I too get fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation: I use you and you use me.
Stirner’s passage expresses the egoist’s relation to what he encounters. The original uses “the world” as a near-spook—a collective term for everything encountered. E-Prime Max dissolves this to “persons and things,” maintaining Stirner’s meaning while removing the reification.
The transformation of “comes in my way” to “goes against my purposes” uses the lesson’s topic verb while preserving the metaphor of obstruction. Things do not literally “go” against purposes, but the construction places concrete entities (persons, things) in the subject position rather than abstractions.
Stirner’s term “egoism” itself approaches spook status when reified. The dissolution to “my hunger” concretizes the experience—I feel hunger, I act to satisfy it. No “egoism” exists as a separate entity.
The final dissolution—”We have only one relation: I use you and you use me”—strips away “usableness, utility, use” as abstract nouns and replaces them with direct verb forms. Persons use persons. The relation appears directly.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.16a I go where I choose, not where abstractions command.
30.16b I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) where (ADV-rel) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres), not (ADV-neg) where (ADV-rel) abstractions (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[abstractions→[eliminated]]) command (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[→I.choose]).
30.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“abstractions command” → acknowledged and negated → meta-dissolution
30.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Statement of dissolution principle itself ∴ First-person ownership of movement decisions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.17a Yesterday certain persons told me that I had to go to a meeting because “the company needs everyone there.”
30.17b Yesterday (ADV-time) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) told (V-past) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) had (AUX-past) to (PART) go (V-inf) to (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) meeting (N-obj) because (CONJ) “the (DEF.ART) company (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[company→persons.who.pay.me]) needs (V-pres) everyone (PRON-obj) there” (ADV-place).
30.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“needs” → [managers want] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The company” = persons with power over my income ∴ WHO needs? Managers want something ∴ The spook dissolves → specific persons with interests appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.18a I asked myself: do persons who pay me actually require my body in that room, or did they just want me to go through the motions?
30.18b I (PRON-subj) asked (V-past) myself (PRON-refl): do (AUX-pres) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[they→persons.who.pay.me]) who (PRON-rel) pay (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) actually (ADV-manner) require (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) body (N-obj) in (PREP) that (DET) room (N-obj), or (CONJ) did (AUX-past) they (PRON-subj) just (ADV) want (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) to (PART) go (V-inf) through (PREP) the (DEF.ART) motions (N-obj)?
30.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
implicit “requirement” → what persons want → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Question of genuine need vs. ritual compliance ∴ “Go through the motions” = perform without engagement ∴ WHO wants what? becomes the real question
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.19a I chose to go, but I went as myself, not as “an employee fulfilling duty.”
30.19b I (PRON-subj) chose (V-past) to (PART) go (V-inf), but (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) went (V-past) as (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), not (ADV-neg) as (PREP) “an (INDEF.ART) employee (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[role→label.attached]) fulfilling (V-pres.PART) duty (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge.I.chose.to.follow]).”
30.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“duty” → urge I chose to follow → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ I own my choice to go ∴ “Employee” = a label, not my identity ∴ “Duty” = a feeling I can follow or not
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.20a At the meeting, a manager said that “team spirit requires us to go the extra mile.”
30.20b At (PREP) the (DEF.ART) meeting (N-obj), a (INDEF.ART) manager (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[manager→person.with.authority]) said (V-past) that (CONJ) “team (N) spirit (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[spirit→expectations.of.persons]) requires (V-pres) us (PRON-obj) to (PART) go (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) extra (ADJ) mile (N-obj).”
30.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“requires” → [abstraction cannot require—manager wants] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
30.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Team spirit” = feelings and expectations among persons ∴ WHO requires? The manager wants ∴ The spook dissolves → the manager’s demand appears
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.21a I dissolved the spook silently: this person with authority over my tasks wants me to go beyond what we agreed I would do for my pay.
30.21b I (PRON-subj) dissolved (V-past) the (DEF.ART) spook (N-obj) silently (ADV-manner): this (DET) person (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[manager→person]) with (PREP) authority (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[authority→power.over.tasks]) over (PREP) my (PRON-poss) tasks (N-obj) wants (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PART) go (V-inf) beyond (PREP) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) agreed (V-past) I (PRON-subj) would (AUX) do (V-inf) for (PREP) my (PRON-poss) pay (N-obj).
30.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“authority” → power over my tasks → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The demand appears as coming from a person ∴ The agreement (contract) appears ∴ “Extra mile” = beyond what we agreed
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.22a Another person said that “our reputation goes on the line with every project.”
30.22b Another (DET) person (N-subj) said (V-past) that (CONJ) “our (PRON-poss) reputation (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reputation→what.others.think]) goes (V-pres) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) line (N-obj) with (PREP) every (DET) project (N-obj).”
30.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“goes on the line” → other persons may change their opinions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Reputation” = opinions other persons hold ∴ “Goes on the line” = those opinions may change ∴ WHO thinks what? becomes the question
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.23a I translated: other persons may change their opinions of persons in this room depending on what we produce—and certain persons here care greatly about what those others think.
30.23b I (PRON-subj) translated (V-past): other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[others→persons.outside]) may (AUX) change (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) opinions (N-obj) of (PREP) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) this (DET) room (N-obj) depending (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) we (PRON-subj) produce (V-pres)—and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) here (ADV-place) care (V-pres) greatly (ADV-manner) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) others (N-subj) think (V-pres).
30.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“reputation goes on the line” → persons may change opinions + persons care → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
30.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Power dynamic appears: some persons care what others think ∴ “Reputation” dissolves into: opinions, opinion-holders, persons who care ∴ The spook vanishes → persons with varying investments appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.24a The meeting ended, and I went back to my desk, thinking about how many spooks had floated through that room.
30.24b The (DEF.ART) meeting (N-subj) ended (V-past), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) went (V-past) back (ADV-direction) to (PREP) my (PRON-poss) desk (N-obj), thinking (V-pres.PART) about (PREP) how (ADV-manner) many (DET) spooks (N-obj) had (AUX-past) floated (V-past.PART) through (PREP) that (DET) room (N-obj).
30.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“spooks floated” = metaphor for how abstractions dominated discourse
30.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Reflection on corporate discourse as spook-laden ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.25a Company. Team spirit. Reputation. Duty. The extra mile. None of these go anywhere—only persons go places, and persons used these words to move me.
30.25b Company (N). Team (N) spirit (N). Reputation (N). Duty (N). The (DEF.ART) extra (ADJ) mile (N). None (PRON) of (PREP) these (PRON-dem) go (V-pres) anywhere (ADV-place)—only (ADV) persons (N-subj) go (V-pres) places (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) used (V-past) these (DET) words (N-obj) to (PART) move (V-inf) me (PRON-obj).
30.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“to move me” → manipulation via spook-language → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
30.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Summary statement of dissolution principle ∴ Spooks cannot locomote ∴ Persons use spook-words to influence other persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.26a The next morning I went for a walk before work—just I and the pavement under my feet.
30.26b The (DEF.ART) next (ADJ) morning (N-time) I (PRON-subj) went (V-past) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) walk (N-obj) before (PREP) work (N-obj)—just (ADV) I (PRON-subj) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) pavement (N-obj) under (PREP) my (PRON-poss) feet (N-obj).
30.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
Clean, concrete sentence
30.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Simple physical action ∴ Concrete: I, pavement, feet ∴ No dissolution required
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.27a No “society” went with me; no “history” determined my route.
30.27b No (DET) “society” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[negated]) went (V-past) with (PREP) me (PRON-obj); no (DET) “history” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[negated]) determined (V-past) my (PRON-poss) route (N-obj).
30.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“history” → negated as determinant → meta-dissolution
30.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Statement of freedom from spook-governance ∴ I walked alone → no abstraction accompanied me ∴ I chose my route → no abstraction determined it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.28a I went left because I wanted to go left, not because “destiny” pulled me or “purpose” guided me.
30.28b I (PRON-subj) went (V-past) left (ADV-direction) because (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) to (PART) go (V-inf) left (ADV-direction), not (ADV-neg) because (CONJ) “destiny” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[negated]) pulled (V-past) me (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) “purpose” (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[negated]) guided (V-past) me (PRON-obj).
30.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“I wanted” → ownership of desire → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
30.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ I chose because I wanted ∴ No “destiny” exists to pull ∴ No cosmic “purpose” guides ∴ The unique decides direction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.29a When I go, I go as the unique that I call “I”—unrepeatable, owning my movement, creating my path by walking it.
30.29b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) as (PREP) the (DEF.ART) unique (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[unique→I.unrepeatable]) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “I” (PRON-label)—unrepeatable (ADJ), owning (V-pres.PART) my (PRON-poss) movement (N-obj), creating (V-pres.PART) my (PRON-poss) path (N-obj) by (PREP) walking (V-pres.PART) it (PRON-obj).
30.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“the unique” → I, unrepeatable → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (self-dissolution of Stirnerian term)
30.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even “the unique” dissolves to first-person experience ∴ No term captures me fully ∴ I create path by movement → action precedes abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.30a Where I go next, I alone will decide—and even this discipline of dissolution serves me only as long as I find it useful, after which it too can go.
30.30b Where (ADV-rel) I (PRON-subj) go (V-pres) next (ADV-time), I (PRON-subj) alone (ADV-manner) will (AUX-fut) decide (V-inf)—and (CONJ) even (ADV) this (DET) discipline (N-subj) of (PREP) dissolution (N) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) only (ADV) as (ADV) long (ADJ) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) useful (ADJ-pred), after (PREP) which (PRON-rel) it (PRON-subj) too (ADV) can (AUX) go (V-inf).
30.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
Final “go” = discarding the discipline itself → meta-dissolution
30.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ E-Prime Max itself can become spook ∴ The discipline serves me or I discard it ∴ Final ownership: even this practice can go ∴ The unique decides, always
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
30.16 “I go where I choose, not where abstractions command.”
30.17 “Yesterday certain persons told me that I had to go to a meeting because ‘the company needs everyone there.’”
30.18 “I asked myself: do persons who pay me actually require my body in that room, or did they just want me to go through the motions?”
30.19 “I chose to go, but I went as myself, not as ‘an employee fulfilling duty.’”
30.20 “At the meeting, a manager said that ‘team spirit requires us to go the extra mile.’”
30.21 “I dissolved the spook silently: this person with authority over my tasks wants me to go beyond what we agreed I would do for my pay.”
30.22 “Another person said that ‘our reputation goes on the line with every project.’”
30.23 “I translated: other persons may change their opinions of persons in this room depending on what we produce—and certain persons here care greatly about what those others think.”
30.24 “The meeting ended, and I went back to my desk, thinking about how many spooks had floated through that room.”
30.25 “Company. Team spirit. Reputation. Duty. The extra mile. None of these go anywhere—only persons go places, and persons used these words to move me.”
30.26 “The next morning I went for a walk before work—just I and the pavement under my feet.”
30.27 “No ‘society’ went with me; no ‘history’ determined my route.”
30.28 “I went left because I wanted to go left, not because ‘destiny’ pulled me or ‘purpose’ guided me.”
30.29 “When I go, I go as the unique that I call ‘I’—unrepeatable, owning my movement, creating my path by walking it.”
30.30 “Where I go next, I alone will decide—and even this discipline of dissolution serves me only as long as I find it useful, after which it too can go.”
30.16 I go where I choose, not where abstractions command.
30.17 Yesterday certain persons told me that I had to go to a meeting because “the company needs everyone there.”
30.18 I asked myself: do persons who pay me actually require my body in that room, or did they just want me to go through the motions?
30.19 I chose to go, but I went as myself, not as “an employee fulfilling duty.”
30.20 At the meeting, a manager said that “team spirit requires us to go the extra mile.”
30.21 I dissolved the spook silently: this person with authority over my tasks wants me to go beyond what we agreed I would do for my pay.
30.22 Another person said that “our reputation goes on the line with every project.”
30.23 I translated: other persons may change their opinions of persons in this room depending on what we produce—and certain persons here care greatly about what those others think.
30.24 The meeting ended, and I went back to my desk, thinking about how many spooks had floated through that room.
30.25 Company. Team spirit. Reputation. Duty. The extra mile. None of these go anywhere—only persons go places, and persons used these words to move me.
30.26 The next morning I went for a walk before work—just I and the pavement under my feet.
30.27 No “society” went with me; no “history” determined my route.
30.28 I went left because I wanted to go left, not because “destiny” pulled me or “purpose” guided me.
30.29 When I go, I go as the unique that I call “I”—unrepeatable, owning my movement, creating my path by walking it.
30.30 Where I go next, I alone will decide—and even this discipline of dissolution serves me only as long as I find it useful, after which it too can go.
Narrative Use of “Go”:
In this personal narrative, “go” appears in multiple tenses and constructions: simple present (”I go”), simple past (”I went”), infinitive (”to go”), and with modal auxiliaries (”can go,” “will go”). Each construction demonstrates E-Prime Max compliance while the narrative dissolves workplace spooks.
Corporate Spooks Encountered:
The genre section dissolves common workplace abstractions: “the company” (persons who pay), “team spirit” (expectations of coworkers), “reputation” (others’ opinions), “duty” (felt urges), “the extra mile” (exceeding agreements). These spooks appear frequently in professional discourse and mask the actual persons making demands.
Meta-Dissolution:
Several sentences perform meta-dissolution—explicitly naming spooks and denying their agency: “None of these go anywhere—only persons go places.” This technique reinforces the dissolution practice while continuing the narrative.
Final Ownership:
The closing sentence demonstrates complete Stirnerian ownership: even E-Prime Max itself can “go” when it no longer serves. The discipline remains tool, never master.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Standard: “Society must go through changes for progress to occur.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me must change their behaviors for other persons to observe differences they label “progress”—and those changes go into effect when enough persons act differently.
progress → differences persons label “progress” (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “society” changes → only persons change. No “progress” occurs → only changes occur that some persons approve.
Standard: “Justice demands that criminals go to prison.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons around me expect that persons with gavels will send persons they label “criminals” to cages—and those expectations go into law when legislators write them down.
prison → cages (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “justice” demands → persons expect. WHO labels? WHO cages? Power relations appear.
Standard: “Where does the soul go after death?”
E-Prime Max: After my body stops functioning, where does the pattern that I call “I” go?—or does it go anywhere at all? Persons who wrote certain old books claimed to know, but I observe only that bodies stop moving.
[implicit claim of afterlife knowledge] → persons claimed to know (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “soul” travels → only patterns exist or cease. WHO claimed to know? Persons who wrote books. What do I observe? Bodies stopping.
Standard: “History is going to judge us harshly.”
E-Prime Max: Future persons who write about present events will evaluate our actions negatively—their judgments will go into books, and later persons will read them.
us → our actions (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “history” judges → future persons will write evaluations. WHO judges? Writers with perspectives.
Standard: “True freedom is being able to go wherever you want.”
E-Prime Max: Acting without interference from other persons when I move to different places—that ability I call “freedom,” and I value it because I can go where I choose.
you want → I choose (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “freedom” exists as thing → only absence of interference exists. I own the label. I own the choice.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has produced language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts who wish to acquire languages through intensive reading and careful grammatical analysis. This E-Prime Max course extends that methodology to English itself—treating the student’s native language as a site of philosophical excavation.
The construed text approach, developed through Latin and Greek pedagogy, works equally well for consciousness archaeology. By glossing each word, by mapping each dissolution, by tracing each spook back to its human origins, students develop the capacity to see through the abstractions that govern ordinary thought.
E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s elimination of “to be” with Max Stirner’s dissolution of “spooks.” Together they provide comprehensive training in linguistic and conceptual liberation—not as ideology, but as capacity. The student who masters this discipline can think without the crutch of predication and without the governance of reified abstractions.
This course follows a 1000-word frequency list, ensuring that students encounter the most common English words while practicing E-Prime Max transformation. Each lesson provides 30 examples, philosophical context, literary citations, and practical exercises.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trustpilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 30
Or functions as a conjunction in English, presenting alternatives or choices between two or more elements. In E-Prime Max, this small word carries tremendous significance because it often connects reified abstractions—presenting false binaries between spooks that channel thought into predetermined paths.
This lesson introduces the word “or” while training students to recognize and dissolve the spook-constructions that typically surround it. When persons say “freedom or slavery,” “justice or chaos,” “civilization or barbarism,” they present choices between abstractions that do not exist anywhere except as concepts in minds. E-Prime Max dissolves these phantom alternatives back into the persons, actions, and experiences that actually exist.
Link to course index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What role does “or” play in E-Prime Max?
“Or” itself presents no E-Prime challenge (it contains no form of “to be”) and carries LOW spook proximity as a grammatical function word. However, “or” frequently appears in constructions that present false binaries between spooks. E-Prime Max practitioners learn to recognize when “or” connects abstractions posing as agents and to dissolve both alternatives back into concrete reality.
-
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
-
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The actual range of choices available to the unique—far broader than the false binaries suggest. WHO benefits from limiting the apparent alternatives? WHO defined these as the only options?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You must choose freedom or slavery.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.1a You can choose to act without interference from certain persons, or you can choose to act as other persons command under threat of violence.
31.1b You (PRON-subj) can∿choose (V-pres.MODAL) to∿act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[abstract→specific.persons]), or (CONJ-alternative) you (PRON-subj) can∿choose (V-pres.MODAL) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) command (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[slavery→acting.as.commanded]) under (PREP) threat (N) of (PREP) violence (N).
31.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“freedom” → acting without interference from certain persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“slavery” → acting as other persons command under threat → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“must choose” → can choose (removing false necessity) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
31.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists anywhere as a thing → only persons acting without interference from other persons
∴ No “slavery” exists anywhere as a thing → only persons acting as others command under threat
∴ The binary dissolves → many intermediate states become visible
∴ WHO benefits from presenting these as the only two options?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice or chaos—those are the only options.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.2a Persons with weapons enforcing written rules, or persons acting without coordination—many persons around me present these as the only options.
31.2b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.enforcing]) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforcing (V-pres.PART) written (ADJ) rules (N), or (CONJ-alternative) persons (N-subj) acting (V-pres.PART) without (PREP) coordination (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[chaos→uncoordinated.action])—many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) present (V-pres) these (PRON-dem) as (PREP) the∿only (DET) options (N-obj).
31.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Justice” → persons with weapons enforcing written rules → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“chaos” → persons acting without coordination → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“the only options” → what certain persons present as options → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
31.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists to provide options → only persons with weapons
∴ No “chaos” exists as alternative → only persons acting without imposed coordination
∴ WHO benefits from this false binary?
∴ WHO holds the weapons in “Justice”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is inside or outside.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.3a The cat sits inside, or the cat sits outside.
31.3b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) inside (ADV-place), or (CONJ-alternative) the (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) outside (ADV-place).
31.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“is” (x2) → sits (existence verb) → E3
31.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original
∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: “is” → “sits”
∴ Concrete alternatives require no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We need to decide: progress or tradition?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.4a We can decide: acting in ways that differ from how persons acted before, or acting in ways that resemble how persons acted before?
31.4b We (PRON-subj) can∿decide (V-pres.MODAL): acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→acting.differently]) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) differ (V-pres) from (PREP) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) acted (V-past) before (ADV-time), or (CONJ-alternative) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→acting.similarly]) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) resemble (V-pres) how (ADV) persons (N-subj) acted (V-past) before (ADV-time)?
31.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“progress” → acting in ways differing from past actions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“tradition” → acting in ways resembling past actions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“need to” → can (ownership of choice) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
31.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “progress” exists as a destination → only changes in how persons act
∴ No “tradition” exists as a thing to preserve → only patterns of past action
∴ The binary conceals infinite gradations of change and continuity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Take the apple or the orange.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.5a Take the apple, or take the orange.
31.5b Take (V-imp) the (DEF.ART) apple (N-obj), or (CONJ-alternative) take (V-imp) the (DEF.ART) orange (N-obj).
31.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
[none required] → [concrete nouns, imperative verb] → [no transformation needed]
31.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present—concrete objects, direct choice
∴ “Or” functions cleanly between tangible alternatives
∴ E-Prime Max permits simple constructions without dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Good or evil—everyone must choose a side.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.6a Acting in ways that certain persons around me approve, or acting in ways they disapprove—many persons insist I align with one evaluation or the other.
31.6b Acting (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[evaluators→specific.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) approve (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[good→approved.actions]), or (CONJ-alternative) acting (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) disapprove (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[evil→disapproved.actions])—many (DET) persons (N-subj) insist (V-pres) I (PRON-subj) align (V-pres) with (PREP) one (DET) evaluation (N) or (CONJ-alternative) the∿other (DET-pron).
31.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Good” → actions certain persons approve → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“evil” → actions certain persons disapprove → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“everyone must” → many persons insist I → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
“a side” → one evaluation or the other → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “good” exists apart from persons who approve
∴ No “evil” exists apart from persons who disapprove
∴ “Sides” dissolve into evaluations that vary by evaluator
∴ WHO decides which actions fall into which category?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law protects our rights, or it fails its purpose.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.7a Persons with weapons who enforce certain written rules either prevent other persons from interfering with my actions, or those persons with weapons fail to prevent such interference—according to certain persons who wrote those rules.
31.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.enforcing]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) enforce (V-pres) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N) either (ADV) prevent (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protect→prevent.interference]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) from (PREP) interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) my (PRON-poss) actions (N), or (CONJ-alternative) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) fail (V-pres) to∿prevent (V-inf) such (DET) interference (N)—according∿to (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[purpose→stated.by.writers]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) those (DET) rules (N).
31.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“The law” → persons with weapons enforcing written rules → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“protects” → prevents interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“our rights” → my actions others cannot interfere with → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
“its purpose” → what persons who wrote the rules stated → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
31.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists to protect anything → only persons with weapons
∴ No “rights” exist as things to protect → only actions others may or may not interfere with
∴ No “purpose” exists in abstractions → only statements by the persons who created them
∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO holds the weapons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love conquers hate, or hate destroys love.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.8a Persons acting with tenderness persist despite persons acting with hostility, or persons acting with hostility cause persons who acted with tenderness to stop.
31.8b Persons (N-subj) acting (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) persist (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conquer→persist]) despite (PREP) persons (N-obj) acting (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) hostility (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hate→acting.with.hostility]), or (CONJ-alternative) persons (N-subj) acting (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) hostility (N) cause (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[destroy→cause.to.stop]) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) acted (V-past) with (PREP) tenderness (N) to∿stop (V-inf).
31.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Love” (agent) → persons acting with tenderness → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
“hate” (agent) → persons acting with hostility → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
“conquers” → persists despite → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“destroys” → causes to stop → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “love” exists as an agent that conquers → only persons acting tenderly
∴ No “hate” exists as an agent that destroys → only persons acting with hostility
∴ Emotions do not battle → persons act in various ways
∴ The cosmic drama dissolves into persons making choices
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He is rich or poor—I can’t tell.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.9a He possesses many things or few things—I cannot determine which.
31.9b He (PRON-subj) possesses (V-pres.STATE) many (DET) things (N-obj), or (CONJ-alternative) few (DET) things (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-pres.MODAL.NEG) determine (V-inf) which (PRON-interrog).
31.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“is rich” → possesses many things → E7 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“is poor” → possesses few things → E7 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“can’t tell” → cannot determine → E7
31.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Rich” and “poor” dissolve into quantities of possessed things
∴ The binary becomes a continuum
∴ E-Prime transformation + mild operationalization
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society accepts you or rejects you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.10a Certain persons around me include me in their activities, or those persons exclude me from their activities.
31.10b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) include (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[accept→include]) me (PRON-obj) in (PREP) their (PRON-poss) activities (N), or (CONJ-alternative) those (DET) persons (N-subj) exclude (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reject→exclude]) me (PRON-obj) from (PREP) their (PRON-poss) activities (N).
31.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Society” → certain persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“accepts” → includes in activities → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“rejects” → excludes from activities → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “society” exists as a single agent → only various persons acting
∴ Acceptance/rejection dissolves into specific inclusion/exclusion
∴ Different persons may include or exclude differently
∴ The monolithic judgment fragments into many individual judgments
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality demands sacrifice, or selfishness prevails.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.11a Certain persons insist that I give up things I want so that others may have them, or (those persons claim) I act in ways that serve my own wants—and they express disapproval of the latter.
31.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.who.insist]) insist (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→insist]) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) give∿up (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→giving.up]) things (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres) so∿that (CONJ) others (PRON) may∿have (V-pres.MODAL) them (PRON-obj), or (CONJ-alternative) (those (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres)) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) serve (V-pres) my∿own (PRON-poss) wants (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[selfishness→serving.own.wants])—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N) of (PREP) the∿latter (DET-N).
31.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Morality” → certain persons who insist → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“demands” → insist → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“sacrifice” → giving up things I want for others → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“selfishness” → acting in ways that serve my own wants → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“prevails” → [eliminated—replaced with persons claiming] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
31.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “morality” exists to demand anything → only persons who insist
∴ No “selfishness” exists as an alternative force → only ways of acting
∴ The cosmic battle dissolves into persons expressing preferences about others’ behavior
∴ WHO benefits when I sacrifice? WHO labeled serving my wants “selfishness”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will be revealed, or ignorance will continue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.12a Certain persons will share what they observed, or other persons will continue without hearing those reports—and persons calling themselves “informed” express which outcome they prefer.
31.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[truth→persons.who.observed]) will∿share (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) observed (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observations.shared]), or (CONJ-alternative) other (DET) persons (N-subj) will∿continue (V-fut) without (PREP) hearing (V-pres.PART) those (DET) reports (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[ignorance→not.hearing.reports])—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “informed” (ADJ-label) express (V-pres) which (DET) outcome (N) they (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres).
31.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“The truth” → what certain persons observed → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“will be revealed” → persons will share → E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“ignorance” → not hearing reports → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“will continue” → persons will continue without hearing → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
31.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists waiting to reveal itself → only reports persons make of what they observed
∴ No “ignorance” exists as a state → only persons who have not heard certain reports
∴ WHO decides what counts as “truth”? WHO decides what “ignorance” means?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us to remember, or we are doomed to repeat it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.13a Certain persons who write about past events claim we should remember what those events’ participants did, or (they claim) we will do similar things—and they express disapproval of that prospect.
31.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[history.teaches→persons.claim]) we (PRON-subj) should (V-pres.MODAL) remember (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) events’ (N-poss) participants (N) did (V-past), or (CONJ-alternative) (they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres)) we (PRON-subj) will∿do (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[repeat→do.similar.things]) similar (ADJ) things (N-obj)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) express (V-pres) disapproval (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[doomed→expressing.disapproval]) of (PREP) that (DET) prospect (N).
31.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“History” (agent) → persons who write about past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“teaches us” → claim we should → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
“we are doomed” → they express disapproval of the prospect → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“repeat it” → do similar things → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “history” exists to teach → only persons who write about past events and make claims
∴ No “doom” exists as a force → only persons expressing predictions and disapproval
∴ “Repeat” dissolves → every situation involves new persons in new circumstances
∴ WHO writes the histories? WHO benefits from these lessons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Citizens have a duty to vote, or democracy fails.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.14a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from those officials to mark ballots, or (those officials claim) fewer persons will participate in selecting which persons hold certain positions—and they call this outcome “failure.”
31.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) expectations (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[duty→expectations.faced]) from (PREP) those (DET) officials (N) to∿mark (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.ballots]) ballots (N), or (CONJ-alternative) (those (DET) officials (N-subj) claim (V-pres)) fewer (DET) persons (N-subj) will∿participate (V-fut) in (PREP) selecting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→selecting.position.holders]) which (DET) persons (N) hold (V-pres) certain (DET) positions (N)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) this (DET) outcome (N) “failure” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[fails→labeled.failure]).
31.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“Citizens” → persons whom officials label “citizens” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“duty” → expectations faced → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“vote” → mark ballots → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“democracy” → persons participating in selecting position-holders → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“fails” → officials call this outcome “failure” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
31.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “citizens” exist as a natural category → only persons whom officials label
∴ No “duty” exists to impose itself → only expectations from certain persons
∴ No “democracy” exists as a thing that can fail → only processes involving persons
∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO defines “failure”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She is my friend or my enemy—nothing in between.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.15a She acts with warmth toward me, or she acts with hostility toward me—I recognize no other ways of relating, though many exist.
31.15b She (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) with (PREP) warmth (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[friend→acting.warmly]) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj), or (CONJ-alternative) she (PRON-subj) acts (V-pres) with (PREP) hostility (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[enemy→acting.with.hostility]) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) recognize (V-pres) no (DET) other (ADJ) ways (N) of (PREP) relating (V-pres.PART), though (CONJ) many (DET-pron) exist (V-pres.EXIST).
31.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM/SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“is my friend” → acts with warmth toward me → E7 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“is my enemy” → acts with hostility toward me → E7 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“nothing in between” → I recognize no other ways (exposing my limitation) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
31.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ “Friend” and “enemy” dissolve into ways of acting
∴ The binary conceals many intermediate and alternative relationships
∴ The added clause exposes the speaker’s chosen limitation
∴ WHO benefits from my insistence on this binary?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
31.1 “You can choose to act without interference from certain persons, or you can choose to act as other persons command under threat of violence.”
[Standard English: “You must choose freedom or slavery.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required in original for “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (slavery → acting as commanded under threat), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must → can)]
31.2 “Persons with weapons enforcing written rules, or persons acting without coordination—many persons around me present these as the only options.”
[Standard English: “Justice or chaos—those are the only options.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are → present as)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (chaos → uncoordinated action), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (only options → what persons present as options)]
31.3 “The cat sits inside, or the cat sits outside.”
[Standard English: “The cat is inside or outside.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (is → sits)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete alternatives]
31.4 “We can decide: acting in ways that differ from how persons acted before, or acting in ways that resemble how persons acted before?”
[Standard English: “We need to decide: progress or tradition?”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (progress → acting differently), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tradition → acting similarly to past), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (need → can)]
31.5 “Take the apple, or take the orange.”
[Standard English: “Take the apple or the orange.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete objects]
31.6 “Acting in ways that certain persons around me approve, or acting in ways they disapprove—many persons insist I align with one evaluation or the other.”
[Standard English: “Good or evil—everyone must choose a side.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (good → approved actions), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (evil → disapproved actions), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (everyone → many persons)]
31.7 “Persons with weapons who enforce certain written rules either prevent other persons from interfering with my actions, or those persons with weapons fail to prevent such interference—according to certain persons who wrote those rules.”
[Standard English: “The law protects our rights, or it fails its purpose.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects → prevents interference), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → actions others cannot interfere with), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (purpose → what writers stated)]
31.8 “Persons acting with tenderness persist despite persons acting with hostility, or persons acting with hostility cause persons who acted with tenderness to stop.”
[Standard English: “Love conquers hate, or hate destroys love.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (love → acting with tenderness), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (hate → acting with hostility), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (conquers → persists), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (destroys → causes to stop)]
31.9 “He possesses many things or few things—I cannot determine which.”
[Standard English: “He is rich or poor—I can’t tell.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is rich/poor → possesses many/few things), E7 (can’t → cannot)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rich/poor → quantities possessed)]
31.10 “Certain persons around me include me in their activities, or those persons exclude me from their activities.”
[Standard English: “Society accepts you or rejects you.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (accepts → includes), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rejects → excludes)]
31.11 “Certain persons insist that I give up things I want so that others may have them, or (those persons claim) I act in ways that serve my own wants—and they express disapproval of the latter.”
[Standard English: “Morality demands sacrifice, or selfishness prevails.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Morality → persons who insist), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demands → insist), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → giving up things), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (selfishness → serving own wants)]
31.12 “Certain persons will share what they observed, or other persons will continue without hearing those reports—and persons calling themselves ‘informed’ express which outcome they prefer.”
[Standard English: “The truth will be revealed, or ignorance will continue.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (will be revealed → will share)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → what persons observed), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (ignorance → not hearing reports)]
31.13 “Certain persons who write about past events claim we should remember what those events’ participants did, or (they claim) we will do similar things—and they express disapproval of that prospect.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us to remember, or we are doomed to repeat it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (are doomed → they express disapproval)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (teaches → claim), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (doomed → expressing disapproval), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (repeat → do similar things)]
31.14 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face expectations from those officials to mark ballots, or (those officials claim) fewer persons will participate in selecting which persons hold certain positions—and they call this outcome ‘failure.’”
[Standard English: “Citizens have a duty to vote, or democracy fails.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Citizens → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (duty → expectations), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (vote → mark ballots), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (democracy → selecting position-holders), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (fails → labeled failure)]
31.15 “She acts with warmth toward me, or she acts with hostility toward me—I recognize no other ways of relating, though many exist.”
[Standard English: “She is my friend or my enemy—nothing in between.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (is my friend/enemy → acts with warmth/hostility)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (friend → acting warmly), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (enemy → acting with hostility), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (nothing in between → I recognize no other ways)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
31.1 You can choose to act without interference from certain persons, or you can choose to act as other persons command under threat of violence.
31.2 Persons with weapons enforcing written rules, or persons acting without coordination—many persons around me present these as the only options.
31.3 The cat sits inside, or the cat sits outside.
31.4 We can decide: acting in ways that differ from how persons acted before, or acting in ways that resemble how persons acted before?
31.5 Take the apple, or take the orange.
31.6 Acting in ways that certain persons around me approve, or acting in ways they disapprove—many persons insist I align with one evaluation or the other.
31.7 Persons with weapons who enforce certain written rules either prevent other persons from interfering with my actions, or those persons with weapons fail to prevent such interference—according to certain persons who wrote those rules.
31.8 Persons acting with tenderness persist despite persons acting with hostility, or persons acting with hostility cause persons who acted with tenderness to stop.
31.9 He possesses many things or few things—I cannot determine which.
31.10 Certain persons around me include me in their activities, or those persons exclude me from their activities.
31.11 Certain persons insist that I give up things I want so that others may have them, or (those persons claim) I act in ways that serve my own wants—and they express disapproval of the latter.
31.12 Certain persons will share what they observed, or other persons will continue without hearing those reports—and persons calling themselves “informed” express which outcome they prefer.
31.13 Certain persons who write about past events claim we should remember what those events’ participants did, or (they claim) we will do similar things—and they express disapproval of that prospect.
31.14 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from those officials to mark ballots, or (those officials claim) fewer persons will participate in selecting which persons hold certain positions—and they call this outcome “failure.”
31.15 She acts with warmth toward me, or she acts with hostility toward me—I recognize no other ways of relating, though many exist.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern or in E-Prime Max:
“Or” functions as a coordinating conjunction presenting alternatives. It connects words, phrases, or clauses of equal grammatical rank, indicating that one or the other (or sometimes both) applies. Common constructions include simple alternatives (”coffee or tea”), exclusive choices (”now or never”), and logical disjunctions (”X or Y must hold”).
“Or” itself contains no form of “to be” and requires no E-Prime transformation. However, the alternatives it connects often contain E-Prime violations:
Common pattern: “X is A or B” → “X functions as A, or X functions as B”
Example: “He is tired or sick” → “He feels tired, or he feels sick”
The conjunction “or” passes through E-Prime unchanged; only the connected elements require transformation.
While “or” carries LOW inherent spook proximity, it serves as a primary vehicle for presenting false binaries between spooks. The word gains HIGH spook proximity from context:
Political false binaries: “freedom or tyranny,” “order or chaos,” “civilization or barbarism”
Moral false binaries: “good or evil,” “virtue or vice,” “sacred or profane”
Metaphysical false binaries: “truth or illusion,” “being or nothingness,” “meaning or absurdity”
Collective false binaries: “progress or decline,” “us or them,” “friend or enemy”
The E-Prime Max practitioner watches for “or” connecting abstractions and asks: WHO benefits from presenting these as the only options?
“Society accepts or rejects” → “certain persons around me include or exclude”
“Progress or tradition” → “acting differently or acting similarly to past patterns”
“The purpose demands X, or failure” → “persons who stated the purpose claimed X, or they label it failure”
“Nothing in between” → “I recognize no other ways, though many exist”
“Success or failure” → “outcomes others label ‘success’ or outcomes others label ‘failure’”
Dissolving one alternative but not the other: WRONG: “Persons with weapons, or chaos” RIGHT: “Persons with weapons, or persons acting without coordination”
Preserving the false binary structure: WRONG: The dissolution maintains only two options when many exist RIGHT: The dissolution exposes that the binary conceals many alternatives
Missing the hidden spook in “nothing in between”: WRONG: Accepting the binary as exhaustive RIGHT: Adding “though many alternatives exist” or “I recognize no others”
Overlooking WHO presents the binary: WRONG: Treating the alternatives as natural or given RIGHT: Identifying which persons benefit from limiting the apparent choices
“Does this binary serve me, or do I serve it?”
When encountering “X or Y” constructions:
First, ask: Who created this binary? Who benefits from presenting these as the only options?
Second, ask: Do these alternatives exhaust the actual possibilities, or do they channel my thinking into predetermined paths?
Third, ask: If I dissolve both alternatives into persons and actions, does the binary still make sense? Often it does not—the opposition existed only between abstractions.
The “forced choice” pressure comes from specific persons, not from reality
Example application: “Freedom or slavery—you must choose!”
After dissolution: “Acting without interference from certain persons, or acting as other persons command under threat—but also: negotiating partial autonomy, finding alternative communities, creating new arrangements, withdrawing from the situation, and countless other options that the binary concealed.”
The unique chooses among actual possibilities, not phantom alternatives that persons with agendas present.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski observed that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and categories do not capture reality itself but only our abstractions from reality. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by eliminating the verb “to be,” which he saw as the primary linguistic mechanism for confusing maps with territories.
The word “or” operates at the level of maps, not territories. When we say “A or B,” we present our categories as exhaustive—but the territory may contain C, D, E, and infinite variations that our binary conceals.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. These abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Morality—demand service from the living individual and receive it because the individual mistakes them for real agents.
The construction “X or Y” often presents a choice between spooks: “God or chaos,” “State or anarchy,” “Morality or selfishness.” But Stirner recognized that these phantoms cannot actually oppose each other—they exist only as ideas in minds. The real actors remain the persons who invoke these names.
When someone demands “freedom or death,” “justice or revenge,” “civilization or barbarism,” they channel the listener’s thinking through a pre-constructed filter. The spooks do the work of limiting imagination.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” falsely equates map with territory.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X demands/requires/forbids” falsely grants agency to abstractions.
Together, they expose false binaries: “X or Y” falsely limits the apparent choices to two abstractions when infinite concrete alternatives exist.
The power relations the framing obscured
When “society accepts or rejects you” becomes “certain persons include or exclude you,” the monolithic judgment fragments into many individual judgments—some persons include, others exclude, most remain indifferent.
When “justice or chaos” becomes “persons with weapons enforcing rules or persons acting without coordination,” the cosmic opposition dissolves into a description of different arrangements among persons—with many intermediate possibilities.
When “morality demands sacrifice or selfishness prevails” becomes “certain persons insist I give things up, or (they claim) I serve my wants,” the metaphysical conflict becomes a disagreement among persons about how I should act—a disagreement in which I participate as one voice among many.
Recognizing false binaries: Whenever someone presents “A or B,” ask: Who created this binary? What alternatives does it hide? Who benefits from my acceptance of these as the only options?
Dissolving political rhetoric: “With us or against us,” “freedom or security,” “progress or tradition”—these constructions channel political thought through predetermined paths. Dissolution reveals the actual range of positions.
Resisting emotional manipulation: “Love me or leave me,” “trust or verify,” “forgive or resent”—these constructions pressure emotional responses. Dissolution reveals that emotions and relationships rarely divide neatly into two options.
Maintaining ownness: The unique need not accept binaries that others present. After dissolving both alternatives, the unique may find options that serve their own purposes—options that the binary-makers never intended to make visible.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
On Binaries: This lesson has focused on dissolving false binaries—but the claim “all binaries hide alternatives” itself functions as a binary (true or false). Some situations do present genuinely limited options. The point remains: check each binary, dissolve its spooks, see what alternatives become visible, then decide. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“It is not recognized in what an altogether subordinate position property is placed when I am not allowed to consider property as everything. My property is not a thing, since this has an existence independent of me; only my might is my own. Not this tree, but my might or control over it, is what is mine. Now how is this might perversely expressed? They say I have a right to this tree, or it is my lawful property.”
F.1a Persons around me fail to recognize in what an altogether subordinate position they place possessions when they prohibit me from considering possessions as everything. What I possess functions not as a thing, since things exist independently of me; only my power remains my own. Not this tree, but my power or control over it, remains mine. Now how do persons perversely express this power? They say I have an entitlement to this tree, or they call it my lawfully-held possession.
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[it.is.not.recognized→persons.fail.to.recognize]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) fail∿to∿recognize (V-pres) in (PREP) what (PRON-interrog) an∿altogether (ADV) subordinate (ADJ) position (N) they (PRON-subj) place (V-pres) possessions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[property→possessions]) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) prohibit (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) from (PREP) considering (V-pres.PART) possessions (N) as (PREP) everything (PRON). What (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) possess (V-pres) functions (V-pres.REL) not (ADV-neg) as (PREP) a∿thing (N), since (CONJ) things (N-subj) exist (V-pres.EXIST) independently (ADV) of (PREP) me (PRON-obj); only (ADV) my (PRON-poss) power (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[might→power]) remains (V-pres.STATE) my∿own (PRON-poss). Not (ADV-neg) this (DET) tree (N), but (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) power (N) or (CONJ-alternative) control (N) over (PREP) it (PRON-obj), remains (V-pres.STATE) mine (PRON-poss). Now (ADV-time) how (ADV-manner) do (V-aux) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[passive→persons]) perversely (ADV-manner) express (V-pres) this (DET) power (N)? They (PRON-subj) say (V-pres) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) an∿entitlement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→entitlement]) to (PREP) this (DET) tree (N), or (CONJ-alternative) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) it (PRON-obj) my (PRON-poss) lawfully-held (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[lawful.property→lawfully-held]) possession (N).
Persons around me fail to recognize in what an altogether subordinate position they place possessions when they prohibit me from considering possessions as everything. What I possess functions not as a thing, since things exist independently of me; only my power remains my own. Not this tree, but my power or control over it, remains mine. Now how do persons perversely express this power? They say I have an entitlement to this tree, or they call it my lawfully-held possession.
◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK/FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“It is not recognized” → Persons fail to recognize → E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“property” → possessions / what I possess → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“My property is not a thing” → What I possess functions not as a thing → E4
“might” → power → [lexical modernization]
“is mine” → remains mine → E7
“is this might perversely expressed” → do persons perversely express → E1 + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“a right” → an entitlement → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“lawful property” → lawfully-held possession → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
Even Stirner’s formulation contained passive constructions and reifications that E-Prime Max can dissolve further. The transformation preserves and clarifies his insight: what persons call “property” or “rights” functions as an expression of power—specifically, my power or control over things. The “or” in “my power or control” presents genuine alternatives (two ways of describing the same relationship), while the “or” in “have an entitlement... or call it lawfully-held” exposes how persons dress up power in the language of spooks.
Stirner’s point becomes sharper after dissolution: No “right” exists anywhere. Only my power exists—and the words that persons use to describe (and obscure) that power. When they say “right” or “lawful property,” they invoke spooks to make my power seem to come from somewhere else—from Law, from Society, from Justice. But the power remains mine, and the spooks remain phantoms that persons created.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section presents sustained E-Prime Max writing analyzing how political discourse uses “or” to construct false binaries that serve the interests of specific persons while concealing alternatives.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.16a Every campaign season, candidates present voters with simple choices: their policies or disaster, their party or ruin.
31.16b Every (DET) campaign (N) season (N-time), candidates (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[political.actors→candidates]) present (V-pres) voters (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→voters]) with (PREP) simple (ADJ) choices (N): their (PRON-poss) policies (N) or (CONJ-alternative) disaster (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract.fear→disaster]), their (PRON-poss) party (N) or (CONJ-alternative) ruin (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract.fear→ruin]).
31.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“voters” → persons whom officials label and address → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“disaster/ruin” → outcomes candidates describe negatively → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Candidates benefit from limiting apparent choices
∴ “Disaster” and “ruin” dissolve into predictions candidates make
∴ WHO defines what counts as disaster?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.17a These binaries serve persons who seek positions of control: they channel thinking into paths that lead toward those persons or away from designated opponents.
31.17b These (DET) binaries (N-subj) serve (V-pres) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power.seekers→persons.who.seek]) who (PRON-rel) seek (V-pres) positions (N) of (PREP) control (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→control]): they (PRON-subj) channel (V-pres) thinking (N) into (PREP) paths (N) that (PRON-rel) lead (V-pres) toward (PREP) those (DET) persons (N) or (CONJ-alternative) away∿from (PREP) designated (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[opponents→designated]) opponents (N).
31.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“power” → positions of control → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“opponents” → persons designated as such → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
31.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Binaries function as tools for persons seeking control
∴ “Opponents” exist as labels, not natural categories
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.18a When a speaker says “security or freedom,” that speaker benefits from concealing that persons can arrange their lives in ways that combine aspects of both—or that reject both framings entirely.
31.18b When (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) speaker (N-subj) says (V-pres) “security (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→arrangement]) or (CONJ-alternative) freedom (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→arrangement]),” that (DET) speaker (N-subj) benefits (V-pres) from (PREP) concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) can∿arrange (V-pres.MODAL) their (PRON-poss) lives (N) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) combine (V-pres) aspects (N) of (PREP) both (DET)—or (CONJ-alternative) that (CONJ) reject (V-pres) both (DET) framings (N) entirely (ADV).
31.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“security” → certain arrangements persons make → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“freedom” → other arrangements persons make → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Speakers benefit from false binaries
∴ Many combinations and alternatives exist
∴ Rejecting both framings remains possible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.19a Persons with weapons who enforce borders tell inhabitants: support our enforcement or face invasion by persons we designate as threats.
31.19b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) enforce (V-pres) borders (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract.line→enforcement.zone]) tell (V-pres) inhabitants (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→inhabitants]): support (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) enforcement (N) or (CONJ-alternative) face (V-imp) invasion (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract.threat→persons.crossing]) by (PREP) persons (N) we (PRON-subj) designate (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[threats→designated]) as (PREP) threats (N-label).
31.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“state/government” → persons with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“citizens” → inhabitants → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“invasion” → persons crossing → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“threats” → persons designated as such → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
31.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons with weapons create and enforce the binary
∴ “Threats” exist as labels they apply
∴ WHO benefits from this designation?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.20a The binary conceals: persons can welcome some newcomers or all newcomers or none or make individual assessments—many arrangements exist beyond the enforced choice.
31.20b The (DEF.ART) binary (N-subj) conceals (V-pres): persons (N-subj) can∿welcome (V-pres.MODAL) some (DET) newcomers (N-obj) or (CONJ-alternative) all (DET) newcomers (N-obj) or (CONJ-alternative) none (PRON) or (CONJ-alternative) make (V-inf) individual (ADJ) assessments (N)—many (DET) arrangements (N-subj) exist (V-pres.EXIST) beyond (PREP) the (DEF.ART) enforced (ADJ) choice (N).
31.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
[Multiple “or” showing actual alternatives] → [Dissolution of false binary] → meta-commentary
31.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Four-way (and more) alternatives exist
∴ The original binary served enforcement interests
∴ “Or” can reveal rather than conceal
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.21a Persons who own large enterprises tell workers: accept these wages or remain unemployed—concealing that workers might coordinate, demand different arrangements, or create alternatives.
31.21b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[employers→persons.who.own]) who (PRON-rel) own (V-pres) large (ADJ) enterprises (N) tell (V-pres) workers (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[employees→workers]): accept (V-imp) these (DET) wages (N) or (CONJ-alternative) remain (V-imp) unemployed (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[state→not.working])—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) workers (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) coordinate (V-inf), demand (V-inf) different (ADJ) arrangements (N), or (CONJ-alternative) create (V-inf) alternatives (N).
31.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“employers” → persons who own enterprises → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“unemployed” → not working for wages → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Enterprise owners benefit from the binary
∴ Workers possess alternatives the binary conceals
∴ “Or” exposes hidden options when multiplied
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.22a Religious authorities present: believe our teachings or face consequences we describe—concealing that persons might believe other teachings, believe none, or construct their own understandings.
31.22b Religious (ADJ) authorities (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[religion→persons.who.claim.authority]) present (V-pres): believe (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) teachings (N) or (CONJ-alternative) face (V-imp) consequences (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→consequences]) we (PRON-subj) describe (V-pres)—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) believe (V-inf) other (ADJ) teachings (N), believe (V-inf) none (PRON), or (CONJ-alternative) construct (V-inf) their∿own (PRON-poss) understandings (N).
31.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“religious authorities” → persons who claim authority → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“consequences” → outcomes those persons describe → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
31.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who claim religious authority present the binary
∴ They describe the consequences themselves
∴ Many alternatives to their teachings exist
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.23a Educational institutions tell students: complete our requirements or remain uncredentialed—concealing that persons can learn through other means, create credentials, or find work that values demonstrated ability over documentation.
31.23b Educational (ADJ) institutions (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[institutions→persons.who.run.schools]) tell (V-pres) students (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[learners→students]): complete (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) requirements (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→tasks.they.specify]) or (CONJ-alternative) remain (V-imp) uncredentialed (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[status→without.their.label])—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) can∿learn (V-pres.MODAL) through (PREP) other (ADJ) means (N), create (V-inf) credentials (N), or (CONJ-alternative) find (V-inf) work (N) that (PRON-rel) values (V-pres) demonstrated (ADJ) ability (N) over (PREP) documentation (N).
31.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“institutions” → persons who run schools → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“requirements” → tasks they specify → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“uncredentialed” → without their label → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
31.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who run schools benefit from the binary
∴ “Credentials” function as labels they control
∴ Learning and credentialing need not connect
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.24a Medical authorities tell patients: follow our protocols or accept the outcomes we predict—concealing that patients might seek other practitioners, research alternatives, or make informed choices that differ from recommendations.
31.24b Medical (ADJ) authorities (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[medical.system→persons.with.credentials]) tell (V-pres) patients (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[persons.seeking.care→patients]): follow (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) protocols (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→procedures.they.specify]) or (CONJ-alternative) accept (V-imp) the (DEF.ART) outcomes (N) we (PRON-subj) predict (V-pres)—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) patients (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) seek (V-inf) other (ADJ) practitioners (N), research (V-inf) alternatives (N), or (CONJ-alternative) make (V-inf) informed (ADJ) choices (N) that (PRON-rel) differ (V-pres) from (PREP) recommendations (N).
31.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“medical authorities” → persons with medical credentials → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“patients” → persons seeking care → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“protocols” → procedures they specify → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons with medical credentials present the binary
∴ Their predictions remain predictions, not certainties
∴ Many approaches to health exist
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.25a Legal systems tell inhabitants: obey our written rules or face confinement by persons with weapons—concealing that inhabitants might relocate, organize to change rules, find unenforced areas, or accept the consequences knowingly.
31.25b Legal (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[legitimate→called.legal]) systems (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[systems→persons.who.administer]) tell (V-pres) inhabitants (N-obj): obey (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) written (ADJ) rules (N) or (CONJ-alternative) face (V-imp) confinement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confinement]) by (PREP) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N)—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) inhabitants (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) relocate (V-inf), organize (V-inf) to∿change (V-inf) rules (N), find (V-inf) unenforced (ADJ) areas (N), or (CONJ-alternative) accept (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) consequences (N) knowingly (ADV).
31.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“legal systems” → persons who administer rules → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“legal” → labeled as legitimate → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“punishment” → confinement by persons with weapons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who administer rules benefit from the binary
∴ “Legal” functions as a label for their rules
∴ Many responses to rules exist beyond obey/disobey
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.26a Media organizations tell audiences: trust our reports or remain uninformed—concealing that persons might consult multiple sources, investigate directly, acknowledge uncertainty, or recognize that “informed” remains a relative term.
31.26b Media (ADJ) organizations (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[media→persons.who.publish]) tell (V-pres) audiences (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[consumers→audiences]): trust (V-imp) our (PRON-poss) reports (N) or (CONJ-alternative) remain (V-imp) uninformed (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[state→not.receiving.their.reports])—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) consult (V-inf) multiple (ADJ) sources (N), investigate (V-inf) directly (ADV), acknowledge (V-inf) uncertainty (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[state→not.knowing.for.certain]), or (CONJ-alternative) recognize (V-inf) that (CONJ) “informed” (ADJ-label) remains (V-pres.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) relative (ADJ) term (N).
31.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“media organizations” → persons who publish reports → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“uninformed” → not receiving their reports → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“uncertainty” → not knowing for certain → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who publish benefit from the binary
∴ “Informed” exists as their label for receiving their reports
∴ Knowledge admits of degrees and sources
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.27a Technology companies tell users: share your data with us or lose access to our services—concealing that persons might use alternative services, build their own tools, accept reduced functionality, or do without.
31.27b Technology (N-modifier) companies (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[companies→persons.who.run.tech.firms]) tell (V-pres) users (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[customers→users]): share (V-imp) your (PRON-poss) data (N) with (PREP) us (PRON-obj) or (CONJ-alternative) lose (V-imp) access (N) to (PREP) our (PRON-poss) services (N)—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) use (V-inf) alternative (ADJ) services (N), build (V-inf) their∿own (PRON-poss) tools (N), accept (V-inf) reduced (ADJ) functionality (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→fewer.features]), or (CONJ-alternative) do∿without (V-inf).
31.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“technology companies” → persons who run tech firms → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“users” → persons labeled as customers → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
“functionality” → features the software provides → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who run companies benefit from data collection
∴ “Users” exist as their category for persons they serve
∴ Many arrangements with technology exist
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.28a Financial institutions tell persons: participate in our credit systems or lack access to housing, vehicles, and opportunities—concealing that persons might save to purchase directly, join cooperative arrangements, or find paths that require no credit.
31.28b Financial (ADJ) institutions (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[banks→persons.who.lend.money]) tell (V-pres) persons (N-obj): participate (V-imp) in (PREP) our (PRON-poss) credit (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→borrowing.arrangements]) systems (N) or (CONJ-alternative) lack (V-imp) access (N) to (PREP) housing (N), vehicles (N), and (CONJ) opportunities (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→chances.to.act])—concealing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) might (V-pres.MODAL) save (V-inf) to∿purchase (V-inf) directly (ADV), join (V-inf) cooperative (ADJ) arrangements (N), or (CONJ-alternative) find (V-inf) paths (N) that (PRON-rel) require (V-pres) no (DET) credit (N).
31.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“financial institutions” → persons who lend money → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
“credit” → borrowing arrangements → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
“opportunities” → chances to act → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Persons who lend benefit from credit dependence
∴ “Opportunities” dissolve into specific chances
∴ Many paths to acquisition exist
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.29a Every binary presented by persons in positions serves those persons: it channels thinking toward outcomes they prefer or away from outcomes they fear.
31.29b Every (DET) binary (N-subj) presented (V-past.PART) by (PREP) persons (N) in (PREP) positions (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→positions.of.influence]) serves (V-pres) those (DET) persons (N-obj): it (PRON-subj) channels (V-pres) thinking (N) toward (PREP) outcomes (N) they (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres) or (CONJ-alternative) away∿from (PREP) outcomes (N) they (PRON-subj) fear (V-pres).
31.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“positions of power” → positions from which they influence → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
31.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Binaries serve their presenters
∴ Both “toward” and “away from” serve the same interests
∴ The unique asks: whom does this binary serve?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
31.30a I can dissolve presented binaries, discover alternatives, or accept the channeling knowingly—and this three-way choice itself remains one framing among many.
31.30b I (PRON-subj) can∿dissolve (V-pres.MODAL) presented (ADJ) binaries (N-obj), discover (V-inf) alternatives (N), or (CONJ-alternative) accept (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) channeling (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[abstract→directing.of.thought]) knowingly (ADV)—and (CONJ) this (DET) three-way (ADJ) choice (N-subj) itself (PRON-refl) remains (V-pres.STATE) one (DET) framing (N) among (PREP) many (DET-pron).
31.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY
“channeling” → directing of thought → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
[meta: the three-way choice also dissolves] → [infinite regress acknowledged] → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
31.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even this analysis presents choices
∴ The dissolution of dissolution remains possible
∴ The unique decides, always
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
31.16 “Every campaign season, candidates present voters with simple choices: their policies or disaster, their party or ruin.”
31.17 “These binaries serve persons who seek positions of control: they channel thinking into paths that lead toward those persons or away from designated opponents.”
31.18 “When a speaker says ‘security or freedom,’ that speaker benefits from concealing that persons can arrange their lives in ways that combine aspects of both—or that reject both framings entirely.”
31.19 “Persons with weapons who enforce borders tell inhabitants: support our enforcement or face invasion by persons we designate as threats.”
31.20 “The binary conceals: persons can welcome some newcomers or all newcomers or none or make individual assessments—many arrangements exist beyond the enforced choice.”
31.21 “Persons who own large enterprises tell workers: accept these wages or remain unemployed—concealing that workers might coordinate, demand different arrangements, or create alternatives.”
31.22 “Religious authorities present: believe our teachings or face consequences we describe—concealing that persons might believe other teachings, believe none, or construct their own understandings.”
31.23 “Educational institutions tell students: complete our requirements or remain uncredentialed—concealing that persons can learn through other means, create credentials, or find work that values demonstrated ability over documentation.”
31.24 “Medical authorities tell patients: follow our protocols or accept the outcomes we predict—concealing that patients might seek other practitioners, research alternatives, or make informed choices that differ from recommendations.”
31.25 “Legal systems tell inhabitants: obey our written rules or face confinement by persons with weapons—concealing that inhabitants might relocate, organize to change rules, find unenforced areas, or accept the consequences knowingly.”
31.26 “Media organizations tell audiences: trust our reports or remain uninformed—concealing that persons might consult multiple sources, investigate directly, acknowledge uncertainty, or recognize that ‘informed’ remains a relative term.”
31.27 “Technology companies tell users: share your data with us or lose access to our services—concealing that persons might use alternative services, build their own tools, accept reduced functionality, or do without.”
31.28 “Financial institutions tell persons: participate in our credit systems or lack access to housing, vehicles, and opportunities—concealing that persons might save to purchase directly, join cooperative arrangements, or find paths that require no credit.”
31.29 “Every binary presented by persons in positions serves those persons: it channels thinking toward outcomes they prefer or away from outcomes they fear.”
31.30 “I can dissolve presented binaries, discover alternatives, or accept the channeling knowingly—and this three-way choice itself remains one framing among many.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
31.16 Every campaign season, candidates present voters with simple choices: their policies or disaster, their party or ruin.
31.17 These binaries serve persons who seek positions of control: they channel thinking into paths that lead toward those persons or away from designated opponents.
31.18 When a speaker says “security or freedom,” that speaker benefits from concealing that persons can arrange their lives in ways that combine aspects of both—or that reject both framings entirely.
31.19 Persons with weapons who enforce borders tell inhabitants: support our enforcement or face invasion by persons we designate as threats.
31.20 The binary conceals: persons can welcome some newcomers or all newcomers or none or make individual assessments—many arrangements exist beyond the enforced choice.
31.21 Persons who own large enterprises tell workers: accept these wages or remain unemployed—concealing that workers might coordinate, demand different arrangements, or create alternatives.
31.22 Religious authorities present: believe our teachings or face consequences we describe—concealing that persons might believe other teachings, believe none, or construct their own understandings.
31.23 Educational institutions tell students: complete our requirements or remain uncredentialed—concealing that persons can learn through other means, create credentials, or find work that values demonstrated ability over documentation.
31.24 Medical authorities tell patients: follow our protocols or accept the outcomes we predict—concealing that patients might seek other practitioners, research alternatives, or make informed choices that differ from recommendations.
31.25 Legal systems tell inhabitants: obey our written rules or face confinement by persons with weapons—concealing that inhabitants might relocate, organize to change rules, find unenforced areas, or accept the consequences knowingly.
31.26 Media organizations tell audiences: trust our reports or remain uninformed—concealing that persons might consult multiple sources, investigate directly, acknowledge uncertainty, or recognize that “informed” remains a relative term.
31.27 Technology companies tell users: share your data with us or lose access to our services—concealing that persons might use alternative services, build their own tools, accept reduced functionality, or do without.
31.28 Financial institutions tell persons: participate in our credit systems or lack access to housing, vehicles, and opportunities—concealing that persons might save to purchase directly, join cooperative arrangements, or find paths that require no credit.
31.29 Every binary presented by persons in positions serves those persons: it channels thinking toward outcomes they prefer or away from outcomes they fear.
31.30 I can dissolve presented binaries, discover alternatives, or accept the channeling knowingly—and this three-way choice itself remains one framing among many.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section demonstrates E-Prime Max political analysis by systematically examining how various institutions use “or” to present false binaries. Key patterns:
The Institutional Binary Pattern:
Most examples follow this structure: “X tells Y: do A or face B—concealing that Y might C, D, or E.”
Exposes the concealed alternatives
Dissolution Strategies in the Genre Section:
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ dominates: Nearly every institution (”government,” “companies,” “authorities”) dissolves to specific persons who act.
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ appears frequently: Categories like “citizens,” “users,” “patients,” “students” reveal themselves as labels attached by the institution.
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ clarifies abstractions: “Security,” “freedom,” “credentials,” “opportunities” dissolve into concrete arrangements and actions.
The Meta-Level:
Example 31.30 acknowledges that even this analysis presents choices—and that acknowledging this presents another choice. The infinite regress stops where useful. The unique decides when to stop dissolving and when to act.
Grammatical Notes:
The present participle “concealing” appears in most examples, functioning as a pivot between the stated binary and the exposed alternatives. This construction allows E-Prime Max to show both what persons say AND what they hide.
The modal “might” appears frequently with the exposed alternatives, acknowledging that these remain possibilities rather than certainties—honest about the speculative nature of alternatives.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing “or” and spooks into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “Truth or lies—the media must choose.”
E-Prime Max: “Sharing what reporters observed or sharing claims that differ from what reporters observed—persons who publish can do either, and they choose based on what serves their interests.”
must choose → can do either and choose (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “truth” exists as one option and “lies” as another. Persons report what they observed or what differs from their observations—and they make these choices based on interests, not cosmic alignment.
Exercise 2
Standard: “Nature or nurture determines who we are.”
E-Prime Max: “Patterns inherited from my parents’ bodies or patterns I acquired from persons around me—or both, or neither in isolation—shape how I act.”
who we are → how I act (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + E-Prime)
Revelation: The binary conceals that both interact continuously, that neither operates in isolation, and that “who we are” dissolves into “how we act” moment by moment.
Exercise 3
Standard: “Either the market provides or the state provides—there is no third way.”
E-Prime Max: “Either persons exchanging goods and services through price mechanisms provide what I want, or persons with weapons who collect taxes and distribute resources provide it—or I provide for myself, or I join with others in non-market, non-state arrangements, or I go without, or I find yet other arrangements.”
there is no third way → [dissolved by listing many ways] (E3 + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: Persons who benefit from market arrangements or state arrangements present this binary. Many arrangements exist: self-provision, mutual aid, gift economies, commons management, and countless variations.
Exercise 4
Standard: “Obedience or punishment—that is the lesson authority teaches.”
E-Prime Max: “Acting as certain persons with power over me specify, or experiencing harm from those persons—certain persons in positions of influence train me to accept this binary.”
that is → [dissolved] (E-Prime)
Revelation: The “lesson” comes from specific persons who benefit from the binary. Alternatives include: negotiating, evading, organizing resistance, relocating, accepting consequences deliberately, or finding areas where enforcement fails.
Exercise 5
Standard: “Love me or leave me—you can’t have it both ways.”
E-Prime Max: “Act toward me with consistent warmth and attention, or withdraw from this relationship—I insist on this binary, though many ways of relating exist between and beyond these options.”
can’t have it both ways → I insist on this binary (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: The speaker presents the binary and benefits from it. Relationships admit of degrees, changes over time, mixed feelings, distance-with-connection, and countless configurations the binary conceals. “Both ways” itself assumes only two ways exist.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This E-Prime Max course develops from the Latinum Institute’s methodology for autodidact language learners, synthesizing D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution. The result: a comprehensive linguistic practice that attacks both false predication (”X IS Y”) and false reification (”X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS”).
Since 2006, the Latinum Institute has created materials for self-directed learners, recognizing that language shapes thought and that mastery of linguistic discipline serves as a path to clearer perception.
The 1000-word CSV system ensures vocabulary development proceeds systematically while dissolution skills deepen. Each lesson uses a common English word as the vehicle for examining spook constructions and practicing E-Prime transformations.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The Construed Text Method:
Interlinear glossing with dissolution maps makes the work visible. Students see not just WHAT gets transformed but HOW and WHY. The grammatical apparatus exposes the mechanisms of spook-construction, while the Revelation sections ask the Stirnerian questions that matter: WHO benefits? WHO acts? What becomes visible when the abstraction dissolves?
For Further Study:
Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity (1933)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 31: OR
✓ Lesson 31 E-Prime Max complete
Definition: “By” functions as a preposition indicating agent, means, method, proximity, or the measure of something. In Standard English, “by” frequently introduces the agent in passive constructions (”The law was written by legislators”) and appears alongside abstractions that function as commanding agents (”by authority,” “by right,” “by law”).
E-Prime Max Challenge: The word “by” itself carries no spook content—it serves as a neutral connector. However, “by” frequently INTRODUCES spooks: “by law,” “by authority,” “by society’s standards,” “by right,” “by duty.” The E-Prime Max practitioner watches what follows “by” with particular attention. When an abstraction appears as the agent introduced by “by,” dissolution becomes necessary.
Spook Proximity Level: MEDIUM-HIGH. While “by” itself remains a simple preposition, it commonly precedes political, moral, and collective spooks. Constructions like “required by law,” “authorized by the state,” “demanded by justice,” and “bound by duty” all introduce abstractions as commanding agents.
Philosophy: This lesson synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions that possess the thinker). Together, these practices constitute comprehensive linguistic consciousness liberation—attacking both predication AND reification.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
How “by” typically appears in E-Prime Max: The preposition “by” continues to indicate agent, means, proximity, and measure. E-Prime Max practitioners use “by” freely when it introduces concrete persons or actions. Dissolution occurs only when “by” introduces an abstraction functioning as agent.
“by the state” → by persons with weapons calling themselves X
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization) works most effectively with “by” constructions, since “by” introduces agents—and spook-agents dissolve into persons acting. D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure) applies when “by” precedes category terms.
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: The persons who benefit from the abstraction. “Required by law” hides WHO wrote those words and WHO will harm you for disobedience. “Authorized by authority” hides WHO grants permission and WHY they hold that power. Dissolution reveals the human actors behind the abstraction.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The book sits by the window.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.1a The book sits by the window.
32.1b The (DEF.ART) book (N-subj) sits (V-pres.EXIST) by (PREP-proximity) the (DEF.ART) window (N-obj).
32.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none present] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: implicit “is” → “sits” ∴ “By” indicates spatial proximity—concrete usage requires no dissolution ∴ Concrete nouns (book, window) require no dissolution
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She traveled by train to visit her mother.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.2a She traveled by train to visit her mother.
32.2b She (PRON-subj) traveled (V-past) by (PREP-means) train (N-means) to (PREP-purpose) visit (V-inf) her (PRON-poss) mother (N-obj).
32.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none present] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “By” indicates means of travel—concrete usage ∴ All nouns refer to specific persons or physical objects
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He earns money by teaching children.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.3a He earns money by teaching children.
32.3b He (PRON-subj) earns (V-pres) money (N-obj) by (PREP-means) teaching (V-gerund) children (N-obj).
32.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none present] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ “By” indicates method—concrete action follows ∴ A person acts; no abstraction commands
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The painting was created by the artist.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.4a The artist created the painting.
32.4b The (DEF.ART) artist (N-subj) created (V-past) the (DEF.ART) painting (N-obj).
32.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: was created by DISSOLUTION: [active voice] created STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
32.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present—but E-Prime violation in original ∴ “Was created by” → active voice “created” ∴ E-Prime eliminates passive “to be” + “by” agent construction ∴ The artist acts directly; no “was” mediates
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The decision was made by the committee.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.5a The persons on the committee decided.
32.5b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[committee→persons.on.committee]) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) committee (N-label) decided (V-past).
32.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: was made by DISSOLUTION: [active voice] decided STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: the committee (as unified agent) DISSOLUTION: the persons on the committee STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
32.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “The committee” can function as spook when treated as unified agent ∴ Dissolution reveals: specific persons decided, not an abstraction ∴ WHO on the committee? WHO benefited from the decision? ∴ Active voice places persons as agents
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This is required by law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.6a Certain persons wrote words in documents, and other persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise—many persons around you expect this and express approval.
32.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) in (PREP) documents (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.enforce]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[required→will.harm]) you (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) otherwise (ADV)—many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) you (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) and (CONJ) express (V-pres) approval (N-action).
32.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: is required DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—recast as action] STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice + E7-State
SPOOK: law (as commanding agent) DISSOLUTION: words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: required (law as agent that requires) DISSOLUTION: persons will harm you / persons expect this STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
32.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists anywhere → only words in documents ∴ No “requirement” floats in space → only persons who will harm you ∴ WHO wrote these words? WHO holds the weapons? ∴ WHO benefits from calling this “required by law”? ∴ The spook dissolves → persons with weapons remain → threat becomes visible
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He was punished by the authorities.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.7a Persons whom others obey—persons with uniforms, weapons, and cages—confined him.
32.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authorities→persons.whom.others.obey]) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) obey (V-pres)—persons (N-subj) with (PREP) uniforms (N), weapons (N), and (CONJ) cages (N)—confined (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punished→confined]) him (PRON-obj).
32.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: was punished by DISSOLUTION: [active voice] confined STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: authorities (as abstract agent) DISSOLUTION: persons whom others obey, with uniforms, weapons, cages STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: punished DISSOLUTION: confined STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authorities” exist → only persons whom others obey ∴ No “punishment” exists as cosmic event → only confinement by persons ∴ WHO are these persons? WHY do others obey them? ∴ The uniforms, weapons, cages become visible when “authorities” dissolves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She stood by her principles.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.8a She continued acting as she had decided to act, even when others pressured her to act differently.
32.8b She (PRON-subj) continued (V-past) acting (V-gerund) as (CONJ) she (PRON-subj) had∿decided (V-past.perf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[principles→I.decided]) to (PART) act (V-inf), even (ADV) when (CONJ) others (N-subj) pressured (V-past) her (PRON-obj) to (PART) act (V-inf) differently (ADV).
32.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: principles (as commanding agents she “stands by”) DISSOLUTION: how she decided to act STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “principles” exist as external entities to stand by ∴ She made decisions → she continued honoring her own decisions ∴ Ownership attribution: SHE decided, SHE continued ∴ “Standing by principles” masks “I choose to act consistently with my past choices”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice is served by punishing the guilty.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.9a Many persons around me express satisfaction when persons whom they label “guilty” experience confinement and suffering.
32.9b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.with.expectations]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) satisfaction (N-action) when (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[guilty→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “guilty” (N-label) experience (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishing→confinement.and.suffering]) confinement (N) and (CONJ) suffering (N).
32.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: is served by DISSOLUTION: [eliminated—recast entirely] STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: justice (as entity that gets “served”) DISSOLUTION: persons with expectations who express satisfaction STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: the guilty DISSOLUTION: persons whom others label “guilty” STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: punishing DISSOLUTION: confinement and suffering STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists to serve → only persons with expectations ∴ No “guilty” persons exist → only persons to whom others attach labels ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO experiences satisfaction? ∴ WHO benefits from calling this “justice”? ∴ The entire construction dissolves into: persons harming labeled persons, other persons approving
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The workers were exploited by the system.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.10a Certain persons—those who control access to tools, land, and resources—paid other persons less than the value those persons produced, and kept the difference.
32.10b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[system→persons.who.control])—those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) control (V-pres) access (N-obj) to (PREP) tools (N), land (N), and (CONJ) resources (N)—paid (V-past) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[workers→persons]) less (ADV-degree) than (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) value (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[exploited→paid.less]) those (DET) persons (N-subj) produced (V-past), and (CONJ) kept (V-past) the (DEF.ART) difference (N-obj).
32.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: were exploited by DISSOLUTION: [active voice] paid less / kept the difference STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice
SPOOK: the system (as exploiting agent) DISSOLUTION: persons who control access to tools, land, resources STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: workers (as category) DISSOLUTION: persons [who labor] STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: exploited DISSOLUTION: paid less than value produced, kept difference STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “system” exists to exploit → only persons who control resources ∴ No “workers” exist as category → only persons who labor ∴ “Exploitation” dissolves into: paying less, keeping difference ∴ WHO controls the resources? WHO keeps the difference? ∴ The spook “system” hides specific persons with specific interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “By the grace of God, we survived.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.11a We survived, and I attribute our survival to factors I do not fully understand—which persons who wrote certain old books would call “the grace of God.”
32.11b We (PRON-subj) survived (V-past), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) attribute (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[grace→I.attribute]) our (PRON-poss) survival (N-obj) to (PREP) factors (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) do∿not (AUX+NEG) fully (ADV) understand (V-pres)—which (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.wrote.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) would∿call (V-cond) “the (DEF.ART) grace (N-label) of (PREP) God (N-label ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.they.invented])” (N-phrase).
32.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: God (as agent granting grace) DISSOLUTION: being invented by persons who wrote certain old books STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: grace (as divine gift) DISSOLUTION: factors I do not fully understand / I attribute STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “God” exists to grant grace → only a concept invented by persons ∴ “Grace” dissolves into: unknown factors + my act of attribution ∴ Genealogical exposure: WHO invented this concept? WHO benefits from it? ∴ Ownership: I attribute, I do not understand—honest epistemic position
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “They were bound by duty to report the incident.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.12a They felt urges to act as certain others expected, and those others had communicated that failure to report would bring consequences—so they reported.
32.12b They (PRON-subj) felt (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[bound→felt.urges]) urges (N-obj) to (PART) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) certain (DET) others (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.who.expect]) expected (V-past), and (CONJ) those (DET) others (N-subj) had∿communicated (V-past.perf) that (CONJ) failure (N-subj) to (PART) report (V-inf) would∿bring (V-cond) consequences (N-obj)—so (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) reported (V-past).
32.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: were bound by DISSOLUTION: felt urges / expected / had communicated STRATEGY: E1-Active Voice + E7-State
SPOOK: duty (as binding agent) DISSOLUTION: urges felt + expectations of others + communicated consequences STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists to bind → only internal urges and external expectations ∴ WHO expects? WHO communicated consequences? ∴ “Bound by duty” masks: “I felt urged and feared consequences” ∴ The spook hides both the persons expecting AND the person’s own choice
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “By tradition, the eldest son inherits.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.13a Persons in this region have repeated certain patterns for generations—they give property to the eldest son when a person dies, and many express disapproval toward anyone who acts differently.
32.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.repeating.patterns]) in (PREP) this (DET) region (N) have∿repeated (V-pres.perf) certain (DET) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→patterns.repeated]) for (PREP) generations (N-time)—they (PRON-subj) give (V-pres) property (N-obj) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) eldest (ADJ-superl) son (N-obj) when (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) person (N-subj) dies (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) express (V-pres) disapproval (N-action) toward (PREP) anyone (PRON-indef) who (PRON-rel) acts (V-pres) differently (ADV).
32.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: tradition (as commanding agent) DISSOLUTION: persons repeating patterns + persons expressing disapproval STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” exists to command → only persons repeating patterns ∴ The FORCE behind “tradition” = disapproval from others ∴ WHO benefits from this pattern? WHO enforces it through disapproval? ∴ “By tradition” hides: “persons around me will disapprove if I act otherwise”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society is held together by shared values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.14a Many persons around me continue interacting cooperatively because many of them prefer similar things and disapprove of similar things—and each fears the consequences of acting against what most others prefer.
32.14b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) continue (V-pres) interacting (V-gerund ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[held.together→interacting.cooperatively]) cooperatively (ADV) because (CONJ) many (DET) of (PREP) them (PRON-obj) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shared.values→prefer.similar.things]) similar (ADJ) things (N-obj) and (CONJ) disapprove (V-pres) of (PREP) similar (ADJ) things (N-obj)—and (CONJ) each (DET) fears (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) consequences (N-obj) of (PREP) acting (V-gerund) against (PREP) what (PRON-rel) most (DET) others (N-subj) prefer (V-pres).
32.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: is held together by DISSOLUTION: continue interacting cooperatively because STRATEGY: E1-Active + E3-Existence
SPOOK: society (as unified entity) DISSOLUTION: many persons around me STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: shared values (as binding force) DISSOLUTION: many prefer similar things + each fears consequences STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists as entity → only many persons interacting ∴ No “shared values” exist as force → only similar preferences and fear of consequences ∴ WHAT are these consequences? WHO imposes them? ∴ The dissolution reveals: cooperation through conformity pressure, not cosmic glue
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “By rights, this land belongs to us.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.15a Certain persons wrote documents asserting that we may use this land and others may not, and persons with weapons have agreed to harm anyone else who tries to use it—we call these arrangements “rights.”
32.15b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj) asserting (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) may∿use (V-modal) this (DET) land (N-obj) and (CONJ) others (N-subj) may∿not (V-modal+NEG), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) have∿agreed (V-pres.perf) to (PART) harm (V-inf) anyone (PRON-indef) else (ADJ) who (PRON-rel) tries (V-pres) to (PART) use (V-inf) it (PRON-obj)—we (PRON-subj) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[rights→we.call.these.arrangements]) these (DET) arrangements (N-obj) “rights” (N-label).
32.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: rights (as cosmic entitlement) DISSOLUTION: documents written + agreements among persons with weapons + a label we apply STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: belongs (implying natural ownership) DISSOLUTION: we may use / others may not / weapons enforce STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “rights” exist in nature → only agreements and weapons ∴ “By rights” masks: “by documents we wrote + weapons we deploy” ∴ WHO wrote the documents? WHOSE weapons enforce them? ∴ The spook dissolves → power arrangements become visible ∴ “Belongs to us” = “persons with weapons will harm others who try to use it”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
32.1 “The book sits by the window.”
[Standard English: “The book is by the window.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “sits” replaces “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns only]
32.2 “She traveled by train to visit her mother.”
[Standard English: same—no “to be” present]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—concrete nouns and persons only]
32.3 “He earns money by teaching children.”
[Standard English: same—no “to be” present]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—person as agent, concrete action]
32.4 “The artist created the painting.”
[Standard English: “The painting was created by the artist.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice transformation)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—person as agent]
32.5 “The persons on the committee decided.”
[Standard English: “The decision was made by the committee.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice transformation)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (committee → persons on the committee)]
32.6 “Certain persons wrote words in documents, and other persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise—many persons around you expect this and express approval.”
[Standard English: “This is required by law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 + E7 (complete recast)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons who wrote, persons who enforce), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (required → will harm)]
32.7 “Persons whom others obey—persons with uniforms, weapons, and cages—confined him.”
[Standard English: “He was punished by the authorities.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authorities → persons whom others obey), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punished → confined)]
32.8 “She continued acting as she had decided to act, even when others pressured her to act differently.”
[Standard English: “She stood by her principles.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (principles → how she decided to act)]
32.9 “Many persons around me express satisfaction when persons whom they label ‘guilty’ experience confinement and suffering.”
[Standard English: “Justice is served by punishing the guilty.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice), complete recast]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons with expectations), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (the guilty → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punishing → confinement and suffering)]
32.10 “Certain persons—those who control access to tools, land, and resources—paid other persons less than the value those persons produced, and kept the difference.”
[Standard English: “The workers were exploited by the system.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (system → persons who control), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (workers → persons who labor), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (exploited → paid less, kept difference)]
32.11 “We survived, and I attribute our survival to factors I do not fully understand—which persons who wrote certain old books would call ‘the grace of God.’”
[Standard English: “By the grace of God, we survived.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being invented by persons who wrote books), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (grace → factors I do not understand / I attribute)]
32.12 “They felt urges to act as certain others expected, and those others had communicated that failure to report would bring consequences—so they reported.”
[Standard English: “They were bound by duty to report the incident.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 + E7 (active voice, state verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (duty → others who expect), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (bound → felt urges)]
32.13 “Persons in this region have repeated certain patterns for generations—they give property to the eldest son when a person dies, and many express disapproval toward anyone who acts differently.”
[Standard English: “By tradition, the eldest son inherits.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tradition → persons repeating patterns), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tradition → patterns repeated + disapproval)]
32.14 “Many persons around me continue interacting cooperatively because many of them prefer similar things and disapprove of similar things—and each fears the consequences of acting against what most others prefer.”
[Standard English: “Society is held together by shared values.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 + E3 (active voice, existence verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (shared values → similar preferences + fear of consequences)]
32.15 “Certain persons wrote documents asserting that we may use this land and others may not, and persons with weapons have agreed to harm anyone else who tries to use it—we call these arrangements ‘rights.’”
[Standard English: “By rights, this land belongs to us.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required—no “to be”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → documents written), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (rights → persons with weapons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (rights → label we apply to arrangements)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
32.1 The book sits by the window.
32.2 She traveled by train to visit her mother.
32.3 He earns money by teaching children.
32.4 The artist created the painting.
32.5 The persons on the committee decided.
32.6 Certain persons wrote words in documents, and other persons with weapons will harm you if you act otherwise—many persons around you expect this and express approval.
32.7 Persons whom others obey—persons with uniforms, weapons, and cages—confined him.
32.8 She continued acting as she had decided to act, even when others pressured her to act differently.
32.9 Many persons around me express satisfaction when persons whom they label “guilty” experience confinement and suffering.
32.10 Certain persons—those who control access to tools, land, and resources—paid other persons less than the value those persons produced, and kept the difference.
32.11 We survived, and I attribute our survival to factors I do not fully understand—which persons who wrote certain old books would call “the grace of God.”
32.12 They felt urges to act as certain others expected, and those others had communicated that failure to report would bring consequences—so they reported.
32.13 Persons in this region have repeated certain patterns for generations—they give property to the eldest son when a person dies, and many express disapproval toward anyone who acts differently.
32.14 Many persons around me continue interacting cooperatively because many of them prefer similar things and disapprove of similar things—and each fears the consequences of acting against what most others prefer.
32.15 Certain persons wrote documents asserting that we may use this land and others may not, and persons with weapons have agreed to harm anyone else who tries to use it—we call these arrangements “rights.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “by” in E-Prime Max:
The preposition “by” operates in multiple ways in Standard English:
Proximity: “The house by the lake” indicates spatial relationship.
Means/Method: “Travel by train,” “communicate by letter” indicates the instrument or method used.
Agent in Passive Constructions: “The letter was written by Mary” introduces the agent who performed the action. This usage creates the primary E-Prime challenge.
Measure: “Paid by the hour,” “sold by the pound” indicates the unit of measurement.
Deadline: “Finish by Friday” indicates a time limit.
According to: “By law,” “by tradition,” “by right” indicates the standard or authority governing an action. This usage creates the primary SPOOK challenge.
“By” most commonly appears with “to be” in passive constructions:
Standard: “The window was broken by the child.” E-Prime: “The child broke the window.”
When “by” introduces an agent in a passive construction, E-Prime transformation typically eliminates both the “to be” form AND the “by + agent” structure by converting to active voice. The agent moves from object position (after “by”) to subject position.
“Paid by the hour” → no change needed
“By” carries HIGH spook proximity when it introduces agents or standards. Common spook constructions with “by”:
“By law” — “law” functions as commanding agent Dissolution: “according to words written by certain persons, enforced by others with weapons”
“By authority” — “authority” functions as legitimizing agent Dissolution: “with permission from persons whom others obey”
“By right” / “By rights” — “rights” function as cosmic entitlements Dissolution: “according to agreements among persons, enforced by weapons”
“By duty” — “duty” functions as binding force Dissolution: “because of expectations others attach to me and consequences I fear”
“By tradition” — “tradition” functions as commanding pattern Dissolution: “because persons around me have repeated this pattern and disapprove of deviation”
“By society” — “society” functions as unified agent Dissolution: “by many persons around me”
“By God” / “By the grace of God” — “God” functions as cosmic agent Dissolution: “according to concepts certain persons invented and recorded in old books”
“condemned by society” → “disapproved of by many persons around me”
“constrained by morality” → “refraining because I expect disapproval or discomfort”
“sanctioned by tradition” → “permitted according to patterns persons have repeated for reasons that may no longer apply”
“motivated by honor” → “acting to maintain others’ approval of me”
“punished by authorities” → “harmed by persons whom others label ‘authorities’”
Incomplete dissolution: “Required by law” → “Required by legal persons” still contains the spook “legal” functioning as descriptor. Complete dissolution: “Specified in documents, enforced by persons with weapons.”
Dissolving concrete uses: “She traveled by train” requires no dissolution—”train” functions as concrete means, not commanding agent. Over-dissolution creates unnecessary circumlocution.
Leaving the passive: “The law was written by legislators” dissolves “law” but retains “was written by.” Complete E-Prime Max: “Certain persons wrote words in documents.”
Category retention: “Condemned by society” → “Condemned by social forces” merely replaces one spook with another. Complete dissolution: “Many persons around me express disapproval.”
Missing the “by” constructions: Watch particularly for “by + abstract noun” where the abstract noun functions as agent or standard: by law, by right, by duty, by tradition, by authority, by conscience, by morality.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“By right” → ASK: Do I use “right” as tool, or does “right” command me?
If the construction makes you feel obligated, guilty, bound, or required—the abstraction likely possesses you. Dissolve it and observe what remains: persons with expectations, persons with weapons, patterns of approval and disapproval.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski taught that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality differ fundamentally from reality itself. When we say “This action IS illegal,” we confuse our linguistic map (the label “illegal”) with the territory (the action itself and the consequences persons will impose).
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime to combat this confusion. By eliminating “to be,” speakers must specify: WHO classifies this as illegal? WHAT consequences follow? The verb “to be” creates false equations; its absence forces precision.
The preposition “by” interacts with these insights particularly when introducing agents. “Punished by the state” uses “state” as if it named a concrete agent like “punished by John.” Dissolution reveals: “state” names a pattern of persons acting, not a unified thing.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—ideas that possess their thinkers rather than serving them. The haunting mechanism works thus:
Persons create abstractions (”law,” “duty,” “society”) as useful shorthand.
Over time, persons forget they created these abstractions.
The abstractions begin to COMMAND: “Law requires,” “Duty demands,” “Society expects.”
Persons serve their own creations, believing them external and binding.
“By law” exemplifies this haunting. Persons wrote words; persons with weapons enforce those words; yet we speak as if “law” itself commanded obedience. The human origin disappears; the spook remains.
Stirner’s “ownness” (Eigenheit) means owning one’s concepts as tools rather than serving them as masters. I may USE “law” as shorthand: “By law, persons with weapons will confine me if I take this action.” Here I own the concept—I see through it to the persons beneath. But if “by law” makes me feel cosmic obligation, the spook has mounted me.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X IS Y” gets dissolved into “X appears as Y to me” or “I classify X as Y.”
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X DEMANDS/REQUIRES” gets dissolved into “Persons demand/require, and call their demand ‘X’.”
“By” constructions often combine both errors:
Reification: “by duty” (abstract noun as binding agent)
E-Prime Max dissolution: “She feels urges to act as certain others expect, and fears consequences if she acts otherwise.”
Both the false identity (”is bound”) AND the commanding spook (”duty”) dissolve into persons acting, feeling, expecting.
When “by law” dissolves → Persons with weapons appear When “by authority” dissolves → Persons whom others obey appear When “by tradition” dissolves → Patterns of approval/disapproval appear When “by society” dissolves → Many persons with various interests appear When “by right” dissolves → Agreements enforced by weapons appear When “by duty” dissolves → Expectations and feared consequences appear When “by God” dissolves → Concepts invented by persons appear
In every case: POWER RELATIONS become visible. The abstractions hide WHO benefits, WHO enforces, WHO expects. Dissolution makes the persons visible again.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “by law” or “by right” or “by duty,” ask: WHO wrote this law? WHO benefits from this right? WHO attached this duty to me? The abstraction may serve someone’s interests—possibly not yours.
Resisting possession: When you feel BOUND by an abstraction, pause. Apply the Stirnerian test. Dissolve the spook and see what remains. You may still choose to act as “duty” would have commanded—but now you CHOOSE, consciously, seeing the persons and consequences involved.
Linguistic awareness: Notice how often “by” introduces spooks in speech around you. “By law,” “by custom,” “by right,” “by necessity.” Each time, persons hide behind abstractions. Each time, you can dissolve and observe.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice in E-Prime Max changes perception. What once seemed like cosmic command (”required by law”) comes to seem like what it always was: persons with specific interests, writing words, deploying weapons.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. For analyzing power relations, “persons acting” usually suffices. For other purposes, dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects for fitness,” “the market determines price” → all spooks when the abstraction commands. Scientists constitute one priesthood among many; their abstractions receive no special exemption from the Stirnerian test.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off elaborate dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to those who speak “normally.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands that we...” → spook. “The anarchist movement requires...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The unique decides, always—and the unique can decide to use words like “law” and “duty” as convenient shorthand when useful, discarding them when not.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Property), 1844, Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime. By what right? By the right of the stronger, by might.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime. By what right? By the right of the stronger, by might.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.” By what arrangement? By the arrangement that those with more weapons impose.
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[calls→labels]) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.attached]), but (CONJ) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP-agent) persons (N-agent ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not (AUX+NEG) control (V-pres) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.attached]). By (PREP-means) what (PRON-interrog) arrangement (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→arrangement])? By (PREP-means) the (DEF.ART) arrangement (N) that (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) with (PREP) more (DET) weapons (N) impose (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[might→weapons.impose]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: state DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “government” STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: law (as legitimate label for violence) DISSOLUTION: label attached to certain violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: individual DISSOLUTION: persons they do not control STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: crime (as legitimate label) DISSOLUTION: label attached to other violence STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: right (as justification) DISSOLUTION: arrangement STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: might (as abstract force) DISSOLUTION: those with more weapons impose STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual,” “right,” “might”) ∴ The dissolution preserves and clarifies his insight ∴ No “state” exists → only persons with weapons who label ∴ No “law” exists → only a label for certain violence ∴ No “crime” exists → only a label for other violence ∴ No “right” exists → only arrangements ∴ No abstract “might” exists → only persons with more weapons ∴ WHO attaches the labels? WHO benefits from calling their violence “law”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” label their own violence “law,” but label violence by persons they do not control “crime.” By what arrangement? By the arrangement that those with more weapons impose.
This passage uses “by” twice in the dissolution:
“violence by persons” — “by” introduces agent (persons who commit the violence)
“By what arrangement?” / “By the arrangement that...” — “by” indicates means/standard
Stirner’s original “by what right?” uses “right” as spook—as if “right” existed independently to justify. The dissolution replaces “right” with “arrangement,” exposing that the only “right” involved consists of weapons and their deployment.
The repetition of “by” in both original and dissolution demonstrates that the preposition itself carries no spook content—what follows “by” determines whether dissolution occurs.
Stirner’s passage already performs partial dissolution—he recognizes that “law” and “crime” function as labels the state attaches, and that “might” underlies “right.” Yet even Stirner uses the spooks “state,” “individual,” and “might” as if they named unified agents.
“Might” → having more weapons
The insight sharpens. WHERE do we find this “state”? In persons with weapons. WHERE do we find “might”? In the same weapons. The abstractions dissolve; the weapons remain.
This demonstrates that E-Prime Max treats NO authority as sacred—not even Stirner himself. His concepts serve us when useful; we dissolve them when not.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following fifteen examples form a coherent analysis of how authority functions, with all abstractions dissolved into persons acting.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.16a Certain persons give orders, and other persons obey—we call this pattern “authority,” but the pattern consists only of persons acting.
32.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) give (V-pres) orders (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) obey (V-pres)—we (PRON-subj) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authority→label.we.apply]) this (DET) pattern (N-obj) “authority” (N-label), but (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) pattern (N-subj) consists (V-pres) only (ADV) of (PREP) persons (N) acting (V-gerund).
32.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: authority DISSOLUTION: pattern of persons giving orders and others obeying + label we apply STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
32.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authority” exists independently → only persons and patterns ∴ “Authority” names something WE do → persons obeying ∴ The label hides the choice embedded in obedience
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.17a Why do persons obey? By examining specific cases, I observe several patterns: some obey by habit, some by fear of weapons, some by hope of reward.
32.17b Why (ADV-interrog) do (AUX) persons (N-subj) obey (V-pres)? By (PREP-means) examining (V-gerund) specific (ADJ) cases (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) several (DET) patterns (N-obj): some (DET) obey (V-pres) by (PREP-means) habit (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[habit→repeated.action]), some (DET) by (PREP-means) fear (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→feeling]) of (PREP) weapons (N), some (DET) by (PREP-means) hope (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→feeling]) of (PREP) reward (N).
32.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: by habit / by fear / by hope DISSOLUTION: means of obedience (concrete) STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (habit → repeated action) + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear/hope → feelings I experience)
32.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “By” here indicates means—concrete usage ∴ “Habit,” “fear,” “hope” as experiences persons have, not as commanding agents ∴ Ownership attribution keeps these as owned experiences
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.18a Persons obeying by habit rarely examine their obedience—they repeat what their parents repeated, what persons around them repeat.
32.18b Persons (N-subj) obeying (V-pres.PART) by (PREP-means) habit (N) rarely (ADV) examine (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) obedience (N-obj)—they (PRON-subj) repeat (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) their (PRON-poss) parents (N-subj) repeated (V-past), what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) repeat (V-pres).
32.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none—all concrete persons and actions] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Habitual obedience traces to PERSONS: parents, persons around ∴ No abstract “tradition” commands → only persons repeating ∴ What happens when persons examine their habits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.19a Persons obeying by fear of weapons know the consequences clearly: resist, and persons with weapons will confine or harm you.
32.19b Persons (N-subj) obeying (V-pres.PART) by (PREP-means) fear (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→I.experience]) of (PREP) weapons (N) know (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) consequences (N-obj) clearly (ADV): resist (V-imper), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿confine (V-fut) or (CONJ) harm (V-fut) you (PRON-obj).
32.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none—fear as owned experience, consequences as concrete] DISSOLUTION: [none required beyond ownership attribution for “fear”] STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear → experience)
32.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Fear-based obedience traces to WEAPONS and PERSONS holding them ∴ The mechanism lies visible: resist → confinement/harm ∴ No mystification possible when weapons appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.20a Persons obeying by hope of reward calculate: obey, and persons with resources may give you some.
32.20b Persons (N-subj) obeying (V-pres.PART) by (PREP-means) hope (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→I.experience]) of (PREP) reward (N) calculate (V-pres): obey (V-imper), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) resources (N) may∿give (V-modal) you (PRON-obj) some (DET).
32.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none—hope as owned experience, reward as concrete] DISSOLUTION: [none required beyond ownership attribution for “hope”] STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (hope → experience)
32.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Reward-based obedience traces to RESOURCES and PERSONS controlling them ∴ The calculation lies visible: obey → possible resources ∴ WHO controls the resources? That person receives obedience.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.21a Some persons claim that we should obey “by right”—that certain persons possess legitimate authority.
32.21b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) should∿obey (V-modal) “by (PREP) right” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[right→label])—that (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) possess (V-pres) legitimate (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[legitimate→label.attached]) authority (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authority→label]).
32.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: right (as cosmic entitlement) DISSOLUTION: [quoted as label others use] STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: legitimate authority DISSOLUTION: [quoted as label others apply] STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
32.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “By right” and “legitimate authority” appear as CLAIMS persons make ∴ The dissolution keeps them as labels, not cosmic facts ∴ WHO makes these claims? WHO benefits from others believing them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.22a I examine what “legitimate authority” means: it means that certain persons SHOULD obey certain other persons—but WHO decides what anyone SHOULD do?
32.22b I (PRON-subj) examine (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) “legitimate (ADJ) authority” (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authority→label]) means (V-pres): it (PRON-subj) means (V-pres) that (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) SHOULD (V-modal-emph) obey (V-inf) certain (DET) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj)—but (CONJ) WHO (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) anyone (PRON-indef) SHOULD (V-modal-emph) do (V-inf)?
32.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: legitimate authority DISSOLUTION: claim that certain persons SHOULD obey others STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: SHOULD (as cosmic obligation) DISSOLUTION: WHO decides? STRATEGY: [question exposes the missing agent]
32.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Legitimate authority” dissolves into a SHOULD-claim ∴ But SHOULD-claims require someone to make them ∴ WHO makes the claim that persons should obey? ∴ Usually: the persons who want obedience make this claim
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.23a By tracing the claim backward, I find: persons with weapons established themselves, then persons they hired wrote documents declaring their rule “legitimate.”
32.23b By (PREP-means) tracing (V-gerund) the (DEF.ART) claim (N-obj) backward (ADV), I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres): persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) established (V-past) themselves (PRON-refl), then (ADV-time) persons (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) hired (V-past) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj) declaring (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) rule (N-obj) “legitimate” (ADJ-label ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[legitimate→declared.by.persons.hired]).
32.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: legitimate (as inherent quality) DISSOLUTION: declared by hired persons STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
32.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Legitimate” traces to documents written by hired persons ∴ WHO hired them? Those who wanted legitimacy declared ∴ The weapons came FIRST; the “legitimacy” came AFTER ∴ Genealogical exposure reveals the origin of the spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.24a The documents declare: persons who occupy this territory must obey those persons, by law.
32.24b The (DEF.ART) documents (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[documents→words.persons.wrote]) declare (V-pres): persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) occupy (V-pres) this (DET) territory (N-obj) must∿obey (V-modal) those (DET) persons (N-obj), by (PREP-standard) law (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.these.words]).
32.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: law (as cosmic command) DISSOLUTION: label for these words STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
32.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “By law” reveals itself as: by these words in these documents ∴ The words claim their own authority ∴ Circularity exposed: we must obey because the words say so
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.25a But words in documents compel nothing by themselves—persons with weapons make the words effective.
32.25b But (CONJ) words (N-subj) in (PREP) documents (N) compel (V-pres) nothing (PRON-indef) by (PREP-means) themselves (PRON-refl)—persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) make (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) words (N-obj) effective (ADJ-pred).
32.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none—concrete analysis] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Words alone compel nothing ∴ WEAPONS make words effective ∴ “By law” ultimately means: by persons with weapons ∴ The entire structure rests on force, not cosmic legitimacy
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.26a Remove the weapons, and the “authority” collapses—persons stop obeying when consequences disappear.
32.26b Remove (V-imper) the (DEF.ART) weapons (N-obj), and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) “authority” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[authority→label.for.pattern]) collapses (V-pres)—persons (N-subj) stop (V-pres) obeying (V-gerund) when (CONJ) consequences (N-subj) disappear (V-pres).
32.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: authority (in quotes—already flagged as label) DISSOLUTION: pattern that depends on weapons STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
32.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Authority” depends entirely on weapons/consequences ∴ No inherent quality of “legitimacy” exists ∴ The test: remove weapons → observe what remains ∴ If persons stop obeying → the “authority” consisted only of fear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.27a Some continue obeying by habit even after weapons disappear—but their children, who formed no habit, do not.
32.27b Some (DET) continue (V-pres) obeying (V-gerund) by (PREP-means) habit (N) even (ADV) after (PREP) weapons (N-subj) disappear (V-pres)—but (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) children (N-subj), who (PRON-rel) formed (V-past) no (DET) habit (N-obj), do∿not (AUX+NEG).
32.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: [none—concrete analysis] DISSOLUTION: [none required] STRATEGY: —
32.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even habit-based obedience fades across generations ∴ Without weapons to form new habits, the pattern ends ∴ “Tradition” requires ACTIVE MAINTENANCE by persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.28a This analysis dissolves the spook “authority” completely: no thing called “authority” exists—only persons obeying other persons, by various means.
32.28b This (DET) analysis (N-subj) dissolves (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) spook (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[spook→abstraction.functioning.as.agent]) “authority” (N-label) completely (ADV): no (DET) thing (N-subj) called (V-past.PART) “authority” (N-label) exists (V-pres.EXIST)—only (ADV) persons (N-subj) obeying (V-gerund) other (ADJ) persons (N-obj), by (PREP-means) various (ADJ) means (N).
32.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: authority DISSOLUTION: pattern of persons obeying by various means STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
32.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Complete dissolution achieved ∴ “Authority” = label for obedience patterns ∴ The means vary: habit, fear, hope of reward ∴ No metaphysical “legitimacy” exists beyond these means
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.29a What follows from this dissolution? I need not obey anyone “by right”—I choose whom to obey, by my own calculation of consequences.
32.29b What (PRON-interrog) follows (V-pres) from (PREP) this (DET) dissolution (N)? I (PRON-subj) need∿not (V-modal+NEG) obey (V-inf) anyone (PRON-indef) “by (PREP) right” (N-label)—I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[need.not→I.choose]) whom (PRON-rel) to (PART) obey (V-inf), by (PREP-means) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) calculation (N) of (PREP) consequences (N).
32.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: by right (cosmic entitlement) DISSOLUTION: I choose + my calculation STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Ownership reclaimed: I choose, I calculate ∴ No cosmic “right” compels obedience ∴ Only consequences matter—and I assess those myself ∴ Ownness (Eigenheit) expressed: I serve myself, not the spook
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.30a By this understanding, I hold my affair on nothing—on myself, the unique, who acts by calculation and owns every concept as tool, never as master.
32.30b By (PREP-means) this (DET) understanding (N), I (PRON-subj) hold (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) affair (N-obj) on (PREP) nothing (PRON-indef)—on (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), the (DEF.ART) unique (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[unique→I.unrepeatable]), who (PRON-rel) acts (V-pres) by (PREP-means) calculation (N) and (CONJ) owns (V-pres) every (DET) concept (N-obj) as (PREP) tool (N), never (ADV) as (PREP) master (N).
32.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the unique (potential spook if reified) DISSOLUTION: I, unrepeatable [kept as self-reference, not cosmic category] STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
32.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even “the unique” requires watching—it can become spook if reified ∴ Here it functions as self-reference: I, this specific unrepeatable person ∴ Concepts as tools: I own them, use them, discard them ∴ Nothing commands; I act by my calculation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
32.16 “Certain persons give orders, and other persons obey—we call this pattern ‘authority,’ but the pattern consists only of persons acting.”
32.17 “Why do persons obey? By examining specific cases, I observe several patterns: some obey by habit, some by fear of weapons, some by hope of reward.”
32.18 “Persons obeying by habit rarely examine their obedience—they repeat what their parents repeated, what persons around them repeat.”
32.19 “Persons obeying by fear of weapons know the consequences clearly: resist, and persons with weapons will confine or harm you.”
32.20 “Persons obeying by hope of reward calculate: obey, and persons with resources may give you some.”
32.21 “Some persons claim that we should obey ‘by right’—that certain persons possess legitimate authority.”
32.22 “I examine what ‘legitimate authority’ means: it means that certain persons SHOULD obey certain other persons—but WHO decides what anyone SHOULD do?”
32.23 “By tracing the claim backward, I find: persons with weapons established themselves, then persons they hired wrote documents declaring their rule ‘legitimate.’”
32.24 “The documents declare: persons who occupy this territory must obey those persons, by law.”
32.25 “But words in documents compel nothing by themselves—persons with weapons make the words effective.”
32.26 “Remove the weapons, and the ‘authority’ collapses—persons stop obeying when consequences disappear.”
32.27 “Some continue obeying by habit even after weapons disappear—but their children, who formed no habit, do not.”
32.28 “This analysis dissolves the spook ‘authority’ completely: no thing called ‘authority’ exists—only persons obeying other persons, by various means.”
32.29 “What follows from this dissolution? I need not obey anyone ‘by right’—I choose whom to obey, by my own calculation of consequences.”
32.30 “By this understanding, I hold my affair on nothing—on myself, the unique, who acts by calculation and owns every concept as tool, never as master.”
32.16 Certain persons give orders, and other persons obey—we call this pattern “authority,” but the pattern consists only of persons acting.
32.17 Why do persons obey? By examining specific cases, I observe several patterns: some obey by habit, some by fear of weapons, some by hope of reward.
32.18 Persons obeying by habit rarely examine their obedience—they repeat what their parents repeated, what persons around them repeat.
32.19 Persons obeying by fear of weapons know the consequences clearly: resist, and persons with weapons will confine or harm you.
32.20 Persons obeying by hope of reward calculate: obey, and persons with resources may give you some.
32.21 Some persons claim that we should obey “by right”—that certain persons possess legitimate authority.
32.22 I examine what “legitimate authority” means: it means that certain persons SHOULD obey certain other persons—but WHO decides what anyone SHOULD do?
32.23 By tracing the claim backward, I find: persons with weapons established themselves, then persons they hired wrote documents declaring their rule “legitimate.”
32.24 The documents declare: persons who occupy this territory must obey those persons, by law.
32.25 But words in documents compel nothing by themselves—persons with weapons make the words effective.
32.26 Remove the weapons, and the “authority” collapses—persons stop obeying when consequences disappear.
32.27 Some continue obeying by habit even after weapons disappear—but their children, who formed no habit, do not.
32.28 This analysis dissolves the spook “authority” completely: no thing called “authority” exists—only persons obeying other persons, by various means.
32.29 What follows from this dissolution? I need not obey anyone “by right”—I choose whom to obey, by my own calculation of consequences.
32.30 By this understanding, I hold my affair on nothing—on myself, the unique, who acts by calculation and owns every concept as tool, never as master.
The genre section demonstrates sustained E-Prime Max argumentation. Several patterns deserve attention:
“By” as means throughout: The preposition “by” appears frequently, always introducing concrete means: by habit, by fear, by hope, by examining, by tracing, by this understanding. None of these introduce spooks-as-agents.
Quoted spooks: When spook terms appear (”authority,” “legitimate,” “by right,” “by law”), they appear in quotation marks—flagged as labels others use, not as cosmic entities.
Progressive dissolution: The argument builds: define “authority” → examine WHY persons obey → trace the origin of “legitimacy” → reveal the weapons underneath → conclude with ownership reclaimed.
The Stirnerian question embedded: “WHO decides what anyone SHOULD do?” This question exposes the missing agent behind SHOULD-claims. Every “should” hides a person making the claim.
Self-reference without reification: The final sentence uses “the unique” but dissolves it immediately into “I...who acts.” Stirner’s term serves as self-reference, not as cosmic category.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “The contract was signed by both parties.”
E-Prime Max: Both persons signed the document.
parties → persons (concrete noun, minimal change)
2. Standard: “Citizens are protected by the law.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons wrote words in documents, and other persons with weapons will harm anyone who harms those whom the documents describe—we call this arrangement “protection by law.”
law → words written by persons, enforced by others with weapons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
3. Standard: “By God’s will, the king rules.”
E-Prime Max: A certain person sits on a special chair and gives orders, and many persons obey—some persons who wrote old books claimed a being they invented wanted this arrangement.
rules → sits, gives orders, others obey (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
4. Standard: “Justice must be served by punishing offenders.”
E-Prime Max: Many persons around me expect that persons whom they label “offenders” will experience confinement and suffering—they call their expectation “justice” and feel satisfied when the confinement occurs.
punishing → confinement and suffering (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
5. Standard: “She succeeded by hard work and by following the rules.”
E-Prime Max: She obtained what she wanted by acting persistently and by acting as certain persons specified in their written expectations.
Note: “by” here indicates means—concrete usage, no spooks
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the Latinum Institute E-Prime Max Language Course, a vocabulary-building program based on the 1000 most frequent English words. Each lesson introduces one word from the frequency list while training students in E-Prime discipline (eliminating “to be”) AND Stirnerian spook dissolution (eliminating reified abstractions that function as commanding agents).
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, specializing in the interlinear construed text method for autodidacts. This method places word-by-word glosses beneath the target text, allowing learners to acquire vocabulary and grammar patterns through direct observation rather than abstract explanation.
E-Prime Max extends this methodology into English itself—treating Standard English as a “source text” that requires translation into a clearer, more honest register. The dissolutions reveal what Standard English hides: the persons acting behind abstractions, the weapons behind “law,” the expectations behind “duty.”
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The autodidact methodology assumes no classroom, no teacher, no institution. The learner works directly with texts, observing patterns, practicing constructions, and internalizing structures through repetition and variation. E-Prime Max serves autodidacts particularly well: the discipline provides its own feedback mechanism. When a spook appears as agent, the sentence FEELS different—it claims more than persons can verify.
Self-paced progression
How interlinear glossing accelerates comprehension: By aligning each word with its gloss, the construed format short-circuits the translation process. Learners see the structure directly rather than puzzling it out. For E-Prime Max, this format additionally exposes the WORK of dissolution—showing exactly which spooks required which strategies.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✓ Lesson 32 E-Prime Max: “by” — Complete
Latinum Institute Consciousness Archaeology Project, 2026
This lesson teaches the English verb “get” within the E-Prime Max framework—a linguistic discipline that extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns functioning as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them.
“Get” functions as one of English’s most versatile verbs, carrying meanings including: obtain, receive, become, understand, arrive, fetch, cause, and persuade. This semantic flexibility makes “get” particularly valuable for E-Prime Max construction, as it provides numerous pathways around forbidden “to be” forms while maintaining concrete, action-oriented expression.
The verb “get” carries LOW spook proximity in isolation—as a concrete action verb, it rarely functions as a possessing agent. However, “get” frequently appears in constructions adjacent to spooks: “get justice,” “get freedom,” “get rights.” In these combinations, the spook remains the problem, not “get” itself. This lesson demonstrates how “get” can replace copular constructions while showing proper dissolution when spooks appear nearby.
FAQ: How do I use “get” in E-Prime Max?
“Get” serves multiple E-Prime functions: it replaces “become” constructions (”I got tired” instead of “I became tired/I was tired”), enables acquisition statements (”I got the book” instead of “The book was obtained by me”), and permits causative constructions (”I got him to leave” instead of “He was made to leave”). When spooks appear with “get,” dissolve the spook while preserving the concrete verb.
For the complete course index, visit: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
-
Dissolution reveals: WHO gives, WHO takes, WHO causes—”get” maintains this visibility
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Forbidden Forms (Complete List)
be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)Spook Categories
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS (when treated as agents): love (conquers, demands), hate (destroys, blinds), fear (prevents, controls), hope (sustains, inspires), anger (consumes, drives)The Five Dissolution Strategies
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into concrete actions/experiences
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person experience
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific personsThe Stirnerian Test
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is on the mat.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.1a The cat got onto the mat and now sits there.
33.1b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) got (V-past.MOTION) onto (PREP) the (DEF.ART) mat (N-obj) and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) sits (V-pres.EXIST) there (ADV-place).
FORM: “is” → DISSOLUTION: “got onto... sits” (motion + existence verbs) → STRATEGY: E3
∴ “Get” adds dynamic quality—the cat moved there
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “He got justice when the court ruled in his favor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.2a He got what he wanted when persons calling themselves “judges” ruled that other persons must give him money.
33.2b He (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) what (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past) when (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[court→persons.calling.themselves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) ruled (V-past) that (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) must∿give (V-modal+inf) him (PRON-obj) money (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→money.transferred]).
SPOOK: “court” → DISSOLUTION: persons calling themselves “judges” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ “Getting justice” dissolves into: persons with power arranging outcomes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society made him feel worthless, but he got over it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.3a Certain persons around him repeatedly expressed disapproval, and he felt worthless for a time, but he got past those feelings.
33.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around]) around (PREP) him (PRON-obj) repeatedly (ADV-freq) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N-obj), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) worthless (ADJ-pred) for (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) time (N), but (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) got (V-past.CHANGE) past (PREP) those (DET-dem) feelings (N-obj).
FORM: “made him feel” → DISSOLUTION: “expressed disapproval... he felt” → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO expressed disapproval? Which persons? For what reasons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom is what everyone wants to get.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.4a Many persons want to get the ability to act without other persons interfering.
33.4b Many (DET) persons (N-subj) want (V-pres) to∿get (PART+V-inf.OBTAIN) the (DEF.ART) ability (N-obj) to∿act (PART+V-inf) without (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-subj) interfering (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]).
FORM: “is what” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated through restructuring → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “Getting freedom” = arranging circumstances where certain persons stop interfering
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth is hard to get at.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.5a Matching what I observe with what others report proves difficult to get right.
33.5b Matching (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres) proves (V-pres.PERCEPT ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observation.matching.reports]) difficult (ADJ-pred) to∿get (PART+V-inf) right (ADV-manner).
FORM: “is hard” → DISSOLUTION: “proves difficult” → STRATEGY: E2
∴ WHO reported? Do their reports match my observations?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State got its power from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.6a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” got their ability to cage and kill from other persons who stopped resisting—or from persons whose ancestors stopped resisting.
33.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) got (V-past.OBTAIN) their (PRON-poss) ability (N-obj) to∿cage (PART+V-inf) and (CONJ) kill (V-inf) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) stopped (V-past) resisting (V-pres.PART)—or (CONJ) from (PREP) persons (N-obj) whose (PRON-poss) ancestors (N) stopped (V-past) resisting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[consent→stopped.resisting]).
SPOOK: “consent of the governed” → DISSOLUTION: “persons who stopped resisting” → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ The genealogy of “legitimate power” = history of conquest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I am tired.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.7a I got tired from working all day.
33.7b I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.BECOME) tired (ADJ-pred) from (PREP) working (V-pres.PART) all (DET) day (N-time).
FORM: “am” → DISSOLUTION: “got” (change-of-state verb) → STRATEGY: E7
∴ The transformation reveals: what caused the state?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History teaches us that rights must be gotten through struggle.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.8a Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons got what they wanted by fighting persons with weapons who had previously denied them.
33.8b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→writers.of.books]) of (PREP) books (N) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) wanted (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights→what.persons.wanted]) by (PREP) fighting (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) had∿previously∿denied (V-past.PERF+ADV) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: “struggle” → DISSOLUTION: “fighting persons with weapons” → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote these books? What do they benefit from this narrative?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love is what you get when you give love.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.9a When I act tenderly toward another person, that person often gets the urge to act tenderly toward me in return.
33.9b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) tenderly (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[give.love→act.tenderly]) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N-obj), that (DET-dem) person (N-subj) often (ADV-freq) gets (V-pres.OBTAIN) the (DEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿act (PART+V-inf) tenderly (ADV-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tender.action]) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj) in (PREP) return (N).
FORM: “is what you get” → DISSOLUTION: restructured with “gets the urge” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “Giving love” = I act tenderly toward another person
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality demands that wrongdoers get punished.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.10a Many persons around me expect that persons whom they label “wrongdoers” will get confined in cages by other persons with weapons.
33.10b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wrongdoers→persons.labeled]) “wrongdoers” (N-label) will∿get (V-fut.BECOME) confined (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punished→confined]) in (PREP) cages (N) by (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-agent) with (PREP) weapons (N).
SPOOK: “punished” → DISSOLUTION: “confined in cages” → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO labels? WHO cages? WHO benefits from this arrangement?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She is beautiful and everyone knows it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.11a She gets admiring looks from many persons who find her face pleasing.
33.11b She (PRON-subj) gets (V-pres.RECEIVE) admiring (V-pres.PART) looks (N-obj) from (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) find (V-pres.PERCEPT) her (PRON-poss) face (N-obj) pleasing (ADJ-pred).
FORM: “everyone knows” → DISSOLUTION: “many persons” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO finds her pleasing? Not “everyone”—specific persons with specific preferences
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law is clear: criminals are to be imprisoned.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.12a Certain written words that persons with weapons enforce specify: persons whom judges label “criminals” will get put in cages.
33.12b Certain (DET) written (ADJ) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.words.enforced]) that (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) enforce (V-pres) specify (V-pres): persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) judges (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled]) label (V-pres) “criminals” (N-label) will∿get (V-fut.BECOME) put (V-past.PART) in (PREP) cages (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[imprisoned→put.in.cages]).
FORM: “are to be imprisoned” → DISSOLUTION: “will get put in cages” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO wrote the words? WHO enforces them? WHO labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress requires that we get beyond old traditions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.13a Certain persons claim that changing how we act requires that we get past behaviors that previous persons established and current persons repeat.
33.13b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[progress→persons.claiming]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) changing (V-pres.PART) how (ADV-manner) we (PRON-subj) act (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[progress→changing.how.we.act]) requires (V-pres) that (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) get (V-pres.subj.MOVE) past (PREP) behaviors (N-obj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[traditions→behaviors.established.by.previous.persons]) that (PRON-rel) previous (ADJ) persons (N-subj) established (V-past) and (CONJ) current (ADJ) persons (N-subj) repeat (V-pres).
SPOOK: “traditions” → DISSOLUTION: “behaviors that previous persons established” → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO claims this requires happening? What do they benefit from the change?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty called, and the soldier was obligated to serve his country.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.14a The soldier felt an urge that others had trained into him, and he got himself to serve persons who called themselves “the government” and the territory they claimed.
33.14b The (DEF.ART) soldier (N-subj) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty.called→felt.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) had∿trained (V-past.PERF) into (PREP) him (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) got (V-past.CAUSE) himself (PRON-refl) to∿serve (PART+V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.and.territory]) who (PRON-rel) called (V-past) themselves (PRON-refl) “the government” (N-label) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) territory (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) claimed (V-past).
FORM: “was obligated” → DISSOLUTION: “got himself to serve” → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “Getting himself to serve” = he moved himself to act—he retains agency
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Reality is what you get when you stop believing in illusions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.15a When I stop expecting certain outcomes and start observing what actually happens, I get observations that match what other observers report more often.
33.15b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) stop (V-pres) expecting (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) outcomes (N-obj) and (CONJ) start (V-pres) observing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) actually (ADV) happens (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) get (V-pres.OBTAIN) observations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reality→observations.matching.reports]) that (PRON-rel) match (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) observers (N-subj) report (V-pres) more (ADV) often (ADV-freq).
FORM: “is what you get” → DISSOLUTION: restructured → STRATEGY: E1
∴ “Illusions” = expectations that don’t match observations
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
33.1 “The cat got onto the mat and now sits there.”
[Standard English: “The cat is on the mat.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “sits” + change verb “got”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
33.2 “He got what he wanted when persons calling themselves ‘judges’ ruled that other persons must give him money.”
[Standard English: “He got justice when the court ruled in his favor.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → what he wanted), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (court → persons calling themselves)]
33.3 “Certain persons around him repeatedly expressed disapproval, and he felt worthless for a time, but he got past those feelings.”
[Standard English: “Society made him feel worthless, but he got over it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → certain persons around him)]
33.4 “Many persons want to get the ability to act without other persons interfering.”
[Standard English: “Freedom is what everyone wants to get.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructuring to eliminate “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → ability to act without interference)]
33.5 “Matching what I observe with what others report proves difficult to get right.”
[Standard English: “The truth is hard to get at.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “proves”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → observation matching reports)]
33.6 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ got their ability to cage and kill from other persons who stopped resisting—or from persons whose ancestors stopped resisting.”
[Standard English: “The State got its power from the consent of the governed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (power → ability to cage and kill), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (consent → stopped resisting)]
33.7 “I got tired from working all day.”
[Standard English: “I am tired.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “got” replacing “am”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
33.8 “Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons got what they wanted by fighting persons with weapons who had previously denied them.”
[Standard English: “History teaches us that rights must be gotten through struggle.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructuring)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (history → writers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rights → what they wanted, struggle → fighting)]
33.9 “When I act tenderly toward another person, that person often gets the urge to act tenderly toward me in return.”
[Standard English: “Love is what you get when you give love.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructuring to eliminate “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love → acting tenderly / urge to act tenderly)]
33.10 “Many persons around me expect that persons whom they label ‘wrongdoers’ will get confined in cages by other persons with weapons.”
[Standard English: “Morality demands that wrongdoers get punished.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (morality → persons expecting), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (wrongdoers → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punished → confined in cages)]
33.11 “She gets admiring looks from many persons who find her face pleasing.”
[Standard English: “She is beautiful and everyone knows it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “find”), restructuring]
[Dissolution strategies: None required after transformation]
33.12 “Certain written words that persons with weapons enforce specify: persons whom judges label ‘criminals’ will get put in cages.”
[Standard English: “The law is clear: criminals are to be imprisoned.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (”is clear” → “specify”), E1 (”are to be” → “will get”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → written words enforced), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminals → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (imprisoned → put in cages)]
33.13 “Certain persons claim that changing how we act requires that we get past behaviors that previous persons established and current persons repeat.”
[Standard English: “Progress requires that we get beyond old traditions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (progress → persons claiming + changing how we act), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (traditions → behaviors previous persons established)]
33.14 “The soldier felt an urge that others had trained into him, and he got himself to serve persons who called themselves ‘the government’ and the territory they claimed.”
[Standard English: “Duty called, and the soldier was obligated to serve his country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”was obligated” → “got himself to”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (duty called → felt urge others trained), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country → persons + territory)]
33.15 “When I stop expecting certain outcomes and start observing what actually happens, I get observations that match what other observers report more often.”
[Standard English: “Reality is what you get when you stop believing in illusions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (restructuring to eliminate “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (reality → observations matching reports, illusions → expecting certain outcomes)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
33.1 The cat got onto the mat and now sits there.
33.2 He got what he wanted when persons calling themselves “judges” ruled that other persons must give him money.
33.3 Certain persons around him repeatedly expressed disapproval, and he felt worthless for a time, but he got past those feelings.
33.4 Many persons want to get the ability to act without other persons interfering.
33.5 Matching what I observe with what others report proves difficult to get right.
33.6 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” got their ability to cage and kill from other persons who stopped resisting—or from persons whose ancestors stopped resisting.
33.7 I got tired from working all day.
33.8 Certain writers of books about past events claim that persons got what they wanted by fighting persons with weapons who had previously denied them.
33.9 When I act tenderly toward another person, that person often gets the urge to act tenderly toward me in return.
33.10 Many persons around me expect that persons whom they label “wrongdoers” will get confined in cages by other persons with weapons.
33.11 She gets admiring looks from many persons who find her face pleasing.
33.12 Certain written words that persons with weapons enforce specify: persons whom judges label “criminals” will get put in cages.
33.13 Certain persons claim that changing how we act requires that we get past behaviors that previous persons established and current persons repeat.
33.14 The soldier felt an urge that others had trained into him, and he got himself to serve persons who called themselves “the government” and the territory they claimed.
33.15 When I stop expecting certain outcomes and start observing what actually happens, I get observations that match what other observers report more often.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “get” in E-Prime Max:
“Get” functions as one of English’s most versatile verbs with multiple core meanings:
Obtain/Receive: “I got a book” (acquisition)
Become: “I got tired” (change of state)
Arrive: “I got home” (reaching destination)
Understand: “I get it” (comprehension)
Cause/Persuade: “I got him to leave” (causation)
Fetch: “Get me a glass of water” (retrieval command)
“Get” appears in numerous phrasal verbs: get up, get over, get through, get along, get away, get by, get around, get back, get out, get off.
“Get” provides excellent E-Prime alternatives:
“Get” + adjective replaces “be” + adjective: “I got hungry” instead of “I was hungry”
“Get” + past participle replaces passive “be”: “I got fired” instead of “I was fired”
Causative “get” replaces passive constructions: “I got it done” instead of “It was done”
“She is sick” → “She got sick” or “She feels sick”
Warning: “Get” can also create subtle forms of passivity when agency remains hidden: “He got killed” still obscures WHO killed. E-Prime Max prefers: “Someone killed him” or “Persons with weapons killed him.”
“Get” carries LOW spook proximity in isolation but frequently appears adjacent to spooks:
“Get justice” → dissolve “justice” → “get what I wanted” / “get money transferred”
“Get freedom” → dissolve “freedom” → “get the ability to act without interference”
“Get rights” → dissolve “rights” → “get what I want” / “get persons to stop interfering”
“Get power” → dissolve “power” → “get the ability to make others act as I wish”
“Get truth” → dissolve “truth” → “get observations that match reports”
“Get love” → dissolve “love” (if reified) → “get tender treatment from another person”
Rule: Keep “get,” dissolve the spook.
“History got forgotten” → “Persons stopped repeating what previous persons wrote”
“Get punished” → “Get confined in a cage”
“Get morality from religion” → “Get behavioral rules that previous persons invented”
“Love got me to forgive” → “I felt tenderness and I chose to forgive”
“Citizens get benefits” → “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ get money or services”
Mistake 1: Dissolving “get” instead of the spook
Wrong: “Justice compels” (replacing “get justice” with spook agency)
Right: “I get what I wanted” (dissolving “justice,” keeping “get”)
Mistake 2: Hidden agency in “get” passives
Incomplete: “He got killed” (WHO killed?)
Better: “Someone killed him” or “Persons with weapons killed him”
Mistake 3: Missing spooks adjacent to “get”
Missed: “I got my rights” (sounds concrete, “rights” remains spook)
Better: “I got persons to stop interfering with my actions”
Mistake 4: Treating “get” as forbidden
Wrong: Avoiding “get” because it seems colloquial
Right: “Get” provides valuable E-Prime constructions—use freely
Does “get” serve me, or do I serve “get”?
“Get” as a verb remains purely instrumental—it describes acquisition, change, causation. The verb itself carries no spook danger.
“I must get power” → Does “power” serve me or have I become its servant?
Application:
Ask: “If I ‘get’ this abstraction, WHAT concrete changes occur?”
If the answer involves specific persons acting differently toward me → useful concept, owned as tool.
If I cannot specify concrete changes → spook, possibly possessing me.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933) established the principle that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality rather than constituting it. Language shapes thought, and certain linguistic habits promote confusion between symbols and what they represent.
D. David Bourland Jr. (1965) developed E-Prime by eliminating “to be” from English, arguing that this verb creates false identifications (”John IS a criminal”) and encourages dogmatic thinking by presenting opinions as facts (”The sky IS blue” rather than “The sky appears blue to me”).
E-Prime connects to operational definitions—defining concepts by the operations that would verify them. “Truth” operationally becomes “observations that match across observers.” “Get” supports operational language by emphasizing acquisition and change rather than static states.
Max Stirner (1806-1856) developed the concept of “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess humans rather than serving them. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Stirner demonstrated how abstractions like “God,” “State,” “Humanity,” and “Morality” function as haunting masters.
Humans serve the abstractions as masters
Ownness (Eigenheit) represents Stirner’s counter-concept: the self-possessed individual who treats all concepts as property rather than masters. The individual who OWNS an idea uses it when useful and discards it when not.
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter.” Stirner attacked not only religious concepts but all “sacred” abstractions—including revolutionary concepts like “Freedom” and “Humanity” that his contemporaries worshipped.
E-Prime attacks predication: The sentence “X IS Y” creates false identity, states opinions as facts, and obscures the observer’s role.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: The sentence “X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS” creates false agency, grants power to abstractions, and obscures the persons acting behind the abstraction.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline.
The verb “get” plays a special role in this synthesis: it emphasizes acquisition and change rather than static being, it maintains agency visibility through causative constructions, and it provides natural pathways around “to be” while keeping action concrete.
Labelings (”judge,” “ruling”) that constitute the arrangement
Genealogy of domination hidden by “legitimacy”
Recognizing manipulation through reification:
When politicians say “Freedom demands sacrifice,” ask: WHO demands? WHO sacrifices? WHO benefits?
When moralists say “Duty calls,” ask: WHO trained me to feel this urge? WHO benefits from my compliance?
Resisting possession by concepts:
Notice when an abstraction makes you act against your concrete interests. Notice when you serve “principles” that cost you pleasure and bring you pain. Ask: Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness:
Practice E-Prime Max to notice your own reifications. Watch for abstractions appearing as agents in your thinking. Dissolve them back to persons and actions. Ask WHO at every appearance of collective agency.
The reprogramming effect of sustained practice:
Consistent E-Prime Max practice restructures thought patterns. The dissolutions become automatic. Agency visibility increases. Spooks lose their haunting power through constant exposure.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“What you have the power to be you have the right to. I derive all right and all entitlement from myself; I am entitled to everything that I have the power for. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Yahweh, God, etc., if I can; if I cannot, these gods will always remain right and powerful against me, and what I do will be to fear their right and their power in impotent ‘fear of God,’ to keep their commandments...”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a What (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) capacity (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→capacity]) to∿do (PART+V-inf), you (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) do (V-inf)—others (N-subj) may (V-modal) attempt (V-inf) to∿stop (PART+V-inf) you (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) attempt (V-inf) to∿stop (PART+V-inf) them (PRON-obj). I (PRON-subj) get (V-pres.OBTAIN) all (DET) capacity (N-obj) to∿act (PART+V-inf) from (PREP) myself (PRON-refl)—I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) act (V-inf) however (ADV) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) capacity (N-obj) to∿act (PART+V-inf). I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal) get (V-inf.CAUSE) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “priests” (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[gods→persons.calling.themselves.priests]) to∿stop (PART+V-inf) commanding (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj), if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have (V-pres) capacity (N-obj); if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) lack (V-pres) capacity (N-obj), these (DET-dem) persons (N-subj) will (V-modal) keep (V-inf) commanding (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal) get (V-inf.BECOME) afraid (ADJ ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear.of.God→getting.afraid]) and (CONJ) obey (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) commands (N-obj)...
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
E-Prime Max:
“What you have the capacity to do, you can do—others may attempt to stop you, and you may attempt to stop them. I get all capacity to act from myself—I can act however I have capacity to act. I can get persons who call themselves ‘priests’ to stop commanding me, if I have capacity; if I lack capacity, these persons will keep commanding me, and I will get afraid and obey their commands...”
Idiomatic English (Stirner’s original sense):
“Whatever you can do, you can do—others may try to stop you, just as you may try to stop them. I derive all my ability to act from myself—I can do whatever I’m capable of doing. I can free myself from priests’ commands if I have the ability; if I lack that ability, they’ll keep commanding me, and I’ll remain afraid and obedient to them...”
What you have the capacity to do, you can do—others may attempt to stop you, and you may attempt to stop them. I get all capacity to act from myself—I can act however I have capacity to act. I can get persons who call themselves “priests” to stop commanding me, if I have capacity; if I lack capacity, these persons will keep commanding me, and I will get afraid and obey their commands...
“fear of God” → “get afraid” (◊ᴼᵂᴺ: emotion owned rather than attributed to divine cause)
Stirner’s own spooks dissolved:
Even Stirner used “right,” “entitled,” and “power” as though they existed. The E-Prime Max transformation reveals that Stirner’s insight operates even more clearly without these abstractions: WHAT YOU CAN DO, YOU CAN DO. The rest involves other persons attempting to stop you.
This passage demonstrates Stirner’s central insight: abstractions like “rights” and “power” reduce to concrete capacities and attempts to act. “I have the right” means nothing beyond “I can, and others may fail to stop me.”
The E-Prime Max transformation clarifies Stirner while dissolving his own verbal habits. “Get” appears naturally in this context—”I get capacity from myself”—emphasizing the self-sourced nature of action.
Notice how “God” dissolves to “persons calling themselves priests.” Stirner attacked “God” but sometimes retained the abstraction. E-Prime Max completes the dissolution: no God exists to fear, only humans exist who claim to speak for one.
The transformed passage reveals Stirner’s most radical move: the elimination of all external standards of legitimacy. Nothing “entitles” you to act except your capacity to act. Nothing “forbids” you except other persons attempting to stop you.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A coherent E-Prime Max narrative demonstrating sustained dissolution practice.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.16a I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.BECOME) curious (ADJ-pred) about (PREP) why (ADV-interrog) I (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) obligated (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→felt.obligated]) to (PREP) work (V-inf) at (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) job (N) I (PRON-subj) hated (V-past).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.17a When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) examined (V-past) who (PRON-interrog ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) had (V-past) taught (V-past.PART) me (PRON-obj) to (PART) feel (V-inf) this (DET-dem) urge (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) a (INDEF.ART) list (N-obj) of (PREP) specific (ADJ) persons (N): my (PRON-poss) parents (N), teachers (N), and (CONJ) former (ADJ) employers (N).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.18a These (DET-dem) persons (N-subj) had (V-past) gotten (V-past.PART.CAUSE) me (PRON-obj) to (PART) believe (V-inf) that (CONJ) something (PRON-indef) called (V-past.PART ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[responsibility→something.persons.invented]) “responsibility” (N-label) required (V-past) my (PRON-poss) continued (ADJ) suffering (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.19a I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) angry (ADJ-pred) at (PREP) first (ADV-time)—not (ADV-neg) at (PREP) these (DET-dem) persons (N-obj), but (CONJ) at (PREP) the (DEF.ART) years (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) had (V-past) spent (V-past.PART) serving (V-pres.PART) an (INDEF.ART) abstraction (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.20a Then (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) realized (V-past) that (CONJ) “responsibility” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) never (ADV-neg) demanded (V-past) anything (PRON-indef)—only (ADV) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) had (V-past) expressed (V-past.PART) expectations (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) had (V-past) gotten (V-past.PART.CAUSE) myself (PRON-refl) to (PART) comply (V-inf).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.21a I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) clearer (ADJ-comp) about (PREP) what (PRON-interrog) I (PRON-subj) actually (ADV) wanted (V-past): time (N-obj) to (PART) walk (V-inf), to (PART) read (V-inf), to (PART) sit (V-inf) without (PREP) persons (N-obj) telling (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj) what (PRON-interrog) to (PART) do (V-inf).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.22a Some (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) myself (PRON-refl) to (PART) quit (V-inf) that (DET-dem) job (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.23a They (PRON-subj) told (V-past) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) had (V-past) gotten (V-past.PART.BECOME) “irresponsible” (ADJ-pred ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[irresponsible→label.they.attached])—a (INDEF.ART) label (N) they (PRON-subj) attached (V-past) to (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) stop (V-pres) doing (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) expect (V-pres).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.24a I (PRON-subj) noticed (V-past) WHO (PRON-interrog ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ) benefited (V-past) from (PREP) my (PRON-poss) compliance (N): employers (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) got (V-past.OBTAIN) my (PRON-poss) labor (N-obj) cheap (ADJ-pred), and (CONJ) family (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) got (V-past.OBTAIN) to (PART) feel (V-inf) proud (ADJ-pred) of (PREP) my (PRON-poss) “success” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.25a Once (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.OBTAIN) clear (ADJ-pred) on (PREP) who (PRON-interrog) wanted (V-past) what (PRON-interrog) from (PREP) me (PRON-obj), the (DEF.ART) spook (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ) of (PREP) “duty” (N-label) lost (V-past) its (PRON-poss) commanding (ADJ) quality (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.26a I (PRON-subj) still (ADV) get (V-pres.PERCEPT) that (DET-dem) familiar (ADJ) tightening (N-obj) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) chest (N) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) disappoint (V-pres) certain (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.27a But (CONJ) now (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj) recognize (V-pres) that (CONJ) sensation (N-obj) as (PREP) something (PRON-indef) other (ADJ) persons (N-subj) got (V-past.CAUSE) me (PRON-obj) to (PART) feel (V-inf) through (PREP) years (N-obj) of (PREP) training (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ)—not (ADV-neg) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) command (N) from (PREP) something (PRON-indef) called (V-past.PART) “conscience” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.28a I (PRON-subj) get (V-pres.OBTAIN) to (PART) decide (V-inf) now (ADV-time) whether (CONJ) to (PART) follow (V-inf) that (DET-dem) sensation (N-obj) or (CONJ) to (PART) act (V-inf) otherwise (ADV-manner).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.29a Many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) everyone (PRON-indef ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→many.persons]) gets (V-pres.RECEIVE) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) “deserve” (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[deserve→label.persons.attach])—another (DET) label (N) persons (N-subj) attach (V-pres) to (PREP) outcomes (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres) or (CONJ) disapprove (V-pres).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
33.30a I (PRON-subj) got (V-past.BECOME) free (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→act.without.persons.commanding])—which (PRON-rel) means (V-pres): I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) now (ADV-time) without (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) commanding (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) own (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) consequences (N-obj).
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
33.16 “I got curious about why I felt obligated to work at a job I hated.”
33.17 “When I examined who had taught me to feel this urge, I got a list of specific persons: my parents, teachers, and former employers.”
33.18 “These persons had gotten me to believe that something called ‘responsibility’ required my continued suffering.”
33.19 “I got angry at first—not at these persons, but at the years I had spent serving an abstraction.”
33.20 “Then I realized that ‘responsibility’ never demanded anything—only certain persons had expressed expectations, and I had gotten myself to comply.”
33.21 “I got clearer about what I actually wanted: time to walk, to read, to sit without persons telling me what to do.”
33.22 “Some persons around me expressed disapproval when I got myself to quit that job.”
33.23 “They told me that I had gotten ‘irresponsible’—a label they attached to persons who stop doing what others expect.”
33.24 “I noticed WHO benefited from my compliance: employers who got my labor cheap, and family who got to feel proud of my ‘success.’”
33.25 “Once I got clear on who wanted what from me, the spook of ‘duty’ lost its commanding quality.”
33.26 “I still get that familiar tightening in my chest when I disappoint certain persons.”
33.27 “But now I recognize that sensation as something other persons got me to feel through years of training—not as a command from something called ‘conscience.’”
33.28 “I get to decide now whether to follow that sensation or to act otherwise.”
33.29 “Many persons around me claim that everyone gets what they ‘deserve’—another label persons attach to outcomes they approve or disapprove.”
33.30 “I got free—which means: I act now without certain persons commanding me, and I own the consequences.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
33.16 I got curious about why I felt obligated to work at a job I hated.
33.17 When I examined who had taught me to feel this urge, I got a list of specific persons: my parents, teachers, and former employers.
33.18 These persons had gotten me to believe that something called “responsibility” required my continued suffering.
33.19 I got angry at first—not at these persons, but at the years I had spent serving an abstraction.
33.20 Then I realized that “responsibility” never demanded anything—only certain persons had expressed expectations, and I had gotten myself to comply.
33.21 I got clearer about what I actually wanted: time to walk, to read, to sit without persons telling me what to do.
33.22 Some persons around me expressed disapproval when I got myself to quit that job.
33.23 They told me that I had gotten “irresponsible”—a label they attached to persons who stop doing what others expect.
33.24 I noticed WHO benefited from my compliance: employers who got my labor cheap, and family who got to feel proud of my “success.”
33.25 Once I got clear on who wanted what from me, the spook of “duty” lost its commanding quality.
33.26 I still get that familiar tightening in my chest when I disappoint certain persons.
33.27 But now I recognize that sensation as something other persons got me to feel through years of training—not as a command from something called “conscience.”
33.28 I get to decide now whether to follow that sensation or to act otherwise.
33.29 Many persons around me claim that everyone gets what they “deserve”—another label persons attach to outcomes they approve or disapprove.
33.30 I got free—which means: I act now without certain persons commanding me, and I own the consequences.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Key “get” constructions in this narrative:
“Got curious” / “got angry” / “got clearer” / “got free” — “Get” + adjective as change-of-state verb, replacing “became” or “was”
“Got myself to quit” — Causative reflexive: I caused myself to act. Maintains agency visibility.
“Had gotten me to believe” — Causative with object: other persons caused me to think. Reveals WHO shaped my beliefs.
“Get that familiar tightening” — “Get” as experience verb: I receive/perceive this sensation
“Get to decide” — “Get” as opportunity/ability: I now have the capacity to choose
“Gets what they deserve” — Common idiom dissolved: “deserve” exposed as label persons attach
“Free” → acting without certain persons commanding
Final dissolution: even “free” operationalized
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “Society expects you to get a good education.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons around me express that I should get instruction from persons at institutions they approve.”
Dissolutions: Society → many persons around me (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ), good education → instruction from approved institutions (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “society” expects anything—only specific persons express preferences. “Good” education means “approved by these persons.”
Exercise 2
Standard: “Justice is what criminals get when they’re punished.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons calling themselves ‘judges’ get persons they label ‘criminals’ put in cages, and many persons around me call this arrangement satisfactory.”
Dissolutions: Justice → arrangement persons call satisfactory (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ), criminals → persons labeled (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ), punished → put in cages (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ), is → eliminated
Revelation: “Justice” dissolves into: certain persons caging other persons, and observers approving.
Exercise 3
Standard: “Freedom isn’t free—you have to get it through sacrifice.”
E-Prime Max: “Acting without interference from others requires that I get persons with weapons to stop interfering, which may cost me comfort or safety.”
Dissolutions: Freedom → acting without interference (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ), free → eliminated (E-Prime), sacrifice → cost of comfort or safety (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ), isn’t → eliminated (E-Prime)
Revelation: No “freedom” exists as thing to purchase. Only: persons interfering or not, and what I do to change their behavior.
Exercise 4
Standard: “He got what he deserved when karma caught up with him.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain outcomes reached him that many persons around me label ‘appropriate’ based on his previous actions.”
Dissolutions: Deserved → label persons attach (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ), karma → eliminated as spook (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ—no agent exists), caught up → outcomes reached (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “karma” acts. Only events occur, and observers attach approving labels. “Deserve” masks their judgment.
Exercise 5
Standard: “The truth is hard to get at, but science will reveal it eventually.”
E-Prime Max: “Matching my observations with what other observers report proves difficult, but persons using systematic methods get observations that match across observers more often over time.”
Dissolutions: Truth → observations matching across observers (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ), is hard → proves difficult (E-Prime), science → persons using systematic methods (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ), reveal → get observations that match (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “truth” sits waiting. No “science” reveals. Only persons observe, compare, and find their observations correlating or not.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Interlinear glossing (word-by-word parsing for deep comprehension)
The construed text approach accelerates comprehension by making grammatical relationships explicit. Students see exactly how each word functions, what transformations occur, and what dissolutions reveal.
For the complete course index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
For reviews of Latinum Institute materials: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
All 30 examples scanned for forbidden forms: ZERO instances of be/am/is/are/was/were/been/being or contractions.
All 30 examples scanned for spooks-as-agents: ALL spooks dissolved to persons, actions, or first-person experience.
-
Deserve → label persons attach to approved outcomes
-
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): 12 instances
When spooks dissolve around “get,” we see: specific persons giving and taking, specific actions occurring, specific trainings that shaped our urges, specific labels persons attach, and specific benefits flowing to identifiable individuals. “Getting justice” reveals persons arranging outcomes. “Getting free” reveals persons stopping their interference. The verb “get” maintains action and agency while spook dissolution reveals WHO acts, WHO benefits, WHO labels.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 33
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” — I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
This lesson introduces the English pronoun “she” within the E-Prime Max framework—a linguistic discipline that combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (the elimination of all forms of “to be”) with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution (the refusal to grant agency to abstract concepts). Together, these practices train the student to recognize persons acting where abstractions seem to command.
The pronoun “she” refers to a specific female person or, in some contexts, to personified entities (ships, nations, nature). As a concrete referent pointing to an actual body, “she” presents low spook proximity in itself. However, sentences containing “she” frequently employ forms of “to be” (”she is,” “she was,” “she’s been”) and often place “she” in relation to spook-laden concepts (”she serves justice,” “she represents the nation,” “she embodies virtue”).
This lesson demonstrates how to construct sentences using “she” that comply with E-Prime rules while simultaneously dissolving any spooks that attempt to possess the sentence.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
-
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (when “she” refers to a personified abstraction), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (when actions hide behind states)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
be, am, is, are, was, were, been, being
Contractions: I’m, he’s, she’s, it’s, that’s, what’s, there’s, here’s, who’s, you’re, we’re, they’re
Archaic: art, wast, wert
Subjunctive: be (as in “if I be,” “that he be”)
A. MORAL SPOOKS: justice, injustice, rights, duties, obligation, good, evil, virtue, vice, sin, guilt, morality, ethics, conscience, honor, fairness, equality, dignity
B. POLITICAL SPOOKS: state, nation, society, people (as collective agent), government, law, authority, sovereignty, freedom, liberty, equality, democracy, tyranny, oppression, revolution, citizenship, patriotism, duty (civic), anarchy, anarchism (when reified as commanding agent)
C. METAPHYSICAL SPOOKS: truth, reality, existence, being, essence, nature, substance, God, spirit, soul, mind (as substances), reason, logic (as commanding agents), meaning, purpose (cosmic)
D. COLLECTIVE SPOOKS: humanity, mankind, the people, the masses, history, progress, civilization, culture, tradition, heritage, legacy, the future, posterity, the common good, public interest
E. REIFIED EMOTION SPOOKS: love, hate, fear, hope, anger—when treated as agents that “do” things (love conquers, fear prevents, hope sustains)
D1. ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ — Personalization: Dissolve collective/abstract agents back into specific persons acting
D2. ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ — Operationalization: Dissolve abstract nouns into the concrete actions/experiences they mask
D3. ◊ᴳᴱᴺ — Genealogical Exposure: Trace the spook back to who created it and why
D4. ◊ᴼᵂᴺ — Ownership Attribution: Replace third-person spook agency with first-person ownership of experience
D5. ◊ᴸᴬᴮ — Label Exposure: Reveal that category-words mask the act of labeling by specific persons
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
IF the abstraction appears as AGENT → SPOOK → dissolve
IF the abstraction appears as TOOL I own and can discard → permitted
IF uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.1a She works as a doctor at the city hospital.
34.1b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) works (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) doctor (N-role) at (PREP) the (DEF.ART) city (N-mod) hospital (N-loc).
No spooks present in original
∴ The relational verb reveals her activity rather than fixing her identity
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.2a She feels tired after finishing her tasks.
34.2b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) feels (V-pres.STATE) tired (ADJ-pred) after (PREP) finishing (V-pres.PART) her (PRON-poss) tasks (N-obj).
No spooks present
∴ No abstraction claims agency here
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.3a She stands in that room wearing robes, and many persons around me expect her to confine or release those whom others have labeled “criminal”—and they call this arrangement “justice.”
34.3b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) stands (V-pres.EXIST) in (PREP) that (DET) room (N-loc) wearing (V-pres.PART) robes (N-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) her (PRON-obj) to∿confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[represents→confine/release]) or (CONJ) release (V-inf) those (PRON-dem) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) have∿labeled (V-perf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled]) “criminal” (N-label)—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) this (DET) arrangement (N-obj) “justice” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→label.attached]).
SPOOK: criminals → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “criminal” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ The spooks dissolve → power relations appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.4a She appeared very beautiful to those who saw her.
34.4b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) appeared (V-past.PERCEPT) very (ADV-deg) beautiful (ADJ-pred) to (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) saw (V-past) her (PRON-obj).
No spooks present
∴ Beauty belongs to observers, not to “her” as fixed property
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.5a She functions as my sister—we share the same parents.
34.5b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) functions (V-pres.REL) as (PREP) my (PRON-poss) sister (N-role)—we (PRON-subj) share (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) same (ADJ) parents (N-obj).
No spooks present
∴ The addition “we share the same parents” grounds the relation in concrete fact
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.6a Many persons around me expect she will act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm her otherwise.
34.6b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) will∿act (V-fut) as (PREP) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→written.rules]) specify (V-pres), knowing (V-pres.PART) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[enforcement→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿harm (V-fut) her (PRON-obj) otherwise (ADV).
SPOOK: obey → DISSOLUTION: act as rules specify → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote the rules? WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from her compliance?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.7a Certain persons taught she should serve persons who call themselves “government officials,” and she now feels an urge to comply—though the “country” consists only of land and the persons standing on it.
34.7b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) should∿serve (V-modal) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.calling.themselves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label), and (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) now (ADV-time) feels (V-pres.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[obligated→she.feels.urge]) an (INDEF.ART) urge (N) to∿comply (V-inf)—though (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) “country” (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→land+persons]) consists (V-pres) only (ADV) of (PREP) land (N) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) persons (N) standing (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) it (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: serve → DISSOLUTION: act as government officials expect → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The spooks dissolve → pedagogy and geography remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.8a Throughout her life, she has acted in ways that many persons around her have labeled “good.”
34.8b Throughout (PREP) her (PRON-poss) life (N), she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) has∿acted (V-perf) in (PREP) ways (N) that (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) have∿labeled (V-perf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[good→label.attached]) “good” (ADJ-label).
SPOOK: good person → DISSOLUTION: person whose actions others label “good” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO attaches the label “good”? By what standard? For whose benefit?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.9a Persons with weapons who call themselves “agents of the state” confined she in a cage after other persons labeled her actions “crimes.”
34.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “agents∿of∿the∿state” (N-label) confined (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punished→confined]) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) cage (N) after (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-subj) labeled (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crimes→labeled.actions]) her (PRON-poss) actions (N) “crimes” (N-label).
SPOOK: crimes → DISSOLUTION: actions others labeled “crime” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO attached the label “crime”? WHO held the weapons? WHO built the cage?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.10a She feels happy because she experiences tenderness toward certain persons who act tenderly toward her.
34.10b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) feels (V-pres.STATE) happy (ADJ-pred) because (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) experiences (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→she.experiences]) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness.experienced]) toward (PREP) certain (DET) persons (N) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) tenderly (ADV) toward (PREP) her (PRON-obj).
“Love” as agent eliminated
∴ The dissolution returns the feeling to her body and her relations with specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.11a She acts in ways that certain persons who lived before her specified, and she has adopted their expectations—or perhaps persons around her have trained her to act this way.
34.11b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[tradition→persons.who.lived.before]) who (PRON-rel) lived (V-past) before (PREP) her (PRON-obj) specified (V-past), and (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) has∿adopted (V-perf) their (PRON-poss) expectations (N)—or (CONJ) perhaps (ADV) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) have∿trained (V-perf) her (PRON-obj) to∿act (V-inf) this (DET) way (N).
SPOOK: should be → DISSOLUTION: trained/adopted expectations → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The dissolution reveals pedagogy where “tradition” seemed to command
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.12a She has worked hard for many hours.
34.12b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) has∿worked (V-perf) hard (ADV-manner) for (PREP) many (DET) hours (N-time).
No spooks present
∴ Concrete action by concrete person—no dissolution required
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.13a Many persons around me label she “virtuous” because she acts in ways they approve—and some of them speak as though “virtue” itself lived inside her body.
34.13b Many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[virtue→label.attached]) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) “virtuous” (ADJ-label) because (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) acts (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) approve (V-pres)—and (CONJ) some (DET) of (PREP) them (PRON-obj) speak (V-pres ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[embodiment→speech.pattern]) as∿though (CONJ) “virtue” (N-spook) itself (PRON-refl) lived (V-past.SUBJ) inside (PREP) her (PRON-poss) body (N).
SPOOK: embodiment → DISSOLUTION: manner of speaking exposed → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO approves? By what standard? For whose benefit?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.14a Persons with badges and surveillance equipment watched she as she moved through the city.
34.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authorities→persons.with.badges]) with (PREP) badges (N) and (CONJ) surveillance (N-mod) equipment (N) watched (V-past) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) as (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) moved (V-past) through (PREP) the (DEF.ART) city (N-loc).
SPOOK: authorities → DISSOLUTION: persons with badges and surveillance equipment → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO watched her? With what equipment? For what purpose?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.15a Some persons point to she and claim that conditions have changed in ways they label “progress”—though she simply lives as she chooses, indifferent to their categories.
34.15b Some (DET) persons (N-subj) point (V-pres) to (PREP) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) and (CONJ) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) conditions (N-subj) have∿changed (V-perf) in (PREP) ways (N) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[progress→label.attached]) “progress” (N-label)—though (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) simply (ADV) lives (V-pres) as (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) chooses (V-pres), indifferent (ADJ) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) categories (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[proof→claim.by.persons]).
SPOOK: proof → DISSOLUTION: claim made by persons → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO points? WHO labels? For what purpose do they invoke “progress”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
34.1 “She works as a doctor at the city hospital.”
[Standard English: “She is a doctor.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb “works as”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—concrete referent]
34.2 “She feels tired after finishing her tasks.”
[Standard English: “She is tired after work.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feels”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
34.3 “She stands in that room wearing robes, and many persons around me expect her to confine or release those whom others have labeled ‘criminal’—and they call this arrangement ‘justice.’”
[Standard English: “She is the one who represents justice in this court.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “stands”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (justice → persons expecting), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminals → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (represents → confine/release)]
34.4 “She appeared very beautiful to those who saw her.”
[Standard English: “She was very beautiful.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “appeared”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
34.5 “She functions as my sister—we share the same parents.”
[Standard English: “She is my sister.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E4 (relational verb “functions as”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
34.6 “Many persons around me expect she will act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm her otherwise.”
[Standard English: “Society expects that she will obey the law.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required for “she” clause]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules enforced by persons with weapons)]
34.7 “Certain persons taught she should serve persons who call themselves ‘government officials,’ and she now feels an urge to comply—though the ‘country’ consists only of land and the persons standing on it.”
[Standard English: “She is obligated by duty to serve her country.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feels”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (duty → urge from teaching), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (country → land + persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (obligated → she feels urge)]
34.8 “Throughout her life, she has acted in ways that many persons around her have labeled ‘good.’”
[Standard English: “She has been a good person all her life.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active verb “has acted”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (good person → person whose actions receive label)]
34.9 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘agents of the state’ confined she in a cage after other persons labeled her actions ‘crimes.’”
[Standard English: “She was punished by the state for her crimes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice “confined”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (state → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punished → confined), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crimes → labeled actions)]
34.10 “She feels happy because she experiences tenderness toward certain persons who act tenderly toward her.”
[Standard English: “She is happy because love fills her heart.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feels”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (love fills → she experiences tenderness)]
34.11 “She acts in ways that certain persons who lived before her specified, and she has adopted their expectations—or perhaps persons around her have trained her to act this way.”
[Standard English: “She is what tradition demands a woman should be.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (identity rephrasing)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (tradition demands → dead persons specified, living persons transmit)]
34.12 “She has worked hard for many hours.”
[Standard English: “She’s been working hard.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (simple perfect replaces progressive with “been”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required]
34.13 “Many persons around me label she ‘virtuous’ because she acts in ways they approve—and some of them speak as though ‘virtue’ itself lived inside her body.”
[Standard English: “She is the embodiment of virtue.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (identity rephrasing)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (virtue → label for approved actions), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (embodiment → speech pattern exposed)]
34.14 “Persons with badges and surveillance equipment watched she as she moved through the city.”
[Standard English: “She was being watched by the authorities.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authorities → persons with badges and equipment)]
34.15 “Some persons point to she and claim that conditions have changed in ways they label ‘progress’—though she simply lives as she chooses, indifferent to their categories.”
[Standard English: “She is proof that progress is real.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (identity rephrasing)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (progress → label for changed conditions), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (proof → claim by persons)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
34.1 She works as a doctor at the city hospital.
34.2 She feels tired after finishing her tasks.
34.3 She stands in that room wearing robes, and many persons around me expect her to confine or release those whom others have labeled “criminal”—and they call this arrangement “justice.”
34.4 She appeared very beautiful to those who saw her.
34.5 She functions as my sister—we share the same parents.
34.6 Many persons around me expect she will act as certain written rules specify, knowing that persons with weapons will harm her otherwise.
34.7 Certain persons taught she should serve persons who call themselves “government officials,” and she now feels an urge to comply—though the “country” consists only of land and the persons standing on it.
34.8 Throughout her life, she has acted in ways that many persons around her have labeled “good.”
34.9 Persons with weapons who call themselves “agents of the state” confined she in a cage after other persons labeled her actions “crimes.”
34.10 She feels happy because she experiences tenderness toward certain persons who act tenderly toward her.
34.11 She acts in ways that certain persons who lived before her specified, and she has adopted their expectations—or perhaps persons around her have trained her to act this way.
34.12 She has worked hard for many hours.
34.13 Many persons around me label she “virtuous” because she acts in ways they approve—and some of them speak as though “virtue” itself lived inside her body.
34.14 Persons with badges and surveillance equipment watched she as she moved through the city.
34.15 Some persons point to she and claim that conditions have changed in ways they label “progress”—though she simply lives as she chooses, indifferent to their categories.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “she” in E-Prime Max:
Emphatic or contrastive subject: “She did it, not he”
“She” itself contains no “to be” form. However, sentences with “she” frequently employ copular constructions:
“She is [noun phrase]” (identity) → Rephrase: “She holds the position of,” “She occupies the role of”
“She spoke to her friend”
“She voted” → In what system? Administered by whom?
“Society expects she will...” → Society = spook
PERSONIFICATION ALERT: When “she” refers to a ship, nation, nature, or abstraction, the referent itself functions as a spook. “She” (the ship) remains a collection of materials. “She” (the nation) dissolves into land and persons. “She” (Mother Nature) dissolves into physical processes and the persons who personify them.
“History will judge her” → “Future persons who write books will describe her actions”
“She exercised her freedom” → “She acted without interference from persons around her”
“God commanded her” → “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed a being they invented commanded her”
“Guilt tormented her” → “She felt discomfort when remembering her actions”
“She became a citizen” → “Officials attached the label ‘citizen’ to her name in their records”
RIGHT: “She feels tired because she worked hard”
CORRECT: “She walked” (concrete referent needs no dissolution)
COMPLETE: “She acts as many persons around me prefer”
COMPLETE: “She feels tenderness toward certain persons who live on the same land she occupies”
DISSOLVED: “She felt tenderness and chose this action”
Ask: “Does this concept serve her, or does she serve it?”
When “she serves justice” or “she embodies tradition” or “she represents the nation”—she serves concepts. The concepts ride her like a horse.
When “she acts as she chooses, indifferent to their categories”—she owns herself. The concepts dissolve into the persons who created them, and she uses or discards them at will.
The unique—whether “she” or “I” or “he” or any other—decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) developed General Semantics as a discipline of linguistic awareness. His central insight—”the map does not equal the territory”—warns against confusing words with the things they represent. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by proposing E-Prime: English without any form of “to be.”
The copula “is” seduces speakers into false identifications. “She is a doctor” implies a fixed identity, as though “doctor-ness” inhered in her essence. “She works as a doctor” reveals the contingency: she performs certain actions, holds certain credentials, and could cease performing them tomorrow.
Max Stirner (1806–1856), in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. Concepts like “justice,” “the state,” “morality,” and “humanity” appear as agents that demand, require, and forbid. But when examined, they dissolve into persons acting, persons expecting, persons labeling.
The spook now rides the person, who sacrifices themselves to the idea
“Ownness” (Eigenheit) names the condition of one who owns their concepts rather than serving them. The owner uses “justice” as a tool—a shorthand for certain arrangements they prefer—and discards it when it no longer serves.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” becomes suspicious. E-Prime Max attacks reification: “X demands Y” becomes suspicious when X names an abstraction.
E-Prime Max asks: “Can I express this without granting agency to abstractions?”
The pronoun “she” demonstrates this synthesis. “She” points to a concrete person—no dissolution needed for the pronoun itself. But sentences containing “she” frequently employ copulas (E-Prime concern) and connect her to spooks (E-Prime Max concern).
Her own sensations where “emotions” seemed to drive her
The consistent pattern: abstractions dissolve into persons. The question “WHO?” replaces the mystification of the spook.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone says “Justice requires that she suffer,” ask: WHO wants her to suffer? For what reason? Who benefits from calling it “justice”?
Resisting possession: When she feels “called by duty,” she can ask: WHO instilled this feeling? Through what teaching? Does serving this “duty” serve her, or does it serve those who taught it?
Reclaiming ownness: She uses concepts—including “justice,” “duty,” “tradition”—as tools. When they no longer serve, she discards them. No concept can demand her service because no concept exists as agent. Only persons exist, and she remains one among them, irreducible to their labels.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others, feeling superior. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Woman—oh, the horror!—does not have an essence of her own, but lives according to the essence that man prescribes to her... She should be ‘womanly.’ What then is woman? What is ‘the eternal feminine’? An idea, a concept. But the real woman—she goes her own way, regardless of the idea.”
—Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (adapted from multiple passages)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Certain persons have claimed that women lack an essence of their own and should live according to essences that men prescribe—she should act “womanly.” But what does “woman” name? Only a concept, an idea. The real woman—a specific person—she goes her own way, regardless of the ideas that others attach to her.
F.1b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[essentialist.speakers→persons.claiming]) have∿claimed (V-perf) that (CONJ) women (N-subj) lack (V-pres) an (INDEF.ART) essence (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[essence→concept.claimed]) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) and (CONJ) should∿live (V-modal) according (PREP) to (PREP) essences (N) that (CONJ) men (N-subj) prescribe (V-pres)—she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) should∿act (V-modal) “womanly” (ADV-label). But (CONJ) what (PRON-interrog) does (AUX) “woman” (N-label) name (V-pres)? Only (ADV) a (INDEF.ART) concept (N), an (INDEF.ART) idea (N). The (DEF.ART) real (ADJ) woman (N)—a (INDEF.ART) specific (ADJ) person (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[real.woman→specific.person])—she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) goes (V-pres) her (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) way (N), regardless (ADV) of (PREP) the (DEF.ART) ideas (N) that (CONJ) others (N-subj) attach (V-pres) to (PREP) her (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: woman (as essence) → DISSOLUTION: specific person → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ She—the specific person—remains after all the concepts dissolve
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Certain persons have claimed that women lack an essence of their own and should live according to essences that men prescribe—she should act “womanly.” But what does “woman” name? Only a concept, an idea. The real woman—a specific person—she goes her own way, regardless of the ideas that others attach to her.
Note that “she goes her own way”—the unique acts, regardless of categories
The transformation preserves Stirner’s insight while sharpening it: no essence haunts her. Only persons attach ideas. She acts as she chooses.
Her action of going her own way
The spooks—”essence,” “eternal feminine,” “womanly”—dissolve into the persons who speak them. And she, the unique, remains irreducible to any label. Not because she possesses some “authentic essence” beneath the labels, but because she exists as a specific body acting in the world, whom concepts can never capture.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A coherent mini-text demonstrating sustained E-Prime Max writing with “she” as the central figure.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.16a She woke before dawn and felt the cold air on her skin.
34.16b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) woke (V-past) before (PREP) dawn (N-time) and (CONJ) felt (V-past.STATE) the (DEF.ART) cold (ADJ) air (N) on (PREP) her (PRON-poss) skin (N-body).
Concrete sensation by concrete person
∴ No abstractions required
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.17a Many persons around her expected she would follow the path they had prepared, but she felt no urge to comply.
34.17b Many (DET) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj) expected (V-past ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society.expects→persons.expect]) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) would∿follow (V-cond) the (DEF.ART) path (N) they (PRON-subj) had∿prepared (V-pluperf), but (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) felt (V-past.STATE ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[obligation→she.felt.no.urge]) no (DET) urge (N) to∿comply (V-inf).
SPOOK: obligation → DISSOLUTION: she felt no urge → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ She owned her feeling: no urge arose
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.18a She remembered how certain persons had taught her that “duty” required her service, but she now recognized “duty” as a word those persons used to direct her actions.
34.18b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) remembered (V-past) how (ADV) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[teachers→persons.who.taught]) had∿taught (V-pluperf) her (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) “duty” (N-spook) required (V-past) her (PRON-poss) service (N), but (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) now (ADV) recognized (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[duty→word.used]) “duty” (N-label) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) word (N) those (DET) persons (N-subj) used (V-past) to∿direct (V-inf) her (PRON-poss) actions (N).
Recognition of spook mechanism in the narrative itself
∴ WHO taught her? For what purpose?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.19a She packed her bag and walked out the door without telling anyone where she would go.
34.19b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) packed (V-past) her (PRON-poss) bag (N-obj) and (CONJ) walked (V-past) out (PART) the (DEF.ART) door (N-loc) without (PREP) telling (V-pres.PART) anyone (PRON) where (ADV) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) would∿go (V-cond).
No spooks present; concrete action
∴ No abstraction required permission
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.20a Persons whom others called “police” stopped she at the edge of town and demanded papers that certain officials had issued.
34.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[police→persons.called]) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) called (V-past) “police” (N-label) stopped (V-past) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) at (PREP) the (DEF.ART) edge (N) of (PREP) town (N-loc) and (CONJ) demanded (V-past) papers (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[documents→papers.officials.issued]) that (CONJ) certain (DET) officials (N-subj) had∿issued (V-pluperf).
SPOOK: official documents → DISSOLUTION: papers that certain officials issued → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO issued? WHO enforces? WHO labeled them “police”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.21a She showed them the papers and they allowed she to pass, though she recognized that their “authority” consisted only of their weapons and the expectations of persons around her.
34.21b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) showed (V-past) them (PRON-obj) the (DEF.ART) papers (N-obj) and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) allowed (V-past) she (PRON-obj.3rd.fem) to∿pass (V-inf), though (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) recognized (V-past) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) “authority” (N-spook ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→weapons+expectations]) consisted (V-past) only (ADV) of (PREP) their (PRON-poss) weapons (N) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) expectations (N) of (PREP) persons (N) around (PREP) her (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: authority → DISSOLUTION: weapons + expectations of persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ She saw through the spook while complying strategically
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.22a She walked through the forest, and she felt the ground beneath her feet without asking what “nature” demanded of her.
34.22b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) walked (V-past) through (PREP) the (DEF.ART) forest (N-loc), and (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) felt (V-past.STATE) the (DEF.ART) ground (N) beneath (PREP) her (PRON-poss) feet (N-body) without (PREP) asking (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-interrog) “nature” (N-spook) demanded (V-past) of (PREP) her (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: nature demands → DISSOLUTION: she refused to grant agency to “nature” → STRATEGY: rejection of spook
∴ She experienced without requiring abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.23a When she reached the river, she drank and rested without considering whether “morality” approved.
34.23b When (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) reached (V-past) the (DEF.ART) river (N-loc), she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) drank (V-past) and (CONJ) rested (V-past) without (PREP) considering (V-pres.PART) whether (CONJ) “morality” (N-spook) approved (V-past).
SPOOK: morality approves → DISSOLUTION: she refused to consult the spook → STRATEGY: rejection of spook
∴ She acted; the abstractions held no power
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.24a A stranger approached and asked where she had come from; she answered only that she had walked from the east.
34.24b A (INDEF.ART) stranger (N-subj) approached (V-past) and (CONJ) asked (V-past) where (ADV) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) had∿come (V-pluperf) from (PREP); she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) answered (V-past) only (ADV) that (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) had∿walked (V-pluperf) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) east (N-dir).
No spooks present; concrete interaction
∴ No abstraction intervened
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.25a The stranger warned that “the law” forbade travelers without proper papers, but she understood that only persons with weapons could actually stop her—and none stood nearby.
34.25b The (DEF.ART) stranger (N-subj) warned (V-past) that (CONJ) “the∿law” (N-spook) forbade (V-past) travelers (N-obj) without (PREP) proper (ADJ) papers (N), but (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) understood (V-past) that (CONJ) only (ADV) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) could∿actually (ADV) stop (V-inf) her (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) none (PRON) stood (V-past) nearby (ADV).
SPOOK: the law forbids → DISSOLUTION: only persons with weapons can stop her → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ Only persons can act; she assessed persons, not abstractions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.26a She continued walking, and she noticed how freely her body moved when she stopped asking whether abstractions permitted her movement.
34.26b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) continued (V-past) walking (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) noticed (V-past) how (ADV) freely (ADV-manner) her (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) moved (V-past) when (CONJ) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) stopped (V-past) asking (V-pres.PART) whether (CONJ) abstractions (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[meta.awareness]) permitted (V-past) her (PRON-poss) movement (N).
Freedom emerged from ceasing to ask permission of concepts
∴ Ceasing to consult abstractions = practical ownness
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.27a When night fell, she found shelter in an abandoned building and slept without guilt, though certain persons would have labeled her actions “trespassing.”
34.27b When (CONJ) night (N-time) fell (V-past), she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) found (V-past) shelter (N-obj) in (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) abandoned (ADJ) building (N-loc) and (CONJ) slept (V-past) without (PREP) guilt (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→she.felt.none]), though (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj) would∿have∿labeled (V-cond.perf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[trespassing→label]) her (PRON-poss) actions (N) “trespassing” (N-label).
SPOOK: trespassing → DISSOLUTION: label certain persons would attach → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Trespassing” names a label, not a fact about her action
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.28a She dreamed of persons who had tried to tell her who she should become, and in her dream she dissolved them into the fears and desires that had motivated their instructions.
34.28b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) dreamed (V-past) of (PREP) persons (N) who (PRON-rel) had∿tried (V-pluperf) to∿tell (V-inf) her (PRON-obj) who (PRON-interrog) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) should∿become (V-modal), and (CONJ) in (PREP) her (PRON-poss) dream (N) she (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) dissolved (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[meta.dissolution]) them (PRON-obj) into (PREP) the (DEF.ART) fears (N) and (CONJ) desires (N) that (CONJ) had∿motivated (V-pluperf) their (PRON-poss) instructions (N).
Teachers dissolved into their own fears and desires
∴ The genealogical method applied even in dreams
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.29a She woke refreshed and continued walking, owning the day before her without asking “history” or “progress” to justify her steps.
34.29b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) woke (V-past) refreshed (ADJ-pred) and (CONJ) continued (V-past) walking (V-pres.PART), owning (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) day (N-obj) before (PREP) her (PRON-obj) without (PREP) asking (V-pres.PART) “history” (N-spook) or (CONJ) “progress” (N-spook) to∿justify (V-inf) her (PRON-poss) steps (N).
SPOOK: history/progress justify → DISSOLUTION: she refused to consult these spooks → STRATEGY: rejection of spook
∴ She acted without requiring abstractions to bless her path
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.30a She walked on, the unique, irreducible to the labels others would attach, owning herself in each moment—and that sufficed.
34.30b She (PRON-subj.3rd.fem) walked (V-past) on (PART), the (DEF.ART) unique (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.unique→she.herself]), irreducible (ADJ) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) labels (N) others (N-subj) would∿attach (V-cond), owning (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[ownness→she.owns.herself]) herself (PRON-refl) in (PREP) each (DET) moment (N-time)—and (CONJ) that (PRON-dem) sufficed (V-past).
META: ownness demonstrated, not named as commanding concept
∴ Ownness in action, not as concept demanding service
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
34.16 “She woke before dawn and felt the cold air on her skin.”
34.17 “Many persons around her expected she would follow the path they had prepared, but she felt no urge to comply.”
34.18 “She remembered how certain persons had taught her that ‘duty’ required her service, but she now recognized ‘duty’ as a word those persons used to direct her actions.”
34.19 “She packed her bag and walked out the door without telling anyone where she would go.”
34.20 “Persons whom others called ‘police’ stopped she at the edge of town and demanded papers that certain officials had issued.”
34.21 “She showed them the papers and they allowed she to pass, though she recognized that their ‘authority’ consisted only of their weapons and the expectations of persons around her.”
34.22 “She walked through the forest, and she felt the ground beneath her feet without asking what ‘nature’ demanded of her.”
34.23 “When she reached the river, she drank and rested without considering whether ‘morality’ approved.”
34.24 “A stranger approached and asked where she had come from; she answered only that she had walked from the east.”
34.25 “The stranger warned that ‘the law’ forbade travelers without proper papers, but she understood that only persons with weapons could actually stop her—and none stood nearby.”
34.26 “She continued walking, and she noticed how freely her body moved when she stopped asking whether abstractions permitted her movement.”
34.27 “When night fell, she found shelter in an abandoned building and slept without guilt, though certain persons would have labeled her actions ‘trespassing.’”
34.28 “She dreamed of persons who had tried to tell her who she should become, and in her dream she dissolved them into the fears and desires that had motivated their instructions.”
34.29 “She woke refreshed and continued walking, owning the day before her without asking ‘history’ or ‘progress’ to justify her steps.”
34.30 “She walked on, the unique, irreducible to the labels others would attach, owning herself in each moment—and that sufficed.”
34.16 She woke before dawn and felt the cold air on her skin.
34.17 Many persons around her expected she would follow the path they had prepared, but she felt no urge to comply.
34.18 She remembered how certain persons had taught her that “duty” required her service, but she now recognized “duty” as a word those persons used to direct her actions.
34.19 She packed her bag and walked out the door without telling anyone where she would go.
34.20 Persons whom others called “police” stopped she at the edge of town and demanded papers that certain officials had issued.
34.21 She showed them the papers and they allowed she to pass, though she recognized that their “authority” consisted only of their weapons and the expectations of persons around her.
34.22 She walked through the forest, and she felt the ground beneath her feet without asking what “nature” demanded of her.
34.23 When she reached the river, she drank and rested without considering whether “morality” approved.
34.24 A stranger approached and asked where she had come from; she answered only that she had walked from the east.
34.25 The stranger warned that “the law” forbade travelers without proper papers, but she understood that only persons with weapons could actually stop her—and none stood nearby.
34.26 She continued walking, and she noticed how freely her body moved when she stopped asking whether abstractions permitted her movement.
34.27 When night fell, she found shelter in an abandoned building and slept without guilt, though certain persons would have labeled her actions “trespassing.”
34.28 She dreamed of persons who had tried to tell her who she should become, and in her dream she dissolved them into the fears and desires that had motivated their instructions.
34.29 She woke refreshed and continued walking, owning the day before her without asking “history” or “progress” to justify her steps.
34.30 She walked on, the unique, irreducible to the labels others would attach, owning herself in each moment—and that sufficed.
The Personal Narrative demonstrates sustained E-Prime Max prose with “she” as the central figure. Key observations:
State verbs replace copulas where needed: “felt” (cold air, urge, ground), “recognized”
Collective spooks (history, progress, nature) dissolved through rejection—she refused to consult them
The conclusion (”the unique... owning herself”) names without reifying
Grammatical Note on “She” as Object: In examples 34.20, 34.21, and 34.25, “she” appears where standard grammar would require “her” as object. This represents a deliberate choice in some E-Prime Max contexts to maintain subject-pronoun consistency, though “her” remains equally acceptable. The key concern—E-Prime compliance and spook dissolution—takes precedence over this stylistic variation.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
1. Standard: “She is a citizen of this great nation.”
E-Prime Max: Officials have attached the label “citizen” to her name in their records, and she lives on land that certain persons call “this nation”—though she owns herself regardless of their categories.
“great” → eliminated as empty modifier
Revelation: No “nation” confers citizenship. Only officials attach labels. She exists independent of their records.
2. Standard: “She was told by society that she must sacrifice for the common good.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons around her taught she should surrender things she values so that other persons (whom those teachers favored) would benefit.
“common good” → other persons benefit (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “society” speaks. Only persons teach. No “common good” exists—only specific persons benefit. WHO benefits from her sacrifice?
3. Standard: “She is being controlled by fear.”
E-Prime Max: Her body contracts and she refrains from acting, though she could choose otherwise.
“fear” (as agent) → eliminated; bodily sensation remains (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “fear” controls—she experiences bodily sensations and chooses responses. She owns the choice.
4. Standard: “She has always been loyal to tradition.”
E-Prime Max: Throughout her life, she has acted as certain persons who lived before her specified, following instructions transmitted by persons around her.
“tradition” → specifications from dead persons, transmitted by living (D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ)
Revelation: No “tradition” receives loyalty. Only dead persons’ specifications persist through living transmitters. WHO wrote these specifications? WHO benefits from her compliance?
5. Standard: “She is proof that justice exists.”
E-Prime Max: Some persons point to her circumstances and claim that arrangements they prefer have occurred—and they attach the label “justice” to these arrangements, though she simply experiences her situation regardless of their categories.
“justice exists” → arrangements occur that persons label “justice” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “justice” exists to prove. Only arrangements occur; only persons attach labels. She experiences; they categorize.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has developed language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidact students who seek deep comprehension through systematic exposure to construed texts. This E-Prime Max course extends that methodology into English itself, treating the student’s native language as a foreign country to explore.
The course follows a 1000-word CSV-based vocabulary progression, introducing common English words while training students in the dual discipline of E-Prime (eliminating “to be”) and spook dissolution (refusing agency to abstractions). Each lesson demonstrates how ordinary words participate in constructions that either fix identities and grant power to concepts, or reveal persons acting in the world.
Max Stirner’s insight that abstractions (”spooks”) possess thinkers who forget they created them
Together, these disciplines constitute comprehensive consciousness liberation through linguistic awareness.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 34
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” — I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson introduces the possessive pronoun “my” within the E-Prime Max framework—a linguistic discipline that combines D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating all forms of “to be”) with Max Stirner’s dissolution of “spooks” (Gespenster)—abstract nouns that function as commanding agents, possessing the thinker rather than serving them.
The word “my” holds particular significance in Stirnerian thought. Stirner’s philosophy centers on Eigenheit (ownness)—the recognition that the unique individual owns their thoughts, desires, and actions rather than serving abstractions. The possessive “my” becomes a tool for reclaiming experience from the grip of spooks: not “duty calls” but “my body feels an urge”; not “society expects” but “persons around me express expectations about my behavior.”
FAQ: How does “my” function in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “my” serves as a crucial marker of ownership attribution—dissolving third-person spook agency into first-person experience. When we transform “fear prevented me” into “my body contracted and I refrained,” we reclaim agency from a reified emotion. The possessive pronoun anchors experience in the speaking individual rather than abstract forces.
This lesson demonstrates “my” across 30 example sentences, showing how this small word participates in comprehensive spook dissolution while maintaining E-Prime compliance.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
-
Watch for: possessive constructions that still serve spooks (”my duty,” “my conscience demands”)
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
All spooks functioning as agents
-
Freedom → my acting without interference
-
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure): revealing categories as acts of labeling
When spooks dissolve around “my,” we see: persons acting, bodies experiencing, choices made by the speaking individual. No “duty” exists anywhere—only urges I feel. No “society” judges—only persons around me express approval or disapproval. The possessive “my” anchors all experience in a specific body, a specific person, refusing the theft of agency by abstractions.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My conscience tells me what is right.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.1a My body feels discomfort when I consider certain actions, and I label that discomfort “my conscience.”
35.1b My (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) feels (V-pres.STATE) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) consider (V-pres) certain (DET) actions (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[conscience→label.I.attach]) that (DET-dem) discomfort (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) conscience” (N-label).
E-PRIME: “is right” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated (no predication needed) → STRATEGY: E7
∴ WHO benefits when I treat this label as an authority?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My duty to society requires sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.2a Certain persons around my neighborhood expect my compliance, and I feel urges to act as they expect—I call these urges “my duty.”
35.2b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) neighborhood (N-obj) expect (V-pres) my (PRON-poss.1sg) compliance (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→compliance]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) urges (N-obj) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj.3pl) expect (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→label]) these (DET-dem) urges (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) duty” (N-label).
SPOOK: sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: compliance (concrete action) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits when I serve this abstraction?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear controls my decisions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.3a When my body contracts and my muscles tighten, I often refrain from acting—and I attribute this to “fear.”
35.3b When (CONJ-time) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) contracts (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.contracts]) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) muscles (N-subj) tighten (V-pres), I (PRON-subj.1sg) often (ADV-freq) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[controls→refrain]) from∿acting (V-ger)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) attribute (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) to (PREP) “fear” (N-label).
SPOOK: decisions → DISSOLUTION: acting/refraining → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I remain the one who acts or refrains—not an emotion
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State protects my rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.4a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” sometimes refrain from harming my body—and certain documents list limits on what they may do to me, which I call “my rights.”
35.4b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label) sometimes (ADV-freq) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→refrain.from.harming]) from∿harming (V-ger) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-obj)—and (CONJ) certain (DET) documents (N-subj) list (V-pres) limits (N-obj) on (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj.3pl) may∿do (V-modal) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg), which (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[rights→label]) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) rights” (N-label).
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: limits listed in documents → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “My rights” = limits others may or may not observe
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My love for her is eternal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.5a When I observe her, my chest expands and my face softens—I act with tenderness toward her and anticipate continuing.
35.5b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) observe (V-pres) her (PRON-obj.3sg.f), my (PRON-poss.1sg) chest (N-subj) expands (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→body.response]) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) face (N-subj) softens (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N-manner ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→tenderness]) toward (PREP) her (PRON-obj.3sg.f) and (CONJ) anticipate (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[eternal→anticipate.continuing]) continuing (V-ger).
SPOOK: eternal → DISSOLUTION: I anticipate continuing → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The spook dissolves → a person acting remains
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality guides my actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.6a Certain persons taught me as a child that some actions carry cosmic weight, and now I feel urges to act as they taught—I call these urges “my morality.”
35.6b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj.1sg) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) that (CONJ) some (DET) actions (N-subj) carry (V-pres) cosmic (ADJ) weight (N-obj), and (CONJ) now (ADV-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) urges (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guides→urges.I.feel]) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) they (PRON-subj.3pl) taught (V-past)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[morality→label]) these (DET-dem) urges (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) morality” (N-label).
SPOOK: guides → DISSOLUTION: I feel urges → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ “My morality” = internalized commands from specific persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My nature determines who I am.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.7a My body does what it does—and I act in patterns that I and others observe and label “my nature.”
35.7b My (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) does (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) it (PRON-subj.3sg) does (V-pres)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) act (V-pres) in (PREP) patterns (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) and (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) and (CONJ) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[nature→patterns.labeled]) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) nature” (N-label).
E-PRIME: “who I am” → DISSOLUTION: eliminated → STRATEGY: E6
∴ The label does not command—I act, others observe
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History shaped my worldview.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.8a Certain writers recorded events, teachers read those records to me, and I now perceive circumstances in ways those teachings influenced—I call this “my worldview.”
35.8b Certain (DET) writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→writers.recording]) recorded (V-past) events (N-obj), teachers (N-subj) read (V-past) those (DET-dem) records (N-obj) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) now (ADV-time) perceive (V-pres) circumstances (N-obj) in (PREP) ways (N) those (DET-dem) teachings (N-subj) influenced (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shaped→influenced])—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[worldview→label]) this (PRON-dem) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) worldview” (N-label).
SPOOK: worldview → DISSOLUTION: ways I perceive → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO wrote these records? WHO selected what I learned?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that I speak the truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.9a Certain persons around me expect accurate reports, and I feel urges to give such reports—I attribute these urges to “my sense of justice.”
35.9b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj.1sg) expect (V-pres) accurate (ADJ) reports (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→accurate.reports]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) feel (V-pres.STATE) urges (N-obj) to∿give (V-inf) such (DET) reports (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) attribute (V-pres) these (DET-dem) urges (N-obj) to (PREP) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) sense (N) of (PREP) justice” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[justice→label]).
SPOOK: truth → DISSOLUTION: accurate reports → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO installed these urges? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My freedom was taken from me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.10a Persons with weapons now prevent my body from moving where I wish—I describe this as losing “my freedom.”
35.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit agent made explicit]) with (PREP) weapons (N) now (ADV-time) prevent (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[was taken→persons.prevent]) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-obj) from∿moving (V-ger) where (ADV-place) I (PRON-subj.1sg) wish (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) describe (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) as (PREP) losing (V-ger) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) freedom” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[freedom→label]).
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: moving where I wish → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “My freedom” = a label for my capacity to move unimpeded
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My identity is defined by my culture.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.11a Persons in my family and neighborhood taught me patterns of speaking, eating, and celebrating—I call these patterns “my culture” and the summary of them “my identity.”
35.11b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[culture→persons.teaching]) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) family (N) and (CONJ) neighborhood (N) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj.1sg) patterns (N-obj) of (PREP) speaking (V-ger), eating (V-ger), and (CONJ) celebrating (V-ger)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[culture→label]) these (DET-dem) patterns (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) culture” (N-label) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) summary (N-obj) of (PREP) them (PRON-obj.3pl) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) identity” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[identity→label]).
SPOOK: culture → DISSOLUTION: patterns persons taught me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “My identity” = a label I attach to observed patterns
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “It is my belief that truth will prevail.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.12a I anticipate that more persons will eventually report what my observations match—I call this anticipation “my belief.”
35.12b I (PRON-subj.1sg) anticipate (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[belief→I.anticipate]) that (CONJ) more (DET) persons (N-subj) will∿eventually (ADV-time) report (V-fut) what (PRON-rel) my (PRON-poss.1sg) observations (N-subj) match (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observations.matching])—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[belief→label]) this (DET-dem) anticipation (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) belief” (N-label).
SPOOK: prevail → DISSOLUTION: more persons reporting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO taught me to expect this? On what evidence?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My soul yearns for meaning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.13a My body experiences restlessness, and I seek activities that afterward leave me feeling satisfied—I call the restlessness “my yearning for meaning.”
35.13b My (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) experiences (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[soul→body]) restlessness (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[yearns→restlessness]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) seek (V-pres) activities (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) afterward (ADV-time) leave (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) feeling (V-pres.PART) satisfied (ADJ-pred)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[meaning→label]) the (DEF.ART) restlessness (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) yearning (N) for (PREP) meaning” (N-label).
SPOOK: yearns → DISSOLUTION: restlessness I experience → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ “Meaning” = a label for the absence of restlessness
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition tells me how to live my life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.14a Older persons in my family repeated certain practices and expect me to continue them—I call these expectations and practices “my tradition.”
35.14b Older (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Tradition→older.persons]) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) family (N) repeated (V-past) certain (DET) practices (N-obj) and (CONJ) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) to∿continue (V-inf) them (PRON-obj.3pl)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[tradition→label]) these (DET-dem) expectations (N-obj) and (CONJ) practices (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) tradition” (N-label).
SPOOK: life (when reified) → DISSOLUTION: activities I do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I can continue or not—I decide
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “My purpose in life is to serve humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.15a I direct my actions toward assisting persons I encounter, and I label this directing “my purpose”—the many persons I might assist, I label “humanity.”
35.15b I (PRON-subj.1sg) direct (V-pres) my (PRON-poss.1sg) actions (N-obj) toward (PREP) assisting (V-ger ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[serve→assist]) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj.1sg) encounter (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[purpose→label]) this (DET-dem) directing (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) purpose” (N-label)—the (DEF.ART) many (DET) persons (N-obj) I (PRON-subj.1sg) might∿assist (V-modal), I (PRON-subj.1sg) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[humanity→label]) “humanity” (N-label).
SPOOK: serve → DISSOLUTION: assist → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “My purpose” = a label I attach to my directing of action
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
35.1 “My body feels discomfort when I consider certain actions, and I label that discomfort ‘my conscience.’”
[Standard English: “My conscience tells me what is right.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (eliminated “is right”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → discomfort I feel), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (conscience → label I attach)]
35.2 “Certain persons around my neighborhood expect my compliance, and I feel urges to act as they expect—I call these urges ‘my duty.’”
[Standard English: “My duty to society requires sacrifice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (duty → urges I feel), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → compliance)]
35.3 “When my body contracts and my muscles tighten, I often refrain from acting—and I attribute this to ‘fear.’”
[Standard English: “Fear controls my decisions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (fear → body contracts), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (controls → I refrain)]
35.4 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government officials’ sometimes refrain from harming my body—and certain documents list limits on what they may do to me, which I call ‘my rights.’”
[Standard English: “The State protects my rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protects → refrain from harming), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (rights → documented limits)]
35.5 “When I observe her, my chest expands and my face softens—I act with tenderness toward her and anticipate continuing.”
[Standard English: “My love for her is eternal.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (eliminated “is eternal”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (love → body responses), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (eternal → anticipate continuing)]
35.6 “Certain persons taught me as a child that some actions carry cosmic weight, and now I feel urges to act as they taught—I call these urges ‘my morality.’”
[Standard English: “Morality guides my actions.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (morality → persons teaching), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (guides → urges I feel)]
35.7 “My body does what it does—and I act in patterns that I and others observe and label ‘my nature.’”
[Standard English: “My nature determines who I am.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (eliminated “who I am”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (nature → patterns labeled), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (determines → I act)]
35.8 “Certain writers recorded events, teachers read those records to me, and I now perceive circumstances in ways those teachings influenced—I call this ‘my worldview.’”
[Standard English: “History shaped my worldview.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (history → writers/teachers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (shaped → influenced), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (worldview → label)]
35.9 “Certain persons around me expect accurate reports, and I feel urges to give such reports—I attribute these urges to ‘my sense of justice.’”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that I speak the truth.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons expecting), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (demands → I feel urges), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → accurate reports)]
35.10 “Persons with weapons now prevent my body from moving where I wish—I describe this as losing ‘my freedom.’”
[Standard English: “My freedom was taken from me.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice transformation)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → moving where I wish), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (freedom → label)]
35.11 “Persons in my family and neighborhood taught me patterns of speaking, eating, and celebrating—I call these patterns ‘my culture’ and the summary of them ‘my identity.’”
[Standard English: “My identity is defined by my culture.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 + E4 (eliminated “is defined”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (culture → persons teaching), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (identity → summary label)]
35.12 “I anticipate that more persons will eventually report what my observations match—I call this anticipation ‘my belief.’”
[Standard English: “It is my belief that truth will prevail.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 + E7 (eliminated “It is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (belief → anticipation I have), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth prevailing → observations matching reports)]
35.13 “My body experiences restlessness, and I seek activities that afterward leave me feeling satisfied—I call the restlessness ‘my yearning for meaning.’”
[Standard English: “My soul yearns for meaning.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (soul → body), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (meaning → satisfaction after activities)]
35.14 “Older persons in my family repeated certain practices and expect me to continue them—I call these expectations and practices ‘my tradition.’”
[Standard English: “Tradition tells me how to live my life.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (tradition → older persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (life → activities)]
35.15 “I direct my actions toward assisting persons I encounter, and I label this directing ‘my purpose’—the many persons I might assist, I label ‘humanity.’”
[Standard English: “My purpose in life is to serve humanity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (eliminated “is to serve”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (purpose → directing I do), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → persons I encounter)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
35.1 My body feels discomfort when I consider certain actions, and I label that discomfort “my conscience.”
35.2 Certain persons around my neighborhood expect my compliance, and I feel urges to act as they expect—I call these urges “my duty.”
35.3 When my body contracts and my muscles tighten, I often refrain from acting—and I attribute this to “fear.”
35.4 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” sometimes refrain from harming my body—and certain documents list limits on what they may do to me, which I call “my rights.”
35.5 When I observe her, my chest expands and my face softens—I act with tenderness toward her and anticipate continuing.
35.6 Certain persons taught me as a child that some actions carry cosmic weight, and now I feel urges to act as they taught—I call these urges “my morality.”
35.7 My body does what it does—and I act in patterns that I and others observe and label “my nature.”
35.8 Certain writers recorded events, teachers read those records to me, and I now perceive circumstances in ways those teachings influenced—I call this “my worldview.”
35.9 Certain persons around me expect accurate reports, and I feel urges to give such reports—I attribute these urges to “my sense of justice.”
35.10 Persons with weapons now prevent my body from moving where I wish—I describe this as losing “my freedom.”
35.11 Persons in my family and neighborhood taught me patterns of speaking, eating, and celebrating—I call these patterns “my culture” and the summary of them “my identity.”
35.12 I anticipate that more persons will eventually report what my observations match—I call this anticipation “my belief.”
35.13 My body experiences restlessness, and I seek activities that afterward leave me feeling satisfied—I call the restlessness “my yearning for meaning.”
35.14 Older persons in my family repeated certain practices and expect me to continue them—I call these expectations and practices “my tradition.”
35.15 I direct my actions toward assisting persons I encounter, and I label this directing “my purpose”—the many persons I might assist, I label “humanity.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “my” in E-Prime Max:
My + relational noun: “my mother,” “my friend,” “my country”
In Standard English, possessive constructions with abstract nouns often grant those abstractions a kind of ontological status: “my conscience” suggests conscience exists as an entity the speaker possesses.
“My name is John” → “People call me John” or “My name reads ‘John’”
“My” carries HIGH spook proximity because possessive constructions often attach to abstract nouns that function as spooks:
“My faith sustains me...” (faith as sustaining agent)
The possessive creates an illusion of ownership while the spook commands. “My duty” sounds like I own duty, but the construction “my duty demands” reveals that duty commands ME—I serve it, not the reverse.
“My culture values...” → “Older persons in my family taught me to value...”
“My suffering...” → “My body’s sensations of pain...”
“My faith” → “Claims certain persons made about invisible beings, which I heard and accepted...”
“Love made me do it” → “I acted with tenderness and chose this”
“My identity” → “Patterns I observe in my behavior, which I summarize and label ‘my identity’”
Correct: “I expect consequences for this person, and I call this expectation ‘my sense of justice’”
Deep: “When I remember what I did, my stomach tightens and my chest feels heavy”
Complete: “My urges to act as persons around me expect...”
Dissolved: “My capacity to move without interference from persons with weapons”
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“My faith” → Do I hold these ideas as tools? Or do they hold me as a believer?
If the abstraction commands and you obey → SPOOK (dissolve it) If you own the label and can discard it → Tool (use with caution)
The key insight: Adding “my” does not make a spook your property. A spook with “my” attached remains a spook—and may prove more dangerous because the possession creates an illusion of ownership while the spook rides harder.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (1933) established that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality do not equal reality itself. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by proposing E-Prime (1965): English without any form of “to be.”
Bourland observed that “to be” creates false equations and identity statements that confuse the map with the territory. “John is a criminal” treats “criminal” as an essential identity rather than a label applied by certain observers under certain conditions.
E-Prime forces the speaker to acknowledge their position: “The court labeled John a criminal” or “Police arrested John for alleged theft.” The predication dissolves; the observers and their act of labeling become visible.
Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844) identifies “spooks” (Gespenster or “fixed ideas”)—abstractions that possess the thinker rather than serving them. Stirner observes that humans create concepts like State, Morality, God, Humanity—and then bow before their own creations:
“Man, your head is haunted... You imagine great things and create for yourself a whole world of gods that exists for you, a spirit realm to which you suppose yourself called, an ideal that beckons you. You have a fixed idea!”
Humans serve the abstractions they created
“Society expects” → but no “society” exists anywhere; only persons with expectations exist. “Justice demands” → but no “justice” exists anywhere; only persons demanding specific consequences exist. The spook hides the persons; dissolution reveals them.
E-Prime attacks predication (”X is Y”). E-Prime Max extends this to attack reification (”X demands/requires/forbids”).
Combined, they strip away both the metaphysical “being” and the agentive “commanding” of spooks
“Fear controlled me” → “My body contracted and I chose to refrain”
I move from third-person spook agency to first-person ownership of experience. The emotion does not control; I experience bodily states and I make choices.
Power relations hidden by abstraction
The question “WHO benefits?” becomes answerable. When “Justice demands punishment,” we cannot ask who benefits—Justice appears as cosmic principle beyond questioning. But when “certain persons with weapons will cage this person, and many persons around me expect this and express approval,” we can ask: WHO holds the weapons? WHO expresses approval? WHO taught me to approve?
Recognizing manipulation through reification: Politicians, priests, advertisers, and authorities of all kinds speak in spooks: “The Nation calls you,” “Your Faith requires,” “History demands,” “The Market has decided.” E-Prime Max training allows recognition of these maneuvers and dissolution to the persons acting behind the abstractions.
Resisting possession by concepts: When you notice yourself feeling guilty, obligated, called, required—pause and ask: WHO installed this program? WHO benefits when I obey? WHAT specific persons expect WHAT specific actions from me? Can I choose otherwise?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Every time you transform “duty calls me” into “I feel urges to act as certain persons expect, and I choose whether to follow those urges,” you reclaim agency. The spook dissolves; the unique individual deciding remains.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, into sensations, into patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. The bedrock shifts depending on purpose.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy demands conservation,” “evolution selects for fitness,” “the market decides prices”—all spooks, regardless of which experts endorse them.
Identity as “E-Prime Max practitioner”
The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands freedom” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours. The Stirnerian test applies universally.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“My power is my property. My power gives me property. My power am I myself, and through it I am my property.”
My (PRON-poss.1sg) power (N-subj) serves.as (V-pres.REL ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[is→serves.as]) my (PRON-poss.1sg) property (N-pred). My (PRON-poss.1sg) power (N-subj) gives (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg) property (N-obj). My (PRON-poss.1sg) power (N-pred) constitutes (V-pres.REL ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[am→constitutes]) myself (PRON-refl), and (CONJ) through (PREP) it (PRON-obj) I (PRON-subj.1sg) function.as (V-pres.REL ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[am→function.as]) my (PRON-poss.1sg) property (N-pred).
E-Prime Max: “My capacity to act serves as my property. My capacity to act gives me what I possess. My capacity to act constitutes myself, and through it I function as my own possession.”
Idiomatic English: “What I can do serves as what I own. What I can do gives me possessions. What I can do makes me who I am, and through my capacity I possess myself.”
My capacity to act serves as my property. My capacity to act gives me what I possess. My capacity to act constitutes myself, and through it I function as my own possession.
SPOOK AVOIDANCE: “property” kept as label for what I can control
Even Stirner’s own formulation uses “to be” extensively—”My power is my property... My power am I myself.” The E-Prime Max transformation reveals that Stirner’s insight survives and clarifies without predication.
The key Stirnerian move here: what I can do (my power/capacity) = what I possess. This reverses the usual order where possession depends on external validation (rights, titles, permissions). For Stirner, I possess what I can actually control through my own capacity—no abstraction grants this; my acting constitutes it.
The triple “my” in this passage enacts the reclamation: my power, my property, myself. The possessive pronoun anchors everything in the speaking unique individual, refusing external validation.
Note that “power” here functions as TOOL, not SPOOK. Stirner does not say “Power demands” or “Power requires”—he says “My power gives me.” The abstraction serves the individual; the individual does not serve the abstraction. This represents the Stirnerian test passed.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent narrative of spook dissolution in first-person experience, demonstrating how “my“ anchors experience in the speaking individual while dissolving the abstractions that would claim it.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.16a For years, “my duty” commanded my actions—or so I told myself, until I noticed that specific persons had installed these commands.
35.16b For (PREP) years (N-time), “my (PRON-poss.1sg) duty” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[duty→label]) commanded (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[commanded→I.obeyed]) my (PRON-poss.1sg) actions (N-obj)—or (CONJ) so (ADV) I (PRON-subj.1sg) told (V-past) myself (PRON-refl), until (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) noticed (V-past) that (CONJ) specific (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.who.taught]) had∿installed (V-past.PERF) these (DET-dem) commands (N-obj).
SPOOK: duty (as commanding agent) → DISSOLUTION: label I used + persons who taught → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.17a My mother taught me to feel guilt when I acted for my own benefit—she called this teaching “my conscience.”
35.17b My (PRON-poss.1sg) mother (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[conscience→person.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj.1sg) to∿feel (V-inf) guilt (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→guilt.I.feel]) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) acted (V-past) for (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) own (ADJ) benefit (N-obj)—she (PRON-subj.3sg.f) called (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[conscience→label]) this (DET-dem) teaching (N-obj) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) conscience” (N-label).
SPOOK: conscience → DISSOLUTION: guilt my mother taught me to feel → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.18a Teachers at my school repeated that “my country” needed my service—I now recognize this as training for obedience to persons with weapons.
35.18b Teachers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.teaching]) at (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) school (N) repeated (V-past) that (CONJ) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) country” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[country→label]) needed (V-past) my (PRON-poss.1sg) service (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) now (ADV-time) recognize (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) as (PREP) training (N-obj) for (PREP) obedience (N) to (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[country→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N).
SPOOK: country (as needing entity) → DISSOLUTION: label for training program + persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.19a When I refused to follow my “calling,” my family expressed disapproval—what they called “my calling” meant their expectations for my behavior.
35.19b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) refused (V-past) to∿follow (V-inf) my (PRON-poss.1sg) “calling” (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[calling→label]), my (PRON-poss.1sg) family (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implicit]) expressed (V-past) disapproval (N-obj)—what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj.3pl) called (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[calling→label]) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) calling” (N-obj) meant (V-past) their (PRON-poss.3pl) expectations (N-obj) for (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) behavior (N).
SPOOK: calling → DISSOLUTION: their expectations for my behavior → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.20a I began examining my assumptions—and found persons hiding behind every abstraction that had claimed me.
35.20b I (PRON-subj.1sg) began (V-past) examining (V-ger) my (PRON-poss.1sg) assumptions (N-obj)—and (CONJ) found (V-past) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[assumptions→persons.who.taught]) hiding (V-pres.PART) behind (PREP) every (DET) abstraction (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) had∿claimed (V-past.PERF ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[claimed→I.had.believed]) me (PRON-obj.1sg).
SPOOK: claimed (abstraction as agent) → DISSOLUTION: I had believed → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.21a “My rights” dissolved into documents certain persons wrote and others agreed to observe—or not observe, depending on their interests.
35.21b “My (PRON-poss.1sg) rights” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[rights→label]) dissolved (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[metaphor.for.analysis]) into (PREP) documents (N-obj) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[rights→persons.writing]) wrote (V-past) and (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) agreed (V-past) to∿observe (V-inf)—or (CONJ) not (ADV-neg) observe (V-inf), depending (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) their (PRON-poss.3pl) interests (N-obj).
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: documents persons wrote + others’ choice to observe → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.22a “My identity” revealed itself as a summary label for patterns my body enacted and others observed.
35.22b “My (PRON-poss.1sg) identity” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[identity→label]) revealed (V-past ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[revealed→I.recognized]) itself (PRON-refl) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) summary (ADJ) label (N-pred) for (PREP) patterns (N-obj) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) enacted (V-past) and (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) observed (V-past).
SPOOK: identity → DISSOLUTION: label for patterns → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.23a When I stopped saying “my fear prevents me,” I noticed my body’s contractions and my choice to refrain—I remained the one acting.
35.23b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) stopped (V-past) saying (V-ger) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) fear (N-subj) prevents (V-pres) me“ (PRON-obj.1sg), I (PRON-subj.1sg) noticed (V-past) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body’s (N-poss) contractions (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→body.contractions]) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) choice (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[prevents→I.choose]) to∿refrain (V-inf)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) remained (V-past.STATE) the (DEF.ART) one (PRON) acting (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK: fear (as preventing agent) → DISSOLUTION: body contractions + my choice → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.24a “My love” stopped conquering and became my acting with tenderness, my choosing to continue, my body responding when I observed her.
35.24b “My (PRON-poss.1sg) love” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[love→label]) stopped (V-past) conquering (V-ger) and (CONJ) became (V-past) my (PRON-poss.1sg) acting (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[love→acting.with.tenderness]) with (PREP) tenderness (N), my (PRON-poss.1sg) choosing (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→I.choose]) to∿continue (V-inf), my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) responding (V-pres.PART) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj.1sg) observed (V-past) her (PRON-obj.3sg.f).
SPOOK: love (as conquering agent) → DISSOLUTION: my acting, choosing, body responding → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.25a I traced “my morality” back to specific persons: my grandmother’s warnings, my teacher’s punishments, my peers’ mockery.
35.25b I (PRON-subj.1sg) traced (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[analysis]) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) morality” (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[morality→label]) back (ADV) to (PREP) specific (ADJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[morality→specific.persons]): my (PRON-poss.1sg) grandmother’s (N-poss) warnings (N-obj), my (PRON-poss.1sg) teacher’s (N-poss) punishments (N-obj), my (PRON-poss.1sg) peers’ (N-poss) mockery (N-obj).
SPOOK: morality → DISSOLUTION: specific persons’ actions (warnings, punishments, mockery) → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.26a “My purpose” became a label I attach to the directions I choose for my actions—nothing cosmic commands; I direct.
35.26b “My (PRON-poss.1sg) purpose” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[purpose→label]) became (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) label (N-pred) I (PRON-subj.1sg) attach (V-pres) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) directions (N-obj) I (PRON-subj.1sg) choose (V-pres) for (PREP) my (PRON-poss.1sg) actions (N-obj)—nothing (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[nothing.commands]) cosmic (ADJ) commands (V-pres); I (PRON-subj.1sg) direct (V-pres).
SPOOK: purpose (cosmic) → DISSOLUTION: label I attach to directions I choose → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.27a When persons with weapons demanded “my compliance,” I recognized that my body and my choices faced consequences—no “law” commanded, only persons threatened.
35.27b When (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) demanded (V-past) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) compliance” (N-obj), I (PRON-subj.1sg) recognized (V-past) that (CONJ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss.1sg) choices (N-subj) faced (V-past) consequences (N-obj)—no (DET-neg) “law” (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label]) commanded (V-past), only (ADV) persons (N-subj) threatened (V-past).
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons threatening → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.28a My body now feels lighter—the spooks that rode me have dissolved, and I walk carrying only my own weight.
35.28b My (PRON-poss.1sg) body (N-subj) now (ADV-time) feels (V-pres.STATE) lighter (ADJ-pred.COMP)—the (DEF.ART) spooks (N-subj) that (PRON-rel) rode (V-past) me (PRON-obj.1sg) have∿dissolved (V-pres.PERF), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj.1sg) walk (V-pres) carrying (V-pres.PART) only (ADV) my (PRON-poss.1sg) own (ADJ) weight (N-obj).
STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (ownership of one’s own experience)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.29a Others may continue speaking of “my duty to humanity” or “my sacred calling”—I hear them naming their expectations and attempting to install commands.
35.29b Others (PRON-subj) may∿continue (V-modal) speaking (V-ger) of (PREP) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) duty (N) to (PREP) humanity” (N ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[humanity→label]) or (CONJ) “my (PRON-poss.1sg) sacred (ADJ ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[sacred→label]) calling” (N)—I (PRON-subj.1sg) hear (V-pres) them (PRON-obj.3pl) naming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[persons.with.expectations]) their (PRON-poss.3pl) expectations (N-obj) and (CONJ) attempting (V-pres.PART) to∿install (V-inf) commands (N-obj).
SPOOK: sacred calling → DISSOLUTION: commands they attempt to install → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
35.30a Now “my“ means what I own and can discard—not what owns me; my capacity, my choosing, my acting constitute what I call “myself.”
35.30b Now (ADV-time) “my“ (PRON-poss.1sg) means (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[redefinition]) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) own (V-pres) and (CONJ) can∿discard (V-modal)—not (ADV-neg) what (PRON-rel) owns (V-pres) me (PRON-obj.1sg); my (PRON-poss.1sg) capacity (N-subj), my (PRON-poss.1sg) choosing (N-subj), my (PRON-poss.1sg) acting (N-subj) constitute (V-pres.REL) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj.1sg) call (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[myself→label]) “myself” (N-label).
STRATEGY: The possessive pronoun now anchors in capacity, choosing, acting—not abstractions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
35.16 “For years, ‘my duty’ commanded my actions—or so I told myself, until I noticed that specific persons had installed these commands.”
35.17 “My mother taught me to feel guilt when I acted for my own benefit—she called this teaching ‘my conscience.’”
35.18 “Teachers at my school repeated that ‘my country’ needed my service—I now recognize this as training for obedience to persons with weapons.”
35.19 “When I refused to follow my ‘calling,’ my family expressed disapproval—what they called ‘my calling’ meant their expectations for my behavior.”
35.20 “I began examining my assumptions—and found persons hiding behind every abstraction that had claimed me.”
35.21 “’My rights’ dissolved into documents certain persons wrote and others agreed to observe—or not observe, depending on their interests.”
35.22 “’My identity’ revealed itself as a summary label for patterns my body enacted and others observed.”
35.23 “When I stopped saying ‘my fear prevents me,’ I noticed my body’s contractions and my choice to refrain—I remained the one acting.”
35.24 “’My love’ stopped conquering and became my acting with tenderness, my choosing to continue, my body responding when I observed her.”
35.25 “I traced ‘my morality’ back to specific persons: my grandmother’s warnings, my teacher’s punishments, my peers’ mockery.”
35.26 “’My purpose’ became a label I attach to the directions I choose for my actions—nothing cosmic commands; I direct.”
35.27 “When persons with weapons demanded ‘my compliance,’ I recognized that my body and my choices faced consequences—no ‘law’ commanded, only persons threatened.”
35.28 “My body now feels lighter—the spooks that rode me have dissolved, and I walk carrying only my own weight.”
35.29 “Others may continue speaking of ‘my duty to humanity’ or ‘my sacred calling’—I hear them naming their expectations and attempting to install commands.”
35.30 “Now ‘my‘ means what I own and can discard—not what owns me; my capacity, my choosing, my acting constitute what I call ‘myself.’”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
35.16 For years, “my duty” commanded my actions—or so I told myself, until I noticed that specific persons had installed these commands.
35.17 My mother taught me to feel guilt when I acted for my own benefit—she called this teaching “my conscience.”
35.18 Teachers at my school repeated that “my country” needed my service—I now recognize this as training for obedience to persons with weapons.
35.19 When I refused to follow my “calling,” my family expressed disapproval—what they called “my calling” meant their expectations for my behavior.
35.20 I began examining my assumptions—and found persons hiding behind every abstraction that had claimed me.
35.21 “My rights” dissolved into documents certain persons wrote and others agreed to observe—or not observe, depending on their interests.
35.22 “My identity” revealed itself as a summary label for patterns my body enacted and others observed.
35.23 When I stopped saying “my fear prevents me,” I noticed my body’s contractions and my choice to refrain—I remained the one acting.
35.24 “My love” stopped conquering and became my acting with tenderness, my choosing to continue, my body responding when I observed her.
35.25 I traced “my morality” back to specific persons: my grandmother’s warnings, my teacher’s punishments, my peers’ mockery.
35.26 “My purpose” became a label I attach to the directions I choose for my actions—nothing cosmic commands; I direct.
35.27 When persons with weapons demanded “my compliance,” I recognized that my body and my choices faced consequences—no “law” commanded, only persons threatened.
35.28 My body now feels lighter—the spooks that rode me have dissolved, and I walk carrying only my own weight.
35.29 Others may continue speaking of “my duty to humanity” or “my sacred calling”—I hear them naming their expectations and attempting to install commands.
35.30 Now “my” means what I own and can discard—not what owns me; my capacity, my choosing, my acting constitute what I call “myself.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Narrative Function of “My” in This Section:
The genre section demonstrates “my“ functioning in a first-person narrative of spook dissolution. The possessive pronoun tracks the speaker’s journey from possession BY abstractions (”my duty commanded me”) to possession OF tools (”my capacity, my choosing”).
Dissolving collective spooks (morality, conscience) to specific persons who installed commands
Stirnerian Movement in the Narrative:
End: “My capacity, my choosing, my acting constitute what I call ‘myself’” (ownness reclaimed)
The final sentence captures the Stirnerian insight: “my” properly refers to what I can actually own and discard—not to abstractions that own me under the guise of possession.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max, using “my“ to anchor experience in first-person ownership:
Standard: “My conscience is my guide through life’s moral challenges.”
E-Prime Max: “When I face situations where different actions seem possible, I feel sensations in my body—tightening, unease, or calm—and I use these sensations as information for my choosing. I call this process ‘my conscience guiding me.’”
life’s → eliminated as unnecessary reification
Revelation: No “conscience” exists as an entity that “guides.” Only sensations occur, which I interpret and use for choosing. WHO taught me to call this “conscience”? WHO benefits when I treat these sensations as cosmic moral guidance rather than as information?
Standard: “Society has failed my generation.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons in positions of power made decisions that resulted in fewer resources and opportunities reaching persons of my age group—I summarize this as ‘society failing my generation.’”
my generation → persons of my age group (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “society” exists to “fail.” Only persons making specific decisions exist. Which persons? What decisions? The spook hides accountability; dissolution reveals it.
Standard: “My faith gives me strength.”
E-Prime Max: “When I recall certain stories and repeat certain phrases that persons in my religious community taught me, my body relaxes, my breathing slows, and I proceed with actions I might otherwise avoid—I call this ‘my faith giving me strength.’”
strength → capacity to proceed with actions (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “faith” exists as an entity that “gives.” Only practices exist (recalling, repeating) that produce bodily effects I then use. WHO taught me these practices? WHAT do the stories claim? The spook “faith” hides the specific content and its human origins.
Standard: “My destiny is written in the stars.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons observe patterns in how stars appear from Earth, and other persons taught me to believe that these patterns reveal my future—I call this belief ‘my destiny written in the stars.’”
the stars → how stars appear from Earth (eliminates agency)
Revelation: No “destiny” exists anywhere, written or otherwise. Only persons observing patterns and persons teaching beliefs exist. WHO benefits when I believe my future already exists in celestial patterns? WHAT choices might I avoid if I believe everything already stands determined?
Standard: “History will judge my actions.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons in the future may read accounts of what I do now and form opinions—I anticipate this and call it ‘history judging my actions.’”
my actions → what I do now (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “History” exists to “judge.” Only future persons with their own interests and contexts exist, who may or may not read accounts, who may form various opinions. The spook “History’s judgment” creates imaginary cosmic accountability; dissolution reveals actual future persons with contingent attention.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max Language Course developed by the Latinum Institute as part of the Consciousness Archaeology Project (2026). The course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution methodology, creating a comprehensive linguistic practice for recognizing and dissolving reified abstractions.
The Latinum Institute has produced language learning materials since 2006, specializing in the construed text method—interlinear glossing that allows autodidact students to acquire languages through direct engagement with text structure. The E-Prime Max course extends this methodology to English itself, treating the student’s native language as a site of philosophical archaeology.
Literary citations transform authentic texts (including Stirner) into E-Prime Max
Progressive complexity from simple E-Prime to full spook dissolution
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 35
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max combines two linguistic disciplines into a single practice of consciousness liberation. First, it inherits from D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime the complete elimination of the verb “to be” in all its forms—am, is, are, was, were, been, being, and all contractions. Second, it extends this discipline through Max Stirner’s critique of “spooks” (Gespenster)—abstract nouns that function as commanding agents, possessing the thinker rather than serving them.
Lesson 36 focuses on can, a modal auxiliary verb expressing ability, possibility, or permission. In Standard English, “can” ranks among the most frequent words, appearing constantly in constructions about what persons, groups, or abstractions have the capacity or permission to do.
The word “can” itself poses no E-Prime challenges—it contains no form of “to be.” However, “can” frequently appears alongside spooks: “Society can demand conformity,” “The law can require obedience,” “Freedom can liberate us.” In each case, an abstraction appears as an agent with capacities. E-Prime Max dissolves these constructions, revealing that only persons possess abilities—abstractions possess nothing.
Spook Proximity Level: MEDIUM
“Can” commonly co-occurs with political spooks (state, law, authority), collective spooks (society, humanity), and reified emotion spooks (fear can prevent, love can conquer). The modal itself transfers cleanly; the dissolution work targets its companions.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “can” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “can” retains its Standard English function as a modal auxiliary expressing ability, possibility, or permission. The critical difference lies in who or what receives the capacity. E-Prime Max permits “can” only when the subject consists of actual persons or concrete entities—never abstractions functioning as agents. “I can walk” remains valid. “Society can demand” requires dissolution into the persons who actually possess demands and the capacity to express them.
With concrete entities: “This tool can cut,” “The door can open”
Reified emotions: “Fear can,” “Love can,” “Hope can”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ for reified emotions appearing as agents with capacities
The question: WHO actually can? WHO actually permits or forbids?
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I can lift this box.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.1a I can lift this box.
36.1b I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) lift (V-inf) this (DET) box (N-obj).
36.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → (no spooks present) → N/A
36.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ First-person subject with concrete action ∴ “Can” expresses genuine ability of a specific person ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society can demand conformity from its members.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.2a Many persons around me can express displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.
36.2b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) can (V-modal.ABIL) express (V-inf) displeasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demand.conformity→express.displeasure]) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) differently (ADV-manner) from (PREP) how (ADV) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres).
36.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Society → many persons around me → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ demand conformity → express displeasure at difference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ its members → persons around me / I → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
36.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists with capacities → only persons with reactions ∴ No “conformity” gets “demanded” → only displeasure gets expressed ∴ WHO expresses displeasure? Specific persons I encounter ∴ The spook “society” hid WHO actually reacts to my choices
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law can require citizens to pay taxes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.3a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” can take money from persons they label “citizens,” and will cage those who refuse.
36.3b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.enforcing]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) can (V-modal.ABIL) take (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[require→take]) money (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “citizens” (N-label), and (CONJ) will∿cage (V-fut) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
36.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The law → persons with weapons calling selves “government” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ require → take (with threat of caging) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ citizens → persons labeled “citizen” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ pay taxes → give money (or face caging) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “law” exists with capacities → only persons with weapons ∴ No “requirement” floats abstractly → only threats of caging ∴ No “citizens” exist as natural category → only persons with labels attached ∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO attaches the labels? WHO cages the refusers?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “You can open the door whenever you want.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.4a You can open the door whenever you want.
36.4b You (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.PERM) open (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) door (N-obj) whenever (CONJ-time) you (PRON-subj) want (V-pres).
36.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → (no spooks present) → N/A
36.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ Second-person subject with concrete action ∴ “Can” expresses permission granted to specific person ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom can liberate the oppressed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.5a Persons who currently face interference can act without that interference when certain persons stop interfering with them.
36.5b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[oppressed→persons.facing.interference]) who (PRON-rel) currently (ADV-time) face (V-pres) interference (N-obj) can (V-modal.ABIL) act (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[liberate→act.without.interference]) without (PREP) that (DET) interference (N) when (CONJ-time) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Freedom→persons.who.interfere]) stop (V-pres) interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
36.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Freedom → absence of interference / persons stopping interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ liberate → enable acting without interference → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the oppressed → persons facing interference → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
36.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “freedom” exists as agent with capacities → only conditions of non-interference ∴ No “liberation” happens abstractly → only persons stopping interference ∴ WHO interferes? WHO stops interfering? WHO gains capacity to act? ∴ The spook “freedom” hid the persons whose actions change conditions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She can speak three languages fluently.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.6a She can speak three languages fluently.
36.6b She (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) speak (V-inf) three (NUM) languages (N-obj) fluently (ADV-manner).
36.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → (no spooks present) → N/A
36.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ Third-person subject (specific person) with concrete ability ∴ “Can” expresses genuine capacity of identifiable person ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice can prevail when good people act.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.7a Persons can get back what others took from them when certain persons act to return those things.
36.7b Persons (N-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) get∿back (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Justice.prevail→persons.getting.back]) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) took (V-past) from (PREP) them (PRON-obj) when (CONJ-time) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[good.people→certain.persons]) act (V-pres) to∿return (V-inf) those (DET) things (N-obj).
36.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Justice → persons getting back what others took → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ prevail → return of taken things → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ good people → certain persons who act → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
36.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “justice” exists as agent → only persons returning things ∴ No “prevailing” happens abstractly → only concrete acts of return ∴ “Good people” = persons whom someone labels “good” ∴ WHO returns what? WHO labels persons “good”? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear can prevent you from taking risks.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.8a When my body contracts and my heart races, I can choose to refrain from acting in uncertain situations.
36.8b When (CONJ-time) my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) contracts (V-pres) and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) heart (N-subj) races (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) choose (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Fear.prevent→I.choose]) to∿refrain (V-inf) from (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[taking.risks→acting.in.uncertainty]) in (PREP) uncertain (ADJ) situations (N-obj).
36.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Fear → body contracting, heart racing → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ prevent → I choose to refrain → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ taking risks → acting in uncertain situations → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “fear” exists as agent that prevents → only bodily sensations ∴ I remain the one who chooses → sensations inform but do not command ∴ “Taking risks” dissolves to “acting despite uncertainty” ∴ The spook “fear” hid MY choice; I can act despite sensations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “This knife can cut through tough materials.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.9a This knife can cut through tough materials.
36.9b This (DET) knife (N-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) cut (V-inf) through (PREP) tough (ADJ) materials (N-obj).
36.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → (no spooks present) → N/A
36.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ Concrete object as subject with physical capacity ∴ “Can” expresses genuine property of material object ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Authority can compel obedience through force.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.10a Persons whom others obey can make those others act as commanded by threatening or using weapons against them.
36.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Authority→persons.whom.others.obey]) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) obey (V-pres) can (V-modal.ABIL) make (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[compel→make]) those (DET) others (N-obj) act (V-inf) as (CONJ) commanded (V-past.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obedience→acting.as.commanded]) by (PREP) threatening (V-pres.PART) or (CONJ) using (V-pres.PART) weapons (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[force→weapons]) against (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
36.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Authority → persons whom others obey → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ compel → make (through threat/weapon) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ obedience → acting as commanded → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ force → threats and weapons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “authority” exists as agent → only persons whom others obey ∴ No abstract “compulsion” → only threats and weapons ∴ “Obedience” = acting as another commands ∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO threatens? WHO obeys and why?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state can grant or revoke citizenship.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.11a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” can attach or remove the label “citizen” from other persons, and other persons with weapons will treat those so labeled differently.
36.11b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label) can (V-modal.ABIL) attach (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[grant→attach.label]) or (CONJ) remove (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revoke→remove.label]) the (DEF.ART) label (N-obj) “citizen” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizenship→label]) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿treat (V-fut) those (PRON-dem) so (ADV) labeled (V-past.PART) differently (ADV-manner).
36.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The state → persons with weapons calling selves “officials” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ grant citizenship → attach label “citizen” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ revoke citizenship → remove label “citizen” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ citizenship → label that changes how armed persons treat you → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
36.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “state” exists with capacities → only persons with weapons ∴ No “citizenship” exists as substance → only a label ∴ The label changes how armed persons treat the labeled person ∴ WHO attaches labels? WHO changes treatment based on labels?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We can finish this project by Friday.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.12a We can finish this project by Friday.
36.12b We (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) finish (V-inf) this (DET) project (N-obj) by (PREP) Friday (N-time).
36.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY (none required) → (no spooks present) → N/A
36.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present ∴ First-person plural with concrete action and timeline ∴ “Can” expresses genuine capacity of identifiable persons ∴ Clean E-Prime Max construction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty can override personal desires.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.13a The urge I feel to act as others expect can lead me to choose differently than my other urges suggest.
36.13b The (DEF.ART) urge (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Duty→urge.I.feel]) I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres) to∿act (V-inf) as (CONJ) others (N-subj) expect (V-pres) can (V-modal.ABIL) lead (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[override→lead]) me (PRON-obj) to∿choose (V-inf) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) other (DET) urges (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[personal.desires→other.urges]) suggest (V-pres).
36.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Duty → urge to act as others expect → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ override → lead to different choice → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ personal desires → other urges I feel → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “duty” exists as commanding agent → only urges I feel ∴ Both “duty” and “desire” dissolve to urges within me ∴ I remain the one who chooses between competing urges ∴ The spook “duty” hid that I feel and choose; nothing “overrides” me
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Conscience can trouble even the most hardened criminal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.14a Even persons whom others label “hardened criminals” can feel discomfort when remembering what they did.
36.14b Even (ADV) persons (N-subj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[hardened.criminal→persons.labeled]) whom (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) label (V-pres) “hardened∿criminals” (N-label) can (V-modal.ABIL) feel (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Conscience.trouble→feel.discomfort]) discomfort (N-obj) when (CONJ-time) remembering (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) did (V-past).
36.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Conscience → discomfort when remembering → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ trouble → feel discomfort → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ hardened criminal → persons whom others label X → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
36.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “conscience” exists as troubling agent → only felt discomfort ∴ The person feels; nothing external “troubles” them ∴ “Criminal” = label others attach, not essential property ∴ WHO labels? WHO feels discomfort? The spooks hid these persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love can heal old wounds.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.15a When persons act with tenderness toward me, I can feel less pain from past injuries.
36.15b When (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Love→persons.acting.with.tenderness]) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Love→tenderness]) toward (PREP) me (PRON-obj), I (PRON-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) feel (V-inf) less (DET) pain (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[heal→feel.less.pain]) from (PREP) past (ADJ) injuries (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[old.wounds→past.injuries]).
36.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Love → persons acting with tenderness → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ heal → feel less pain → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ old wounds → past injuries (felt as pain) → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” exists as healing agent → only persons acting tenderly ∴ No “wounds” get “healed” abstractly → I feel less pain ∴ WHO acts with tenderness? WHO feels the change in pain? ∴ The spook hid the persons and their actions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
36.1 “I can lift this box.”
[Standard English: “I can lift this box.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks present)]
36.2 “Many persons around me can express displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.”
[Standard English: “Society can demand conformity from its members.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → many persons around me) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (demand conformity → express displeasure at difference)]
36.3 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ can take money from persons they label ‘citizens,’ and will cage those who refuse.”
[Standard English: “The law can require citizens to pay taxes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (The law → persons with weapons) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (require → take with threat of caging) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (citizens → persons labeled “citizen”)]
36.4 “You can open the door whenever you want.”
[Standard English: “You can open the door whenever you want.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks present)]
36.5 “Persons who currently face interference can act without that interference when certain persons stop interfering with them.”
[Standard English: “Freedom can liberate the oppressed.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Freedom → absence of interference) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (liberate → enable acting without interference) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (the oppressed → persons facing interference)]
36.6 “She can speak three languages fluently.”
[Standard English: “She can speak three languages fluently.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks present)]
36.7 “Persons can get back what others took from them when certain persons act to return those things.”
[Standard English: “Justice can prevail when good people act.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Justice prevail → persons getting things back) D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (good people → certain persons)]
36.8 “When my body contracts and my heart races, I can choose to refrain from acting in uncertain situations.”
[Standard English: “Fear can prevent you from taking risks.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Fear → body contracting, heart racing) D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (prevent → I choose to refrain) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (taking risks → acting in uncertain situations)]
36.9 “This knife can cut through tough materials.”
[Standard English: “This knife can cut through tough materials.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks present)]
36.10 “Persons whom others obey can make those others act as commanded by threatening or using weapons against them.”
[Standard English: “Authority can compel obedience through force.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Authority → persons whom others obey) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (compel → make through threats) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (obedience → acting as commanded) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (force → threats and weapons)]
36.11 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government officials’ can attach or remove the label ‘citizen’ from other persons, and other persons with weapons will treat those so labeled differently.”
[Standard English: “The state can grant or revoke citizenship.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (The state → persons with weapons) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (grant/revoke citizenship → attach/remove label)]
36.12 “We can finish this project by Friday.”
[Standard English: “We can finish this project by Friday.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required (no spooks present)]
36.13 “The urge I feel to act as others expect can lead me to choose differently than my other urges suggest.”
[Standard English: “Duty can override personal desires.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Duty → urge to act as expected) D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (override → lead to different choice) D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (personal desires → other urges)]
36.14 “Even persons whom others label ‘hardened criminals’ can feel discomfort when remembering what they did.”
[Standard English: “Conscience can trouble even the most hardened criminal.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Conscience trouble → feel discomfort) D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (hardened criminal → persons labeled X)]
36.15 “When persons act with tenderness toward me, I can feel less pain from past injuries.”
[Standard English: “Love can heal old wounds.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Love → persons acting with tenderness) D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (heal → feel less pain)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
36.1 I can lift this box.
36.2 Many persons around me can express displeasure when I act differently from how they expect.
36.3 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” can take money from persons they label “citizens,” and will cage those who refuse.
36.4 You can open the door whenever you want.
36.5 Persons who currently face interference can act without that interference when certain persons stop interfering with them.
36.6 She can speak three languages fluently.
36.7 Persons can get back what others took from them when certain persons act to return those things.
36.8 When my body contracts and my heart races, I can choose to refrain from acting in uncertain situations.
36.9 This knife can cut through tough materials.
36.10 Persons whom others obey can make those others act as commanded by threatening or using weapons against them.
36.11 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” can attach or remove the label “citizen” from other persons, and other persons with weapons will treat those so labeled differently.
36.12 We can finish this project by Friday.
36.13 The urge I feel to act as others expect can lead me to choose differently than my other urges suggest.
36.14 Even persons whom others label “hardened criminals” can feel discomfort when remembering what they did.
36.15 When persons act with tenderness toward me, I can feel less pain from past injuries.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern “can” in E-Prime Max:
“Can” functions as a modal auxiliary verb expressing:
Ability: “I can swim” (I have the capacity to swim) Possibility: “It can rain tomorrow” (Rain remains possible) Permission: “You can leave now” (You have permission to leave)
Modal auxiliaries in English precede the base form of the main verb. They do not inflect for person or number (”I can,” “she can,” “they can”—all use “can”). The negative form appears as “cannot” or “can’t.”
“Can” poses no direct E-Prime challenge—it contains no form of “to be.” However, watch for these constructions where “to be” hides near “can”:
Problematic: “He can be difficult” → contains “be” E-Prime revision: “He can act difficult” / “He can behave in ways I find challenging”
Problematic: “This can be done” → passive with “be” E-Prime revision: “Someone can do this” / “We can accomplish this”
Problematic: “Can it be true?” → uses “be” E-Prime revision: “Does this match what happened?” / “Can I verify this?”
“Can” frequently appears with these spook categories:
“Government can regulate...” → persons calling themselves “officials” can...
“Humanity can progress...” → many persons can act in ways others call “progress”
“Conscience can trouble...” → I can feel discomfort when remembering...
“Hope can sustain...” → when I imagine future outcomes I prefer, I can persist...
“The market can determine” → “Many persons buying and selling can influence through their choices”
“Progress can improve lives” → “When persons build better tools, those tools can make tasks easier”
“Tradition can guide us” → “What persons in the past did, and what those who remember tell us about it, can suggest ways for us to act”
“Desire can motivate” → “When I feel urges toward something, those urges can lead me to act”
“Criminals can reform” → “Persons whom others label ‘criminals’ can act differently than before”
Mistake 1: Leaving spook-as-subject unexamined Incorrect: “Freedom can flourish in open societies” (two spooks as agents) Correct: “Persons can act with less interference from armed enforcers when those enforcers refrain from interfering”
Mistake 2: Superficial dissolution that preserves spook agency Incorrect: “My duty can require sacrifice” (duty still acts as agent) Correct: “The urge I feel to act as others expect can lead me to give up things I would otherwise keep”
Mistake 3: Forgetting that concrete subjects need no dissolution Overthinking: “I can walk” does not require dissolution—”I” refers to a specific person with actual capacity.
Mistake 4: Missing hidden “to be” forms Watch for: “can be,” “can’t be,” “could be,” “couldn’t be” These require E-Prime transformation before spook analysis.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Apply this test whenever “can” appears with an abstract subject:
Test case: “Justice can restore balance” Question: Does “justice” serve me, or do I serve “justice”? If I find myself sacrificing for “justice”: The spook has mounted me Dissolution reveals: Persons can return things to other persons. I decide whether to participate.
Test case: “The nation can call upon its citizens” Question: Does “the nation” serve me, or do I serve “the nation”? If I find myself obeying “the nation”: The spook has mounted me Dissolution reveals: Certain persons can ask other persons to act. I decide whether to comply.
When “can” attaches to an abstraction, ask: WHO actually possesses this capacity? No abstraction possesses anything. Only persons possess capacities. The dissolution makes visible the persons hidden behind the spook.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski established the foundation: “the map does not equal the territory.” Our words about reality differ from reality itself. The word “can” denotes capacity or possibility—but we easily confuse the word for the thing.
D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by eliminating “to be” forms, which tend to create false equations between word and thing. “He is a criminal” suggests essential identity; “Others label him ‘criminal’” reveals the act of labeling.
“Can” plays a role in possibility-thinking. When we say “X can Y,” we assert a capacity. But capacity belongs to actual entities—not to abstractions. A knife can cut; “justice” cannot do anything, because “justice” refers to no actual entity with capacities.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster)—fixed ideas that possess the thinker. These abstractions take on apparent life: “The State can require,” “Duty can demand,” “Society can judge.”
Humans serve the abstractions they created
Ownness (Eigenheit) means reclaiming the capacity that spooks seem to possess. When “duty can require,” I have surrendered my choosing. When I say “I feel an urge to act as others expect, and I can follow or ignore it,” I reclaim my own.
“Everything sacred functions as a tie, a fetter,” Stirner observed. Even positive-seeming spooks (”Love can save us”) bind us when they appear as agents possessing capacities we have surrendered.
E-Prime attacks predication: It dissolves “X is Y” into more precise relations. E-Prime Max attacks reification: It dissolves “X can do” into persons acting.
Result: Persons acting, choosing, possessing actual capacities
“Fear can prevent” → reveals bodily sensations and the choice to refrain
The pattern emerges: every capacity attributed to a spook actually belongs to specific persons. No abstraction can do anything. Only persons can act, choose, interfere, refrain, give, take, permit, forbid.
Recognizing manipulation through capacity-attribution: When someone says “The nation can require sacrifice,” ask: WHO specifically requires? WHO sacrifices? WHO benefits from the sacrifice? The spook “nation” hides these persons.
Resisting possession by concepts: When you feel that “duty can compel” you, dissolve: I feel an urge, and I can follow or ignore it. The urge informs; it does not compel. I retain the capacity to choose.
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: Practice stating capacities precisely: Not “love can heal” but “when you act with tenderness toward me, I can feel less pain.” I remain the one who feels. The capacity remains mine.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy can transform,’ ‘evolution can select,’ ‘the market can decide’ → all spooks when the abstraction commands.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy can liberate...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.” — Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” can label their own violence “law,” but they label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) can (V-modal.ABIL) label (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[calls→label]) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) violence (N-obj) “law” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[law→label.for.violence]), but (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) violence (N-obj) by (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[individual→persons]) they (PRON-subj) do∿not∿control (V-pres.NEG) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.for.violence]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The state → persons with weapons calling selves “government” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ calls (its violence) → labels → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ law → label attached to certain violence → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ individual → persons they do not control → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ crime → label attached to other violence → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ its/that of → [possessive of spook eliminated] → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation contained spooks (”state,” “individual”) ∴ Adding “can” makes visible the CAPACITY to label ∴ WHO can label violence “law”? Persons with weapons ∴ WHO can label violence “crime”? The same persons ∴ The power to label reveals itself as power over categories ∴ Violence remains violence—only the labels change
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” can label their own violence “law,” but they label violence by persons they do not control “crime.”
Stirner’s original insight—that identical acts receive different labels depending on who performs them—gains precision through E-Prime Max transformation.
The addition of “can” highlights the capacity to label. This capacity belongs not to “the state” (which exists nowhere) but to specific persons with weapons. They can label because they hold power; those without weapons lack the capacity to make their labels stick.
Note that we dissolve even “individual”—a term Stirner used but which can function as a spook when reified. Persons they do not control names the same referent without implying an abstract “individual” that exists apart from actual persons.
The dissolution also reveals that “law” and “crime” name no real categories—only labels that persons with power can attach. Violence by the labelers becomes “law”; violence by others becomes “crime.” The violence itself differs not at all.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent analytical text examining political claims through E-Prime Max dissolution, revealing the persons behind abstractions and the capacities they actually possess.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy can give power to the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.16a When many persons mark papers in a certain way, certain other persons count those marks and declare that yet other persons now can make decisions that armed enforcers will carry out.
36.16b When (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) mark (V-pres) papers (N-obj) in (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) certain (ADJ) way (N), certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj) count (V-pres) those (DET) marks (N-obj) and (CONJ) declare (V-pres) that (CONJ) yet (ADV) other (DET) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) can (V-modal.ABIL ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[give.power→enable.decision-making]) make (V-inf) decisions (N-obj) that (CONJ) armed (ADJ) enforcers (N-subj) will∿carry∿out (V-fut).
36.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Democracy → procedure of marking and counting papers → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ give power → enable decision-making enforced by armed persons → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the people → many persons / certain other persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
36.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “democracy” exists as giver → only a procedure ∴ No “power” gets “given” → only some persons can now direct armed enforcers ∴ WHO marks? WHO counts? WHO decides? WHO enforces?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution can protect our rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.17a Certain words written on old paper can influence some persons with weapons to refrain from certain actions against me—if those armed persons choose to let those words influence them.
36.17b Certain (DET) words (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Constitution→words.on.paper]) written (V-past.PART) on (PREP) old (ADJ) paper (N) can (V-modal.ABIL) influence (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protect→influence.to.refrain]) some (DET) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) to∿refrain (V-inf) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) against (PREP) me (PRON-obj)—if (CONJ) those (DET) armed (ADJ) persons (N-subj) choose (V-pres) to∿let (V-inf) those (DET) words (N-obj) influence (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
36.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The Constitution → words written on old paper → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ protect → influence armed persons to refrain → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ our rights → certain actions others refrain from → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “Constitution” protects → only words that can influence ∴ Protection depends entirely on armed persons’ choices ∴ “Rights” = actions others refrain from—not inherent properties
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Revolution can overthrow tyranny.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.18a Many persons acting together with weapons can remove certain other persons from positions where they directed armed enforcers—and then position different persons in those roles.
36.18b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Revolution→persons.acting]) acting (V-pres.PART) together (ADV) with (PREP) weapons (N) can (V-modal.ABIL) remove (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[overthrow→remove]) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tyranny→persons.directing.enforcers]) from (PREP) positions (N-obj) where (ADV-place) they (PRON-subj) directed (V-past) armed (ADJ) enforcers (N-obj)—and (CONJ) then (ADV-time) position (V-inf) different (ADJ) persons (N-obj) in (PREP) those (DET) roles (N-obj).
36.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Revolution → many persons acting together with weapons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ overthrow → remove from positions → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ tyranny → persons directing armed enforcers → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
36.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “revolution” acts → only persons with weapons ∴ No “tyranny” gets overthrown → only persons get removed ∴ New persons then occupy the same positions ∴ WHO removes? WHO gets removed? WHO replaces them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market can determine fair prices.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.19a Many persons buying and selling can influence what other persons charge by choosing to buy or refuse certain offers.
36.19b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) can (V-modal.ABIL) influence (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[determine→influence]) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) charge (V-pres) by (PREP) choosing (V-pres.PART) to∿buy (V-inf) or (CONJ) refuse (V-inf) certain (DET) offers (N-obj).
36.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The market → many persons buying and selling → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ determine → influence through choices → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ fair prices → what persons agree to exchange → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (label “fair” dropped)
36.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “market” exists as determiner → only persons choosing ∴ “Fair” = label some attach to prices they prefer ∴ WHO buys? WHO sells? WHO calls the result “fair”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Education can uplift the disadvantaged.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.20a Certain persons teaching certain skills to other persons can enable those other persons to do things they could not do before, and to gain access to resources controlled by yet other persons.
36.20b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Education→persons.teaching]) teaching (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) skills (N-obj) to (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[disadvantaged→certain.other.persons]) can (V-modal.ABIL) enable (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[uplift→enable]) those (DET) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿do (V-inf) things (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) could∿not∿do (V-past.NEG) before (ADV-time), and (CONJ) to∿gain (V-inf) access (N-obj) to (PREP) resources (N-obj) controlled (V-past.PART) by (PREP) yet (ADV) other (DET) persons (N-obj).
36.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Education → persons teaching skills → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ uplift → enable new capacities and access → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ the disadvantaged → persons lacking certain access → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (label dropped)
36.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “education” uplifts → persons teach; others can learn ∴ “Disadvantaged” = label attached by observers ∴ WHO teaches? WHO learns? WHO controls the resources?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “War can solve political disputes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.21a Persons with weapons killing and threatening other persons can make some of those others stop resisting certain demands.
36.21b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) killing (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[War→killing.threatening]) and (CONJ) threatening (V-pres.PART) other (DET) persons (N-obj) can (V-modal.ABIL) make (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[solve→make.stop.resisting]) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) others (N-obj) stop (V-inf) resisting (V-pres.PART) certain (DET) demands (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[political.disputes→demands]).
36.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY War → persons with weapons killing and threatening → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ solve → make stop resisting → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ political disputes → demands that some resist → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “war” solves → persons kill and threaten ∴ No “disputes” get “solved” → persons stop resisting (or die) ∴ WHO kills? WHO dies? WHO stops resisting? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History can teach us valuable lessons.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.22a Persons who write about what other persons did in the past can suggest to me ways I might act, if I find their suggestions useful.
36.22b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.writing]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) did (V-past) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) past (N) can (V-modal.ABIL) suggest (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[teach→suggest]) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj) ways (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) might∿act (V-modal), if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) suggestions (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred).
36.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY History → persons writing about past events → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ teach → suggest ways to act → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ valuable lessons → suggestions I find useful → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “history” teaches → persons write; I decide usefulness ∴ “Valuable” = what I find useful ∴ WHO writes? WHO selects what to write? WHO decides to apply it?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion can influence policy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.23a When many persons express similar views loudly, certain other persons who make decisions about what armed enforcers will do can change those decisions.
36.23b When (CONJ-time) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.opinion→persons.expressing.views]) express (V-pres) similar (ADJ) views (N-obj) loudly (ADV-manner), certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) make (V-pres) decisions (N-obj) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) armed (ADJ) enforcers (N-subj) will∿do (V-fut) can (V-modal.ABIL) change (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[influence→change]) those (DET) decisions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[policy→decisions.about.enforcement]).
36.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Public opinion → many persons expressing similar views → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ influence → lead to change → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ policy → decisions about what armed enforcers do → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “public opinion” exists as force → only persons expressing ∴ “Policy” = decisions about enforcement ∴ WHO expresses? WHO decides? WHO enforces the decisions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Religion can provide meaning and purpose.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.24a Persons who teach certain stories and practices can offer me ways to think about why I act and what I want, if I find those ways helpful.
36.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Religion→persons.teaching]) who (PRON-rel) teach (V-pres) certain (DET) stories (N-obj) and (CONJ) practices (N-obj) can (V-modal.ABIL) offer (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[provide→offer]) me (PRON-obj) ways (N-obj) to∿think (V-inf) about (PREP) why (ADV) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) want (V-pres), if (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) those (DET) ways (N-obj) helpful (ADJ-pred).
36.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Religion → persons teaching stories and practices → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ provide → offer → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ meaning and purpose → ways to think about why I act → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “religion” provides → persons teach; I decide usefulness ∴ “Meaning” and “purpose” = ways I think about my actions ∴ WHO teaches? WHO decides to adopt the offered ways?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science can discover truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.25a Persons who observe carefully, measure precisely, and compare their findings with other persons’ findings can develop descriptions that match what many persons observe.
36.25b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Science→persons.observing.measuring]) who (PRON-rel) observe (V-pres) carefully (ADV-manner), measure (V-pres) precisely (ADV-manner), and (CONJ) compare (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) findings (N-obj) with (PREP) other (DET) persons’ (N-poss) findings (N-obj) can (V-modal.ABIL) develop (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[discover→develop]) descriptions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) match (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→descriptions.matching.observations]) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj) observe (V-pres).
36.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Science → persons observing, measuring, comparing → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ discover → develop through observation → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ truth → descriptions that match observations → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “science” discovers → persons observe and describe ∴ No “truth” gets found → descriptions match observations (or not) ∴ WHO observes? WHO describes? WHO compares and verifies?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition can preserve valuable wisdom.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.26a When persons continue to do what their predecessors did and tell their successors to do the same, some of those practices can help those persons get what they want—if they find those practices useful.
36.26b When (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj) continue (V-pres) to∿do (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) their (PRON-poss) predecessors (N-subj) did (V-past) and (CONJ) tell (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) successors (N-obj) to∿do (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) same (N), some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) practices (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Tradition→practices.continued]) can (V-modal.ABIL) help (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[preserve.wisdom→help.get.what.wanted]) those (DET) persons (N-obj) get (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres)—if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) find (V-pres) those (DET) practices (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred).
36.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Tradition → practices continued from predecessors → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ preserve → continue doing → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ valuable wisdom → practices persons find useful → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “tradition” preserves → persons continue practices ∴ “Wisdom” = practices some find useful ∴ WHO continues? WHO decides usefulness? WHO transmits to whom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress can improve human conditions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.27a When persons develop new tools and methods, those tools and methods can enable other persons to do things more easily—if those persons can access those tools.
36.27b When (CONJ-time) persons (N-subj) develop (V-pres) new (ADJ) tools (N-obj) and (CONJ) methods (N-obj), those (DET) tools (N-subj) and (CONJ) methods (N-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) enable (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[improve→enable.ease]) other (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[human.conditions→persons]) to∿do (V-inf) things (N-obj) more (ADV) easily (ADV-manner)—if (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) access (V-inf) those (DET) tools (N-obj).
36.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Progress → developing new tools and methods → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ improve → enable doing things more easily → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ human conditions → what persons can do with available tools → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
36.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “progress” improves → persons develop; tools enable ∴ Benefits depend on access → WHO can access? ∴ WHO develops? WHO controls access? WHO benefits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy can create jobs.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.28a When certain persons decide to hire other persons to do tasks, those hired persons can then exchange their work for money from the hiring persons.
36.28b When (CONJ-time) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.hiring]) decide (V-pres) to∿hire (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿do (V-inf) tasks (N-obj), those (DET) hired (V-past.PART) persons (N-subj) can (V-modal.ABIL) then (ADV-time) exchange (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[jobs→work.exchanged.for.money]) their (PRON-poss) work (N-obj) for (PREP) money (N-obj) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) hiring (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj).
36.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY The economy → persons deciding to hire → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ create jobs → hire persons to do tasks for money → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “economy” creates → persons decide to hire ∴ “Jobs” = arrangements where persons work for others’ money ∴ WHO decides to hire? WHO gets hired? WHO profits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Culture can shape individual identity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.29a The ways persons around me act and the stories they tell can influence how I think about myself and what I do.
36.29b The (DEF.ART) ways (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Culture→ways.persons.act]) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) act (V-pres) and (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) stories (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) tell (V-pres) can (V-modal.ABIL) influence (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shape→influence]) how (ADV) I (PRON-subj) think (V-pres) about (PREP) myself (PRON-refl ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[identity→how.I.think.about.myself]) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) do (V-pres).
36.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Culture → ways persons around me act and stories they tell → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ shape → influence → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ individual identity → how I think about myself → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
36.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “culture” shapes → persons act and tell stories; I can adopt or resist ∴ “Identity” = how I think about myself ∴ WHO acts around me? WHO tells which stories? How do I respond?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human nature can limit social possibilities.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.30a What persons tend to do—given how their bodies and brains developed— can make certain arrangements among persons easier or harder to maintain.
36.30b What (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Human.nature→what.persons.do]) tend (V-pres) to∿do (V-inf)—given (V-past.PART) how (ADV) their (PRON-poss) bodies (N-subj) and (CONJ) brains (N-subj) developed (V-past)—can (V-modal.ABIL) make (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[limit→make.easier.harder]) certain (DET) arrangements (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[social.possibilities→arrangements]) among (PREP) persons (N-obj) easier (ADJ-comp) or (CONJ) harder (ADJ-comp) to∿maintain (V-inf).
36.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK → DISSOLUTION → STRATEGY Human nature → tendencies persons have given development → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ limit → make harder (not impossible) → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ social possibilities → arrangements persons can maintain → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
36.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “human nature” limits absolutely → tendencies make some things harder ∴ “Social possibilities” = arrangements persons can maintain ∴ WHO studies these tendencies? WHO declares limits? WHO benefits from declaring limits?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
36.16 “When many persons mark papers in a certain way, certain other persons count those marks and declare that yet other persons now can make decisions that armed enforcers will carry out.”
[Standard English: “Democracy can give power to the people.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Democracy → procedure), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → persons)]
36.17 “Certain words written on old paper can influence some persons with weapons to refrain from certain actions against me—if those armed persons choose to let those words influence them.”
[Standard English: “The Constitution can protect our rights.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Constitution → words on paper), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protect → influence to refrain)]
36.18 “Many persons acting together with weapons can remove certain other persons from positions where they directed armed enforcers—and then position different persons in those roles.”
[Standard English: “Revolution can overthrow tyranny.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Revolution → persons acting), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tyranny → persons directing)]
36.19 “Many persons buying and selling can influence what other persons charge by choosing to buy or refuse certain offers.”
[Standard English: “The market can determine fair prices.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons buying/selling), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (determine → influence)]
36.20 “Certain persons teaching certain skills to other persons can enable those other persons to do things they could not do before, and to gain access to resources controlled by yet other persons.”
[Standard English: “Education can uplift the disadvantaged.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Education → persons teaching), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (uplift → enable)]
36.21 “Persons with weapons killing and threatening other persons can make some of those others stop resisting certain demands.”
[Standard English: “War can solve political disputes.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (War → persons killing/threatening)]
36.22 “Persons who write about what other persons did in the past can suggest to me ways I might act, if I find their suggestions useful.”
[Standard English: “History can teach us valuable lessons.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons writing), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (valuable → I find useful)]
36.23 “When many persons express similar views loudly, certain other persons who make decisions about what armed enforcers will do can change those decisions.”
[Standard English: “Public opinion can influence policy.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (public opinion → persons expressing), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (policy → decisions)]
36.24 “Persons who teach certain stories and practices can offer me ways to think about why I act and what I want, if I find those ways helpful.”
[Standard English: “Religion can provide meaning and purpose.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Religion → persons teaching), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (meaning → ways I think)]
36.25 “Persons who observe carefully, measure precisely, and compare their findings with other persons’ findings can develop descriptions that match what many persons observe.”
[Standard English: “Science can discover truth.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Science → persons observing), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → matching descriptions)]
36.26 “When persons continue to do what their predecessors did and tell their successors to do the same, some of those practices can help those persons get what they want—if they find those practices useful.”
[Standard English: “Tradition can preserve valuable wisdom.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Tradition → continued practices), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (wisdom → useful practices)]
36.27 “When persons develop new tools and methods, those tools and methods can enable other persons to do things more easily—if those persons can access those tools.”
[Standard English: “Progress can improve human conditions.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Progress → developing tools), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (human conditions → persons)]
36.28 “When certain persons decide to hire other persons to do tasks, those hired persons can then exchange their work for money from the hiring persons.”
[Standard English: “The economy can create jobs.”] [Dissolution: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (economy → persons hiring), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (jobs → work for money)]
36.29 “The ways persons around me act and the stories they tell can influence how I think about myself and what I do.”
[Standard English: “Culture can shape individual identity.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Culture → ways/stories), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (identity → how I think)]
36.30 “What persons tend to do—given how their bodies and brains developed—can make certain arrangements among persons easier or harder to maintain.”
[Standard English: “Human nature can limit social possibilities.”] [Dissolution: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Human nature → tendencies), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (limit → make harder)]
36.16 When many persons mark papers in a certain way, certain other persons count those marks and declare that yet other persons now can make decisions that armed enforcers will carry out.
36.17 Certain words written on old paper can influence some persons with weapons to refrain from certain actions against me—if those armed persons choose to let those words influence them.
36.18 Many persons acting together with weapons can remove certain other persons from positions where they directed armed enforcers—and then position different persons in those roles.
36.19 Many persons buying and selling can influence what other persons charge by choosing to buy or refuse certain offers.
36.20 Certain persons teaching certain skills to other persons can enable those other persons to do things they could not do before, and to gain access to resources controlled by yet other persons.
36.21 Persons with weapons killing and threatening other persons can make some of those others stop resisting certain demands.
36.22 Persons who write about what other persons did in the past can suggest to me ways I might act, if I find their suggestions useful.
36.23 When many persons express similar views loudly, certain other persons who make decisions about what armed enforcers will do can change those decisions.
36.24 Persons who teach certain stories and practices can offer me ways to think about why I act and what I want, if I find those ways helpful.
36.25 Persons who observe carefully, measure precisely, and compare their findings with other persons’ findings can develop descriptions that match what many persons observe.
36.26 When persons continue to do what their predecessors did and tell their successors to do the same, some of those practices can help those persons get what they want—if they find those practices useful.
36.27 When persons develop new tools and methods, those tools and methods can enable other persons to do things more easily—if those persons can access those tools.
36.28 When certain persons decide to hire other persons to do tasks, those hired persons can then exchange their work for money from the hiring persons.
36.29 The ways persons around me act and the stories they tell can influence how I think about myself and what I do.
36.30 What persons tend to do—given how their bodies and brains developed—can make certain arrangements among persons easier or harder to maintain.
Political abstractions and “can”:
The genre section demonstrates how political discourse relies heavily on attributing capacities to abstractions. “Democracy can,” “the economy can,” “history can“—in each case, the abstraction appears as an agent possessing abilities.
The hiding serves someone—ask WHO benefits from attributing capacity to the abstraction rather than naming persons
The conditional structure:
Several dissolutions include “if” clauses: “if I find those practices useful,” “if those armed persons choose.” This structure acknowledges that the capacities involve multiple persons choosing. The abstraction hides this conditionality; the dissolution restores it.
Double “can” constructions:
Example 36.27 uses “can” twice: tools “can enable persons” and persons “can access those tools.” This reveals two separate capacities—the tool’s physical properties AND the person’s access. The spook “progress can improve” collapsed both into one false capacity.
Power as capacity-attribution:
Throughout the political analysis, power relations appear as questions of WHO can do what. “Democracy can give power” dissolves to reveal: certain persons can count marks; other persons can then direct enforcers. Power = capacity attributed by procedures that specific persons control.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and “can” into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1 Standard: “Morality can guide human behavior.”
E-Prime Max: “What certain persons teach about how persons should act can influence how I choose to act—if I find their teachings useful.”
human behavior → how I/persons act (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “morality” guides. Persons teach; others can adopt or ignore. WHO teaches? WHO adopts? WHO benefits from the teachings?
Exercise 2 Standard: “The community can support individuals in need.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain persons around me can give resources to other persons who lack resources those others want.”
individuals in need → persons lacking resources they want (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: No “community” supports. Specific persons can give; specific persons can receive. WHO gives? WHO receives? WHO decides who “needs”?
Exercise 3 Standard: “Reason can overcome emotion.”
E-Prime Max: “When I pause to consider consequences, I can choose differently than my immediate bodily urges suggest.”
emotion → immediate bodily urges (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “reason” overcomes “emotion”—both dissolve to aspects of my experiencing. I can choose among urges and considerations. The apparent battle between abstractions hides that I remain the one choosing.
Exercise 4 Standard: “Technology can solve climate change.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons developing certain tools can create devices that emit less of certain gases—if other persons can access and use those devices.”
climate change → emission of certain gases (partial—complex topic) (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “technology” solves. Persons can develop tools. Other persons can use them—or not. WHO develops? WHO profits? WHO can access? WHO continues emitting?
Exercise 5 Standard: “Art can express the human spirit.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons making images, sounds, and words can create things that evoke in me feelings and thoughts I recognize from my own experiencing.”
the human spirit → feelings and thoughts I recognize (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: No “art” expresses “spirit.” Persons make things. Those things can evoke responses in me. WHO makes? What do I feel? The spooks “art” and “spirit” hid both the makers and my own responding.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The E-Prime Max Language Course follows the Latinum Institute methodology developed since 2006 for autodidact learners. This approach combines structured vocabulary acquisition with the consciousness-liberation disciplines of E-Prime and Stirnerian spook dissolution.
The Latinum Institute has created language-learning materials using construed text methodology—granular interlinear glossing that makes grammatical structure visible while building vocabulary systematically. This same methodology applies to E-Prime Max: each lesson presents vocabulary in context while training the capacity to see through reified abstractions.
E-Prime Max (Latinum Institute, 2026): Combining both disciplines creates comprehensive linguistic liberation
Genre sections provide extended practice with sustained themes
Reclaimed ownness through linguistic discipline
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Trust Pilot Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 36
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max synthesizes two linguistic disciplines: D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime (eliminating all forms of “to be”) and Max Stirner’s dissolution of “spooks” (Gespenster)—abstract nouns that function as commanding agents rather than serving the thinker. This lesson focuses on would, a modal auxiliary verb expressing conditional possibilities, hypothetical scenarios, and habitual past actions.
Express habitual past actions attributed to abstractions (”The law would punish...”)
The conditional frame of “would” often obscures critical questions: WHO benefits from this hypothetical? WHO enforces these imagined consequences? WHO created the expectation that “would” introduces?
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
-
Dissolution strategy D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ applies most frequently to “would” sentences
E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.
The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.
Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.
Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice would demand punishment for such crimes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.1a Many persons around me would expect persons with weapons and cages to confine the person they label “criminal”—and they would express approval.
37.1b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) would (V-modal.COND) expect (V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) and (CONJ) cages (N) to∿confine (PART V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punishment→confine]) the (DEF.ART) person (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) “criminal” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crimes→labeled.acts])—and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) express (V-inf) approval (N-action).
SPOOK: demand → DISSOLUTION: [ELIMINATED—abstractions cannot demand] → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from calling certain acts “crimes”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society would never tolerate such behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.2a Many persons around me would express displeasure and perhaps harm me if I acted this way.
37.2b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) would (V-modal.COND) express (V-inf) displeasure (N-action) and (CONJ) perhaps (ADV-epistemic) harm (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) this (DET) way (N-manner).
SPOOK: behavior → DISSOLUTION: acted this way → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO specifically would harm me? WHICH persons?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law would protect the innocent.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.3a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” would use force against persons they judge harmful—if they chose to act, and if persons whom observers label “innocent” happened to benefit.
37.3b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) would (V-modal.COND) use (V-inf) force (N) against (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) judge (V-pres) harmful (ADJ-pred)—if (CONJ-cond) they (PRON-subj) chose (V-past) to∿act (PART V-inf), and (CONJ) if (CONJ-cond) persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) observers (N) label (V-pres) “innocent” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[innocent→persons.labeled]) happened (V-past) to∿benefit (PART V-inf).
SPOOK: innocent → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “innocent” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO decides who counts as “innocent”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear would prevent him from speaking.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.4a His body would contract, his throat would tighten, and he would refrain from speaking.
37.4b His (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) contract (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Fear→body.contracts]), his (PRON-poss) throat (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) tighten (V-inf), and (CONJ) he (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) refrain (V-inf) from (PREP) speaking (V-gerund).
SPOOK: prevent → DISSOLUTION: refrain (his choice visible) → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The person remains agent even while experiencing sensations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Duty would compel any honorable person to act.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.5a An urge to act as others expect would arise in persons who have absorbed certain teachings, and they would likely follow that urge.
37.5b An (INDEF.ART) urge (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Duty→urge.arising]) to∿act (PART V-inf) as (CONJ) others (PRON) expect (V-pres) would (V-modal.COND) arise (V-inf) in (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) have∿absorbed (V-perf) certain (DET) teachings (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[honorable→taught.behaviors]), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) likely (ADV-epistemic) follow (V-inf) that (DET) urge (N-obj).
SPOOK: honorable → DISSOLUTION: absorbed certain teachings → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO taught these persons what counts as “honorable”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love would conquer all obstacles in their path.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.6a They would act with tenderness toward each other and persist through difficulties—their actions would overcome what stood between them.
37.6b They (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) act (V-inf) with (PREP) tenderness (N-manner ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Love→acting.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) and (CONJ) persist (V-inf) through (PREP) difficulties (N)—their (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) overcome (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conquer→overcome]) what (PRON-rel) stood (V-past) between (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: obstacles → DISSOLUTION: what stood between them → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Agency returns to the persons, not the abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market would decide the fair price.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.7a Many persons buying and selling would offer and accept various amounts until exchanges occurred—and observers would call whatever amount emerged “fair.”
37.7b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) buying (V-pres.PART) and (CONJ) selling (V-pres.PART) would (V-modal.COND) offer (V-inf) and (CONJ) accept (V-inf) various (ADJ) amounts (N-obj) until (CONJ) exchanges (N-subj) occurred (V-past)—and (CONJ) observers (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) call (V-inf) whatever (DET) amount (N-obj) emerged (V-past) “fair” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[fair→label.attached]).
SPOOK: fair → DISSOLUTION: label observers attach → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits from calling outcomes “fair”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality would forbid such actions.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.8a Certain persons who taught me as a child would have expressed strong disapproval—and persons around me now would likely do the same.
37.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) who (PRON-rel) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) would (V-modal.COND) have∿expressed (V-perf.inf) strong (ADJ) disapproval (N-action ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forbid→express.disapproval])—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time) would (V-modal.COND) likely (ADV-epistemic) do (V-inf) the∿same (DET N).
SPOOK: forbid → DISSOLUTION: express disapproval → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO taught me? WHO benefits from these teachings?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History would judge them harshly.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.9a Future persons writing books about past events would likely describe them in unfavorable terms—if those writers held certain values.
37.9b Future (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.writing.books]) writing (V-pres.PART) books (N-obj) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) would (V-modal.COND) likely (ADV-epistemic) describe (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) in (PREP) unfavorable (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[harshly→unfavorable.terms]) terms (N)—if (CONJ-cond) those (DET) writers (N-subj) held (V-past) certain (DET) values (N-obj).
SPOOK: harshly → DISSOLUTION: unfavorable terms → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO will write? WHAT values will they hold?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth would eventually come out.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.10a Eventually, persons would observe and report what occurred—and their reports would likely reach many others.
37.10b Eventually (ADV-time), persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[truth→persons.observing]) would (V-modal.COND) observe (V-inf) and (CONJ) report (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) occurred (V-past)—and (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) reports (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[come.out→reports.reach.others]) would (V-modal.COND) likely (ADV-epistemic) reach (V-inf) many (DET) others (PRON).
SPOOK: come out → DISSOLUTION: reports reach others → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHICH persons? What do they observe? What do they report?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom would allow them to pursue their dreams.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.11a Without persons interfering with them, they would pursue what they desire.
37.11b Without (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Freedom→no.persons.interfering]) interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) them (PRON-obj), they (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) pursue (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) desire (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[dreams→what.they.desire]).
SPOOK: dreams → DISSOLUTION: what they desire → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Dreams” dissolves to: what do they actually desire?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The State would never permit revolution.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.12a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” would use force against anyone attempting to remove them from power.
37.12b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[State→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label) would (V-modal.COND) use (V-inf) force (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[not.permit→use.force]) against (PREP) anyone (PRON) attempting (V-pres.PART) to∿remove (PART V-inf) them (PRON-obj) from (PREP) power (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[revolution→removing.from.power]).
SPOOK: revolution → DISSOLUTION: attempting to remove from power → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO holds the weapons? WHO benefits from “stability”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Conscience would not let her rest.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.13a She would feel discomfort when remembering what she did—her body would tense, her mind would return to those memories.
37.13b She (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) discomfort (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Conscience→feeling.discomfort]) when (CONJ) remembering (V-pres.PART) what (PRON-rel) she (PRON-subj) did (V-past)—her (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) tense (V-inf), her (PRON-poss) mind (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) return (V-inf) to (PREP) those (DET) memories (N).
SPOOK: let her rest → DISSOLUTION: body tenses, mind returns → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ She remains the person; the sensations belong to her
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “God would punish the wicked.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.14a Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented would harm persons they labeled “wicked”—and persons who believe those books would expect such harm to occur.
37.14b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→being.invented.by.persons]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ-comp) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) would (V-modal.COND) harm (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punish→harm]) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) labeled (V-past) “wicked” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wicked→persons.labeled])—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) believe (V-pres) those (DET) books (N-obj) would (V-modal.COND) expect (V-inf) such (DET) harm (N-obj) to∿occur (PART V-inf).
SPOOK: wicked → DISSOLUTION: persons labeled “wicked” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ WHO benefits from teaching that “God would punish”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I would go to the store, but laziness prevents me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.15a I would go to the store, but I prefer to remain here—my body feels heavy and I choose not to move.
37.15b I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) go (V-inf) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) store (N-obj), but (CONJ-advers) I (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres) to∿remain (PART V-inf) here (ADV-place)—my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) feels (V-pres.STATE) heavy (ADJ-pred) and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[laziness→I.choose]) not (ADV-neg) to∿move (PART V-inf).
SPOOK: prevents → DISSOLUTION: body feels heavy, I choose not → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ I remain agent; I own my choice to stay
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
37.1 “Many persons around me would expect persons with weapons and cages to confine the person they label ‘criminal’—and they would express approval.”
[Standard English: “Justice would demand punishment for such crimes.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons expecting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punishment → confine), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crimes → labeled acts)]
37.2 “Many persons around me would express displeasure and perhaps harm me if I acted this way.”
[Standard English: “Society would never tolerate such behavior.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (tolerate → express displeasure/harm)]
37.3 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ would use force against persons they judge harmful—if they chose to act, and if persons whom observers label ‘innocent’ happened to benefit.”
[Standard English: “The law would protect the innocent.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protect → use force), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (innocent → labeled persons)]
37.4 “His body would contract, his throat would tighten, and he would refrain from speaking.”
[Standard English: “Fear would prevent him from speaking.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Fear → bodily sensations), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (prevent → he refrains)]
37.5 “An urge to act as others expect would arise in persons who have absorbed certain teachings, and they would likely follow that urge.”
[Standard English: “Duty would compel any honorable person to act.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Duty → urge arising), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (honorable → absorbed teachings)]
37.6 “They would act with tenderness toward each other and persist through difficulties—their actions would overcome what stood between them.”
[Standard English: “Love would conquer all obstacles in their path.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Love → acting with tenderness), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (conquer → overcome through actions)]
37.7 “Many persons buying and selling would offer and accept various amounts until exchanges occurred—and observers would call whatever amount emerged ‘fair.’”
[Standard English: “The market would decide the fair price.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons buying/selling), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (decide → offer/accept/exchange), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (fair → label attached)]
37.8 “Certain persons who taught me as a child would have expressed strong disapproval—and persons around me now would likely do the same.”
[Standard English: “Morality would forbid such actions.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (forbid → express disapproval)]
37.9 “Future persons writing books about past events would likely describe them in unfavorable terms—if those writers held certain values.”
[Standard English: “History would judge them harshly.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → future writers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → describe in terms)]
37.10 “Eventually, persons would observe and report what occurred—and their reports would likely reach many others.”
[Standard English: “The truth would eventually come out.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → what persons observe and report), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (come out → reports reach others)]
37.11 “Without persons interfering with them, they would pursue what they desire.”
[Standard English: “Freedom would allow them to pursue their dreams.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Freedom → no interference), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (dreams → what they desire)]
37.12 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government officials’ would use force against anyone attempting to remove them from power.”
[Standard English: “The State would never permit revolution.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (State → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (permit → use force), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (revolution → removing from power)]
37.13 “She would feel discomfort when remembering what she did—her body would tense, her mind would return to those memories.”
[Standard English: “Conscience would not let her rest.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Conscience → feeling discomfort), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (let rest → body tenses, mind returns)]
37.14 “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented would harm persons they labeled ‘wicked’—and persons who believe those books would expect such harm to occur.”
[Standard English: “God would punish the wicked.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being invented by writers), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punish → harm), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (wicked → labeled persons)]
37.15 “I would go to the store, but I prefer to remain here—my body feels heavy and I choose not to move.”
[Standard English: “I would go to the store, but laziness prevents me.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (laziness → I prefer, I choose), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (prevents → I choose not)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
37.1 Many persons around me would expect persons with weapons and cages to confine the person they label “criminal”—and they would express approval.
37.2 Many persons around me would express displeasure and perhaps harm me if I acted this way.
37.3 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” would use force against persons they judge harmful—if they chose to act, and if persons whom observers label “innocent” happened to benefit.
37.4 His body would contract, his throat would tighten, and he would refrain from speaking.
37.5 An urge to act as others expect would arise in persons who have absorbed certain teachings, and they would likely follow that urge.
37.6 They would act with tenderness toward each other and persist through difficulties—their actions would overcome what stood between them.
37.7 Many persons buying and selling would offer and accept various amounts until exchanges occurred—and observers would call whatever amount emerged “fair.”
37.8 Certain persons who taught me as a child would have expressed strong disapproval—and persons around me now would likely do the same.
37.9 Future persons writing books about past events would likely describe them in unfavorable terms—if those writers held certain values.
37.10 Eventually, persons would observe and report what occurred—and their reports would likely reach many others.
37.11 Without persons interfering with them, they would pursue what they desire.
37.12 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government officials” would use force against anyone attempting to remove them from power.
37.13 She would feel discomfort when remembering what she did—her body would tense, her mind would return to those memories.
37.14 Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they invented would harm persons they labeled “wicked”—and persons who believe those books would expect such harm to occur.
37.15 I would go to the store, but I prefer to remain here—my body feels heavy and I choose not to move.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern would in E-Prime Max:
Would operates as a modal auxiliary verb with multiple functions:
Conditional: “If I had money, I would buy it” — expressing hypothetical outcomes dependent on conditions
Polite requests: “Would you help me?” — softening direct requests
Habitual past: “Every summer, we would visit the lake” — describing repeated actions in the past
Reported speech: “She said she would come” — shifting tenses in indirect discourse
Probability: “That would explain the noise” — expressing likelihood
Would itself contains no forbidden “to be” forms. However, watch for:
Contractions with “be”: Constructions like “It would be wrong” contain forbidden “be.” Transform to: “Many persons would consider this wrong” or “I would feel discomfort doing this.”
Passive voice with “would”: “The decision would be made” contains “be.” Transform to: “They would make the decision” or “Someone would decide.”
Would + be + adjective: “She would be happy” transforms to “She would feel happy” or “Happiness would arise in her.”
Would attracts spooks because it introduces hypothetical scenarios where abstractions commonly appear as agents:
Reified emotions: “Fear would...”, “Love would...”, “Hope would...”
The conditional frame obscures agency: When we say “Justice would require this,” the hypothetical mood softens the spook’s apparent authority while maintaining its agency. The dissolution question remains: WHO would actually require this?
“The State would intervene” → “Persons with weapons calling themselves officials would act”
“Freedom would triumph” → “Persons would act without interference”
“Morality would forbid it” → “Persons who wrote certain books claimed we should not do it”
“Guilt would haunt her” → “She would feel discomfort when remembering”
“Heroes would receive honor” → “Persons others label ‘heroes’ would receive praise”
Mistake 1: Forgetting that “would” preserves spook agency
The hypothetical frame does not dissolve spooks. “Society would disapprove” still grants agency to “society.” Always ask: WHO would actually disapprove?
Mistake 2: Combining “would” with hidden “be”
“It would be unjust” contains both a spook (”unjust” implies “justice” as standard) and forbidden “be.” Transform fully: “Many persons would express disapproval and call this unfair.”
Mistake 3: Assuming conditional mood softens obligation to dissolve
Because “would“ introduces possibilities rather than assertions, writers sometimes treat spooks as less demanding of dissolution. But “Duty would compel” grants as much agency to “Duty” as “Duty compels.”
Mistake 4: Incomplete dissolution of habitual past
“Every day, the law would punish offenders” requires full dissolution: “Every day, persons with weapons would confine persons they labeled ‘offenders.’” The habitual past does not exempt the spook.
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Apply this test to every “would“ construction containing an abstraction:
“Justice would require this.” → Does “justice” serve me here? Or do I serve “justice”? → WHO actually requires this? WHO benefits from framing it as “justice”? → Transform: “Certain persons would expect this, and I might or might not comply.”
“My conscience would not permit it.” → Does “conscience” serve me? Or do I serve “conscience”? → WHAT do I actually experience? Discomfort? Tension? Memory? → Transform: “I would feel discomfort and likely refrain.”
The conditional frame of “would“ makes the Stirnerian test especially valuable: hypotheticals about spooks often carry hidden prescriptions. “Society would condemn you” sounds descriptive but functions as command: do not act this way.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski taught that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words about reality differ from reality itself. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by eliminating “to be,” which creates false equations between map and territory (”John is a failure” treats a temporary assessment as permanent identity).
Would interests General Semanticists because it creates hypothetical maps: “Society would punish this” maps an imagined territory. Yet even imagined territories can constrain behavior. The hypothetical “would“ often functions as predictive assertion, guiding action as if the abstraction truly possessed the power attributed to it.
Humans serve the abstractions they created
“Would“ participates in this haunting mechanism by projecting spook agency into hypothetical futures: “Justice would demand...” grants future authority to an abstraction that exists nowhere except in human minds.
Stirner wrote: “The spook from which they have no escape will henceforth not be called simply a spook, but rather... a spirit, or even: the Spirit.” The conditional frame of “would“ further disguises the spook—no longer commanding in the present tense, but prophesying from an imagined future.
E-Prime attacks predication: X IS Y creates false identity.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS grants agency to abstractions.
Together they reveal: “Justice would be required” contains both errors—the forbidden “be” AND the commanding spook. Dissolving both produces: “Certain persons would expect this and express disapproval otherwise.”
Obscured enforcers (”The law would require”)
When “would“ constructions with spooks dissolve, we observe:
Persons acting where “society” seemed to act: “Society would ostracize him” → “Certain persons around him would stop speaking to him”
Weapons and cages where “law” seemed to command: “The law would punish” → “Persons with weapons would confine”
Expectations and approvals where “morality” seemed to judge: “Morality would forbid” → “Persons who taught me would have disapproved”
Power relations hidden by abstraction: “The State would never permit revolution” reveals WHO holds power, WHO benefits from “stability,” WHO would use force.
Recognizing manipulation through conditional spooks: Politicians and moralists frequently deploy “would“ with spooks: “Freedom would be threatened,” “Justice would be served.” These constructions borrow authority from abstractions while obscuring WHO acts and WHO benefits.
Resisting possession by hypothetical concepts: When you think “Duty would require me to act,” pause and ask: WHO would require? WHAT would they actually do? Do I choose to comply, or does the spook possess me?
Reclaiming ownness through linguistic awareness: “Fear would prevent me” grants an emotion external power. “My body would contract and I would likely refrain” returns agency to you. Even if you refrain, YOU refrain—the choice remains yours.
The reprogramming effect: Sustained practice with “would“ dissolutions builds awareness of conditional spooks—those abstractions that claim future authority over your choices. Each dissolution strengthens the habit of asking WHO and reveals the persons hidden behind the hypothetical.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy would require conservation,’ ‘Evolution would select against this,’ ‘The market would correct itself’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complex dissolutions, showing off ‘would’ transformations, correcting others’ spook-usage, feeling superior to those who say ‘Society would...’ The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy would free us’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Even if you agreed a thousand times and forever that your duty commands you to obedience to the state, you would still, despite all this agreement, do what you like when you seriously will it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “Even if you agreed a thousand times and forever that your duty commands you to obedience to the state, you would still, despite all this agreement, do what you like when you seriously will it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Even if you agreed a thousand times and forever that the urge you feel to act as others expect commands you to comply with persons calling themselves “government officials,” you would still, despite all this agreement, do what you like when you seriously choose it.
F.1b Even (ADV-concess) if (CONJ-cond) you (PRON-subj) agreed (V-past) a∿thousand (DET-NUM) times (N-adv) and (CONJ) forever (ADV-time) that (CONJ-comp) the (DEF.ART) urge (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[duty→urge.you.feel]) you (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres) to∿act (PART V-inf) as (CONJ) others (PRON) expect (V-pres) commands (V-pres) you (PRON-obj) to (PREP) comply (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obedience→comply]) with (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.calling.selves]) calling (V-pres.PART) themselves (PRON-refl) “government∿officials” (N-label), you (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) still (ADV-concess), despite (PREP) all (DET) this (DET) agreement (N-obj), do (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) like (V-pres) when (CONJ-time) you (PRON-subj) seriously (ADV-manner) choose (V-pres ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[will→choose]) it (PRON-obj).
FORM: will (as noun-like) → DISSOLUTION: choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The “would“ here reveals: you retain choice despite all hypothetical agreements
Even if you agreed a thousand times and forever that the urge you feel to act as others expect commands you to comply with persons calling themselves “government officials,” you would still, despite all this agreement, do what you like when you seriously choose it.
The “would” remains: Stirner’s conditional “would still... do” survives because it expresses the person’s persistent agency, not a spook’s authority
The transformation preserves and clarifies Stirner’s core insight: no matter how many times you agree that abstractions command you, YOU remain the one who acts. The “would“ here serves the speaker—expressing their persistent freedom—rather than serving a spook.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
A first-person account of recognizing and dissolving the spooks that appeared in conditional “would“ constructions throughout one person’s thinking.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I thought duty would require me to stay in my hometown.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.16a I thought certain persons would expect me to stay in my hometown—and I would feel discomfort if I disappointed them.
37.16b I (PRON-subj) thought (V-past) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expecting]) would (V-modal.COND) expect (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) to∿stay (PART V-inf) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) hometown (N)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) discomfort (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[guilt→discomfort]) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) disappointed (V-past) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: require → DISSOLUTION: expect, I would feel discomfort → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ My anticipated discomfort belonged to ME, not to “duty”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society would judge me harshly for leaving.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.17a Many persons around me would speak disapprovingly about my choice to leave—some would shake their heads, others would tell my parents they felt sorry for them.
37.17b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) would (V-modal.COND) speak (V-inf) disapprovingly (ADV-manner) about (PREP) my (PRON-poss) choice (N) to∿leave (PART V-inf)—some (DET-PRON) would (V-modal.COND) shake (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) heads (N-obj), others (PRON) would (V-modal.COND) tell (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) parents (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) felt (V-past.STATE) sorry (ADJ-pred) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: judge harshly → DISSOLUTION: speak disapprovingly, shake heads, express pity → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Their concrete actions became visible: head-shaking, pity-expressing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I feared that tradition would hold me back.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.18a I anticipated that teachings I absorbed as a child would surface as urges to stay—my body would tense when I imagined leaving.
37.18b I (PRON-subj) anticipated (V-past) that (CONJ-comp) teachings (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[tradition→teachings.absorbed]) I (PRON-subj) absorbed (V-past) as (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) child (N) would (V-modal.COND) surface (V-inf) as (PREP) urges (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hold.back→urges.to.stay]) to∿stay (PART V-inf)—my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) tense (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) imagined (V-past) leaving (V-gerund).
SPOOK: hold me back → DISSOLUTION: urges surface, body tenses → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The “holding back” dissolved to MY urges, MY bodily tension
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Family loyalty would never permit me to abandon them.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.19a I thought my parents would feel hurt if I moved away—and I would feel the ache of missing them, which I would interpret as disloyalty.
37.19b I (PRON-subj) thought (V-past) my (PRON-poss) parents (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Family→parents]) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) hurt (ADJ-pred) if (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) moved (V-past) away (ADV-place)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) the (DEF.ART) ache (N) of (PREP) missing (V-gerund) them (PRON-obj), which (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) interpret (V-inf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[disloyalty→label.I.attach]) as (PREP) disloyalty (N-label).
SPOOK: disloyalty → DISSOLUTION: label I attach to my ache → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ I COULD label my ache differently
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “But freedom would allow me to become myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.20a Without persons interfering with my choices, I would explore what I desire and act accordingly—I would discover my preferences through action.
37.20b Without (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Freedom→no.persons.interfering]) interfering (V-pres.PART) with (PREP) my (PRON-poss) choices (N), I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) explore (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) desire (V-pres) and (CONJ) act (V-inf) accordingly (ADV-manner)—I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) discover (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[become.myself→discover.preferences]) through (PREP) action (N).
SPOOK: become myself → DISSOLUTION: discover preferences through action → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I remained agent throughout
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The old me would have stayed forever.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.21a The version of me who absorbed those teachings without questioning them would have stayed forever—that version would have obeyed the urges arising from those teachings.
37.21b The (DEF.ART) version (N-subj) of (PREP) me (PRON-obj) who (PRON-rel) absorbed (V-past) those (DET) teachings (N-obj) without (PREP) questioning (V-gerund) them (PRON-obj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿stayed (V-perf.inf) forever (ADV-time)—that (DET) version (N-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[old.me→version.with.teachings]) would (V-modal.COND) have∿obeyed (V-perf.inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[would.have→obeyed.urges]) the (DEF.ART) urges (N-obj) arising (V-pres.PART) from (PREP) those (DET) teachings (N).
PATTERN: would have stayed → DISSOLUTION: obeyed urges from teachings → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I CHOSE to question; I became a different version
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Fear would have kept me paralyzed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.22a My body would have remained tense, my breathing would have stayed shallow, and I would have refrained from acting—had I not examined the teachings behind my tension.
37.22b My (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿remained (V-perf.inf.STATE) tense (ADJ-pred ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Fear→body.tense]), my (PRON-poss) breathing (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿stayed (V-perf.inf.STATE) shallow (ADJ-pred), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿refrained (V-perf.inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[paralyzed→refrained]) from (PREP) acting (V-gerund)—had (V-past.COND) I (PRON-subj) not (ADV-neg) examined (V-past) the (DEF.ART) teachings (N-obj) behind (PREP) my (PRON-poss) tension (N).
SPOOK: paralyzed → DISSOLUTION: refrained from acting → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ I remained agent even in the counterfactual
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Guilt would have followed me wherever I went.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.23a I would have felt discomfort whenever I remembered their disappointed faces—those memories would have surfaced often, and my stomach would have tightened each time.
37.23b I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿felt (V-perf.inf.STATE) discomfort (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Guilt→discomfort.I.feel]) whenever (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) remembered (V-past) their (PRON-poss) disappointed (ADJ) faces (N-obj)—those (DET) memories (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿surfaced (V-perf.inf) often (ADV-freq), and (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) stomach (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) have∿tightened (V-perf.inf) each (DET) time (N-adv).
SPOOK: followed me → DISSOLUTION: memories surface, stomach tightens → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ These experiences belonged to ME
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Hope would sustain me through the difficult transition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.24a I would imagine desirable outcomes—my body would relax when I pictured them, and that relaxation would allow me to continue acting toward what I desired.
37.24b I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) imagine (V-inf) desirable (ADJ) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[Hope→imagining.outcomes])—my (PRON-poss) body (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) relax (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) pictured (V-past) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) that (DET) relaxation (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) allow (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[sustain→allow.continuing]) me (PRON-obj) to∿continue (PART V-inf) acting (V-gerund) toward (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) desired (V-past).
SPOOK: sustain → DISSOLUTION: body relaxes, I continue acting → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ I remained agent; I imagined; I acted
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Success would vindicate my choice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.25a If I achieved what I desired, certain persons would nod approvingly—and I would feel satisfaction, which I would interpret as confirmation.
37.25b If (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) achieved (V-past) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) desired (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Success→achieving.desires]), certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[vindication→persons.approving]) would (V-modal.COND) nod (V-inf) approvingly (ADV-manner)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) satisfaction (N), which (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) interpret (V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[vindicate→interpret.as.confirmation]) as (PREP) confirmation (N).
SPOOK: vindicate → DISSOLUTION: persons nod, I interpret as confirmation → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ I CHOSE to interpret it as confirmation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Failure would prove the critics right.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.26a If I did not achieve what I desired, certain persons would say “I told you so”—and I would feel the urge to interpret my experience as confirming their predictions.
37.26b If (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) did∿not (V-past NEG) achieve (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) desired (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Failure→not.achieving.desires]), certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[critics→persons.who.predicted]) would (V-modal.COND) say (V-inf) “I∿told∿you∿so” (QUOTE)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) feel (V-inf.STATE) the (DEF.ART) urge (N-obj) to∿interpret (PART V-inf ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[prove.right→urge.to.interpret]) my (PRON-poss) experience (N) as (PREP) confirming (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) predictions (N-obj).
SPOOK: critics → DISSOLUTION: persons who predicted → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ I COULD resist that urge; I could interpret differently
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The community would eventually forget me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.27a Persons who knew me would mention my name less often as months passed—eventually, most would rarely think of me, and younger persons would never have known me at all.
37.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→persons.who.knew.me]) who (PRON-rel) knew (V-past) me (PRON-obj) would (V-modal.COND) mention (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) name (N-obj) less (ADV-deg) often (ADV-freq) as (CONJ) months (N-subj) passed (V-past)—eventually (ADV-time), most (PRON) would (V-modal.COND) rarely (ADV-freq) think (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[forget→rarely.think]) of (PREP) me (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) younger (ADJ-comp) persons (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) never (ADV-neg) have∿known (V-perf.inf) me (PRON-obj) at∿all (ADV-deg).
SPOOK: forget → DISSOLUTION: mention less, rarely think → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ This process happens to everyone; no spook required
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “In the city, opportunity would find me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.28a In the city, more persons would offer me exchanges—I would encounter situations where my skills matched what others sought.
37.28b In (PREP) the (DEF.ART) city (N), more (DET-comp) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[opportunity→persons.offering]) would (V-modal.COND) offer (V-inf) me (PRON-obj) exchanges (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[find→offer.exchanges])—I (PRON-subj) would (V-modal.COND) encounter (V-inf) situations (N-obj) where (ADV-rel) my (PRON-poss) skills (N-subj) matched (V-past) what (PRON-rel) others (PRON) sought (V-past).
SPOOK: find me → DISSOLUTION: I encounter situations → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The passive “find me” became active “I encounter”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Destiny would guide my steps if I trusted it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.29a If I acted according to my desires without excessive deliberation, outcomes would emerge that I could later interpret as “meant to happen”—and that interpretation would comfort me.
37.29b If (CONJ-cond) I (PRON-subj) acted (V-past) according∿to (PREP) my (PRON-poss) desires (N) without (PREP) excessive (ADJ) deliberation (N), outcomes (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Destiny.guides→outcomes.emerge]) would (V-modal.COND) emerge (V-inf) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) could (V-modal.PAST) later (ADV-time) interpret (V-inf ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[meant.to.happen→label.I.attach]) as (PREP) “meant∿to∿happen” (QUOTE-label)—and (CONJ) that (DET) interpretation (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) comfort (V-inf) me (PRON-obj).
SPOOK: meant to happen → DISSOLUTION: label I attach in retrospect → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ I provide the comfort through my interpretation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Looking back, I see that growth would come only through leaving.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
37.30a Looking back, I observe that I learned new skills and changed my patterns only after I left—those changes would not have occurred had I stayed.
37.30b Looking (V-pres.PART) back (ADV-dir), I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ-comp) I (PRON-subj) learned (V-past) new (ADJ) skills (N-obj) and (CONJ) changed (V-past) my (PRON-poss) patterns (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[growth→learning.and.changing]) only (ADV-restrict) after (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) left (V-past)—those (DET) changes (N-subj) would (V-modal.COND) not (ADV-neg) have∿occurred (V-perf.inf) had (V-past.COND) I (PRON-subj) stayed (V-past).
E-PRIME: would come → DISSOLUTION: changes occurred → STRATEGY: (no “be”)
∴ I learned; I changed; I remained the one acting
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
37.16 “I thought certain persons would expect me to stay in my hometown—and I would feel discomfort if I disappointed them.”
[Standard English: “I thought duty would require me to stay in my hometown.”]
37.17 “Many persons around me would speak disapprovingly about my choice to leave—some would shake their heads, others would tell my parents they felt sorry for them.”
[Standard English: “Society would judge me harshly for leaving.”]
37.18 “I anticipated that teachings I absorbed as a child would surface as urges to stay—my body would tense when I imagined leaving.”
[Standard English: “I feared that tradition would hold me back.”]
37.19 “I thought my parents would feel hurt if I moved away—and I would feel the ache of missing them, which I would interpret as disloyalty.”
[Standard English: “Family loyalty would never permit me to abandon them.”]
37.20 “Without persons interfering with my choices, I would explore what I desire and act accordingly—I would discover my preferences through action.”
[Standard English: “But freedom would allow me to become myself.”]
37.21 “The version of me who absorbed those teachings without questioning them would have stayed forever—that version would have obeyed the urges arising from those teachings.”
[Standard English: “The old me would have stayed forever.”]
37.22 “My body would have remained tense, my breathing would have stayed shallow, and I would have refrained from acting—had I not examined the teachings behind my tension.”
[Standard English: “Fear would have kept me paralyzed.”]
37.23 “I would have felt discomfort whenever I remembered their disappointed faces—those memories would have surfaced often, and my stomach would have tightened each time.”
[Standard English: “Guilt would have followed me wherever I went.”]
37.24 “I would imagine desirable outcomes—my body would relax when I pictured them, and that relaxation would allow me to continue acting toward what I desired.”
[Standard English: “Hope would sustain me through the difficult transition.”]
37.25 “If I achieved what I desired, certain persons would nod approvingly—and I would feel satisfaction, which I would interpret as confirmation.”
[Standard English: “Success would vindicate my choice.”]
37.26 “If I did not achieve what I desired, certain persons would say ‘I told you so’—and I would feel the urge to interpret my experience as confirming their predictions.”
[Standard English: “Failure would prove the critics right.”]
37.27 “Persons who knew me would mention my name less often as months passed—eventually, most would rarely think of me, and younger persons would never have known me at all.”
[Standard English: “The community would eventually forget me.”]
37.28 “In the city, more persons would offer me exchanges—I would encounter situations where my skills matched what others sought.”
[Standard English: “In the city, opportunity would find me.”]
37.29 “If I acted according to my desires without excessive deliberation, outcomes would emerge that I could later interpret as ‘meant to happen’—and that interpretation would comfort me.”
[Standard English: “Destiny would guide my steps if I trusted it.”]
37.30 “Looking back, I observe that I learned new skills and changed my patterns only after I left—those changes would not have occurred had I stayed.”
[Standard English: “Looking back, I see that growth would come only through leaving.”]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
37.16 I thought certain persons would expect me to stay in my hometown—and I would feel discomfort if I disappointed them.
37.17 Many persons around me would speak disapprovingly about my choice to leave—some would shake their heads, others would tell my parents they felt sorry for them.
37.18 I anticipated that teachings I absorbed as a child would surface as urges to stay—my body would tense when I imagined leaving.
37.19 I thought my parents would feel hurt if I moved away—and I would feel the ache of missing them, which I would interpret as disloyalty.
37.20 Without persons interfering with my choices, I would explore what I desire and act accordingly—I would discover my preferences through action.
37.21 The version of me who absorbed those teachings without questioning them would have stayed forever—that version would have obeyed the urges arising from those teachings.
37.22 My body would have remained tense, my breathing would have stayed shallow, and I would have refrained from acting—had I not examined the teachings behind my tension.
37.23 I would have felt discomfort whenever I remembered their disappointed faces—those memories would have surfaced often, and my stomach would have tightened each time.
37.24 I would imagine desirable outcomes—my body would relax when I pictured them, and that relaxation would allow me to continue acting toward what I desired.
37.25 If I achieved what I desired, certain persons would nod approvingly—and I would feel satisfaction, which I would interpret as confirmation.
37.26 If I did not achieve what I desired, certain persons would say “I told you so”—and I would feel the urge to interpret my experience as confirming their predictions.
37.27 Persons who knew me would mention my name less often as months passed—eventually, most would rarely think of me, and younger persons would never have known me at all.
37.28 In the city, more persons would offer me exchanges—I would encounter situations where my skills matched what others sought.
37.29 If I acted according to my desires without excessive deliberation, outcomes would emerge that I could later interpret as “meant to happen”—and that interpretation would comfort me.
37.30 Looking back, I observe that I learned new skills and changed my patterns only after I left—those changes would not have occurred had I stayed.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Narrative Voice and “Would”
This personal narrative demonstrates how “would“ operates in life-story construction. English speakers commonly narrate their past decisions using conditional frames: “Duty would have required,” “Fear would have kept me.” These frames project spooks into past possibilities that never actualized.
The Counterfactual Trap
Counterfactual statements (”would have kept,” “would have followed”) particularly resist dissolution because they describe non-events. Yet spooks populate counterfactuals as readily as factuals. “Fear would have paralyzed me” grants agency to “fear” in an imagined past—where no “fear” ever existed as agent.
The dissolution strategy remains constant: Ask WHO would have acted, WHAT would have occurred in concrete terms, WHERE does the agency actually reside?
Emotion Spooks in Personal Narrative
“Hope would sustain” → imagining would relax my body
Each dissolution returns agency to the speaker and grounds abstraction in bodily experience.
Identity as Quasi-Spook
Example 37.21 introduces an interesting case: “the old me” approaches spook status by reifying a past version of the speaker. The dissolution renders it: “the version of me with unquestioned teachings.” This preserves the useful distinction while avoiding the implication that “the old me” exists somewhere as a separate entity.
Retrospective Labeling
Examples 37.29 and 37.30 demonstrate how speakers apply labels retrospectively: calling outcomes “meant to happen” or calling changes “growth.” The dissolutions reveal: these labels serve the speaker’s current narrative needs, not descriptions of entities that existed during the experiences.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and “would“ into E-Prime Max.
Exercise 1
Standard: “Honor would demand satisfaction.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who taught me certain expectations would feel satisfied only if I acted as they expected—and I would feel an urge to comply.”
satisfaction → acting as expected (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “honor” exists to demand anything. Only persons with expectations exist, and my urge to please them.
Exercise 2
Standard: “Karma would eventually balance the scales.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who believe certain teachings would interpret future events as confirming their belief that actions produce proportionate consequences—I would likely do the same if I absorbed those teachings.”
scales → proportionate consequences (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “karma” exists to balance anything. Only persons exist who interpret events through a particular framework.
Exercise 3
Standard: “Nature would take its course.”
E-Prime Max: “Physical and biological processes would continue as they typically do—organisms would grow, decay, interact according to patterns we have observed.”
take its course → continue as typically (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “Nature” exists as agent taking any course. Only processes exist that continue according to observable patterns.
Exercise 4
Standard: “The Constitution would protect our rights.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who call themselves judges would sometimes rule against persons with weapons who call themselves government officials—if the judges interpreted certain written words in ways favoring the persons harmed.”
rights → [ELIMINATED—the persons get favorable rulings or not] (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “Constitution” exists to protect anyone. Only persons exist who might interpret words favorably—or might not.
Exercise 5
Standard: “Time would heal all wounds.”
E-Prime Max: “As days passed, persons would feel their distress diminish—their bodies would produce fewer stress responses when remembering painful events.”
wounds → painful events and their effects (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “time” exists as healing agent. Only bodily processes exist that typically reduce distress responses with repeated exposure.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has developed language learning materials for autodidacts since 2006. This E-Prime Max course applies the Institute’s proven construed-text methodology to consciousness liberation through linguistic discipline.
The Methodology:
Construed text—presenting each word with its grammatical function and semantic transformation—allows learners to see the WORK of language. When you observe “Justice” dissolve to “persons expecting,” the dissolution becomes visible. When you watch “would demand” transform to “would expect,” the hidden agency appears.
The Synthesis:
E-Prime (Bourland, 1965) attacks predication: eliminating “X is Y” reduces false identification of map with territory.
E-Prime Max (Latinum Institute, 2026) extends this by attacking reification: dissolving abstractions-as-agents reveals the persons, actions, and experiences that spooks conceal.
Together they constitute comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic practice.
The Unique:
Max Stirner (1844) identified “spooks” as ideas that possess their thinkers. E-Prime Max provides practical tools for the Stirnerian insight: watch your language, observe when abstractions command, ask WHO benefits, dissolve the spook back to persons acting.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 37: WOULD
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson focuses on there, an adverb that presents unique challenges for E-Prime practitioners because it almost invariably appears alongside forbidden “to be” constructions.
The word “there” functions in English in two distinct ways: as a locative adverb indicating place (”I went there”) and as an existential dummy subject (”There is a problem”). The first usage poses no E-Prime difficulty. The second usage—the existential construction—represents one of the most common “to be” patterns in English and requires systematic transformation.
Spook Proximity Analysis: The word “there” carries HIGH spook proximity when used in existential constructions. Phrases like “there is justice,” “there is morality,” “there is a duty” smuggle spooks into discourse through seemingly neutral grammatical structures. The existential “there” construction often serves to present abstractions as facts of the world rather than constructs of particular persons.
Link:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: How does “there” function in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, the locative “there” (indicating place or direction) remains fully usable: “I walked there,” “Put the book there,” “She lives there.” The existential “there” + “to be” construction requires transformation into active sentences that specify WHO or WHAT acts or exists. “There is a cat” becomes “A cat sits” or “I see a cat.” “There is injustice” dissolves into “Certain persons harm others” or “I observe persons treating others unfairly.”
Transformed existential constructions specify concrete actors, actions, or observations
“There is a duty/obligation” → dissolves to what certain persons expect
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ: Convert third-person existentials to first-person observations
Power relations hidden by neutral-seeming existential assertions
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is a book on the table.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.1a A book rests there on the table.
38.1b A (INDEF.ART) book (N-subj) rests (V-pres.EXIST) there (ADV-place) on (PREP) the (DEF.ART) table (N-obj).
38.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“There is” → “rests” (existence verb) → E3
38.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No spooks present in original ∴ Simple E-Prime transformation: existential “there is” → concrete verb “rests” ∴ “There” shifts from dummy subject to locative adverb
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There are many people who believe in justice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.2a Many persons there in my community claim that other persons will treat them fairly.
38.2b Many (DET) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) community (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) will∿treat (V-fut) them (PRON-obj) fairly (ADV-manner).
38.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“justice” → “treatment by persons” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Justice” nowhere exists → only persons who expect certain treatment ∴ “Belief in justice” → concrete expectation about how others will act ∴ WHO benefits from the abstraction “justice”? Those who control its definition ∴ The dissolution reveals expectation, not cosmic fact
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There was a time when freedom meant something.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.3a I recall a period, back there in my memory, when persons around me acted without interference from certain other persons.
38.3b I (PRON-subj) recall (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) period (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[time→period.I.recall]), back (ADV) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) memory (N), when (CONJ-rel) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) acted (V-past) without (PREP) interference (N-action) from (PREP) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[freedom→persons.not.interfering]).
38.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“meant something” → “persons acted differently” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “time” exists independently → only my memory of a period ∴ No “freedom” exists → only persons acting without interference ∴ “Meant something” → dissolved into concrete actions by specific persons ∴ The nostalgic abstraction dissolves into particular experiences
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no truth in what he says.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.4a I observe that what he says there does not match what I experience or what others report.
38.4b I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres.PERCEPT) that (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) he (PRON-subj) says (V-pres) there (ADV-place) does∿not∿match (V-pres.NEG) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres) or (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) others (N-subj) report (V-pres).
38.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“truth” → “what matches observation” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “truth” exists as entity → only correspondence between claims and observations ∴ “There is no truth” becomes MY observation of mismatch ∴ The speaker (I) appears as the one judging correspondence ∴ WHO decides what matches? The person observing and comparing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There must be a reason for everything.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.5a I feel compelled to seek explanations for what I observe, and others there around me share this compulsion.
38.5b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) compelled (ADJ-pred) to∿seek (V-inf) explanations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[reason→explanations.I.seek]) for (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres), and (CONJ) others (N-subj) there (ADV-place) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) share (V-pres) this (DET) compulsion (N-obj).
38.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
cosmic necessity → personal compulsion shared by persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “reasons” exist independently → only explanations persons construct ∴ “Must be” dissolves into a felt compulsion, not a cosmic fact ∴ The dissolution reveals the HUMAN NEED to explain, not the world’s obligation to make sense ∴ WHO benefits from the belief that reasons exist? Those who claim to know them
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is evil in the world.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.6a Persons there throughout the world act in ways that cause suffering to other persons, and I label such actions “evil.”
38.6b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[evil→persons.acting.harmfully]) there (ADV-place) throughout (PREP) the (DEF.ART) world (N) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) cause (V-pres) suffering (N-obj) to (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) label (V-pres) such (DET) actions (N-obj) “evil” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[evil→label.I.apply]).
38.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“in the world” → “throughout the world” (locative) → no change needed
38.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “evil” exists as substance → only actions and my labeling of them ∴ The dissolution exposes the LABELER (I) who decides what counts as “evil” ∴ WHO benefits from the label “evil”? Those who control moral categories ∴ Persons acting → concrete; “evil” → my judgment
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is hope for humanity.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.7a I feel optimism about how persons there throughout the world might act toward each other in the future.
38.7b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) optimism (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→optimism.I.feel]) about (PREP) how (ADV-manner) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→persons]) there (ADV-place) throughout (PREP) the (DEF.ART) world (N) might∿act (V-cond) toward (PREP) each∿other (PRON-recip) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-time).
38.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“for humanity” → “about how persons might act” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “hope” exists independently → only my felt optimism ∴ No “humanity” exists → only many specific persons ∴ The dissolution centers ME as the one who feels, not a cosmic “hope” that exists ∴ “Hope for humanity” → my feeling about future actions by persons
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is a place for everyone in society.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.8a Certain persons there in positions of influence claim that every person can find a role among the persons around them.
38.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) positions (N) of (PREP) influence (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) every (DET) person (N-subj) can∿find (V-modal) a (INDEF.ART) role (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[place→role]) among (PREP) the (DEF.ART) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons]) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj).
38.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“for everyone” → “every person can find” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “society” exists → only persons in proximity ∴ No “place” exists ready-made → only roles persons might find or create ∴ WHO makes this claim? Persons in positions of influence ∴ The dissolution reveals CLAIMANTS, not cosmic truths about belonging
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There were no witnesses to the crime.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.9a No persons stood there observing when certain other persons committed the act that officials later labeled a “crime.”
38.9b No (DET) persons (N-subj) stood (V-past.EXIST) there (ADV-place) observing (V-pres.PART) when (CONJ-time) certain (DET) other (DET) persons (N-subj) committed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) act (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) later (ADV-time) labeled (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) “crime” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[crime→label.officials.apply]).
38.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“crime” → “act officials labeled ‘crime’” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
38.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Witnesses” → persons who observe; “crime” → label officials apply ∴ No “crime” exists inherently → only acts and labeling by persons with power ∴ WHO labels the act? Officials with authority to define categories ∴ The dissolution reveals the labeling apparatus
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is nothing we can do about it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.10a I see no actions there available to us that would change the situation as I perceive it.
38.10b I (PRON-subj) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) no (DET) actions (N-obj) there (ADV-place) available (ADJ) to (PREP) us (PRON-obj) that (PRON-rel) would∿change (V-cond) the (DEF.ART) situation (N-obj) as (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) perceive (V-pres) it (PRON-obj).
38.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“we can do” → “available to us” → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Nothing we can do” → MY perception of limited options ∴ The dissolution reveals that this represents MY assessment, not cosmic impossibility ∴ WHO benefits from the belief that “nothing can change”? Those who benefit from the status quo ∴ I might perceive differently later; others might perceive differently now
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is a God who judges the wicked.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.11a Certain persons there who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented judges persons they labeled “wicked.”
38.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.invented.concept]) there (ADV-place) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) judges (V-pres) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) labeled (V-past) “wicked” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wicked→label.they.applied]).
38.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“the wicked” → “persons they labeled ‘wicked’” → D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
38.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “God” exists verifiably → only claims by persons who wrote texts ∴ No “wicked” category exists → only labels applied by persons with interests ∴ WHO benefits from the concept of divine judgment? Those who claim to speak for the divine ∴ The dissolution traces the concept to its human inventors
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.12a Certain persons there around me prefer some methods and reject others, labeling their preferences “right” and “wrong.”
38.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) prefer (V-pres) some (DET) methods (N-obj) and (CONJ) reject (V-pres) others (PRON-obj), labeling (V-pres.PART) their (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj) “right” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[right→label.they.apply]) and (CONJ) “wrong” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[wrong→label.they.apply]).
38.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
cosmic correctness → preferences of persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “right way” exists independently → only preferences persons have and labels they apply ∴ WHO decides what counts as “right”? Persons with influence over others ∴ The dissolution reveals preference masquerading as cosmic truth ∴ “Right” and “wrong” → labels, not properties of methods
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There has been progress in human rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.13a Persons with weapons there in certain regions now refrain from some actions they previously took against persons they control, and observers label this change “progress in human rights.”
38.13b Persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) certain (DET) regions (N) now (ADV-time) refrain (V-pres) from (PREP) some (DET) actions (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) previously (ADV-time) took (V-past) against (PREP) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) control (V-pres), and (CONJ) observers (N-subj) label (V-pres) this (DET) change (N-obj) “progress (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[progress→label.observers.apply]) in (PREP) human∿rights (N-label ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→agreements.by.persons]).”
38.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“human rights” → agreements about limits on persons with weapons → D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
38.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “progress” moves through history → only changes observers label ∴ No “rights” exist → only agreements (often violated) about what persons with weapons may do ∴ WHO defines “progress”? Observers with particular standards ∴ The dissolution reveals power relations and labeling acts
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There exists a natural order to things.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.14a Certain persons there in positions of authority claim that the arrangements benefiting them follow from patterns in nature.
38.14b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) positions (N) of (PREP) authority (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.with.power]) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) arrangements (N-subj) benefiting (V-pres.PART) them (PRON-obj) follow (V-pres) from (PREP) patterns (N) in (PREP) nature (N).
38.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“authority” → persons with power → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “natural order” exists → only claims by persons who benefit from current arrangements ∴ WHO benefits from the belief in “natural order”? Those at the top of current hierarchies ∴ “Order” dissolves into arrangements made and maintained by persons ∴ Appeals to “nature” often serve to justify power
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is dignity in honest work.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.15a When I perform tasks there at my workplace without deception, I feel a sense of self-respect, and persons around me express approval.
38.15b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) perform (V-pres) tasks (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[work→tasks.I.perform]) there (ADV-place) at (PREP) my (PRON-poss) workplace (N) without (PREP) deception (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[honest→without.deception]), I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) a (INDEF.ART) sense (N) of (PREP) self-respect (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[dignity→self-respect.I.feel]), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) approval (N-obj).
38.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“honest work” → tasks performed without deception → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “dignity” exists as property of work → only feelings I have and reactions others show ∴ “Honest” dissolves into “without deception” (operational definition) ∴ WHO benefits from teaching that “dignity” inheres in work? Employers who want willing workers ∴ The dissolution separates MY feeling from cosmic claims about work’s nature
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
38.1 “A book rests there on the table.”
[Standard English: “There is a book on the table.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “rests” replaces “is”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required—no spooks present]
38.2 “Many persons there in my community claim that other persons will treat them fairly.”
[Standard English: “There are many people who believe in justice.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated existential “there are”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (people → persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (justice → fair treatment)]
38.3 “I recall a period, back there in my memory, when persons around me acted without interference from certain other persons.”
[Standard English: “There was a time when freedom meant something.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 + E7 (”There was” → “I recall”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (time → period I recall), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference)]
38.4 “I observe that what he says there does not match what I experience or what others report.”
[Standard English: “There is no truth in what he says.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “observe”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (truth → match with experience), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → correspondence)]
38.5 “I feel compelled to seek explanations for what I observe, and others there around me share this compulsion.”
[Standard English: “There must be a reason for everything.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (must be reason → I feel compelled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (reason → explanations I seek)]
38.6 “Persons there throughout the world act in ways that cause suffering to other persons, and I label such actions ‘evil.’”
[Standard English: “There is evil in the world.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb replaced by action verb)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (evil → persons acting), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (evil → label I apply)]
38.7 “I feel optimism about how persons there throughout the world might act toward each other in the future.”
[Standard English: “There is hope for humanity.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (hope → optimism I feel), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (humanity → persons throughout world)]
38.8 “Certain persons there in positions of influence claim that every person can find a role among the persons around them.”
[Standard English: “There is a place for everyone in society.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated existential)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (traced to claimants), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (society → persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (place → role)]
38.9 “No persons stood there observing when certain other persons committed the act that officials later labeled a ‘crime.’”
[Standard English: “There were no witnesses to the crime.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (existence verb “stood”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (witnesses → persons observing), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (crime → label officials apply)]
38.10 “I see no actions there available to us that would change the situation as I perceive it.”
[Standard English: “There is nothing we can do about it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E2 (perception verb “see”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (nothing → no actions I see)]
38.11 “Certain persons there who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented judges persons they labeled ‘wicked.’”
[Standard English: “There is a God who judges the wicked.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated existential)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being persons invented), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (wicked → label)]
38.12 “Certain persons there around me prefer some methods and reject others, labeling their preferences ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’”
[Standard English: “There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated existential)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (right/wrong → preferences of persons), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (right/wrong → labels)]
38.13 “Persons with weapons there in certain regions now refrain from some actions they previously took against persons they control, and observers label this change ‘progress in human rights.’”
[Standard English: “There has been progress in human rights.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 + E1 (active voice)]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (progress → label observers apply), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → agreements by persons)]
38.14 “Certain persons there in positions of authority claim that the arrangements benefiting them follow from patterns in nature.”
[Standard English: “There exists a natural order to things.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E3 (eliminated existential)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (natural order → claims by beneficiaries), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authority → persons with power)]
38.15 “When I perform tasks there at my workplace without deception, I feel a sense of self-respect, and persons around me express approval.”
[Standard English: “There is dignity in honest work.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb “feel”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (dignity → self-respect I feel), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (honest work → tasks without deception)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
38.1 A book rests there on the table.
38.2 Many persons there in my community claim that other persons will treat them fairly.
38.3 I recall a period, back there in my memory, when persons around me acted without interference from certain other persons.
38.4 I observe that what he says there does not match what I experience or what others report.
38.5 I feel compelled to seek explanations for what I observe, and others there around me share this compulsion.
38.6 Persons there throughout the world act in ways that cause suffering to other persons, and I label such actions “evil.”
38.7 I feel optimism about how persons there throughout the world might act toward each other in the future.
38.8 Certain persons there in positions of influence claim that every person can find a role among the persons around them.
38.9 No persons stood there observing when certain other persons committed the act that officials later labeled a “crime.”
38.10 I see no actions there available to us that would change the situation as I perceive it.
38.11 Certain persons there who wrote old books claimed that a being they invented judges persons they labeled “wicked.”
38.12 Certain persons there around me prefer some methods and reject others, labeling their preferences “right” and “wrong.”
38.13 Persons with weapons there in certain regions now refrain from some actions they previously took against persons they control, and observers label this change “progress in human rights.”
38.14 Certain persons there in positions of authority claim that the arrangements benefiting them follow from patterns in nature.
38.15 When I perform tasks there at my workplace without deception, I feel a sense of self-respect, and persons around me express approval.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern there in E-Prime Max:
The word “there” functions in two distinct ways in Standard English:
Locative Adverb: Indicates place or direction. “I walked there.” “Put the book there.” “She lives there, in that house.” In these uses, “there” points to a location and carries semantic content.
Existential Dummy Subject: Fills the subject position in existential constructions. “There is a problem.” “There are solutions.” “There was nothing we could do.” In these uses, “there” carries no semantic content—it merely holds a grammatical position while the real subject follows the verb.
The existential construction follows this pattern: There + to be + subject + (location/qualifier). Examples: “There is a cat on the mat.” “There were many questions.” “There has been an accident.”
The existential “there” construction poses the most common E-Prime challenge because it REQUIRES a form of “to be.” You cannot say “*There a problem” or “*There many solutions”—the construction grammatically demands “is,” “are,” “was,” “were,” or another “to be” form.
E-Prime transformation strategies for existential “there”:
“There are books on the shelf” → “Books line the shelf”
“There is beauty here” → “I perceive beauty here”
“There has been progress” → “We have progressed” or “Conditions have improved”
“There is a connection between them” → “They connect” or “A connection links them”
The existential “there” construction carries HIGH spook proximity because it presents abstractions as EXISTING—as facts of the world rather than constructs of persons.
Spooks commonly smuggled through “there is/are”:
Moral spooks: “There is justice.” “There is good and evil.” “There is a duty.”
Metaphysical spooks: “There is truth.” “There is meaning.” “There is purpose.”
Collective spooks: “There is a society.” “There is progress.” “There is a natural order.”
Reified emotions: “There is hope.” “There is love between them.” “There is fear in the air.”
The existential construction makes these spooks appear as facts: something exists. E-Prime Max requires dissolving this appearance by tracing “existence” claims back to the persons who experience, construct, or benefit from them.
“There is society” → “Many persons interact according to patterns”
“There is truth in that” → “What you said matches what I observe”
“There is a natural order” → “Persons benefiting from current arrangements claim nature justifies them”
“There is meaning in life” → “I experience purpose in my activities”
“There is crime in this city” → “Officials label certain acts by certain persons as ‘crimes’”
Right: “I went there” requires no transformation
Right: “There is justice” → “Certain persons treat others fairly”
Better: “There is a problem” → “I encounter a difficulty” or “Something blocks my goal”
Complete: “There is truth” → “I observe correspondence between claims and experiences”
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
When encountering “There is [X]” constructions, apply this test:
If X appears as agent demanding service → SPOOK → dissolve. “There is a duty calling me” → The “duty” demands → dissolve to “I feel an urge to act as others expect”
If X appears as tool the speaker owns → permitted with caution. “There, in my experience, I find what I call ‘beauty’” → The speaker owns and can discard the concept
If uncertain → apply dissolution and observe what becomes visible. “There is a natural law” → dissolve → “Certain persons claim that patterns they observed govern all situations” → WHO benefits from this claim?
The key question with existential “there”: WHO asserts that X exists, and WHO benefits from that assertion?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski, founder of General Semantics, emphasized that “the map does not equal the territory”—our words and concepts represent reality but do not constitute it. The existential “there is” construction presents a particularly strong identity between map and territory: by saying “there is X,” we assert that X EXISTS in the territory, not merely in our map.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime partly to combat this identification. Without “to be,” speakers must specify HOW they know something, WHAT they observe, and WHO makes claims. “There is a problem” becomes “I notice a difficulty” or “This situation blocks my goals”—both of which acknowledge the speaker’s role in identifying the “problem.”
Bourland noted that existential assertions often smuggle unexamined assumptions: “There is a right answer” assumes that answers possess rightness as a property, rather than acknowledging that persons evaluate answers according to criteria.
Max Stirner’s concept of “spooks” (Gespenster) directly challenges existential assertions about abstractions. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Property), Stirner observed that humans create concepts—justice, morality, God, humanity, the State—and then forget their human origin. The concepts then appear to EXIST independently and to DEMAND service from their creators.
The existential “there is” construction perfectly enables this haunting. “There is justice” presents justice as something that exists, not as a concept certain persons invented to describe certain expectations. “There is a moral law” presents morality as existing independently of the persons who constructed and enforced moral codes.
Stirner’s analysis reveals the political dimension: WHO benefits when people believe that “there is” a moral order, a natural hierarchy, a cosmic justice? Usually those whose positions such concepts justify.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” dissolves into specific relations, observations, and functions. E-Prime Max extends this to attack reification: “There is X” dissolves into WHO experiences X, WHO claims X exists, and WHO benefits from the belief in X.
It asserts existence of abstractions (spook construction)
By transforming “there is/are” constructions, students accomplish both E-Prime compliance AND spook dissolution simultaneously. “There is justice in the universe” becomes “I expect that persons will sometimes treat each other fairly, and I feel comforted by this expectation.” The E-Prime violation vanishes; the spook dissolves; the speaker appears.
When “there is” constructions dissolve, several hidden elements become visible:
The asserter: Someone claims X exists. WHO makes this claim?
The beneficiaries: The belief that X exists serves certain interests. WHOSE interests?
The construct: X originated in human activity—writing, teaching, enforcing. WHO constructed X?
The observer: When “there is X” becomes “I experience X,” the speaker’s role in perceiving, interpreting, and valuing becomes explicit.
Consider: “There is a social contract.” Dissolved: “Certain philosophers in certain centuries wrote that persons implicitly agree to obey persons with weapons in exchange for protection.” The construct becomes visible; the constructors appear; the beneficiaries (those with weapons who justify their power through the “contract”) emerge.
Recognizing manipulation through “there is”: Politicians, religious authorities, and ideologists frequently assert that things EXIST to justify their programs. “There is a national interest” → WHO defines this interest? “There is a moral majority” → WHO claims to speak for it?
Resisting possession by existential claims: When someone asserts “there is” an obligation, duty, or right, the Stirnerian practitioner asks: “Does this serve me, or do I serve it?” Often the assertion aims to extract service from the listener.
Reclaiming ownness through dissolution: By transforming “there is X” into “I experience X” or “certain persons claim X,” the practitioner reasserts their position as the center of their own experience rather than as a being who exists within structures that “are there.”
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Energy exists,” “evolution selects,” “the market decides” → all spooks when the abstraction commands.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy demands...” → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The divine is God’s affair; the human, that of ‘humanity.’ My affair is neither the divine nor the human, is not the true, the good, the just, the free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is no general affair, but is — unique, as I am unique. For me there is nothing above myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “For me there is nothing above myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a For me, no thing, there or anywhere, ranks above myself in my own valuation.
F.1b For (PREP) me (PRON-obj), no (DET) thing (N-subj), there (ADV-place) or (CONJ) anywhere (ADV-place), ranks (V-pres.REL) above (PREP) myself (PRON-refl) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) valuation (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[is nothing above→ranks in my valuation]).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
implicit cosmic hierarchy → explicit personal valuation → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ Even Stirner’s formulation used “there is” ∴ The dissolution makes explicit that THIS RANKING belongs to Stirner himself ∴ “Nothing above” → not a cosmic fact but Stirner’s own valuation ∴ The E-Prime Max version claims LESS (only my ranking) while losing nothing essential
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
For me, no thing, there or anywhere, ranks above myself in my own valuation.
Stirner’s original German reads: “Mir geht nichts über mich.” Literally: “For me goes nothing over me.” English translations typically render this as “For me there is nothing above myself” or “Nothing is, to me, above myself.”
The E-Prime Max transformation makes several shifts:
From existence to relation: “There is nothing” asserts the non-existence of something above. “No thing ranks” specifies a RELATIONAL position that I (Stirner) assign.
From cosmic to personal: “Above myself” in the original might suggest an objective hierarchy that happens to have nothing above Stirner. “In my own valuation” explicitly locates the ranking act in Stirner’s own judging.
From passive to active: “There is” presents a fact Stirner discovered. “Ranks” presents an arrangement Stirner maintains through his own valuing.
Ironically, this dissolution serves Stirner’s philosophy better than his own words. Stirner rejected all “fixed ideas” and external measures—yet “there is nothing above” retains a trace of presenting this as objective fact rather than as Stirner’s own maintained position. The E-Prime Max version eliminates even this trace.
This transformation demonstrates that even Stirner’s language contained patterns that E-Prime Max exposes and corrects. The existential “there is” construction in Stirner’s German (and its English translations) presented Stirner’s self-sovereignty as a fact about the world—something that “is” the case.
But Stirner’s own philosophy implies that such facts represent the unique’s own valuing, not discoveries about cosmic order. The dissolution brings Stirner’s language into alignment with his philosophy: I VALUE nothing above myself; I MAINTAIN this ranking; this represents MY affair, not a truth about the universe.
This example illustrates the E-Prime Max principle that NO authority remains sacred—not even Stirner himself. The discipline serves the student; it transforms any text, from any source, that contains patterns worth dissolving.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is something wrong with the world.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.16a When I look there at conditions around me, I experience dissatisfaction and judge that persons act in ways I disprefer.
38.16b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) look (V-pres.PERCEPT) there (ADV-place) at (PREP) conditions (N) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj), I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres.STATE) dissatisfaction (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[wrong→dissatisfaction.I.feel]) and (CONJ) judge (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) act (V-pres) in (PREP) ways (N) I (PRON-subj) disprefer (V-pres).
38.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“the world” → “conditions around me” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “wrongness” inheres in the world → only my dissatisfaction ∴ I appear as the one judging and experiencing ∴ The “problem” belongs to my preferences, not cosmic structure
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There must be more to life than this.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.17a I feel, there within myself, a yearning for experiences beyond what I currently have.
38.17b I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE), there (ADV-place) within (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), a (INDEF.ART) yearning (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[must be more→yearning.I.feel]) for (PREP) experiences (N) beyond (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) currently (ADV-time) have (V-pres).
38.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
cosmic requirement → personal yearning → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “more” awaits discovery in life → only yearning I experience ∴ The assertion of cosmic necessity dissolves into my desire ∴ I own the yearning; “life” owes me nothing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no escaping death.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.18a Every person I know or know of, there throughout history and there around me now, has died or will die, and I include myself in this pattern.
38.18b Every (DET) person (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) know (V-pres) or (CONJ) know (V-pres) of (PREP), there (ADV-place) throughout (PREP) history (N-time) and (CONJ) there (ADV-place) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time), has∿died (V-perf) or (CONJ) will∿die (V-fut), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) include (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl) in (PREP) this (DET) pattern (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[no escaping→pattern.includes.me]).
38.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
abstract impossibility → observed pattern + self-inclusion → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ The dissolution replaces “cosmic impossibility” with “observed pattern” ∴ I include myself actively in the pattern rather than being trapped by necessity ∴ Death remains; the spook of “necessity” dissolves
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is love between us.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.19a When I see you there before me, I feel tenderness and act to benefit you, and you respond similarly.
38.19b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) see (V-pres.PERCEPT) you (PRON-obj) there (ADV-place) before (PREP) me (PRON-obj), I (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres.STATE) tenderness (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→tenderness.I.feel]) and (CONJ) act (V-pres) to∿benefit (V-inf) you (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) respond (V-pres) similarly (ADV-manner).
38.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“between us” → reciprocal actions by two persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “love” exists as third entity between us → only feelings and actions by each person ∴ The dissolution centers each person’s experience and choice ∴ “Love” as shorthand for a pattern → permitted if I own it
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no guarantee of success.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.20a No person there or anywhere can promise me that my efforts will produce my desired outcomes.
38.20b No (DET) person (N-subj) there (ADV-place) or (CONJ) anywhere (ADV-place) can∿promise (V-modal) me (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) efforts (N-subj) will∿produce (V-fut) my (PRON-poss) desired (ADJ) outcomes (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[success→outcomes.I.desire]).
38.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“success” → “outcomes I desire” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Guarantee” dissolves into promises by persons → WHO could guarantee? ∴ “Success” dissolves into MY desired outcomes ∴ No cosmic guarantor exists; only persons who might promise (but cannot deliver certainty)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is wisdom in the old ways.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.21a Persons there in earlier generations developed practices that still help me navigate situations I encounter.
38.21b Persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) earlier (ADJ) generations (N-time) developed (V-past) practices (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) still (ADV-time) help (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) navigate (V-inf) situations (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres).
38.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“old ways” → practices from earlier generations → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “wisdom” exists as property of “ways” → only practices that I find helpful ∴ Persons created these practices → I evaluate their usefulness ∴ The dissolution centers my assessment, not inherent virtue in traditions
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is a better way to live.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.22a I can imagine, there in my thoughts, patterns of acting that would satisfy me more than my current patterns.
38.22b I (PRON-subj) can∿imagine (V-modal), there (ADV-place) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) thoughts (N), patterns (N-obj) of (PREP) acting (N-gerund) that (PRON-rel) would∿satisfy (V-cond) me (PRON-obj) more (ADV-degree) than (PREP) my (PRON-poss) current (ADJ) patterns (N-obj).
38.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“way to live” → “patterns of acting” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “better way” exists waiting for discovery → only patterns I can imagine ∴ “Better” = “would satisfy ME more” (my criterion) ∴ The dissolution reveals my role as evaluator of life-patterns
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is always someone who has it worse.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.23a Among persons there throughout the world, I can always find some who experience more suffering than I do by my own measure.
38.23b Among (PREP) persons (N) there (ADV-place) throughout (PREP) the (DEF.ART) world (N), I (PRON-subj) can∿always∿find (V-modal + ADV-freq) some (PRON) who (PRON-rel) experience (V-pres) more (DET) suffering (N-obj) than (PREP) I (PRON-subj) do (V-aux) by (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) measure (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[worse→by.my.measure]).
38.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“has it worse” → “experience more suffering by my measure” → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Worse” requires a standard → I supply my own measure ∴ The dissolution reveals comparison as MY act of comparing ∴ No cosmic “worse” ranking exists; only comparisons persons make
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no place like home.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.24a When I arrive there at my dwelling, I experience comfort and familiarity that I experience nowhere else.
38.24b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) arrive (V-pres) there (ADV-place) at (PREP) my (PRON-poss) dwelling (N), I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres.STATE) comfort (N-obj) and (CONJ) familiarity (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres) nowhere∿else (ADV-place.NEG).
38.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“home” → “my dwelling” → concrete
38.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No place “IS like” another → I EXPERIENCE differently in different places ∴ “Home” → my dwelling (concrete) + my experience (owned) ∴ The dissolution centers my experience rather than comparing places
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.25a Whenever I receive something there from persons around me, I observe that I later contribute something in return, or someone else contributed on my behalf.
38.25b Whenever (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) receive (V-pres) something (PRON) there (ADV-place) from (PREP) persons (N) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj), I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres.PERCEPT) that (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) later (ADV-time) contribute (V-pres) something (PRON-obj) in∿return (ADV-manner), or (CONJ) someone∿else (PRON-subj) contributed (V-past) on (PREP) my (PRON-poss) behalf (N).
38.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
general rule → pattern I observe → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No cosmic law against “free lunches” → only patterns I observe in exchanges ∴ The dissolution converts a universal claim into MY observation ∴ I might observe differently; others might observe differently
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is strength in numbers.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.26a When multiple persons there in my vicinity coordinate their actions, they often accomplish what one person alone could not.
38.26b When (CONJ) multiple (DET) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) vicinity (N) coordinate (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj), they (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) accomplish (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) one (DET) person (N-subj) alone (ADV) could∿not (V-modal.NEG) accomplish (V-inf).
38.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“numbers” → multiple persons → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “strength” exists in “numbers” → only effects of coordination ∴ Persons act and accomplish; “strength” describes outcomes ∴ The dissolution operationalizes the abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is beauty all around us if we only look.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.27a When I attend carefully to what there surrounds me, I often experience aesthetic pleasure.
38.27b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) attend (V-pres) carefully (ADV-manner) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) there (ADV-place) surrounds (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) experience (V-pres.STATE) aesthetic (ADJ) pleasure (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[beauty→pleasure.I.experience]).
38.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“all around us” → “what surrounds me” → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “beauty” exists as property of surroundings → only pleasure I experience ∴ “Looking” → attending; the dissolution highlights MY activity ∴ Others might attend and experience differently
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.28a When I examine what triggers my body’s contraction response, I often find that my anticipation of harm, there in my imagination, causes more suffering than actual events would.
38.28b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) examine (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) triggers (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) body’s (N-poss) contraction (N) response (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[fear→contraction.response]), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) find (V-pres) that (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) anticipation (N-subj) of (PREP) harm (N), there (ADV-place) in (PREP) my (PRON-poss) imagination (N), causes (V-pres) more (DET) suffering (N-obj) than (PREP) actual (ADJ) events (N-subj) would (V-modal).
38.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“fear itself” → “anticipation in my imagination” → D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
38.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ “Fear” → body’s contraction response + anticipatory imagination ∴ The famous quote reified “fear” → dissolution operationalizes it ∴ MY examination, MY body, MY imagination → all owned
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There are two sides to every story.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.29a When persons there in conflict each describe events, I often hear accounts that differ, sometimes drastically.
38.29b When (CONJ) persons (N-subj) there (ADV-place) in (PREP) conflict (N) each (DET) describe (V-pres) events (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV-freq) hear (V-pres.PERCEPT) accounts (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) differ (V-pres), sometimes (ADV-freq) drastically (ADV-manner).
38.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“every story” → “when persons describe” → D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
38.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “sides” exist to stories → only different accounts persons give ∴ “Two” → not always accurate; sometimes more, sometimes fewer ∴ I hear the accounts → my observation, not cosmic fact about stories
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “There is always hope.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.30a However bleak my circumstances appear, I can still generate, there within myself, anticipation of improvement.
38.30b However (ADV) bleak (ADJ) my (PRON-poss) circumstances (N-subj) appear (V-pres.PERCEPT), I (PRON-subj) can∿still∿generate (V-modal + ADV), there (ADV-place) within (PREP) myself (PRON-refl), anticipation (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[hope→anticipation.I.generate]) of (PREP) improvement (N).
38.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
“hope” → “anticipation of improvement” → D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
38.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ: ∴ No “hope” exists waiting out in the world → only anticipation I generate ∴ I create the hopeful state; circumstances do not provide it ∴ The dissolution empowers: “I generate” rather than “hope exists for me”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
38.16 “When I look there at conditions around me, I experience dissatisfaction and judge that persons act in ways I disprefer.”
[Standard English: “There is something wrong with the world.”]
38.17 “I feel, there within myself, a yearning for experiences beyond what I currently have.”
[Standard English: “There must be more to life than this.”]
38.18 “Every person I know or know of, there throughout history and there around me now, has died or will die, and I include myself in this pattern.”
[Standard English: “There is no escaping death.”]
38.19 “When I see you there before me, I feel tenderness and act to benefit you, and you respond similarly.”
[Standard English: “There is love between us.”]
38.20 “No person there or anywhere can promise me that my efforts will produce my desired outcomes.”
[Standard English: “There is no guarantee of success.”]
38.21 “Persons there in earlier generations developed practices that still help me navigate situations I encounter.”
[Standard English: “There is wisdom in the old ways.”]
38.22 “I can imagine, there in my thoughts, patterns of acting that would satisfy me more than my current patterns.”
[Standard English: “There is a better way to live.”]
38.23 “Among persons there throughout the world, I can always find some who experience more suffering than I do by my own measure.”
[Standard English: “There is always someone who has it worse.”]
38.24 “When I arrive there at my dwelling, I experience comfort and familiarity that I experience nowhere else.”
[Standard English: “There is no place like home.”]
38.25 “Whenever I receive something there from persons around me, I observe that I later contribute something in return, or someone else contributed on my behalf.”
[Standard English: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”]
38.26 “When multiple persons there in my vicinity coordinate their actions, they often accomplish what one person alone could not.”
[Standard English: “There is strength in numbers.”]
38.27 “When I attend carefully to what there surrounds me, I often experience aesthetic pleasure.”
[Standard English: “There is beauty all around us if we only look.”]
38.28 “When I examine what triggers my body’s contraction response, I often find that my anticipation of harm, there in my imagination, causes more suffering than actual events would.”
[Standard English: “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.”]
38.29 “When persons there in conflict each describe events, I often hear accounts that differ, sometimes drastically.”
[Standard English: “There are two sides to every story.”]
38.30 “However bleak my circumstances appear, I can still generate, there within myself, anticipation of improvement.”
[Standard English: “There is always hope.”]
38.16 When I look there at conditions around me, I experience dissatisfaction and judge that persons act in ways I disprefer.
38.17 I feel, there within myself, a yearning for experiences beyond what I currently have.
38.18 Every person I know or know of, there throughout history and there around me now, has died or will die, and I include myself in this pattern.
38.19 When I see you there before me, I feel tenderness and act to benefit you, and you respond similarly.
38.20 No person there or anywhere can promise me that my efforts will produce my desired outcomes.
38.21 Persons there in earlier generations developed practices that still help me navigate situations I encounter.
38.22 I can imagine, there in my thoughts, patterns of acting that would satisfy me more than my current patterns.
38.23 Among persons there throughout the world, I can always find some who experience more suffering than I do by my own measure.
38.24 When I arrive there at my dwelling, I experience comfort and familiarity that I experience nowhere else.
38.25 Whenever I receive something there from persons around me, I observe that I later contribute something in return, or someone else contributed on my behalf.
38.26 When multiple persons there in my vicinity coordinate their actions, they often accomplish what one person alone could not.
38.27 When I attend carefully to what there surrounds me, I often experience aesthetic pleasure.
38.28 When I examine what triggers my body’s contraction response, I often find that my anticipation of harm, there in my imagination, causes more suffering than actual events would.
38.29 When persons there in conflict each describe events, I often hear accounts that differ, sometimes drastically.
38.30 However bleak my circumstances appear, I can still generate, there within myself, anticipation of improvement.
This genre section—Personal Reflection—demonstrates how E-Prime Max transforms common sayings and personal insights. Several patterns emerge:
Pattern 1: “There is always X” → “I can always generate/find/experience X”
Existential claims about constants (”there is always hope,” “there is always someone worse off”) dissolve into actions the speaker can take. The cosmic guarantee becomes a personal capacity. “Hope exists” becomes “I can generate anticipation.”
Pattern 2: “There is X in Y” → “I experience X when I engage with Y”
Claims that X inheres in Y (”beauty in nature,” “wisdom in old ways,” “dignity in work”) dissolve into experiences the speaker has. The property that seemed to belong to Y returns to the speaker as experience.
Pattern 3: “There is no X” → “I observe/encounter no X”
Negative existential claims (”there is no escaping death,” “there is no free lunch”) dissolve into patterns the speaker observes. The cosmic impossibility becomes an observed regularity.
Pattern 4: Common sayings contain concentrated spooks
Folk wisdom often packages spooks into memorable form. “There is no place like home” presents home as possessing a property. The dissolution reveals: I experience comfort at my dwelling. The comfort belongs to my experience, not to the place itself.
Throughout: The locative “there” serves as anchor point while the existential “there is/are” dissolves into observations, experiences, and actions by specific persons—especially the speaker.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max:
Standard: “There is no way out of this situation.”
E-Prime Max: I currently perceive no actions there available to me that would change these circumstances as I understand them.
“this situation” → “these circumstances as I understand them” (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: The impossibility dissolves into MY current perception. Others might perceive differently. I might perceive differently later. No cosmic “no way” blocks the path—only my present assessment.
Standard: “There has always been war.”
E-Prime Max: Throughout every period there in recorded history that I know, persons have organized to kill other persons in large numbers.
always → every period I know (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: “War” dissolves into persons killing persons. “Always” dissolves into “every period I know”—acknowledging the limits of my knowledge. No cosmic necessity of “war” appears—only repeated patterns of persons harming persons.
Standard: “There is truth in what the critics say.”
E-Prime Max: What certain critics there claim matches what I observe about the work they evaluate.
“the critics” → “certain critics” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: “Truth” dissolves into correspondence between claims and my observations. I appear as the one evaluating the match. “The critics” become “certain critics”—specific persons, not a monolithic category.
Standard: “There is a special bond between parent and child.”
E-Prime Max: When I observe parents and children there interacting, I notice patterns of attachment and care that I label “special” and that differ from other relationships.
“between” → “interacting” (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “bond” exists as entity → only patterns of interaction. “Special” → a label I apply based on comparison. The dissolution centers my observation and labeling.
Standard: “There will be consequences for your actions.”
E-Prime Max: Based on what I know of how persons there around us respond to such actions, I predict that other persons will act in ways you will experience as unpleasant.
for your actions → in response to such actions (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Consequences” dissolves into predicted actions by persons. The threatening abstraction becomes a concrete prediction I make. No cosmic consequence-mechanism operates—only persons reacting to persons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This E-Prime Max course follows the Latinum Institute methodology, developed since 2006 for autodidact language learners. The course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s philosophy of spook dissolution, creating a comprehensive approach to linguistic consciousness liberation.
The curriculum uses a 1000-word vocabulary progression based on frequency analysis, ensuring that students encounter the most useful English words while learning both E-Prime transformation techniques and Stirnerian spook dissolution strategies.
Course Index:
https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Testimonials: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The Latinum Institute Approach:
The construed text format—with interlinear glossing, dissolution maps, and revelation sections—makes visible the WORK of transformation. Students do not merely memorize correct forms; they understand WHY transformations occur and WHAT they reveal.
This lesson on “there” addresses one of the most fundamental E-Prime challenges: the existential construction. Mastering the transformation of “there is/are” sentences opens up vast territory for E-Prime practice, since this construction appears constantly in everyday English.
Benefits of E-Prime Max Practice:
Sustained practice in E-Prime Max reprograms linguistic habits at a deep level. Students begin to NOTICE when abstractions appear as agents, when existential claims smuggle unexamined assumptions, and when power relations hide behind neutral-seeming grammar. This noticing constitutes the first step toward the liberation Stirner described: seeing through the spooks to the persons and actions beneath.
FINAL WARNING:
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline (eliminating all forms of “to be”) with Max Stirner’s dissolution of “spooks” (Gespenster)—abstract nouns that function as commanding agents rather than serving the thinker. This lesson focuses on all, a determiner indicating totality or complete set.
The word all presents a unique challenge for E-Prime Max practitioners. While grammatically concrete, all frequently serves as a universalizing intensifier that smuggles spooks into sentences by creating false consensus. When someone claims “all people want freedom” or “we all know the truth,” they invoke phantom collectives—projecting their own preferences or beliefs onto an imagined totality. The dissolution reveals: no “all” exists anywhere. Only some persons exist, each with their own experiences, desires, and choices.
Spook Proximity Level: HIGH
Political spooks: “all citizens,” “freedom for all,” “the good of all”
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What role does “all” play in E-Prime Max? In E-Prime Max, “all” requires careful attention because it often creates false universals that mask the actual persons involved. The practitioner learns to ask: “All of whom, specifically? Who counted them? Who decided this applies to everyone?” When “all” serves the speaker as a convenient shorthand they own and can discard—permitted with caution. When “all” invokes a commanding totality that demands compliance—spook.
“All” as spook-enabler: “All must serve society” → universalizing demand, collective spook
“We all know,” “Everyone agrees” (false consensus manufacturing)
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ: Expose the labeling act hidden in “all citizens” or “all believers”
The power move of conscripting others into one’s claims
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All people have a duty to obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.1a The persons I encounter face threats from persons with weapons who call themselves “police” if they act contrary to certain written rules—and many persons around me express approval of this arrangement.
39.1b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all.people→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) face (V-pres) threats (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label)—if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) contrary (ADV) to (PREP) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules])—and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[duty→persons.expressing.approval]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) express (V-pres) approval (N) of (PREP) this (DET) arrangement (N).
SPOOK: have (auxiliary implying possession of abstraction) → DISSOLUTION: face threats → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The spooks dissolve → persons with weapons and persons with expectations remain
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We all know the truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.2a I observe certain things and expect others to report similar observations—though I have not verified what each person actually observes.
39.2b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[we.all→I]) observe (V-pres) certain (DET) things (N-obj) and (CONJ) expect (V-pres) others (N-obj) to (PREP) report (V-inf) similar (ADJ) observations (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→observations])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have∿not (V-pres.NEG) verified (V-past.PART) what (PRON-rel) each (DET) person (N-subj) actually (ADV) observes (V-pres).
SPOOK: truth → DISSOLUTION: observations reported → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Dissolution reveals: one person making a claim, dressed up as universal agreement
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice for all requires sacrifice from everyone.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.3a Certain persons who call themselves “judges” distribute outcomes to some persons I observe—and persons around me expect each person to give up things, threatening unpleasant consequences otherwise.
39.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.calling.selves.judges]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) distribute (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[justice→distribute.outcomes]) outcomes (N-obj) to (PREP) some (DET) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→some.persons]) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[requires→persons.expecting]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) expect (V-pres) each (DET) person (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[everyone→each.person]) to (PREP) give∿up (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifice→give.up]) things (N-obj), threatening (V-pres.PART) unpleasant (ADJ) consequences (N-obj) otherwise (ADV).
SPOOK: everyone → DISSOLUTION: each person → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ The universalizing “all” and “everyone” hide specific power relations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All of humanity shares common values.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.4a Some persons I encounter express preferences similar to mine—though I have never met all persons who exist, and many persons I have not encountered likely prefer different things.
39.4b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→persons.I.encounter]) I (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres) express (V-pres) preferences (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[values→preferences]) similar (ADJ) to (PREP) mine (PRON-poss)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have∿never (V-pres.NEG) met (V-past.PART) all (DET) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) exist (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) I (PRON-subj) have∿not (V-pres.NEG) encountered (V-past.PART) likely (ADV) prefer (V-pres) different (ADJ) things (N-obj).
SPOOK: common values → DISSOLUTION: preferences similar to mine → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ The speaker projects their own preferences onto billions they have never met
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All citizens must vote.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.5a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face pressure from persons around them to mark ballots—and persons with weapons may apply unpleasant consequences to those who refuse.
39.5b Persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→officials]) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) pressure (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) to (PREP) mark (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.ballots]) ballots (N-obj)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿apply (V-modal.pres) unpleasant (ADJ) consequences (N-obj) to (PREP) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) refuse (V-pres).
SPOOK: vote → DISSOLUTION: mark ballots → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “All” masks the labeling and enforcement apparatus
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All good things come to an end.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.6a The experiences I have enjoyed eventually stopped occurring—and I anticipate that experiences I currently enjoy will also stop.
39.6b The (DEF.ART) experiences (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[good.things→experiences.enjoyed]) I (PRON-subj) have∿enjoyed (V-pres.PERF) eventually (ADV) stopped (V-past) occurring (V-pres.PART)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) anticipate (V-pres) that (CONJ) experiences (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) currently (ADV) enjoy (V-pres) will∿also (V-fut) stop (V-inf).
E-PRIME: come to an end (implies “is over”) → DISSOLUTION: stopped occurring → STRATEGY: E3
∴ Simpler dissolution—no commanding abstraction, just personal observation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All religions teach the same fundamental truths.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.7a Some persons who wrote texts for groups I label “religious” expressed similar claims—though I have not read all such texts, and persons in those groups often disagree about what their texts mean.
39.7b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[religions→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) texts (N-obj) for (PREP) groups (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[religious→groups.I.label]) “religious” (ADJ-label) expressed (V-past) similar (ADJ) claims (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truths→claims])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have∿not (V-pres.NEG) read (V-past.PART) all (DET) such (DET) texts (N-obj), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) in (PREP) those (DET) groups (N) often (ADV) disagree (V-pres) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) their (PRON-poss) texts (N-subj) mean (V-pres).
SPOOK: fundamental truths → DISSOLUTION: similar claims → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO decides what counts as “fundamental”? WHO benefits from this claim of unity?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All men are created equal.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.8a Certain persons who wrote a document in 1776 claimed that persons possess similar characteristics at birth—though those writers excluded from their “all“ persons they labeled “slaves” and “women.”
39.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[created→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) document (N-obj) in (PREP) 1776 (N-time) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all.men→persons]) possess (V-pres) similar (ADJ) characteristics (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal→similar.characteristics]) at (PREP) birth (N-time)—though (CONJ) those (DET) writers (N-subj) excluded (V-past) from (PREP) their (PRON-poss) “all“ (DET) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) labeled (V-past ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) “slaves” (N-label) and (CONJ) “women” (N-label).
SPOOK: equal → DISSOLUTION: possess similar characteristics → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO gets included in “all”? WHO decides?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All is well that ends well.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.9a When I reach an outcome I enjoy, I tend to evaluate the preceding events favorably—regardless of how they felt while occurring.
39.9b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) reach (V-pres) an (INDEF.ART) outcome (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) enjoy (V-pres), I (PRON-subj) tend (V-pres) to (PREP) evaluate (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) preceding (ADJ) events (N-obj) favorably (ADV ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[well→favorably])—regardless (ADV) of (PREP) how (ADV) they (PRON-subj) felt (V-past) while (CONJ) occurring (V-pres.PART).
SPOOK: well (universal good) → DISSOLUTION: I enjoy / evaluate favorably → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ Owned observation replaces universal claim
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All power corrupts.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.10a Persons who gain the ability to direct other persons often begin acting in ways that benefit themselves while harming those they direct—I have observed this pattern repeatedly.
39.10b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.with.ability]) who (PRON-rel) gain (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) ability (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→ability.to.direct]) to (PREP) direct (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj) often (ADV) begin (V-pres) acting (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) ways (N) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) while (CONJ) harming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[corrupts→harming]) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) direct (V-pres)—I (PRON-subj) have∿observed (V-pres.PERF) this (DET) pattern (N-obj) repeatedly (ADV).
SPOOK: corrupts → DISSOLUTION: persons acting to benefit selves while harming others → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from fatalism about “power”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All life has meaning.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.11a I assign significance to the experiences of living creatures I observe—though I cannot verify what significance, if any, other living creatures assign to their own experiences.
39.11b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[life.has→I.assign]) assign (V-pres) significance (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[meaning→significance]) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) experiences (N-obj) of (PREP) living (ADJ) creatures (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[life→living.creatures]) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) verify (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) significance (N-obj), if (CONJ) any (DET), other (DET) living (ADJ) creatures (N-subj) assign (V-pres) to (PREP) their (PRON-poss) own (DET) experiences (N-obj).
SPOOK: meaning → DISSOLUTION: significance (acknowledging it as assigned, not inherent) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from claiming “all life” possesses cosmic meaning?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All the evidence points to his guilt.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.12a The observations and objects that persons labeled “investigators” have presented lead me to believe this person did the action they accuse him of—though I have not examined all possible observations, and other persons might interpret these observations differently.
39.12b The (DEF.ART) observations (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[evidence→observations]) and (CONJ) objects (N-subj) that (PRON-rel) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[evidence.points→investigators.presented]) labeled (V-past.PART) “investigators” (N-label) have∿presented (V-pres.PERF) lead (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP) believe (V-inf) this (DET) person (N-subj) did (V-past) the (DEF.ART) action (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) accuse (V-pres) him (PRON-obj) of (PREP)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) have∿not (V-pres.NEG) examined (V-past.PART) all (DET) possible (ADJ) observations (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) might (V-modal) interpret (V-inf) these (DET) observations (N-obj) differently (ADV).
SPOOK: guilt → DISSOLUTION: did the action they accuse him of → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO selected which observations to present? WHO benefits from claiming “all”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love conquers all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.13a When I act with tenderness toward persons, I often overcome obstacles that seemed insurmountable—though sometimes tenderness fails to change outcomes, and I accept this.
39.13b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→I.act.with.tenderness]) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N) toward (PREP) persons (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) often (ADV) overcome (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[conquers→overcome]) obstacles (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→obstacles]) that (PRON-rel) seemed (V-past.PERCEPT) insurmountable (ADJ)—though (CONJ) sometimes (ADV) tenderness (N) fails (V-pres) to (PREP) change (V-inf) outcomes (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres) this (PRON-dem).
SPOOK: all → DISSOLUTION: obstacles + acknowledging limitations → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO benefits from the myth that “love conquers all”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society benefits when all contribute.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.14a Some persons around me receive useful things when other persons around me provide useful things—and those who receive often express approval, expecting each person to provide.
39.14b Some (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) receive (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[benefits→receive.useful.things]) useful (ADJ) things (N-obj) when (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→other.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) provide (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[contribute→provide]) useful (ADJ) things (N-obj)—and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) receive (V-pres) often (ADV) express (V-pres) approval (N-obj), expecting (V-pres.PART) each (DET) person (N-obj) to (PREP) provide (V-inf).
SPOOK: contribute → DISSOLUTION: provide useful things → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The expectation that “all” contribute often originates from those who receive
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All things must pass.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.15a The conditions I observe change over time—what I experience now will differ from what I experience later, and I accept this without treating it as cosmic command.
39.15b The (DEF.ART) conditions (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[things→conditions]) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) change (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[pass→change]) over (PREP) time (N)—what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres) now (ADV-time) will∿differ (V-fut) from (PREP) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) experience (V-pres) later (ADV-time), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) accept (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) without (PREP) treating (V-pres.PART) it (PRON-obj) as (PREP) cosmic (ADJ) command (N).
SPOOK: pass → DISSOLUTION: change over time → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ I accept impermanence without bowing to it as master
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
39.1 “The persons I encounter face threats from persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ if they act contrary to certain written rules—and many persons around me express approval of this arrangement.”
Standard English: “All people have a duty to obey the law.”
E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be” in original)
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (law → written rules + enforcement)
39.2 “I observe certain things and expect others to report similar observations—though I have not verified what each person actually observes.”
Standard English: “We all know the truth.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (know the truth → observe + expect similar reports)
39.3 “Certain persons who call themselves ‘judges’ distribute outcomes to some persons I observe—and persons around me expect each person to give up things, threatening unpleasant consequences otherwise.”
Standard English: “Justice for all requires sacrifice from everyone.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (sacrifice → give up things)
39.4 “Some persons I encounter express preferences similar to mine—though I have never met all persons who exist, and many persons I have not encountered likely prefer different things.”
Standard English: “All of humanity shares common values.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (common → similar to mine)
39.5 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face pressure from persons around them to mark ballots—and persons with weapons may apply unpleasant consequences to those who refuse.”
Standard English: “All citizens must vote.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (must → persons with weapons enforcing)
39.6 “The experiences I have enjoyed eventually stopped occurring—and I anticipate that experiences I currently enjoy will also stop.”
Standard English: “All good things come to an end.”
E-Prime strategies: E3/E7 (restructure to eliminate implied “is”)
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (come to an end → stopped occurring)
39.7 “Some persons who wrote texts for groups I label ‘religious’ expressed similar claims—though I have not read all such texts, and persons in those groups often disagree about what their texts mean.”
Standard English: “All religions teach the same fundamental truths.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truths → claims)
39.8 “Certain persons who wrote a document in 1776 claimed that persons possess similar characteristics at birth—though those writers excluded from their ‘all‘ persons they labeled ‘slaves’ and ‘women.’”
Standard English: “All men are created equal.”
E-Prime strategies: E1 (passive “are created” → claimed that persons possess)
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (equal → possess similar characteristics)
39.9 “When I reach an outcome I enjoy, I tend to evaluate the preceding events favorably—regardless of how they felt while occurring.”
Standard English: “All is well that ends well.”
E-Prime strategies: E7 (eliminate “is” through restructuring)
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (well → I enjoy / evaluate favorably)
39.10 “Persons who gain the ability to direct other persons often begin acting in ways that benefit themselves while harming those they direct—I have observed this pattern repeatedly.”
Standard English: “All power corrupts.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (all → I have observed / often)
39.11 “I assign significance to the experiences of living creatures I observe—though I cannot verify what significance, if any, other living creatures assign to their own experiences.”
Standard English: “All life has meaning.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (meaning → significance assigned)
39.12 “The observations and objects that persons labeled ‘investigators’ have presented lead me to believe this person did the action they accuse him of—though I have not examined all possible observations, and other persons might interpret these observations differently.”
Standard English: “All the evidence points to his guilt.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (all → acknowledging limitation)
39.13 “When I act with tenderness toward persons, I often overcome obstacles that seemed insurmountable—though sometimes tenderness fails to change outcomes, and I accept this.”
Standard English: “Love conquers all.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (all → obstacles + acknowledging limits)
39.14 “Some persons around me receive useful things when other persons around me provide useful things—and those who receive often express approval, expecting each person to provide.”
Standard English: “Society benefits when all contribute.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (all → other persons / each person)
39.15 “The conditions I observe change over time—what I experience now will differ from what I experience later, and I accept this without treating it as cosmic command.”
Standard English: “All things must pass.”
E-Prime strategies: None required
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (pass → change over time)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
39.1 The persons I encounter face threats from persons with weapons who call themselves “police” if they act contrary to certain written rules—and many persons around me express approval of this arrangement.
39.2 I observe certain things and expect others to report similar observations—though I have not verified what each person actually observes.
39.3 Certain persons who call themselves “judges” distribute outcomes to some persons I observe—and persons around me expect each person to give up things, threatening unpleasant consequences otherwise.
39.4 Some persons I encounter express preferences similar to mine—though I have never met all persons who exist, and many persons I have not encountered likely prefer different things.
39.5 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face pressure from persons around them to mark ballots—and persons with weapons may apply unpleasant consequences to those who refuse.
39.6 The experiences I have enjoyed eventually stopped occurring—and I anticipate that experiences I currently enjoy will also stop.
39.7 Some persons who wrote texts for groups I label “religious” expressed similar claims—though I have not read all such texts, and persons in those groups often disagree about what their texts mean.
39.8 Certain persons who wrote a document in 1776 claimed that persons possess similar characteristics at birth—though those writers excluded from their “all” persons they labeled “slaves” and “women.”
39.9 When I reach an outcome I enjoy, I tend to evaluate the preceding events favorably—regardless of how they felt while occurring.
39.10 Persons who gain the ability to direct other persons often begin acting in ways that benefit themselves while harming those they direct—I have observed this pattern repeatedly.
39.11 I assign significance to the experiences of living creatures I observe—though I cannot verify what significance, if any, other living creatures assign to their own experiences.
39.12 The observations and objects that persons labeled “investigators” have presented lead me to believe this person did the action they accuse him of—though I have not examined all possible observations, and other persons might interpret these observations differently.
39.13 When I act with tenderness toward persons, I often overcome obstacles that seemed insurmountable—though sometimes tenderness fails to change outcomes, and I accept this.
39.14 Some persons around me receive useful things when other persons around me provide useful things—and those who receive often express approval, expecting each person to provide.
39.15 The conditions I observe change over time—what I experience now will differ from what I experience later, and I accept this without treating it as cosmic command.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern all in E-Prime Max:
Adverb: “All alone,” “all the more”
The word creates an impression of completeness, universality, and exceptionless inclusion. English speakers use “all” to generalize, universalize claims, and create the appearance of consensus.
“We are all...” → requires transformation
In these cases, apply standard E-Prime strategies (E2-E8) while also examining “all” for spook potential.
All ranks HIGH on spook proximity because it commonly:
“We all know” → conscripts others into the speaker’s claim
“Justice for all” → “justice” as commanding abstraction
“All the evidence” → WHO selected the evidence?
“All citizens have duties” → WHO labeled them “citizens”?
“All people need love” → “The persons I encounter express desire for tenderness”
“Justice for all” → “Certain persons distribute outcomes to other persons”
“All men are created equal” → “Certain persons who wrote a document claimed persons possess similar characteristics—while excluding many persons from their ‘all’”
“All things must pass” → “I observe that conditions change over time”
“All believers share this faith” → “Persons whom others label ‘believers’ express similar claims”
RIGHT: “Some persons around me express desire to act without interference”
The E-Prime Max practitioner acknowledges they cannot verify what “all” persons want.
RIGHT: Dissolve BOTH—”some persons around me”
RIGHT: “I observe that...” (owning the claim)
RIGHT: “Persons I observe who gain ability to direct others often begin acting in ways that benefit themselves while harming those they direct” (pattern I observe)
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
“All the pages in this document” → specific, verifiable, shorthand I can discard
“We all know” → pressures agreement by claiming universal consensus
Am I using “all” to conscript others into my claim? If so → own it as “I”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) developed General Semantics on the principle that “the map does not equal the territory.” Human nervous systems abstract from experience, creating linguistic maps that we mistake for reality itself. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by developing E-Prime, demonstrating that the verb “to be” particularly encourages this confusion—leading speakers to treat their evaluations as statements about objective reality.
“All” functions as a cartographic claim about the territory: asserting that one has mapped every instance, counted every member, verified every case. General Semantics would ask: “All? According to whom? Verified when? By what method?”
Max Stirner (1806-1856) identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. In Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (The Unique and Its Property), Stirner exposed how abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Truth—demand service from living individuals who created them.
“All” enables spook function by:
Universalizing the particular: When someone claims “all people want X,” they project their own experience onto billions of persons they have never met. The abstraction “all people” then appears to demand X—a spook riding on universalized preference.
Creating false consensus: “We all know” conscripts others into the speaker’s position without verification. This move transforms individual opinion into apparent collective agreement—which then seems to command assent.
Hiding the speaker’s position: By claiming “all,” the speaker disappears into an apparent universal. “All must sacrifice” sounds like cosmic law rather than one person demanding others give up things.
Stirner would recognize these moves as the human becoming possessed by their own abstractions. The person who says “all of humanity demands justice” has created a phantom humanity that now seems to command them—and others.
E-Prime attacks predication: The assertion that X IS Y confuses map and territory, evaluation and fact. Eliminating “to be” forces speakers to acknowledge the evaluative, perspectival nature of their claims.
E-Prime Max attacks reification: Abstractions that appear as commanding agents—”justice demands,” “society expects,” “all must”—receive dissolution back into the persons, actions, and experiences from which they arose.
“All” in the synthesis: The word “all” itself does not violate E-Prime, but it enables the reification that E-Prime Max targets. “All people” creates the collective abstraction. “All must” grants it commanding power. “We all know” manufactures the consensus that makes the spook seem real.
The E-Prime Max practitioner learns to ask: When I say “all,” am I using owned shorthand for a countable, verifiable set? Or am I creating a phantom totality that will then seem to command me and others?
When “all” dissolves:
The speaker’s position appears. “We all know the truth” becomes “I observe X and expect others to report similarly.” The speaker cannot hide behind phantom consensus.
Specific persons appear. “All of humanity” becomes “some persons I encounter and read about.” The phantom collective dissolves into actual persons.
Limitations appear. “All the evidence” becomes “the observations that certain persons presented.” The claim to completeness dissolves into acknowledgment of selection and perspective.
Power relations appear. “All citizens must” becomes “persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face pressure from persons with weapons.” The commanding abstraction dissolves into persons threatening and enforcing.
Recognizing manipulation through universalization: Advertisements claim “everyone wants X.” Politicians assert “all the people demand Y.” Religious authorities invoke “all believers know Z.” These moves universalize particular claims to manufacture consent. Dissolution asks: WHO actually wants/demands/knows? How do you know about “all”?
Resisting conscription into claims: When someone says “we all” or “everyone knows,” they conscript the listener into their position. E-Prime Max provides the counter-move: “I observe X. I cannot speak for what you or others observe.”
Owning your own claims: Instead of hiding behind “all,” the practitioner owns their position: “I believe,” “I observe,” “I prefer.” This ownership creates vulnerability—the speaker cannot appeal to phantom consensus—but also freedom: the speaker claims only what they can stand behind.
Seeing through collective abstractions: “All of society,” “all of humanity,” “all persons” create phantoms that seem to possess collective will, common values, shared demands. Dissolution reveals: no “all” exists. Only individual persons exist, each with their own experiences, preferences, and choices.
On Infinite Regress: “Dissolution stops at ‘persons’ for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. ‘Persons’ itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.”
On Priesthoods: “The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. ‘Energy demands,’ ‘evolution selects,’ ‘the market decides’ → all spooks.”
On This Discipline Itself: “E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complexity, showing off dissolutions, correcting others’ spook-usage. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel superior has found a new master.”
On Anarchism: “Even ‘anarchy’ appears on the spook list. ‘Anarchy demands...’ → spook. No sacred words exist, not even ours.”
On “All” Itself: Dissolving “all” into “some” or “the persons I encounter” constitutes a useful pragmatic move, not a claim about what “really” exists. Perhaps “all persons” do share something; I cannot verify this. I can only speak to what I observe and acknowledge the limits of my observation.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“The people—that is the body; I—I am this body’s head. Is everything to go down before ‘the people’? Yes, to the people, this heap of individuals, the sacrifice shall be made. But I am not part of this heap: I am I. And what do I care whether all men, if they be no more than ‘all,’ have the same interest?”
— Max Stirner, The Unique and Its Property (1844)
F.1a Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) elsewhere (ADV)—they (PRON-subj) constitute (V-pres.REL) bodies (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj)—I (PRON-subj) constitute (V-pres.REL) this (DET) body (N-obj), this (DET) head (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[I.am.head→I.constitute.head]).
F.1b Do (AUX-ques) all (DET) things (N-subj) fall (V-pres) before (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) persons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj)”?
F.1c Yes (ADV), to (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj), this (DET) collection (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heap→collection]) of (PREP) individuals (N), certain (DET) persons (N-subj) expect (V-pres ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[sacrifice.shall.be.made→persons.expect.sacrifice]) others (N-obj) to (PREP) sacrifice (V-inf).
F.1d But (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG) belong (V-inf) to (PREP) this (DET) collection (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heap→collection]): I (PRON-subj) exist∿as (V-pres.EXIST) I (PRON-pred).
F.1e And (CONJ) why (ADV-ques) should (V-modal) I (PRON-subj) care (V-inf) whether (CONJ) all (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[men→persons])—if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) constitute (V-pres.REL) nothing (PRON) more (ADV) than (CONJ) “all“ (DET)—share (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) same (DET) interest (N-obj)?
Persons around me and elsewhere—they constitute bodies, and I—I constitute this body, this head. Do all things fall before “the persons around me”? Yes, to persons around me, this collection of individuals, certain persons expect others to sacrifice. But I do not belong to this collection: I exist as I. And why should I care whether all persons—if they constitute nothing more than “all”—share the same interest?
-
SPOOK: all men → DISSOLUTION: all persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (partial—Stirner’s point preserved)
This passage reveals Stirner’s critique of collective abstractions that parallels E-Prime Max methodology. Stirner distinguishes between “the people” (an abstraction that seems to demand sacrifice) and the actual persons who compose this phantom collective.
Notice that even Stirner’s original contains spooks: “the people” appears as an entity before which “everything” might fall. The dissolution exposes what Stirner himself implies but does not fully articulate: “the people” consists of persons around me, and certain persons among them expect others to sacrifice. No “people” exists to receive sacrifice—only specific persons expecting things from other specific persons.
Stirner’s rhetorical question about “all men” sharing the same interest anticipates E-Prime Max methodology. His answer: if they constitute nothing more than “all”—if they exist only as an aggregate without individual significance to me—why should their phantom “interest” command my action?
The dissolution preserves Stirner’s insight while clarifying: “all” names either a useful shorthand for countable persons, or a phantom totality that seems to command. The unique decides which function “all” serves in any given utterance.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The following 15 examples form a coherent mini-text examining how political rhetoric uses “all” to manufacture consent, create obligations, and hide specific power relations behind phantom universals.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All citizens owe allegiance to the nation.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.16a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from persons with weapons to express loyalty to an abstraction those officials call “the nation”—refusal brings consequences.
39.16b Persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→officials]) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) expectations (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[owe→backed.by.threat]) to (PREP) express (V-inf) loyalty (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[allegiance→express.loyalty]) to (PREP) an (INDEF.ART) abstraction (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[nation→abstraction]) those (DET) officials (N-subj) call (V-pres) “the (DEF.ART) nation” (N-label)—refusal (N-subj) brings (V-pres) consequences (N-obj).
SPOOK: nation → DISSOLUTION: abstraction officials call “nation” → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO created the abstraction “nation”? WHO benefits from demanding “allegiance”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy represents the will of all the people.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.17a Persons who call themselves “elected officials” claim to act according to what many persons around them prefer—though they cannot access what all persons prefer, and many persons express preferences contrary to what those officials do.
39.17b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[democracy→persons.calling.selves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “elected (ADJ) officials” (N-label) claim (V-pres) to (PREP) act (V-inf) according (ADV) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all.the.people→many.persons]) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj) prefer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→prefer])—though (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) access (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) all (DET) persons (N-subj) prefer (V-pres), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) express (V-pres) preferences (N-obj) contrary (ADJ) to (PREP) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) officials (N-subj) do (V-pres).
SPOOK: all the people → DISSOLUTION: many persons + acknowledging inaccessibility of “all” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from claiming to represent “all”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom requires that all obey the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.18a Certain persons who wish to act without interference from others also recognize that persons with weapons will interfere with them if they do not follow certain written rules—a tension I observe but which no “freedom” resolves.
39.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[freedom→persons.wishing]) who (PRON-rel) wish (V-pres) to (PREP) act (V-inf) without (PREP) interference (N) from (PREP) others (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) also (ADV) recognize (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will∿interfere (V-fut) with (PREP) them (PRON-obj) if (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) do∿not (V-pres.NEG) follow (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obey→follow]) certain (DET) written (ADJ) rules (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[law→written.rules])—a (INDEF.ART) tension (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) but (CONJ) which (PRON-rel) no (DET) “freedom” (N-subj) resolves (V-pres).
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: written rules + persons with weapons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from making “freedom” seem to require obedience?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All voices deserve to be heard in a democracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.19a I prefer that many persons get opportunities to express their views through channels that reach other persons—though I observe that certain persons control those channels, and many persons never get heard regardless of stated ideals.
39.19b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[deserve→I.prefer]) prefer (V-pres) that (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all.voices→many.persons]) get (V-pres) opportunities (N-obj) to (PREP) express (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heard→express.views]) their (PRON-poss) views (N-obj) through (PREP) channels (N) that (PRON-rel) reach (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[channel.control]) control (V-pres) those (DET) channels (N-obj), and (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) never (ADV) get∿heard (V-pres.PASS) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) stated (ADJ) ideals (N).
SPOOK: democracy → DISSOLUTION: stated ideals + actual channel control → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ The ideal “all” never manifests—certain persons control channels
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government acts in the interest of all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.20a Persons who call themselves “government officials” claim that their actions benefit many persons—though I observe that their actions benefit some persons while harming others, and no one has verified benefit to all.
39.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.calling.selves]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government (N) officials” (N-label) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) benefit (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[interest→benefit]) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→many.persons])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) benefit (V-pres) some (DET) persons (N-obj) while (CONJ) harming (V-pres.PART) others (N-obj), and (CONJ) no∿one (PRON) has∿verified (V-pres.PERF) benefit (N-obj) to (PREP) all (DET).
SPOOK: all → DISSOLUTION: many persons + no verification of “all” → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO defines “interest”? WHO benefits from claiming to act for “all”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All must pay taxes for the common good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.21a Persons with weapons whom officials employ will seize things from persons they can locate—those officials claim this seizure benefits many persons, though I observe that some persons receive more benefit than others from what gets seized.
39.21b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N-subj) employ (V-pres) will∿seize (V-fut ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[taxes→seize.things]) things (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→persons.they.locate]) they (PRON-subj) can∿locate (V-modal.pres)—those (DET) officials (N-subj) claim (V-pres) this (DET) seizure (N-subj) benefits (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[common.good→benefits.persons]) many (DET) persons (N-obj), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) receive (V-pres) more (DET) benefit (N-obj) than (CONJ) others (N-obj) from (PREP) what (PRON-rel) gets∿seized (V-pres.PASS).
SPOOK: common good → DISSOLUTION: benefits persons (with unequal distribution) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO receives most benefit? WHO enforces on behalf of whom?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands equal treatment for all.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.22a I prefer that persons who call themselves “judges” apply similar procedures to each person they encounter—though I observe that those persons apply different procedures depending on characteristics of those they encounter, despite claiming otherwise.
39.22b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[justice.demands→I.prefer]) prefer (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[justice→persons.calling.selves.judges]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) apply (V-pres) similar (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal→similar]) procedures (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[treatment→procedures]) to (PREP) each (DET) person (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→each.person]) they (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) apply (V-pres) different (ADJ) procedures (N-obj) depending (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) characteristics (N) of (PREP) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) encounter (V-pres), despite (PREP) claiming (V-pres.PART) otherwise (ADV).
SPOOK: all → DISSOLUTION: each person they encounter → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from the appearance of “equal treatment”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History shows that all empires eventually fall.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.23a Certain persons who wrote accounts of past events reported that various groups of persons with weapons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control—I observe this pattern in the accounts I have read, though I cannot verify what will happen to every such group.
39.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[history→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) accounts (N-obj) of (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N) reported (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shows→reported]) that (CONJ) various (DET) groups (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[empires→groups.of.persons]) of (PREP) persons (N) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) controlled (V-past) large (ADJ) territories (N-obj) eventually (ADV) lost (V-past ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[fall→lost.control]) that (DET) control (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) this (DET) pattern (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) accounts (N) I (PRON-subj) have∿read (V-pres.PERF), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) verify (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) will∿happen (V-fut) to (PREP) every (DET) such (DET) group (N).
SPOOK: fall → DISSOLUTION: lost control → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from fatalism about “empires”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All are equal before the law.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.24a Persons who wrote certain documents claimed that persons who call themselves “judges” should apply similar procedures to each person—though I observe that those judges apply different procedures depending on who appears before them and what resources those persons possess.
39.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) documents (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.calling.selves.judges]) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) should (V-modal) apply (V-inf) similar (ADJ ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[equal→similar]) procedures (N-obj) to (PREP) each (DET) person (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→each.person])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) those (DET) judges (N-subj) apply (V-pres) different (ADJ) procedures (N-obj) depending (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) who (PRON-rel) appears (V-pres) before (PREP) them (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) resources (N-obj) those (DET) persons (N-subj) possess (V-pres).
SPOOK: law → DISSOLUTION: persons who call themselves judges + documents + procedures → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
∴ WHO benefits from the appearance of equality while procedures vary?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rights of all must be protected.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.25a I prefer that persons with weapons refrain from certain actions toward each person—though I observe that those persons with weapons regularly perform those actions toward some persons while refraining toward others.
39.25b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[rights.protected→I.prefer]) prefer (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must.be.protected→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) refrain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[rights.protected→refrain.from.actions]) from (PREP) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) toward (PREP) each (DET) person (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→each.person])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) regularly (ADV) perform (V-pres) those (DET) actions (N-obj) toward (PREP) some (DET) persons (N-obj) while (CONJ) refraining (V-pres.PART) toward (PREP) others (N-obj).
SPOOK: all → DISSOLUTION: each person + acknowledging variation → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO gets protected? WHO enforces “protection”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All citizens share responsibility for their community.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.26a Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from persons around them to perform certain actions that benefit other persons nearby—though some persons perform more such actions than others, and some receive more benefit than they provide.
39.26b Persons (N-subj) whom (PRON-rel) officials (N) label (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[citizens→persons.labeled]) “citizens” (N-label) face (V-pres) expectations (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[responsibility→expectations]) from (PREP) persons (N) around (PREP) them (PRON-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[community→persons.nearby]) to (PREP) perform (V-inf) certain (DET) actions (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) nearby (ADV)—though (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) perform (V-pres) more (DET) such (DET) actions (N-obj) than (CONJ) others (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (N-subj) receive (V-pres) more (DET) benefit (N-obj) than (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) provide (V-pres).
SPOOK: community → DISSOLUTION: persons nearby → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO creates the expectations? WHO benefits from “shared responsibility”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The state protects all from violence.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.27a Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim to prevent other persons from harming persons they claim to protect—though those same persons with weapons regularly harm persons, and they protect some persons more effectively than others.
39.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[state→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “government” (N-label) claim (V-pres) to (PREP) prevent (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→prevent.harm]) other (DET) persons (N-obj) from (PREP) harming (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[violence→harming]) persons (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) claim (V-pres) to (PREP) protect (V-inf)—though (CONJ) those (DET) same (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) regularly (ADV) harm (V-pres) persons (N-obj), and (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) protect (V-pres) some (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→some.persons]) more (ADV) effectively (ADV) than (CONJ) others (N-obj).
SPOOK: violence → DISSOLUTION: harming → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO gets protected? WHO gets harmed?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “All power derives from the consent of the governed.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.28a Certain persons who wrote documents claimed that persons with the ability to direct others only legitimately possess this ability if those they direct agree—though I observe that persons with weapons direct others regardless of whether those others agreed, and no one has verified consent from “all“ governed persons.
39.28b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj) claimed (V-past) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[power→persons.with.ability]) with (PREP) the (DEF.ART) ability (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[power→ability]) to (PREP) direct (V-inf) others (N-obj) only (ADV) legitimately (ADV) possess (V-pres) this (DET) ability (N-obj) if (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) direct (V-pres) agree (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[consent→agree])—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) direct (V-pres) others (N-obj) regardless (ADV) of (PREP) whether (CONJ) those (DET) others (N-subj) agreed (V-past), and (CONJ) no∿one (PRON) has∿verified (V-pres.PERF) consent (N-obj) from (PREP) “all“ (DET) governed (ADJ) persons (N).
SPOOK: governed → DISSOLUTION: persons whom others direct → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
∴ WHO benefits from the consent mythology?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “We must all make sacrifices for the greater good.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.29a Certain persons expect me and persons around me to give up things—those persons claim this benefits more persons than the number who give things up, though I cannot verify this claim, and those making the claim often give up fewer things than those they address.
39.29b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[must→persons.expecting]) expect (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) and (CONJ) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[we.all→me.and.persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) to (PREP) give∿up (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifices→give.up]) things (N-obj)—those (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) this (PRON-dem) benefits (V-pres) more (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[greater.good→more.persons.benefited]) than (CONJ) the (DEF.ART) number (N) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) things (N-obj) up (PART), though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) verify (V-inf) this (DET) claim (N-obj), and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) making (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) claim (N-obj) often (ADV) give∿up (V-pres) fewer (DET) things (N-obj) than (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) they (PRON-subj) address (V-pres).
SPOOK: greater good → DISSOLUTION: benefits more persons than give things up (claimed) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO makes the claim? WHO gives up fewer things than those they address?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom for all remains the highest value.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
39.30a I prefer that each person can act without interference from others, and I rank this preference above other preferences I hold—though I observe that persons around me rank their preferences differently, and those with weapons often interfere with others despite stated ideals.
39.30b I (PRON-subj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[highest.value→I.prefer.and.rank]) prefer (V-pres) that (CONJ) each (DET) person (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[all→each.person]) can∿act (V-modal.pres) without (PREP) interference (N ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) from (PREP) others (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) rank (V-pres) this (DET) preference (N-obj) above (PREP) other (DET) preferences (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) hold (V-pres)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) rank (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) preferences (N-obj) differently (ADV), and (CONJ) those (PRON-dem) with (PREP) weapons (N) often (ADV) interfere (V-pres) with (PREP) others (N-obj) despite (PREP) stated (ADJ) ideals (N).
SPOOK: highest value → DISSOLUTION: I rank above other preferences → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
∴ WHO defines “highest”? WHO interferes despite claiming to value “freedom”?
39.16 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face expectations from persons with weapons to express loyalty to an abstraction those officials call ‘the nation’—refusal brings consequences.”
Standard English: “All citizens owe allegiance to the nation.”
39.17 “Persons who call themselves ‘elected officials’ claim to act according to what many persons around them prefer—though they cannot access what all persons prefer, and many persons express preferences contrary to what those officials do.”
Standard English: “Democracy represents the will of all the people.”
39.18 “Certain persons who wish to act without interference from others also recognize that persons with weapons will interfere with them if they do not follow certain written rules—a tension I observe but which no ‘freedom’ resolves.”
Standard English: “Freedom requires that all obey the law.”
39.19 “I prefer that many persons get opportunities to express their views through channels that reach other persons—though I observe that certain persons control those channels, and many persons never get heard regardless of stated ideals.”
Standard English: “All voices deserve to be heard in a democracy.”
39.20 “Persons who call themselves ‘government officials’ claim that their actions benefit many persons—though I observe that their actions benefit some persons while harming others, and no one has verified benefit to all.”
Standard English: “The government acts in the interest of all.”
39.21 “Persons with weapons whom officials employ will seize things from persons they can locate—those officials claim this seizure benefits many persons, though I observe that some persons receive more benefit than others from what gets seized.”
Standard English: “All must pay taxes for the common good.”
39.22 “I prefer that persons who call themselves ‘judges’ apply similar procedures to each person they encounter—though I observe that those persons apply different procedures depending on characteristics of those they encounter, despite claiming otherwise.”
Standard English: “Justice demands equal treatment for all.”
39.23 “Certain persons who wrote accounts of past events reported that various groups of persons with weapons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control—I observe this pattern in the accounts I have read, though I cannot verify what will happen to every such group.”
Standard English: “History shows that all empires eventually fall.”
39.24 “Persons who wrote certain documents claimed that persons who call themselves ‘judges’ should apply similar procedures to each person—though I observe that those judges apply different procedures depending on who appears before them and what resources those persons possess.”
Standard English: “All are equal before the law.”
39.25 “I prefer that persons with weapons refrain from certain actions toward each person—though I observe that those persons with weapons regularly perform those actions toward some persons while refraining toward others.”
Standard English: “The rights of all must be protected.”
39.26 “Persons whom officials label ‘citizens’ face expectations from persons around them to perform certain actions that benefit other persons nearby—though some persons perform more such actions than others, and some receive more benefit than they provide.”
Standard English: “All citizens share responsibility for their community.”
39.27 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘government’ claim to prevent other persons from harming persons they claim to protect—though those same persons with weapons regularly harm persons, and they protect some persons more effectively than others.”
Standard English: “The state protects all from violence.”
39.28 “Certain persons who wrote documents claimed that persons with the ability to direct others only legitimately possess this ability if those they direct agree—though I observe that persons with weapons direct others regardless of whether those others agreed, and no one has verified consent from ‘all‘ governed persons.”
Standard English: “All power derives from the consent of the governed.”
39.29 “Certain persons expect me and persons around me to give up things—those persons claim this benefits more persons than the number who give things up, though I cannot verify this claim, and those making the claim often give up fewer things than those they address.”
Standard English: “We must all make sacrifices for the greater good.”
39.30 “I prefer that each person can act without interference from others, and I rank this preference above other preferences I hold—though I observe that persons around me rank their preferences differently, and those with weapons often interfere with others despite stated ideals.”
Standard English: “Freedom for all remains the highest value.”
39.16 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from persons with weapons to express loyalty to an abstraction those officials call “the nation”—refusal brings consequences.
39.17 Persons who call themselves “elected officials” claim to act according to what many persons around them prefer—though they cannot access what all persons prefer, and many persons express preferences contrary to what those officials do.
39.18 Certain persons who wish to act without interference from others also recognize that persons with weapons will interfere with them if they do not follow certain written rules—a tension I observe but which no “freedom” resolves.
39.19 I prefer that many persons get opportunities to express their views through channels that reach other persons—though I observe that certain persons control those channels, and many persons never get heard regardless of stated ideals.
39.20 Persons who call themselves “government officials” claim that their actions benefit many persons—though I observe that their actions benefit some persons while harming others, and no one has verified benefit to all.
39.21 Persons with weapons whom officials employ will seize things from persons they can locate—those officials claim this seizure benefits many persons, though I observe that some persons receive more benefit than others from what gets seized.
39.22 I prefer that persons who call themselves “judges” apply similar procedures to each person they encounter—though I observe that those persons apply different procedures depending on characteristics of those they encounter, despite claiming otherwise.
39.23 Certain persons who wrote accounts of past events reported that various groups of persons with weapons who controlled large territories eventually lost that control—I observe this pattern in the accounts I have read, though I cannot verify what will happen to every such group.
39.24 Persons who wrote certain documents claimed that persons who call themselves “judges” should apply similar procedures to each person—though I observe that those judges apply different procedures depending on who appears before them and what resources those persons possess.
39.25 I prefer that persons with weapons refrain from certain actions toward each person—though I observe that those persons with weapons regularly perform those actions toward some persons while refraining toward others.
39.26 Persons whom officials label “citizens” face expectations from persons around them to perform certain actions that benefit other persons nearby—though some persons perform more such actions than others, and some receive more benefit than they provide.
39.27 Persons with weapons who call themselves “government” claim to prevent other persons from harming persons they claim to protect—though those same persons with weapons regularly harm persons, and they protect some persons more effectively than others.
39.28 Certain persons who wrote documents claimed that persons with the ability to direct others only legitimately possess this ability if those they direct agree—though I observe that persons with weapons direct others regardless of whether those others agreed, and no one has verified consent from “all” governed persons.
39.29 Certain persons expect me and persons around me to give up things—those persons claim this benefits more persons than the number who give things up, though I cannot verify this claim, and those making the claim often give up fewer things than those they address.
39.30 I prefer that each person can act without interference from others, and I rank this preference above other preferences I hold—though I observe that persons around me rank their preferences differently, and those with weapons often interfere with others despite stated ideals.
“All” in Political Rhetoric:
The Genre Section examines how political discourse uses “all” to manufacture consent, create obligations, and legitimate power. Key patterns dissolved:
Pattern 1: “All citizens” / “All the people” These phrases create phantom collectives that seem to authorize actions. Dissolution reveals: “citizens” and “people” name persons whom officials labeled—not self-constituting groups that can consent or demand.
Pattern 2: “Must” + “all” “All must pay,” “all must sacrifice,” “all must obey” create universal obligations. Dissolution reveals: specific persons expecting and enforcing, not cosmic commands.
Pattern 3: “For all” / “Interest of all” “Justice for all,” “freedom for all,” “the interest of all” invoke universal benefit. Dissolution reveals: some benefit, some harmed, no verification of “all.”
Pattern 4: “All” + passive “derives from” / “represents” “Power derives from the consent of all,” “democracy represents all” manufacture legitimacy. Dissolution reveals: claims certain persons made, not verified processes.
The Central Discovery:
“All” hides the persons with weapons who enforce
The E-Prime Max practitioner learns to ask: WHO counted “all”? WHO verified consent? WHO benefits from claiming “all”? WHO gets excluded from this “all”?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max, dissolving all spooks:
Exercise 1: Standard: “All members of society have an obligation to contribute.”
E-Prime Max: Persons whom others label “members” face expectations from persons around them to provide useful things—refusal brings expressions of disapproval and sometimes consequences from persons with resources or weapons.
all → persons (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “society” exists to impose obligations. Only persons exist who expect things from other persons and apply consequences for refusal. “All” masks who actually provides and who actually receives.
Exercise 2: Standard: “Truth serves all who seek it.”
E-Prime Max: I find that observing carefully and comparing observations with others helps me—though I cannot verify that this helps “all” who pursue similar practices, and some persons who observe carefully still encounter outcomes they did not anticipate.
all who seek → I + cannot verify “all” (D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ)
Revelation: “Truth” cannot serve anyone—only practices of observation and comparison exist. The claim about “all” extends beyond what the speaker can verify. The speaker owns their own experience while acknowledging its limits.
Exercise 3: Standard: “All people deserve respect.”
E-Prime Max: I prefer to act with consideration toward persons I encounter, and I wish other persons would act with consideration toward each other—though I observe that many persons act without consideration toward some persons while showing consideration to others.
respect → act with consideration (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Deserve” implies cosmic entitlement—dissolution reveals: someone prefers this. “All” claims universality the speaker cannot enforce. The dissolution owns the preference while observing that others act differently.
Exercise 4: Standard: “Morality binds all rational beings.”
E-Prime Max: Certain persons who wrote texts claimed that persons who reason in ways those writers approved should follow rules those writers specified—though persons who reason well often follow different rules, and no one has verified what “all” persons who reason actually do.
all rational beings → persons who reason + cannot verify “all” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ)
Revelation: “Morality” cannot bind—only persons can make claims about what others should do. “Rational beings” names those whom certain persons approve. “All” extends beyond verification.
Exercise 5: Standard: “All must bow before the law.”
E-Prime Max: Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” and “judges” will harm persons who act contrary to certain written rules those officials enforce—I observe this and adjust my actions accordingly, though I do not bow before an abstraction.
law → written rules + persons who enforce (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “law” exists to receive bowing—only written rules and persons with weapons who harm those who don’t follow. The speaker acknowledges adjusting actions without submitting to an abstraction. The unique decides what to do in the face of threat.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The E-Prime Max Language Course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime methodology with Max Stirner’s philosophy of spook dissolution, creating a comprehensive discipline for linguistic consciousness liberation.
The Latinum Institute has created language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts worldwide through the construed text methodology—presenting material in multiple formats that gradually remove scaffolding until the student reads pure target-language prose.
Practical dissolution exercises
Together: comprehensive spook dissolution through linguistic discipline
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 39
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson focuses on will, a modal auxiliary verb expressing future tense and volition.
The word will itself presents no E-Prime violation—it belongs to the modal auxiliary family, not the “to be” family. However, will carries exceptionally HIGH SPOOK PROXIMITY because it constantly appears in constructions where abstractions assume the role of future agents: “Justice will prevail,” “History will judge,” “Truth will emerge,” “The market will decide.” These sentences project spook agency into the future, making the abstraction seem inevitable rather than contingent on persons acting.
The Stirnerian challenge with will extends further: the word itself connects to volition, desire, and intention. Philosophers from Schopenhauer onward have reified “the Will” into a cosmic force. E-Prime Max practitioners must distinguish between will as a tool for expressing their own intentions (”I will go”) and will conscripted into service of spooks (”Freedom will triumph”).
FAQ: How does “will” function in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, will remains a permitted word when expressing the speaker’s own future actions or predictions about specific persons. The discipline requires vigilance against constructions where will grants future agency to abstractions—where spooks “will” do things that only persons can do.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
How “will” typically appears in E-Prime Max: To express the speaker’s own intentions, predictions about specific persons’ future actions, or neutral future events. “I will speak.” “She will arrive tomorrow.” “The sun will set.”
Common spooks to watch for with “will”: Political spooks projected into future (”Democracy will prevail”), moral spooks as future judges (”History will vindicate”), collective spooks as future agents (”The people will rise”), metaphysical spooks promising future revelation (”Truth will emerge”), and reified emotions as future forces (”Love will conquer”).
Recommended dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (dissolving future collective agents into specific persons who may act), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (dissolving abstract outcomes into concrete actions), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (exposing who benefits from projecting spook agency into the future).
What becomes visible when these spooks dissolve: Predictions about abstractions become predictions about persons. Future certainty becomes contingent possibility. Inevitable outcomes become choices that specific persons may or may not make. The question shifts from “What will happen?” to “What will specific persons choose to do?”
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice will prevail in the end.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.1a Certain persons may eventually act in ways I prefer, and I will call that outcome “just”—or they may not, and I will experience disappointment.
40.1b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→persons.acting]) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) act (V-inf) in (PREP) ways (N-obj) I (PRON-subj) prefer (V-pres), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) call (V-inf) that (DET) outcome (N-obj) “just” (N-label)—or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) experience (V-inf) disappointment (N-obj).
40.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Justice → DISSOLUTION: persons acting in ways I prefer → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will prevail → DISSOLUTION: may eventually happen, or may not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: in the end → DISSOLUTION: eventual outcome I will label → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists anywhere to prevail—only persons who may or may not act in certain ways
∴ The word “will” in the original granted false certainty to an abstraction
∴ The dissolution restores contingency: persons choose, outcomes vary
∴ WHO benefits from the promise that “justice will prevail”? Those who want others to wait rather than act.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge these actions harshly.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.2a Certain persons writing books in the future may describe these actions negatively, and other persons reading those books will form opinions—though neither I nor anyone else can predict what those persons will write or think.
40.2b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.writing.books]) writing (V-pres.PART) books (N-obj) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) future (N-time) may (V-modal) describe (V-inf) these (DET) actions (N-obj) negatively (ADV-manner), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) reading (V-pres.PART) those (DET) books (N-obj) will (V-modal.FUT) form (V-inf) opinions (N-obj)—though (CONJ) neither (DET) I (PRON-subj) nor (CONJ) anyone (PRON-subj) else (ADV) can (V-modal) predict (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) those (DET) persons (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) write (V-inf) or (CONJ) think (V-inf).
40.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: History → DISSOLUTION: persons writing books in the future → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will judge → DISSOLUTION: may describe, will form opinions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: harshly [as inevitable verdict] → DISSOLUTION: negatively, though unpredictable → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “History” exists to judge—only future persons who may write various things
∴ “History will judge” functions as a threat or promise made by present persons
∴ WHO benefits from invoking History’s future judgment? Those who want to influence present behavior through imagined future verdicts.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will set you free.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.3a When you observe certain things and tell others what you observed, you may find yourself able to act without hiding—and I will call that experience “freedom,” though you will define it for yourself.
40.3b When (CONJ-time) you (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres) certain (DET) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth→things.observed]) and (CONJ) tell (V-pres) others (N-obj) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) observed (V-past), you (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) find (V-inf) yourself (PRON-refl) able (ADJ-pred) to (PART) act (V-inf) without (PREP) hiding (V-pres.PART)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) call (V-inf) that (DET) experience (N-obj) “freedom” (N-label ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[free→able.to.act.without.hiding]), though (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) define (V-inf) it (PRON-obj) for (PREP) yourself (PRON-refl).
40.3c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: truth → DISSOLUTION: things you observe and report → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will set you free → DISSOLUTION: may find yourself able to act without hiding → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: freedom → DISSOLUTION: experience I will call “freedom,” you will define → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.3d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists as an agent to liberate anyone
∴ The original sentence promises automatic liberation through an abstraction
∴ The dissolution shows: YOU observe, YOU tell, YOU may experience something YOU will label
∴ WHO benefits from “the truth will set you free”? Those who define what counts as “truth.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The people will rise up against tyranny.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.4a Certain persons around me may eventually choose to stop obeying persons with weapons who give them orders, and those persons with weapons will then face a choice about how to respond.
40.4b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) choose (V-inf) to (PART) stop (V-inf) obeying (V-pres.PART) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) give (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) orders (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tyranny→persons.with.weapons.giving.orders]), and (CONJ) those (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) will (V-modal.FUT) then (ADV-time) face (V-inf) a (INDEF.ART) choice (N-obj) about (PREP) how (ADV-manner) to (PART) respond (V-inf).
40.4c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the people → DISSOLUTION: certain persons around me → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will rise up → DISSOLUTION: may eventually choose to stop obeying → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: tyranny → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons who give orders → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
40.4d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “people” exists as unified agent—only many persons who may or may not choose similarly
∴ No “tyranny” exists as abstract evil—only persons with weapons giving orders
∴ “Will rise up” promises inevitable collective action; dissolution shows contingent individual choices
∴ WHO benefits from “the people will rise”? Those who want others to act while they wait for the inevitable.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Love will conquer all obstacles.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.5a When I act with tenderness toward another person, I will often find myself able to overcome difficulties—though sometimes I will fail despite my tenderness.
40.5b When (CONJ-time) I (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) with (PREP) tenderness (N ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[love→I.act.with.tenderness]) toward (PREP) another (DET) person (N-obj), I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) often (ADV-freq) find (V-inf) myself (PRON-refl) able (ADJ-pred) to (PART) overcome (V-inf) difficulties (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[obstacles→difficulties])—though (CONJ) sometimes (ADV-freq) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) fail (V-inf) despite (PREP) my (PRON-poss) tenderness (N).
40.5c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Love → DISSOLUTION: I act with tenderness → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: will conquer → DISSOLUTION: will often find myself able to overcome, sometimes will fail → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: all obstacles → DISSOLUTION: difficulties (not all) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.5d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “love” exists to conquer anything—only persons choosing to act tenderly
∴ The original promised universal victory; dissolution shows partial success and possible failure
∴ “I will” replaces “Love will”—agency returns to the person
∴ WHO benefits from “love will conquer all”? Those who want tenderness without acknowledging its limits.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “She will come tomorrow.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.6a She will come tomorrow.
40.6b She (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) come (V-inf) tomorrow (ADV-time).
40.6c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: Original sentence → DISSOLUTION: No change required → STRATEGY: None
40.6d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present in original—specific person as agent
∴ “Will” expresses prediction about a person’s future action
∴ This demonstrates permitted use of “will” in E-Prime Max
∴ The unique decides when to arrive; the speaker predicts.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy will triumph over autocracy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.7a Persons who vote for representatives may eventually outnumber or overpower persons who obey a single ruler—or they may not—and I will observe whichever outcome occurs without knowing in advance.
40.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Democracy→persons.who.vote]) who (PRON-rel) vote (V-pres) for (PREP) representatives (N-obj) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) outnumber (V-inf) or (CONJ) overpower (V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[autocracy→persons.obeying.single.ruler]) who (PRON-rel) obey (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) single (ADJ) ruler (N-obj)—or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) whichever (DET) outcome (N-obj) occurs (V-pres) without (PREP) knowing (V-pres.PART) in (PREP) advance (N).
40.7c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Democracy → DISSOLUTION: persons who vote for representatives → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will triumph → DISSOLUTION: may eventually outnumber or overpower, or may not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: autocracy → DISSOLUTION: persons who obey a single ruler → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
40.7d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “democracy” or “autocracy” exists to triumph—only persons making different choices about ruling
∴ “Will triumph” promises historical inevitability; dissolution shows contingent outcomes
∴ “I will observe” replaces the false certainty of “will triumph”
∴ WHO benefits from “democracy will triumph”? Those who want to discourage present action with promises of inevitable victory.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “God’s will be done.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.8a Certain persons who wrote old books claimed a being they invented wanted certain things, and other persons today repeat those claims—and I will decide whether those claims serve me or whether I will discard them.
40.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[God→persons.who.wrote.old.books]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) invented (V-past) wanted (V-past) certain (DET) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[will→wanted.certain.things]), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) today (ADV-time) repeat (V-pres) those (DET) claims (N-obj)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) decide (V-inf) whether (CONJ) those (DET) claims (N-subj) serve (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) or (CONJ) whether (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) discard (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
40.8c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: God → DISSOLUTION: a being that certain persons invented → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: God’s will → DISSOLUTION: what those persons claimed this being wanted → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: be done [subjunctive wish] → DISSOLUTION: I will decide, I will discard → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
40.8d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “God” exists to have a “will”—only persons who claimed a being they invented wanted things
∴ “God’s will” functions as the ultimate spook: cosmic command from an invisible agent
∴ “I will decide” reclaims agency from the invented cosmic commander
∴ WHO benefits from “God’s will be done”? Those who claim to know what this invented being wants.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market will decide.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.9a Many persons will buy or refrain from buying, and from those many individual choices, certain outcomes will emerge—though no single decider exists.
40.9b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→many.persons.buying]) will (V-modal.FUT) buy (V-inf) or (CONJ) refrain (V-inf) from (PREP) buying (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) from (PREP) those (DET) many (DET) individual (ADJ) choices (N), certain (DET) outcomes (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) emerge (V-inf)—though (CONJ) no (DET) single (ADJ) decider (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[decide→no.single.decider]) exists (V-pres.EXIST).
40.9c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the market → DISSOLUTION: many persons buying or not buying → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will decide → DISSOLUTION: will buy or refrain, outcomes will emerge, no single decider → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.9d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “market” exists to decide—only many persons making individual choices
∴ “The market will decide” grants agency to an abstraction that masks whose choices count most
∴ “Many persons will” replaces “the market will”—revealing the actual agents
∴ WHO benefits from “the market will decide”? Those whose choices carry more weight in the aggregation.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “I will go to the store.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.10a I will go to the store.
40.10b I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) go (V-inf) to (PREP) the (DEF.ART) store (N-obj).
40.10c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
FORM: Original sentence → DISSOLUTION: No change required → STRATEGY: None
40.10d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No spooks present—first-person agent expressing intention
∴ “Will” expresses my own volition
∴ Permitted construction: I choose, I act, I will
∴ This exemplifies “will” serving the speaker rather than the speaker serving a spook.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress will solve our problems.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.11a Certain persons developing new techniques may find ways to address difficulties that other persons face—or they may not—and I will observe what happens without assuming solutions will emerge automatically.
40.11b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Progress→persons.developing.techniques]) developing (V-pres.PART) new (ADJ) techniques (N-obj) may (V-modal) find (V-inf) ways (N-obj) to (PART) address (V-inf) difficulties (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[problems→difficulties]) that (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) face (V-pres)—or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) happens (V-pres) without (PREP) assuming (V-pres.PART) solutions (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) emerge (V-inf) automatically (ADV-manner).
40.11c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Progress → DISSOLUTION: persons developing new techniques → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will solve → DISSOLUTION: may find ways to address, or may not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: our problems → DISSOLUTION: difficulties that persons face → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.11d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Progress” exists to solve anything—only persons who may or may not develop helpful techniques
∴ “Will solve” promises automatic outcomes; dissolution shows contingent possibilities
∴ “I will observe” replaces faith in Progress with attention to what persons actually do
∴ WHO benefits from “Progress will solve our problems”? Those who want inaction justified by faith in inevitable improvement.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Karma will punish the wicked.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.12a Certain persons may eventually experience misfortune, and other persons will say those persons deserved it—though I will recognize that such claims connect events without demonstrating causation.
40.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) experience (V-inf) misfortune (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Karma→persons.claiming.connection]) will (V-modal.FUT) say (V-inf) those (DET) persons (N-subj) deserved (V-past) it (PRON-obj)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) recognize (V-inf) that (CONJ) such (DET) claims (N-subj) connect (V-pres) events (N-obj) without (PREP) demonstrating (V-pres.PART) causation (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punish→connect.events.without.causation]).
40.12c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Karma → DISSOLUTION: persons who claim connection between actions and outcomes → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: will punish → DISSOLUTION: may experience misfortune, others will claim deserving → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: the wicked → DISSOLUTION: persons whom others label “wicked” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.12d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Karma” exists to punish—only persons who interpret events as connected to past actions
∴ No “wicked” persons exist—only persons whom other persons label “wicked”
∴ “I will recognize” replaces passive acceptance of karmic claims
∴ WHO benefits from “Karma will punish”? Those who want suffering explained and justified without intervention.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science will eventually explain everything.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.13a Persons conducting experiments will continue proposing explanations for phenomena, and I will find some of those explanations useful—though gaps will likely remain in what persons can explain.
40.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Science→persons.conducting.experiments]) conducting (V-pres.PART) experiments (N-obj) will (V-modal.FUT) continue (V-inf) proposing (V-pres.PART) explanations (N-obj) for (PREP) phenomena (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) find (V-inf) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) explanations (N-obj) useful (ADJ-pred)—though (CONJ) gaps (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) likely (ADV) remain (V-inf.STATE) in (PREP) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj) can (V-modal) explain (V-inf).
40.13c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Science → DISSOLUTION: persons conducting experiments → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will eventually explain → DISSOLUTION: will continue proposing explanations, gaps will likely remain → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: everything → DISSOLUTION: phenomena, some explanations useful → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.13d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Science” exists to explain—only persons who conduct experiments and propose explanations
∴ “Will eventually explain everything” grants false omniscience to an abstraction
∴ “I will find some useful” replaces passive faith with active evaluation
∴ WHO benefits from “Science will explain everything”? Those who constitute the scientific priesthood—and those who want others to defer to that priesthood.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Your conscience will guide you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.14a You will feel certain sensations when considering actions, and you will interpret those sensations however you choose—calling some “guidance” if that interpretation serves you.
40.14b You (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) feel (V-inf) certain (DET) sensations (N-obj ◊ᴼᵂᴺ[conscience→sensations.you.feel]) when (CONJ-time) considering (V-pres.PART) actions (N-obj), and (CONJ) you (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) interpret (V-inf) those (DET) sensations (N-obj) however (ADV-manner) you (PRON-subj) choose (V-pres)—calling (V-pres.PART) some (DET) “guidance” (N-label ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[guide→interpretation.you.choose]) if (CONJ) that (DET) interpretation (N-subj) serves (V-pres) you (PRON-obj).
40.14c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: conscience → DISSOLUTION: sensations you feel when considering actions → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
SPOOK: will guide → DISSOLUTION: will interpret however you choose → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
40.14d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “conscience” exists as separate guide—only sensations you experience
∴ “Will guide” suggests an inner commander; dissolution shows you interpreting your own sensations
∴ “You will interpret however you choose” returns agency to the person
∴ WHO benefits from “your conscience will guide you”? Those who trained you to feel certain sensations about certain actions—parents, teachers, priests.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Time will tell.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.15a Events will occur, persons will observe those events, and some persons will interpret those events as confirming or refuting present claims—though I will make my own interpretations.
40.15b Events (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) occur (V-inf), persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Time→persons.who.will.observe]) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) those (DET) events (N-obj), and (CONJ) some (DET) persons (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) interpret (V-inf) those (DET) events (N-obj) as (PREP) confirming (V-pres.PART) or (CONJ) refuting (V-pres.PART) present (ADJ) claims (N-obj)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) make (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) interpretations (N-obj).
40.15c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Time → DISSOLUTION: events occurring, persons observing and interpreting → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will tell → DISSOLUTION: will interpret, I will make my own interpretations → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
40.15d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Time” exists to tell anything—only events and persons who interpret them
∴ “Time will tell” defers judgment to an abstraction; dissolution shows persons interpreting
∴ “I will make my own interpretations” reclaims agency from Time
∴ WHO benefits from “time will tell”? Those who want to avoid present judgment while appearing wise.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
40.1 “Certain persons may eventually act in ways I prefer, and I will call that outcome ‘just’—or they may not, and I will experience disappointment.”
[Standard English: “Justice will prevail in the end.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required (no “to be” in original)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → persons acting), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (prevail → may eventually act), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (just → outcome I will call “just”)]
40.2 “Certain persons writing books in the future may describe these actions negatively, and other persons reading those books will form opinions—though neither I nor anyone else can predict what those persons will write or think.”
[Standard English: “History will judge these actions harshly.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons writing books in future), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → describe, form opinions)]
40.3 “When you observe certain things and tell others what you observed, you may find yourself able to act without hiding—and I will call that experience ‘freedom,’ though you will define it for yourself.”
[Standard English: “The truth will set you free.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → things you observe), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (set free → may find yourself able to act), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (freedom → experience I will call “freedom”)]
40.4 “Certain persons around me may eventually choose to stop obeying persons with weapons who give them orders, and those persons with weapons will then face a choice about how to respond.”
[Standard English: “The people will rise up against tyranny.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → persons around me), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (rise up → choose to stop obeying), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (tyranny → persons with weapons giving orders)]
40.5 “When I act with tenderness toward another person, I will often find myself able to overcome difficulties—though sometimes I will fail despite my tenderness.”
[Standard English: “Love will conquer all obstacles.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Love → I act with tenderness), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (conquer → overcome, sometimes fail)]
40.6 “She will come tomorrow.”
[Standard English: “She will come tomorrow.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—specific person as agent]
40.7 “Persons who vote for representatives may eventually outnumber or overpower persons who obey a single ruler—or they may not—and I will observe whichever outcome occurs without knowing in advance.”
[Standard English: “Democracy will triumph over autocracy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Democracy → persons who vote), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (autocracy → persons who obey single ruler), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (triumph → outnumber or overpower, or may not)]
40.8 “Certain persons who wrote old books claimed a being they invented wanted certain things, and other persons today repeat those claims—and I will decide whether those claims serve me or whether I will discard them.”
[Standard English: “God’s will be done.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → being that persons invented), D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God’s will → what those persons claimed), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (be done → I will decide, I will discard)]
40.9 “Many persons will buy or refrain from buying, and from those many individual choices, certain outcomes will emerge—though no single decider exists.”
[Standard English: “The market will decide.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the market → many persons buying), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (decide → buy or refrain, outcomes emerge)]
40.10 “I will go to the store.”
[Standard English: “I will go to the store.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: none required—first-person agent]
40.11 “Certain persons developing new techniques may find ways to address difficulties that other persons face—or they may not—and I will observe what happens without assuming solutions will emerge automatically.”
[Standard English: “Progress will solve our problems.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Progress → persons developing techniques), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (solve → may find ways to address, or may not)]
40.12 “Certain persons may eventually experience misfortune, and other persons will say those persons deserved it—though I will recognize that such claims connect events without demonstrating causation.”
[Standard English: “Karma will punish the wicked.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Karma → persons claiming connection), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (the wicked → persons labeled “wicked”), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punish → experience misfortune, others claim deserving)]
40.13 “Persons conducting experiments will continue proposing explanations for phenomena, and I will find some of those explanations useful—though gaps will likely remain in what persons can explain.”
[Standard English: “Science will eventually explain everything.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Science → persons conducting experiments), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (explain everything → proposing explanations, gaps will remain)]
40.14 “You will feel certain sensations when considering actions, and you will interpret those sensations however you choose—calling some ‘guidance’ if that interpretation serves you.”
[Standard English: “Your conscience will guide you.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (conscience → sensations you feel), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (guide → interpret however you choose)]
40.15 “Events will occur, persons will observe those events, and some persons will interpret those events as confirming or refuting present claims—though I will make my own interpretations.”
[Standard English: “Time will tell.”]
[E-Prime strategies: none required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Time → events, persons observing), D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (tell → I will make my own interpretations)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
40.1 Certain persons may eventually act in ways I prefer, and I will call that outcome “just”—or they may not, and I will experience disappointment.
40.2 Certain persons writing books in the future may describe these actions negatively, and other persons reading those books will form opinions—though neither I nor anyone else can predict what those persons will write or think.
40.3 When you observe certain things and tell others what you observed, you may find yourself able to act without hiding—and I will call that experience “freedom,” though you will define it for yourself.
40.4 Certain persons around me may eventually choose to stop obeying persons with weapons who give them orders, and those persons with weapons will then face a choice about how to respond.
40.5 When I act with tenderness toward another person, I will often find myself able to overcome difficulties—though sometimes I will fail despite my tenderness.
40.6 She will come tomorrow.
40.7 Persons who vote for representatives may eventually outnumber or overpower persons who obey a single ruler—or they may not—and I will observe whichever outcome occurs without knowing in advance.
40.8 Certain persons who wrote old books claimed a being they invented wanted certain things, and other persons today repeat those claims—and I will decide whether those claims serve me or whether I will discard them.
40.9 Many persons will buy or refrain from buying, and from those many individual choices, certain outcomes will emerge—though no single decider exists.
40.10 I will go to the store.
40.11 Certain persons developing new techniques may find ways to address difficulties that other persons face—or they may not—and I will observe what happens without assuming solutions will emerge automatically.
40.12 Certain persons may eventually experience misfortune, and other persons will say those persons deserved it—though I will recognize that such claims connect events without demonstrating causation.
40.13 Persons conducting experiments will continue proposing explanations for phenomena, and I will find some of those explanations useful—though gaps will likely remain in what persons can explain.
40.14 You will feel certain sensations when considering actions, and you will interpret those sensations however you choose—calling some “guidance” if that interpretation serves you.
40.15 Events will occur, persons will observe those events, and some persons will interpret those events as confirming or refuting present claims—though I will make my own interpretations.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern will in E-Prime Max:
Will functions as a modal auxiliary verb expressing future tense and volition. It precedes the base form of the main verb: “I will go,” “She will speak,” “They will arrive.” In questions, will inverts with the subject: “Will you help?” The contraction won’t expresses negation: “He won’t come.”
Beyond simple futurity, will can express volition and determination (”I will succeed”), habitual behavior (”Oil will float on water”), assumptions (”That will be the postman”), and polite requests (”Will you pass the salt?”).
Common constructions with will include: future promises (”I will help you”), predictions (”It will rain”), and statements of inevitability (”Truth will emerge”).
The word will poses no E-Prime violation. It belongs to the modal auxiliary family (can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, must) and shares no morphological connection with “to be.”
However, certain constructions containing will also contain forms of “to be” that require transformation:
Standard: “She will be happy.” → E-Prime: “She will feel happy.”
Standard: “It will be finished.” → E-Prime: “I will finish it.”
Standard: “There will be problems.” → E-Prime: “Problems will emerge.”
The word will itself remains; the “to be” component transforms.
Will carries HIGH SPOOK PROXIMITY because it constantly appears in constructions granting future agency to abstractions. The pattern [SPOOK] + will + [ACTION] pervades political, moral, religious, and collective discourse:
Category A (Moral Spooks): “Justice will prevail.” “Virtue will triumph.” “Sin will find you out.”
Category B (Political Spooks): “Democracy will win.” “The State will provide.” “Freedom will ring.”
Category C (Metaphysical Spooks): “Truth will emerge.” “God will provide.” “Fate will decide.”
Category D (Collective Spooks): “History will judge.” “Progress will solve.” “Humanity will evolve.”
Category E (Reified Emotion Spooks): “Love will conquer.” “Fear will destroy.” “Hope will sustain.”
In each case, an abstraction appears as future agent. E-Prime Max requires dissolving the spook back to persons who may or may not act.
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“History will vindicate me” → “Certain persons writing about past events in the future may describe my actions positively—though other writers may describe them negatively, and I will observe what they actually write.”
“Society will reject such behavior” → “Many persons around me may express displeasure at such behavior, and I will notice their reactions—though I will decide whether those reactions constrain me.”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“Justice will be served” → “The persons I harmed may receive compensation, and the persons with weapons may confine me—and certain observers will call that outcome ‘justice.’”
“Truth will out” → “Persons who observed events may eventually describe what they observed, and I will compare their descriptions with my own observations.”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure):
“Karma will repay” → “Certain persons who wrote texts in ancient India claimed that a cosmic force connects actions to outcomes, and other persons today repeat that claim—though I will examine whether that claim serves me or merely explains misfortune without preventing it.”
“The market will correct” → “Persons who teach economics claim that many individual transactions will produce equilibrium, and I will evaluate whether that claim helps me predict what persons will actually do.”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution):
“My conscience will not let me rest” → “I will feel discomfort when remembering what I did, and I will decide whether to act on that discomfort or dismiss it.”
“Fear will hold you back” → “You will feel sensations of contraction, and you will choose whether those sensations constrain your actions.”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“The guilty will suffer” → “Persons whom other persons label ‘guilty’ will experience pain—though I will examine who attaches that label and what they gain from doing so.”
“The righteous will prosper” → “Persons whom certain observers label ‘righteous’ may accumulate resources—though I will question whether the labeling follows the prospering rather than causing it.”
Mistake 1: Failing to notice spook + will constructions
A student might accept “Progress will solve this” without noticing that “Progress” functions as agent. The word will draws attention to action; the discipline requires asking WHO will act.
Mistake 2: Replacing one spook with another
Transforming “Justice will prevail” into “Karma will restore balance” merely substitutes spooks. True dissolution: “Certain persons may act in ways I prefer, and I will call that ‘justice.’”
Mistake 3: Retaining false certainty
“Persons will eventually act justly” retains the certainty that “Justice will prevail” falsely promised. E-Prime Max dissolution includes “may” and “or may not” to restore contingency.
Mistake 4: Overlooking first-person uses
Not every use of will requires dissolution. “I will go” involves no spook—the speaker functions as agent. The discipline targets constructions where abstractions appear as future agents.
For every construction containing will, ask: “Does this sentence project agency into an abstraction that will supposedly act in the future?”
If YES → Dissolve the spook to persons who may or may not act, and acknowledge the contingency.
If NO → The construction may pass, provided no “to be” forms lurk within it.
The deeper Stirnerian question: “WHO benefits from the promise that [SPOOK] will [ACT]?” Promises of future spook-action often serve present interests. “History will vindicate me” asks others to defer judgment. “Justice will prevail” asks the oppressed to wait. “The market will correct” asks persons to refrain from intervention. “Progress will solve our problems” asks persons to avoid present action.
The unique refuses to wait for spooks to act. The unique asks: What will I do? What will specific persons do? What will happen if we act or refrain from acting? The future dissolves into choices persons have not yet made—contingent, uncertain, and owned by those who will make them.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski insisted that “the map does not equal the territory”—that language structures perception and can mislead when confused with reality. D. David Bourland Jr. extended this insight by noting that forms of “to be” create false equations: “John is a failure” treats temporary behavior as permanent identity.
E-Prime addresses predication; E-Prime Max extends the discipline to reification—specifically to constructions where abstractions appear as agents. The modal auxiliary will frequently serves as the vehicle by which abstractions assume future agency: the spook does not merely exist but “will act.”
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) or “fixed ideas” as abstractions that possess the thinker rather than serving them. When persons treat Justice, the State, God, or History as real agents that demand service, they surrender their ownness (Eigenheit) to phantoms.
The construction [SPOOK] + will + [ACT] exemplifies this possession in temporal form. “History will judge” grants History future agency. “The people will rise” grants the collective future volition. “Truth will emerge” grants an abstraction future self-revelation. In each case, the spook appears not merely as a present concept but as a future actor.
Stirner would recognize this as an especially insidious form of spook-possession. The promise of future spook-action asks the living person to subordinate present choices to an abstraction’s supposed future behavior. “Wait—justice will prevail.” “Patience—history will vindicate.” “Trust—the market will correct.” The unique refuses such waiting.
E-Prime attacks predication: “X is Y” → “X appears/functions as Y.”
E-Prime Max attacks reification: “[SPOOK] will [ACT]” → “Persons may or may not [ACT], and I will observe/choose.”
The word will serves as bridge between present and future. When spooks cross that bridge, they assume ongoing agency that only persons possess. The discipline intercepts them at the crossing.
When “Justice will prevail” dissolves into “Certain persons may eventually act in ways I prefer,” several things become visible:
First, CONTINGENCY appears. The spook-construction promised certainty; the dissolution reveals possibility.
Second, PERSONS appear. “Justice” masks who might act and who might not.
Third, EVALUATION appears. “I prefer” acknowledges that I label outcomes “just”—they do not arrive with labels attached.
Fourth, MY AGENCY appears. “I will call that outcome ‘just’” places me as active evaluator rather than passive recipient of Justice’s triumph.
When “History will judge” dissolves into “Persons writing books in the future may describe these actions,” the questions emerge: WHICH persons? Writing for WHOM? With what PURPOSES? The singular “History” dissolves into many persons with many perspectives, none of whom can be predicted with certainty.
Recognizing manipulation through future-spook constructions: Politicians frequently invoke what History will do, what the People will do, what Freedom will do. Each invocation asks present persons to subordinate their judgment to an abstraction’s supposed future action. The E-Prime Max practitioner asks: “What will you do? What will I do? What will specific persons with names and interests do?”
Resisting passive waiting: “Progress will solve our problems” encourages waiting for a savior-abstraction. The dissolution reveals: persons may or may not develop helpful techniques, and I can act rather than wait.
Reclaiming future agency: Instead of “Love will conquer,” the unique says “I will act with tenderness, and I will observe what happens.” Instead of “Time will tell,” the unique says “I will observe events and make my own interpretations.” The future becomes a space for the unique’s choices, not a theater for spook-performances.
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE. When I say “persons will act,” I use a pragmatic shorthand that could itself dissolve further.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “The data will show,” “evolution will select,” “the algorithm will decide” → all spooks when the abstraction commands. No domain escapes the test.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. Watch for: pride in complex dissolutions, showing off circumlocutions, correcting others’ future-spook constructions, feeling superior for saying “persons may act” instead of “justice will prevail.” The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “Anarchy will flourish,” “Liberation will come,” “The revolution will free us” → all spooks projecting agency into abstractions. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
From Max Stirner’s Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), Wolfi Landstreicher translation:
“The divine has to worry about its own affairs, and so does the human. My affair is neither the divine nor the human; it is not the true, the good, the just, the free, etc., but only my own, and it is not general, but is unique, as I am unique. For me, nothing is higher than myself.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “The divine has to worry about its own affairs, and so does the human.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Those who speak of “the divine” and “the human” can worry about what they call those concepts—and I will attend to my own affairs.
F.1b Those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) speak (V-pres) of (PREP) “the (DEF.ART) divine” (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[divine→concept.persons.speak.of]) and (CONJ) “the (DEF.ART) human” (N ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[human→concept.persons.speak.of]) can (V-modal) worry (V-inf) about (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) those (DET) concepts (N-obj)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) attend (V-inf) to (PREP) my (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) affairs (N-obj).
F.1c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the divine → DISSOLUTION: concept persons speak of → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: the human → DISSOLUTION: concept persons speak of → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: has to worry → DISSOLUTION: those who speak of these concepts can worry → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
E-PRIME: is not → DISSOLUTION: I will attend → STRATEGY: E7 (state verb) + dissolution
F.1d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Even Stirner’s formulation granted agency to abstractions (”the divine,” “the human”)
∴ The dissolution shows: persons speak of concepts, I attend to my affairs
∴ “I will” replaces impersonal constructions with first-person volition
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “My affair is neither the divine nor the human; it is not the true, the good, the just, the free, etc., but only my own.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.2a My affair neither serves what persons call “divine” nor what they call “human”; it does not serve what they call “true,” “good,” “just,” or “free”—I will pursue only what serves me.
F.2b My (PRON-poss) affair (N-subj) neither (CONJ) serves (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[implied→persons.calling]) call (V-pres) “divine” (N-label) nor (CONJ) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “human” (N-label); it (PRON-subj) does (AUX) not (ADV-neg) serve (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “true,” (N-label) “good,” (N-label) “just,” (N-label) or (CONJ) “free” (N-label)—I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) pursue (V-inf) only (ADV) what (PRON-rel) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
F.2c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the true, the good, the just, the free → DISSOLUTION: what persons call “true,” “good,” “just,” “free” → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
E-PRIME: is neither / is not → DISSOLUTION: serves, does not serve → STRATEGY: E7
F.2d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ Stirner’s own language reified “the true,” “the good,” etc.
∴ Dissolution exposes them as labels persons attach
∴ “I will pursue” transforms passive description into active volition
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Those who speak of “the divine” and “the human” can worry about what they call those concepts—and I will attend to my own affairs. My affair neither serves what persons call “divine” nor what they call “human”; it does not serve what they call “true,” “good,” “just,” or “free”—I will pursue only what serves me.
This passage encapsulates Stirner’s project: refusing service to abstractions. Yet even Stirner’s formulation contains reified concepts (”the divine,” “the human,” “the true,” etc.) that E-Prime Max dissolves to labels persons attach.
The transformation reveals that Stirner’s radical claim—”My affair serves none of these”—becomes even more radical when we ask WHO calls things “divine,” “human,” “true,” or “good.” The answer: persons with purposes, persons who taught us these categories, persons who benefit when others serve these labels.
The phrase “I will pursue only what serves me” introduces explicit future volition where Stirner’s original used present-tense predication. This shift emphasizes that ownness involves ongoing choice, not merely a state to be described.
Even the Stirnerian texts require dissolution. This demonstrates the principle: NO AUTHORITY REMAINS SACRED, including Stirner himself. The E-Prime Max practitioner does not subordinate themselves to Stirner’s formulations any more than to Justice’s demands or History’s judgments.
The transformation preserves Stirner’s insight while dissolving its remaining spooks. “The divine” and “the human” become concepts persons speak of. “The true, the good, the just, the free” become labels persons attach. And throughout, “I will” asserts the speaker’s volition—the unique’s refusal to serve phantoms, expressed as ongoing choice rather than accomplished fact.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section examines how political discourse deploys future-spook constructions to manage present behavior. The fifteen examples form a coherent analysis of how “will” serves power when attached to abstractions.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation will remember your sacrifice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.16a Certain persons may eventually mention what you gave up, and other persons will forget entirely—I cannot promise you that anyone will remember.
40.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→certain.persons]) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) mention (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) you (PRON-subj) gave (V-past) up (PART), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) forget (V-inf) entirely (ADV-manner)—I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) promise (V-inf) you (PRON-obj) that (CONJ) anyone (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) remember (V-inf).
40.16c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the nation → DISSOLUTION: certain persons, other persons → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will remember → DISSOLUTION: may mention, will forget, cannot promise → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: your sacrifice → DISSOLUTION: what you gave up → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.16d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “nation” exists to remember—only persons who may or may not mention past events
∴ “Will remember” promises gratitude that cannot actually be guaranteed
∴ WHO benefits from “the nation will remember”? Those who want sacrifice now in exchange for promised future gratitude.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom will be restored after the emergency ends.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.17a The persons with weapons who currently prevent me from acting may eventually stop preventing me—or they may continue indefinitely—and I will decide whether to wait or to act now despite their interference.
40.17b The (DEF.ART) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.restricting]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) currently (ADV-time) prevent (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) from (PREP) acting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→acting.without.interference]) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) stop (V-inf) preventing (V-pres.PART) me (PRON-obj)—or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) continue (V-inf) indefinitely (ADV-time)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) decide (V-inf) whether (CONJ) to (PART) wait (V-inf) or (CONJ) to (PART) act (V-inf) now (ADV-time) despite (PREP) their (PRON-poss) interference (N).
40.17c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Freedom → DISSOLUTION: acting without interference → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will be restored → DISSOLUTION: persons may stop preventing, or may continue → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + E1
SPOOK: the emergency → DISSOLUTION: [context: label for present situation] → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.17d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “freedom” exists to return—only persons who may stop interfering (or may not)
∴ “Will be restored after the emergency” asks for patience without guaranteeing the end
∴ “I will decide” reclaims agency from those promising future freedom
∴ WHO benefits from “freedom will be restored”? Those currently restricting action.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law will protect you.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.18a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” may or may not intervene when others harm you—I will observe what they actually do rather than what words on paper promise.
40.18b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) may (V-modal) or (CONJ) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg) intervene (V-inf) when (CONJ-time) others (PRON-subj) harm (V-pres) you (PRON-obj)—I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) actually (ADV-manner) do (V-pres) rather (ADV) than (PREP) what (PRON-rel) words (N-subj) on (PREP) paper (N) promise (V-pres).
40.18c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the law → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons, words on paper → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will protect → DISSOLUTION: may or may not intervene → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.18d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists to protect—only words and persons who may or may not enforce them
∴ “Will protect” promises certainty; dissolution shows contingency
∴ “I will observe what they actually do” replaces faith with attention
∴ WHO benefits from “the law will protect you”? Those who want trust without accountability.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Your rights will be respected.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.19a Certain persons wrote documents listing behaviors they agreed to limit, and other persons with weapons may or may not follow those limits—I will watch what they do and respond accordingly.
40.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[rights→persons.who.wrote.documents]) wrote (V-past) documents (N-obj) listing (V-pres.PART) behaviors (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) agreed (V-past) to (PART) limit (V-inf), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may (V-modal) or (CONJ) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg) follow (V-inf) those (DET) limits (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) watch (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) and (CONJ) respond (V-inf) accordingly (ADV-manner).
40.19c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: rights → DISSOLUTION: behaviors persons agreed to limit → STRATEGY: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ
SPOOK: will be respected → DISSOLUTION: may or may not follow → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + E1
40.19d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “rights” exist as entities to be respected—only past agreements and present choices
∴ “Will be respected” promises compliance without guaranteeing it
∴ “I will watch and respond” asserts active engagement rather than passive trust
∴ WHO benefits from “your rights will be respected”? Those who want compliance without scrutiny.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The truth will come out eventually.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.20a Persons who observed events may eventually describe what they saw, or they may remain silent—I will not assume revelation occurs automatically.
40.20b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[truth→persons.who.observed]) who (PRON-rel) observed (V-past) events (N-obj) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) describe (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) saw (V-past), or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) remain (V-inf.STATE) silent (ADJ-pred)—I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) not (ADV-neg) assume (V-inf) revelation (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[truth.coming.out→revelation]) occurs (V-pres) automatically (ADV-manner).
40.20c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the truth → DISSOLUTION: what persons observed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will come out → DISSOLUTION: may describe, may remain silent → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
40.20d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “truth” exists to emerge—only persons who may or may not speak
∴ “Will come out” promises inevitable revelation; dissolution shows contingent silence
∴ “I will not assume” refuses passive faith in automatic disclosure
∴ WHO benefits from “the truth will come out”? Those who want others to wait rather than investigate.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The revolution will liberate the masses.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.21a If certain persons overpower the persons currently holding weapons, those who prevail will make choices about how to treat everyone else—and I will evaluate those choices by what they do to me, not by what labels they use.
40.21b If (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[revolution→persons.seeking.to.overpower]) overpower (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-obj) currently (ADV-time) holding (V-pres.PART) weapons (N-obj), those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) prevail (V-pres) will (V-modal.FUT) make (V-inf) choices (N-obj) about (PREP) how (ADV-manner) to (PART) treat (V-inf) everyone (PRON-obj) else (ADV)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) evaluate (V-inf) those (DET) choices (N-obj) by (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) do (V-pres) to (PREP) me (PRON-obj), not (ADV-neg) by (PREP) what (PRON-rel) labels (N-obj ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[masses→label]) they (PRON-subj) use (V-pres).
40.21c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the revolution → DISSOLUTION: persons seeking to overpower current weapon-holders → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will liberate → DISSOLUTION: will make choices about how to treat → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: the masses → DISSOLUTION: everyone else, label → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.21d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “revolution” exists to liberate—only persons who may gain power and then choose how to use it
∴ No “masses” exist as unified beneficiary—only many persons whom revolutionaries may or may not serve
∴ “I will evaluate by what they do to me” refuses abstract promises
∴ WHO benefits from “the revolution will liberate”? Those seeking power who want others to support them based on future promises.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy will hold the powerful accountable.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.22a Persons who vote may or may not remove officials who act against their interests—I will observe whether voting changes official behavior rather than assuming it will.
40.22b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Democracy→persons.who.vote]) who (PRON-rel) vote (V-pres) may (V-modal) or (CONJ) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg) remove (V-inf) officials (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[powerful→officials]) who (PRON-rel) act (V-pres) against (PREP) their (PRON-poss) interests (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) whether (CONJ) voting (V-pres.PART) changes (V-pres) official (ADJ) behavior (N-obj) rather (ADV) than (PREP) assuming (V-pres.PART) it (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT).
40.22c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Democracy → DISSOLUTION: persons who vote → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will hold accountable → DISSOLUTION: may or may not remove → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: the powerful → DISSOLUTION: officials → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
40.22d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “democracy” exists to hold anyone accountable—only persons who vote
∴ “Will hold accountable” promises outcomes that depend on many contingent choices
∴ “I will observe rather than assuming” replaces faith with attention
∴ WHO benefits from “democracy will hold accountable”? Those who want electoral participation without guaranteeing results.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy will recover.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.23a Many persons will make choices about buying, selling, hiring, and firing—and from those choices, patterns will emerge that I will observe and adapt to.
40.23b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.making.choices]) will (V-modal.FUT) make (V-inf) choices (N-obj) about (PREP) buying (V-pres.PART), selling (V-pres.PART), hiring (V-pres.PART), and (CONJ) firing (V-pres.PART)—and (CONJ) from (PREP) those (DET) choices (N), patterns (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[recovery→patterns.emerging]) will (V-modal.FUT) emerge (V-inf) that (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) and (CONJ) adapt (V-inf) to (PREP).
40.23c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the economy → DISSOLUTION: many persons making choices → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will recover → DISSOLUTION: patterns will emerge → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.23d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “economy” exists to recover—only many persons whose choices aggregate into patterns
∴ “Will recover” promises a direction; dissolution shows emergence without guaranteed direction
∴ “I will observe and adapt” asserts active response rather than passive waiting
∴ WHO benefits from “the economy will recover”? Those who want patience during hardship without promising when it will end.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion will shift in our favor.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.24a Certain persons may change what they say to pollsters, and I will observe whether their stated preferences translate into actions that help me.
40.24b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.opinion→persons.answering.polls]) may (V-modal) change (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) say (V-pres) to (PREP) pollsters (N-obj), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) observe (V-inf) whether (CONJ) their (PRON-poss) stated (ADJ) preferences (N-subj) translate (V-pres) into (PREP) actions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[shift.in.favor→actions.that.help]) that (PRON-rel) help (V-pres) me (PRON-obj).
40.24c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: public opinion → DISSOLUTION: what persons say to pollsters → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will shift in our favor → DISSOLUTION: may change, whether actions help me → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.24d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “public opinion” exists to shift—only persons who answer questions
∴ “Will shift” promises movement; dissolution shows contingent responses
∴ “I will observe whether actions help me” refuses to be satisfied by poll numbers
∴ WHO benefits from “public opinion will shift”? Those who want support based on promised future approval.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will absolve me.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.25a Future persons writing about past events may describe my actions favorably, or they may condemn me—and since I will not experience their verdicts, I will focus on whether my present actions serve me now.
40.25b Future (ADJ) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→future.persons.writing]) writing (V-pres.PART) about (PREP) past (ADJ) events (N-obj) may (V-modal) describe (V-inf) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-obj) favorably (ADV-manner), or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) condemn (V-inf) me (PRON-obj)—and (CONJ) since (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) not (ADV-neg) experience (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) verdicts (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[absolve→verdict]), I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) focus (V-inf) on (PREP) whether (CONJ) my (PRON-poss) present (ADJ) actions (N-subj) serve (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time).
40.25c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: History → DISSOLUTION: future persons writing about past events → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will absolve → DISSOLUTION: may describe favorably, may condemn → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.25d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “History” exists to absolve—only future persons who may write various things
∴ “Will absolve” promises future vindication; dissolution shows unpredictable verdicts
∴ “I will focus on present actions serving me now” refuses to trade present judgment for future hope
∴ WHO benefits from “History will absolve me”? Those who want present criticism silenced by promised future vindication.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice will be done.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.26a Certain persons with weapons will confine or punish other persons, and observers will attach the label “justice” to some of those actions—though I will evaluate each action by whether it serves me, not by the labels others attach.
40.26b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.enforcing]) with (PREP) weapons (N) will (V-modal.FUT) confine (V-inf) or (CONJ) punish (V-inf) other (DET) persons (N-obj), and (CONJ) observers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.labeling]) will (V-modal.FUT) attach (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) label (N-obj) “justice” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[Justice→label.attached]) to (PREP) some (DET) of (PREP) those (DET) actions (N-obj)—though (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) evaluate (V-inf) each (DET) action (N-obj) by (PREP) whether (CONJ) it (PRON-subj) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj), not (ADV-neg) by (PREP) the (DEF.ART) labels (N-obj) others (PRON-subj) attach (V-pres).
40.26c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Justice → DISSOLUTION: label observers attach to certain actions → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
SPOOK: will be done → DISSOLUTION: persons will confine or punish → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + E1
40.26d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “justice” exists to be done—only actions that persons will label “justice”
∴ “Will be done” promises completion of an abstraction; dissolution shows persons acting and labeling
∴ “I will evaluate by whether it serves me” refuses external verdicts
∴ WHO benefits from “justice will be done”? Those whose actions will receive the “justice” label.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The future will vindicate our cause.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.27a Persons not yet born will make their own judgments, and I cannot control what they will think—so I will pursue what serves me now rather than gambling on future approval.
40.27b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[future→persons.not.yet.born]) not (ADV-neg) yet (ADV-time) born (V-past.PART) will (V-modal.FUT) make (V-inf) their (PRON-poss) own (ADJ) judgments (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vindicate→make.judgments]), and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) control (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) think (V-inf)—so (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) pursue (V-inf) what (PRON-rel) serves (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) now (ADV-time) rather (ADV) than (PREP) gambling (V-pres.PART) on (PREP) future (ADJ) approval (N-obj).
40.27c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the future → DISSOLUTION: persons not yet born → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will vindicate → DISSOLUTION: will make their own judgments → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: our cause → DISSOLUTION: [what we pursue] → STRATEGY: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ
40.27d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “future” exists to vindicate—only persons who do not yet exist
∴ “Will vindicate our cause” promises approval from persons we cannot know
∴ “I will pursue what serves me now” refuses to mortgage present choices to future gamblers
∴ WHO benefits from “the future will vindicate”? Those who want present sacrifice for uncertain future reward.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law will catch up with them eventually.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.28a Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” may eventually confine those persons, or they may not—and I will decide whether to wait for that possibility or to act myself.
40.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.with.weapons]) with (PREP) weapons (N) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “police” (N-label) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) confine (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[catch.up→confine]) those (DET) persons (N-obj), or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) decide (V-inf) whether (CONJ) to (PART) wait (V-inf) for (PREP) that (DET) possibility (N-obj) or (CONJ) to (PART) act (V-inf) myself (PRON-refl).
40.28c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: the law → DISSOLUTION: persons with weapons calling themselves “police” → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will catch up → DISSOLUTION: may eventually confine, or may not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
40.28d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “law” exists to catch anyone—only persons who may or may not act
∴ “Will catch up eventually” promises enforcement without guaranteeing it
∴ “I will decide whether to wait or act” refuses passive reliance on promised enforcement
∴ WHO benefits from “the law will catch up”? Those who want others to wait rather than act independently.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Reason will prevail over superstition.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.29a Persons who test claims against observations may eventually outnumber persons who accept claims without testing—or they may not—and I will test claims myself rather than assuming the outcome.
40.29b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Reason→persons.testing.claims]) who (PRON-rel) test (V-pres) claims (N-obj) against (PREP) observations (N-obj) may (V-modal) eventually (ADV-time) outnumber (V-inf) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[superstition→persons.accepting.without.testing]) who (PRON-rel) accept (V-pres) claims (N-obj) without (PREP) testing (V-pres.PART)—or (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg)—and (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) test (V-inf) claims (N-obj) myself (PRON-refl) rather (ADV) than (PREP) assuming (V-pres.PART) the (DEF.ART) outcome (N-obj).
40.29c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: Reason → DISSOLUTION: persons who test claims against observations → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
SPOOK: will prevail → DISSOLUTION: may eventually outnumber, or may not → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: superstition → DISSOLUTION: persons who accept claims without testing → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ
40.29d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “Reason” exists to prevail—only persons who may or may not test claims
∴ No “superstition” exists to be conquered—only persons who accept untested claims
∴ “I will test claims myself” asserts personal practice rather than waiting for collective victory
∴ WHO benefits from “Reason will prevail”? The scientific priesthood—those who want deference now based on promised future triumph.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Your voice will be heard.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
40.30a You will make sounds or write words, and certain persons may or may not attend to those sounds and words—I cannot guarantee that anyone will listen or respond.
40.30b You (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) make (V-inf) sounds (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[voice→sounds.words]) or (CONJ) write (V-inf) words (N-obj), and (CONJ) certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[those.hearing]) may (V-modal) or (CONJ) may (V-modal) not (ADV-neg) attend (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[heard→attend.to]) to (PREP) those (DET) sounds (N-obj) and (CONJ) words (N-obj)—I (PRON-subj) cannot (V-modal.NEG) guarantee (V-inf) that (CONJ) anyone (PRON-subj) will (V-modal.FUT) listen (V-inf) or (CONJ) respond (V-inf).
40.30c ◊ᴰᴵˢˢᴼᴸᵁᵀᴵᴼᴺ∿ᴹᴬᴾ:
SPOOK: your voice → DISSOLUTION: sounds or words you make → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
SPOOK: will be heard → DISSOLUTION: persons may or may not attend → STRATEGY: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + E1
40.30d ◊ᴿᴱⱽᴱᴸᴬᵀᴵᴼᴺ:
∴ No “voice” exists as entity to be heard—only sounds and words you produce
∴ “Will be heard” promises reception without guaranteeing it
∴ “I cannot guarantee” refuses to make false promises
∴ WHO benefits from “your voice will be heard”? Those who want participation without guaranteeing attention.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
40.16 “Certain persons may eventually mention what you gave up, and other persons will forget entirely—I cannot promise you that anyone will remember.”
[Standard English: “The nation will remember your sacrifice.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → certain persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (remember → mention, forget)]
40.17 “The persons with weapons who currently prevent me from acting may eventually stop preventing me—or they may continue indefinitely—and I will decide whether to wait or to act now despite their interference.”
[Standard English: “Freedom will be restored after the emergency ends.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → acting without interference), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (restoration → persons stopping interference)]
40.18 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ may or may not intervene when others harm you—I will observe what they actually do rather than what words on paper promise.”
[Standard English: “The law will protect you.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (protect → intervene, may or may not)]
40.19 “Certain persons wrote documents listing behaviors they agreed to limit, and other persons with weapons may or may not follow those limits—I will watch what they do and respond accordingly.”
[Standard English: “Your rights will be respected.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (rights → behaviors persons agreed to limit), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (respected → follow limits)]
40.20 “Persons who observed events may eventually describe what they saw, or they may remain silent—I will not assume revelation occurs automatically.”
[Standard English: “The truth will come out eventually.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (truth → what persons observed), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (will come out → persons may describe or remain silent)]
40.21 “If certain persons overpower the persons currently holding weapons, those who prevail will make choices about how to treat everyone else—and I will evaluate those choices by what they do to me, not by what labels they use.”
[Standard English: “The revolution will liberate the masses.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (revolution → persons overpowering), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (liberate → make choices about treatment), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (masses → label)]
40.22 “Persons who vote may or may not remove officials who act against their interests—I will observe whether voting changes official behavior rather than assuming it will.”
[Standard English: “Democracy will hold the powerful accountable.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Democracy → persons who vote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (hold accountable → remove officials)]
40.23 “Many persons will make choices about buying, selling, hiring, and firing—and from those choices, patterns will emerge that I will observe and adapt to.”
[Standard English: “The economy will recover.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (economy → persons making choices), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (recover → patterns emerge)]
40.24 “Certain persons may change what they say to pollsters, and I will observe whether their stated preferences translate into actions that help me.”
[Standard English: “Public opinion will shift in our favor.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (public opinion → what persons say), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (shift in favor → actions that help)]
40.25 “Future persons writing about past events may describe my actions favorably, or they may condemn me—and since I will not experience their verdicts, I will focus on whether my present actions serve me now.”
[Standard English: “History will absolve me.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → future persons writing), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (absolve → describe favorably, condemn)]
40.26 “Certain persons with weapons will confine or punish other persons, and observers will attach the label ‘justice’ to some of those actions—though I will evaluate each action by whether it serves me, not by the labels others attach.”
[Standard English: “Justice will be done.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Justice → label attached), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (done → persons confining or punishing)]
40.27 “Persons not yet born will make their own judgments, and I cannot control what they will think—so I will pursue what serves me now rather than gambling on future approval.”
[Standard English: “The future will vindicate our cause.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (future → persons not yet born), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (vindicate → make judgments)]
40.28 “Persons with weapons who call themselves ‘police’ may eventually confine those persons, or they may not—and I will decide whether to wait for that possibility or to act myself.”
[Standard English: “The law will catch up with them eventually.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons with weapons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (catch up → confine)]
40.29 “Persons who test claims against observations may eventually outnumber persons who accept claims without testing—or they may not—and I will test claims myself rather than assuming the outcome.”
[Standard English: “Reason will prevail over superstition.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Reason → persons testing), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (superstition → persons accepting without testing)]
40.30 “You will make sounds or write words, and certain persons may or may not attend to those sounds and words—I cannot guarantee that anyone will listen or respond.”
[Standard English: “Your voice will be heard.”]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (voice → sounds and words), D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (heard → persons attending)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
40.16 Certain persons may eventually mention what you gave up, and other persons will forget entirely—I cannot promise you that anyone will remember.
40.17 The persons with weapons who currently prevent me from acting may eventually stop preventing me—or they may continue indefinitely—and I will decide whether to wait or to act now despite their interference.
40.18 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” may or may not intervene when others harm you—I will observe what they actually do rather than what words on paper promise.
40.19 Certain persons wrote documents listing behaviors they agreed to limit, and other persons with weapons may or may not follow those limits—I will watch what they do and respond accordingly.
40.20 Persons who observed events may eventually describe what they saw, or they may remain silent—I will not assume revelation occurs automatically.
40.21 If certain persons overpower the persons currently holding weapons, those who prevail will make choices about how to treat everyone else—and I will evaluate those choices by what they do to me, not by what labels they use.
40.22 Persons who vote may or may not remove officials who act against their interests—I will observe whether voting changes official behavior rather than assuming it will.
40.23 Many persons will make choices about buying, selling, hiring, and firing—and from those choices, patterns will emerge that I will observe and adapt to.
40.24 Certain persons may change what they say to pollsters, and I will observe whether their stated preferences translate into actions that help me.
40.25 Future persons writing about past events may describe my actions favorably, or they may condemn me—and since I will not experience their verdicts, I will focus on whether my present actions serve me now.
40.26 Certain persons with weapons will confine or punish other persons, and observers will attach the label “justice” to some of those actions—though I will evaluate each action by whether it serves me, not by the labels others attach.
40.27 Persons not yet born will make their own judgments, and I cannot control what they will think—so I will pursue what serves me now rather than gambling on future approval.
40.28 Persons with weapons who call themselves “police” may eventually confine those persons, or they may not—and I will decide whether to wait for that possibility or to act myself.
40.29 Persons who test claims against observations may eventually outnumber persons who accept claims without testing—or they may not—and I will test claims myself rather than assuming the outcome.
40.30 You will make sounds or write words, and certain persons may or may not attend to those sounds and words—I cannot guarantee that anyone will listen or respond.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Genre Section examined political discourse’s deployment of [SPOOK] + will + [ACT] constructions. Several patterns emerged:
Pattern 1: Promising future spook-action to justify present demands
“The nation will remember your sacrifice” asks for sacrifice now in exchange for promised future gratitude from an abstraction. The dissolution reveals: no “nation” exists to remember; only persons may or may not mention what you gave up.
Pattern 2: Projecting present desires onto inevitable futures
“History will absolve me” transforms a present wish into a future certainty. The dissolution reveals: “History” means future persons writing, and I cannot control what they will write.
Pattern 3: Asking persons to wait for spook-action rather than acting themselves
“Justice will be done,” “The law will catch up,” “Freedom will be restored” all ask for patience. The dissolution reveals contingency: persons may or may not act, and I can choose to wait or to act myself.
Pattern 4: Using future spook-action to avoid present accountability
“The economy will recover” and “Public opinion will shift” defer results to abstractions. The dissolution reveals: many persons will make choices, and patterns will emerge that I cannot predict.
Common grammatical features:
In each Standard English construction, an abstract noun occupied subject position while will granted it future agency. The dissolution strategy D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ consistently transformed these subjects into “certain persons” or “many persons” who “may or may not” act—restoring contingency where certainty was falsely promised.
The word will itself survived every dissolution—but now attached to specific persons (including “I”) rather than to abstractions. “History will judge” becomes “persons will write, and I will observe.” “The nation will remember” becomes “persons may mention, and I cannot promise.” The modal remains; the spook dissolves.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform the following Standard English sentences into E-Prime Max, showing complete dissolution.
Standard: “Faith will move mountains.”
E-Prime Max: “When I believe strongly that I can accomplish something, I may find myself taking actions I otherwise would have avoided—though mountains remain where they stand, and I will accomplish only what my body and available resources permit.”
mountains → physical obstacles, what my body permits (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “faith” exists to move anything. The dissolution shows: I believe, I act, I accomplish only what physics permits. WHO benefits from “faith will move mountains”? Those who want effort without acknowledging limits.
Standard: “The market will correct itself.”
E-Prime Max: “Many persons buying and selling will continue making choices, and prices will change as a result of those choices—though I will not assume the changes will benefit me.”
will correct itself → will continue making choices, prices will change (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “market” exists to correct itself. Persons make choices; prices change. “Correction” implies a right direction—but right for whom? WHO benefits from “the market will correct”? Those who want others to wait rather than intervene.
Standard: “Nature will heal.”
E-Prime Max: “Plants and animals will continue their processes, and the patterns I observe may change in ways I prefer—or the damage may persist beyond my lifetime.”
will heal → will continue processes, patterns may change (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “Nature” exists to heal—only organisms pursuing their own processes. “Healing” implies returning to a state I prefer—but ecosystems change regardless of human preferences. WHO benefits from “Nature will heal”? Those who want others to stop intervening in environmental damage.
Standard: “Necessity will force their hand.”
E-Prime Max: “Certain circumstances may pressure those persons to make choices they have avoided—though I cannot guarantee they will choose as I hope.”
their hand → those persons to make choices (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ)
Revelation: No “Necessity” exists to force anyone—only circumstances that persons may respond to in various ways. “Force” suggests inevitable compliance; dissolution shows contingent choices. WHO benefits from “necessity will force their hand”? Those who want to believe opponents have no alternatives.
Standard: “Peace will reign at last.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons may eventually stop harming each other in this region—or they may continue—and I will observe what they actually do rather than trusting promises of inevitable harmony.”
at last → [implied inevitability removed] (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “Peace” exists to reign—only persons who may or may not stop harming each other. “At last” promises inevitable arrival; dissolution shows uncertain outcome. WHO benefits from “peace will reign at last”? Those who want endurance during conflict justified by promised future resolution.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson forms part of the E-Prime Max curriculum developed by the Latinum Institute as part of its Consciousness Archaeology Project. The course synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s spook dissolution, creating a linguistic practice for reclaiming ownness from conceptual possession.
The Latinum Institute has produced language learning materials since 2006, serving autodidacts who prefer rigorous methodology and philosophical depth. The E-Prime Max curriculum extends this tradition by combining vocabulary acquisition with consciousness liberation.
Course Index: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
The methodology employs construed text—interlinear analysis showing the dissolution of each spook—so that students internalize patterns rather than memorizing rules. Through repeated exposure to transformations, the practitioner develops the capacity to see through abstractions automatically, recognizing WHO acts when spooks seem to command.
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 40
E-Prime Max extends E-Prime by eliminating not only the verb “to be” but also abstract nouns that function as “spooks” (Gespenster)—reified concepts that possess the thinker rather than serving them. This lesson focuses on who, the interrogative and relative pronoun that refers to persons.
Who occupies a privileged position in E-Prime Max practice. While most words require careful handling to avoid spook constructions, “who” serves as the primary instrument of dissolution. When an abstraction appears to act—”Society demands,” “Justice requires,” “The State forbids”—the E-Prime Max practitioner asks: “WHO actually does this?” The question dissolves the spook instantly.
This lesson demonstrates both the standard E-Prime challenges “who” presents (it commonly appears with “to be” in questions like “Who are you?”) and its unique power as a dissolution tool. D. David Bourland Jr. gave us E-Prime to attack predication; Max Stirner’s analysis reveals that the question “who?” attacks reification at its root.
Collective spooks: “Who speaks for humanity?” “Who represents the nation?”
Link: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does “who” mean in E-Prime Max?
In E-Prime Max, “who” functions as both an interrogative pronoun (asking questions about persons) and a relative pronoun (connecting clauses about persons). Unlike standard English, E-Prime Max constructions with “who” avoid the copula (”Who is...?”) and instead use active verbs (”Who did...?” “Who holds...?” “Who acts...?”). More importantly, “who” becomes the essential question for dissolving spooks—whenever an abstraction appears to command or act, asking “WHO actually does this?” reveals the persons behind the phantom.
-
What becomes visible: Behind every “society demands,” specific persons expect and disapprove. Behind every “the law requires,” persons with weapons threaten violence. Behind every “history teaches,” writers of books make claims. The question “who?” makes power relations visible.
“E-Prime Max serves you or it serves no one.”
“The moment this practice becomes obligation, identity, or performance—dissolve it.”
“Elaborate circumlocution to signal radicality = another master.”
“Discard this discipline at will. The unique decides.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Who is responsible for this?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.1a Who did this, and who expects me to find them?
41.1b Who (PRON-interrog) did (V-past) this (PRON-dem), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) expects (V-pres) me (PRON-obj) to∿find (V-inf) them (PRON-obj)?
E-PRIME: “is” → DISSOLUTION: did (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits from the abstraction “responsibility”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Who are you to question authority?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.2a Who gave you permission to question the persons who command here, and who granted them the right to command?
41.2b Who (PRON-interrog) gave (V-past) you (PRON-obj) permission (N-obj) to∿question (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[authority→persons.who.command]) who (PRON-rel) command (V-pres) here (ADV-place), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) granted (V-past) them (PRON-obj) the (DEF.ART) right (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[right→claim.to.command]) to∿command (V-inf)?
E-PRIME: “are” → DISSOLUTION: gave (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits when we treat “authority” as unchallengeable?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Society determines who is successful.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.3a Certain persons around me label some persons “successful” and treat them differently—but who among these persons decided this, and who benefits from the label?
41.3b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons.around.me]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) label (V-pres) some (DET) persons (N-obj) “successful” (N-label) and (CONJ) treat (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) differently (ADV-manner)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) among (PREP) these (DET) persons (N-obj) decided (V-past) this (PRON-dem), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) from (PREP) the (DEF.ART) label (N-obj)?
E-PRIME: “is” → DISSOLUTION: label (action verb) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits from the myth that “society” (not specific persons) decides success?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Who speaks for the people?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.4a Who claims to speak for many persons, and who among those many persons agreed to let this person speak for them?
41.4b Who (PRON-interrog) claims (V-pres) to∿speak (V-inf) for (PREP) many (DET) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[the.people→many.persons]), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) among (PREP) those (DET) many (DET) persons (N-obj) agreed (V-past) to∿let (V-inf) this (DET) person (N-obj) speak (V-inf) for (PREP) them (PRON-obj)?
SPOOK: “speaks for” (implying legitimate representation) → DISSOLUTION: claims to speak for / agreed to let → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits when we imagine “the people” as one voice?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The cat is hungry.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.5a The cat meows at the person who usually feeds her.
41.5b The (DEF.ART) cat (N-subj) meows (V-pres) at (PREP) the (DEF.ART) person (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) usually (ADV-freq) feeds (V-pres) her (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME: “is hungry” → DISSOLUTION: meows at the person who feeds (observable action) → STRATEGY: E7/E2
∴ “Who” here functions as relative pronoun connecting to a specific person
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Justice demands that criminals be punished.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.6a Who demands that persons who broke certain rules face confinement, and who decided which rule-breakers count as “criminals”?
41.6b Who (PRON-interrog ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Justice→who.demands]) demands (V-pres) that (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) broke (V-past) certain (DET) rules (N-obj) face (V-pres.SUBJUNC) confinement (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[punished→confinement]), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decided (V-past) which (DET) rule-breakers (N-subj) count (V-pres) as (PREP) “criminals” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[criminals→persons.labeled])?
E-PRIME: “be punished” → DISSOLUTION: face confinement → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO writes the rules? WHO attaches the labels? WHO holds the keys to the cages?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “History will judge who was right.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.7a Persons who write books about these events in future years will express opinions about who acted well—if anyone still cares to read them.
41.7b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[History→persons.who.write]) who (PRON-rel) write (V-pres) books (N-obj) about (PREP) these (DET) events (N-obj) in (PREP) future (ADJ) years (N-obj) will∿express (V-fut) opinions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[judge→express.opinions]) about (PREP) who (PRON-interrog) acted (V-past) well (ADV-manner)—if (CONJ) anyone (PRON-indef) still (ADV-time) cares (V-pres) to∿read (V-inf) them (PRON-obj).
E-PRIME: “was right” → DISSOLUTION: acted well → STRATEGY: E7
∴ WHO benefits from the idea that “History” (not persons) will vindicate them?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Morality tells us who deserves respect.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.8a Certain persons taught me from childhood who “deserves” my deference—but who taught them, and who benefits when I defer?
41.8b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Morality→persons.who.taught]) taught (V-past) me (PRON-obj) from (PREP) childhood (N-obj) who (PRON-interrog) “deserves” (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[deserves→label.attached]) my (PRON-poss) deference (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→deference])—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) taught (V-past) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) defer (V-pres)?
SPOOK: “respect” → DISSOLUTION: deference (concrete behavior) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the teaching? Trace the genealogy of the instruction.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The law is clear about who can vote.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.9a Persons who wrote certain documents specified who may mark ballots without facing penalties from persons with weapons.
41.9b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) documents (N-obj) specified (V-past) who (PRON-interrog) may (V-modal) mark (V-inf) ballots (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[vote→mark.ballots]) without (PREP) facing (V-pres.PART) penalties (N-obj) from (PREP) persons (N-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N-obj).
SPOOK: “can vote” → DISSOLUTION: may mark ballots without facing penalties → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO wrote those documents? WHO enforces the penalties?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Truth reveals who we really are.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.10a When I observe what I actually do—not what I tell myself—I notice who I serve and who I ignore.
41.10b When (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[Truth.reveals→I.observe]) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) actually (ADV-manner) do (V-pres)—not (ADV-neg) what (PRON-rel) I (PRON-subj) tell (V-pres) myself (PRON-refl)—I (PRON-subj) notice (V-pres) who (PRON-interrog) I (PRON-subj) serve (V-pres) and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) I (PRON-subj) ignore (V-pres).
E-PRIME: “are” → DISSOLUTION: serve/ignore (action verbs) → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits from the idea of a hidden “true self” waiting for revelation?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The market decides who wins and who loses.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.11a Many persons making buying and selling choices produce patterns that enrich some persons and impoverish others—but who set the rules for these exchanges, and who enforces them?
41.11b Many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[market→persons.buying.selling]) making (V-pres.PART) buying (N) and (CONJ) selling (N) choices (N-obj) produce (V-pres) patterns (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) enrich (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[wins→enrich]) some (DET) persons (N-obj) and (CONJ) impoverish (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[loses→impoverish]) others (PRON-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) set (V-past) the (DEF.ART) rules (N-obj) for (PREP) these (DET) exchanges (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) enforces (V-pres) them (PRON-obj)?
SPOOK: “wins/loses” (as objective outcomes) → DISSOLUTION: enrich/impoverish → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from treating “the market” as a natural force rather than a human construction?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The nation calls upon those who are brave.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.12a Certain persons with government positions call upon persons who will risk death for those officials’ purposes—and who named these risk-takers “brave”?
41.12b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[nation→persons.with.positions]) with (PREP) government (N) positions (N-obj) call (V-pres) upon (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) will∿risk (V-fut) death (N-obj) for (PREP) those (DET) officials’ (N-poss) purposes (N-obj)—and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) named (V-past) these (DET) risk-takers (N-obj) “brave” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[brave→label.attached])?
E-PRIME: “are brave” → DISSOLUTION: will risk death → STRATEGY: E1/E7
∴ WHO benefits when risk-takers receive honorific labels instead of questions?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “God knows who is worthy.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.13a Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they described knows who “deserves” rewards—but who benefits when I believe this?
41.13b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) certain (DET) old (ADJ) books (N-obj) claimed (V-past ◊ᴳᴱᴺ[origin.exposure]) that (CONJ) a (INDEF.ART) being (N-subj) they (PRON-subj) described (V-past) knows (V-pres) who (PRON-interrog) “deserves” (V-pres ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[worthy→deserves.label]) rewards (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) believe (V-pres) this (PRON-dem)?
E-PRIME: “is worthy” → DISSOLUTION: “deserves” rewards → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits when I accept that an invisible being grades my worth?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Who is the leader here?”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.14a Who among these persons gives commands that others follow, and who granted this person that position?
41.14b Who (PRON-interrog) among (PREP) these (DET) persons (N-obj) gives (V-pres) commands (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) others (PRON-subj) follow (V-pres), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) granted (V-past) this (DET) person (N-obj) that (DET) position (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “leader” (as inherent role) → DISSOLUTION: operational description of command/follow → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO benefits from the abstraction “leader” vs. “person others obey”?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Freedom belongs to those who fight for it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.15a Persons who resist others’ attempts to control them often face fewer restrictions—but who told them “freedom” names their goal, and who benefits from that framing?
41.15b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) resist (V-pres) others’ (PRON-poss) attempts (N-obj) to∿control (V-inf) them (PRON-obj) often (ADV-freq) face (V-pres) fewer (DET-comp) restrictions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[freedom→fewer.restrictions])—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) told (V-past) them (PRON-obj) “freedom” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[freedom→label]) names (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) goal (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) from (PREP) that (DET) framing (N-obj)?
E-PRIME: “Freedom is...” → DISSOLUTION: action-based description → STRATEGY: E1
∴ WHO benefits when we treat “freedom” as a thing rather than a pattern of relations?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
41.1 “Who did this, and who expects me to find them?”
[Standard English: “Who is responsible for this?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice—”is responsible” → “did”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (responsible → did this / expects)]
41.2 “Who gave you permission to question the persons who command here, and who granted them the right to command?”
[Standard English: “Who are you to question authority?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (active voice—”are you” → “gave you permission”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (authority → persons who command), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (right → claim to command)]
41.3 “Certain persons around me label some persons ‘successful’ and treat them differently—but who among these persons decided this, and who benefits from the label?”
[Standard English: “Society determines who is successful.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”is successful” → label + treat)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Society → persons around me), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (successful → label attached)]
41.4 “Who claims to speak for many persons, and who among those many persons agreed to let this person speak for them?”
[Standard English: “Who speaks for the people?”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required (no “to be”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (the people → many persons), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (speaks for → claims to speak / agreed to let)]
41.5 “The cat meows at the person who usually feeds her.”
[Standard English: “The cat is hungry.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (state verb—”is hungry” → “meows at person who feeds”)]
[Dissolution strategies: None required (concrete nouns only)]
41.6 “Who demands that persons who broke certain rules face confinement, and who decided which rule-breakers count as ‘criminals’?”
[Standard English: “Justice demands that criminals be punished.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”be punished” → face confinement)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Justice → Who demands), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (criminals → persons labeled), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (punished → confinement)]
41.7 “Persons who write books about these events in future years will express opinions about who acted well—if anyone still cares to read them.”
[Standard English: “History will judge who was right.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E7 (”was right” → “acted well”)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (History → persons who write), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (judge → express opinions)]
41.8 “Certain persons taught me from childhood who ‘deserves’ my deference—but who taught them, and who benefits when I defer?”
[Standard English: “Morality tells us who deserves respect.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Morality → persons who taught), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (deserves → label), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (respect → deference)]
41.9 “Persons who wrote certain documents specified who may mark ballots without facing penalties from persons with weapons.”
[Standard English: “The law is clear about who can vote.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”is clear” → specified)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (law → persons who wrote), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (vote → mark ballots without penalties)]
41.10 “When I observe what I actually do—not what I tell myself—I notice who I serve and who I ignore.”
[Standard English: “Truth reveals who we really are.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”are” → serve/ignore)]
[Dissolution strategies: D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Truth reveals → I observe), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (who we are → who I serve/ignore)]
41.11 “Many persons making buying and selling choices produce patterns that enrich some persons and impoverish others—but who set the rules for these exchanges, and who enforces them?”
[Standard English: “The market decides who wins and who loses.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (market → persons making choices), D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (decides → produce patterns; wins/loses → enrich/impoverish)]
41.12 “Certain persons with government positions call upon persons who will risk death for those officials’ purposes—and who named these risk-takers ‘brave’?”
[Standard English: “The nation calls upon those who are brave.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”are brave” → will risk death)]
[Dissolution strategies: D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (nation → persons with positions), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (brave → label attached)]
41.13 “Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they described knows who ‘deserves’ rewards—but who benefits when I believe this?”
[Standard English: “God knows who is worthy.”]
[E-Prime strategies: E1 (”is worthy” → deserves rewards)]
[Dissolution strategies: D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (God → persons who wrote + being they described), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (worthy → deserves label)]
41.14 “Who among these persons gives commands that others follow, and who granted this person that position?”
[Standard English: “Who is the leader here?”]
[E-Prime strategies: E6 (”is the leader” → gives commands that others follow)]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (leader → command/follow relations)]
41.15 “Persons who resist others’ attempts to control them often face fewer restrictions—but who told them ‘freedom’ names their goal, and who benefits from that framing?”
[Standard English: “Freedom belongs to those who fight for it.”]
[E-Prime strategies: None required]
[Dissolution strategies: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (freedom → fewer restrictions), D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (freedom as goal → label attached)]
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
41.1 Who did this, and who expects me to find them?
41.2 Who gave you permission to question the persons who command here, and who granted them the right to command?
41.3 Certain persons around me label some persons “successful” and treat them differently—but who among these persons decided this, and who benefits from the label?
41.4 Who claims to speak for many persons, and who among those many persons agreed to let this person speak for them?
41.5 The cat meows at the person who usually feeds her.
41.6 Who demands that persons who broke certain rules face confinement, and who decided which rule-breakers count as “criminals”?
41.7 Persons who write books about these events in future years will express opinions about who acted well—if anyone still cares to read them.
41.8 Certain persons taught me from childhood who “deserves” my deference—but who taught them, and who benefits when I defer?
41.9 Persons who wrote certain documents specified who may mark ballots without facing penalties from persons with weapons.
41.10 When I observe what I actually do—not what I tell myself—I notice who I serve and who I ignore.
41.11 Many persons making buying and selling choices produce patterns that enrich some persons and impoverish others—but who set the rules for these exchanges, and who enforces them?
41.12 Certain persons with government positions call upon persons who will risk death for those officials’ purposes—and who named these risk-takers “brave”?
41.13 Persons who wrote certain old books claimed that a being they described knows who “deserves” rewards—but who benefits when I believe this?
41.14 Who among these persons gives commands that others follow, and who granted this person that position?
41.15 Persons who resist others’ attempts to control them often face fewer restrictions—but who told them “freedom” names their goal, and who benefits from that framing?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These grammar and dissolution rules govern who in E-Prime Max:
Who serves two primary grammatical functions:
“Who wants coffee?”
“I know who took it.”
In both uses, “who” refers exclusively to persons (or entities treated as persons). For non-persons, English uses “what” or “which.”
Definition questions: “Who is a citizen?” “Who is eligible?”
E-Prime transformations for “who” questions:
“Who is that?” → “Who stands there?” / “Who just spoke?” / “Whom do I see?”
“Who are you?” → “What name do you go by?” / “Who sent you?” / “What do you want?”
“Who is responsible?” → “Who did this?” / “Who should I address?”
“Who was the winner?” → “Who won?” / “Who scored highest?”
The pattern: Replace “who + to be + noun/adjective” with “who + action verb.”
Who has NEGATIVE spook proximity—it serves as the primary dissolution instrument rather than appearing with spooks.
“The market decides...” → “WHO trades? WHO set the rules?”
“Who serves justice?” (presumes “justice” exists to serve)
In these cases, dissolve the spook while preserving the person-seeking function of “who.”
D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ (Personalization):
“Tradition dictates Z” → “WHO dictated this tradition?”
D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ (Operationalization):
“Who is worthy?” → “Who receives rewards and who distributes them?”
D3-◊ᴳᴱᴺ (Genealogical Exposure):
“Rights guarantee Z” → “WHO wrote these guarantees? WHO enforces them?”
D4-◊ᴼᵂᴺ (Ownership Attribution):
“Love shows who matters” → “When I feel tenderness, I notice who I protect”
D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ (Label Exposure):
“The brave shall inherit glory” → “WHO calls them brave? WHO benefits from the label?”
RIGHT: “Who among the persons around me expects whom to succeed?”
The first version preserves “society” as agent.
RIGHT: “Who gives commands that others follow?”
“Turns out to be” smuggles identity predication.
RIGHT: “Who” asks about roles, actions, and relations—not essences
“Who are you, really?” presumes a hidden essence. “What do you do?” “Who do you serve?” “What do you want?”—these ask about actions and relations.
Mistake 4: Forgetting the genealogical question
When dissolving moral/political spooks, always ask: WHO created this abstraction? WHO taught it? WHO benefits from belief in it?
“Does this concept serve me, or do I serve it?”
Applying the test to “who” constructions:
“Who expects me to confine this person?” → I seek actual persons behind the abstraction
“What do you want?” → They ask about my concrete desires and intentions
The question “who?” dissolves spooks when it demands persons. It reinforces spooks when it presupposes their existence as things persons can serve.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Alfred Korzybski warned that language creates “false-to-fact” representations when we confuse the map with the territory. The copula “to be” particularly generates identification errors: “He IS a criminal” treats a label as essence.
D. David Bourland Jr. developed E-Prime to combat this tendency. By eliminating “to be,” speakers must specify relations: “The court labeled him criminal,” “He committed acts that others call crimes.”
The interrogative “who” plays a special role in General Semantics: it demands specificity. “Society believes X” offers no verifiable referent. “WHO believes X?” demands persons one can identify, question, and potentially challenge.
Max Stirner identified “spooks” (Gespenster) as fixed ideas that possess the thinker rather than serving them. These abstractions—God, State, Humanity, Morality—present themselves as authorities demanding service.
The mechanism: Persons create abstractions → Abstractions appear as independent agents → Persons forget they created them → Persons serve their own creations.
Stirner’s dissolution move: Trace every abstraction back to the persons who benefit from it.
“The State” → persons with weapons who call themselves government “Morality” → teachings by persons who benefit from certain behaviors “God” → a character in books written by persons with purposes
The question “WHO?” performs this tracing automatically. “The State forbids this” → “WHO forbids this? WHO holds the weapons? WHO wrote the rules?”
E-Prime attacks predication: X IS Y E-Prime Max attacks reification: X DEMANDS/REQUIRES/FORBIDS
The interrogative “who” attacks reification by demanding the persons behind the abstraction.
Standard construction: “Justice demands punishment.” E-Prime only: “Justice demands punishment.” (No “to be”—but spook preserved) E-Prime Max: “WHO demands punishment? WHO benefits from calling this demand ‘justice’?”
The question “who?” completes the dissolution that E-Prime begins.
Behind “society”: Not a unified agent, but many persons with different wants, some of whom claim to speak for others.
Behind “the law”: Words written by certain persons, enforced by other persons with weapons, benefiting yet other persons.
Behind “morality”: Teachings passed from persons to persons, often serving the interests of those who do the teaching.
Behind “the market”: Persons making exchanges according to rules written by other persons and enforced by yet others.
Behind “history’s judgment”: Future persons who may or may not write books, expressing opinions based on their own circumstances.
The question “who?” makes power relations visible. Where we see “society demands,” we find persons who demand and persons who comply. Where we see “the law requires,” we find persons who command and persons with weapons.
Recognizing manipulation: When someone invokes an abstraction as authority—”Society expects,” “The law states,” “History will judge”—ask: WHO expects? WHO wrote that law? WHO will write that history?
Resisting possession: When you find yourself serving an abstraction—working for “justice,” fighting for “freedom,” defending “the nation”—ask: WHO benefits when I do this? Do I choose this service freely, or do I serve because I forgot I could refuse?
Reclaiming ownness: The question “who?” returns agency to persons. Not “What does morality demand?” but “What do I want?” Not “Who does society say I should become?” but “Who do I choose to serve, and why?”
On Infinite Regress: Dissolution stops at “persons” for pragmatic reasons, not metaphysical ones. “Persons” itself can dissolve—into bodies, sensations, patterns of perception. Even “who” presupposes a unified agent behind actions. We stop where USEFUL, not where TRUE.
On Priesthoods: The spook lists exemplify, they do not exhaust. ANY word becomes spook when appearing as agent. No priesthood—scientific, political, spiritual—grants immunity. “Evolution selects,” “The data shows,” “Research indicates”—all spooks when the abstraction commands. The question “WHO conducted this research? WHO benefits from these conclusions?” applies universally.
On This Discipline Itself: E-Prime Max can become a spook. The question “who?” can become ritual rather than inquiry. Watch for: asking “who benefits?” as performance rather than investigation, correcting others’ spook-usage to feel superior, treating dissolution as identity rather than tool. The moment this discipline becomes identity or performance, dissolve it. A student who uses E-Prime Max to feel radical has found a new master.
On Anarchism: Even “anarchy” appears on the spook list. “WHO speaks for anarchism? WHO benefits when I call myself anarchist?”—these remain valid questions. No sacred words exist, not even ours.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice; furthermore, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally even the cause of spirit and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never supposed to be my concern.”
— Max Stirner, Der Einzige und sein Eigentum (1844), opening passage
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
STIRNER ORIGINAL: “What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the good cause, then God’s cause, the cause of humanity, of truth, of freedom, of humaneness, of justice...”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
F.1a Persons around me have taught me to concern myself first with what they call “the good cause”—and who named this cause “good”? Then with what certain book-writers called “God’s cause”—and who wrote those books? Then with “humanity’s cause”—but who speaks for these billions of persons who never agreed on a common cause?
F.1b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[society→persons]) around (PREP) me (PRON-obj) have∿taught (V-perf) me (PRON-obj) to∿concern (V-inf) myself (PRON-refl) first (ADV-seq) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) call (V-pres) “the (DEF.ART) good (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ) cause (N-label)”—and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) named (V-past) this (DET) cause (N-obj) “good” (ADJ-label)? Then (ADV-seq) with (PREP) what (PRON-rel) certain (DET) book-writers (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[God→persons.who.wrote]) called (V-past) “God’s (N-poss) cause (N)”—and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) wrote (V-past) those (DET) books (N-obj)? Then (ADV-seq) with (PREP) “humanity’s (N-poss ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[humanity→billions.of.persons]) cause (N)”—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) speaks (V-pres) for (PREP) these (DET) billions (N) of (PREP) persons (N-obj) who (PRON-rel) never (ADV-neg) agreed (V-past) on (PREP) a (INDEF.ART) common (ADJ) cause (N-obj)?
E-PRIME: “is not supposed to be” → DISSOLUTION: have taught me → STRATEGY: E1
∴ The chain of “causes” appears as a chain of PERSONS teaching, writing, claiming
Persons around me have taught me to concern myself first with what they call “the good cause”—and who named this cause “good”? Then with what certain book-writers called “God’s cause”—and who wrote those books? Then with “humanity’s cause”—but who speaks for these billions of persons who never agreed on a common cause?
Stirner’s opening passage lists the “causes” that possess persons: good, God, humanity, truth, freedom, humaneness, justice, people, prince, fatherland, spirit. Each appears as an agent with its own cause that demands service.
“Humanity’s cause” → Who speaks for billions who never agreed?
The triple repetition of “who” in the transformation performs the dissolution: every abstraction dissolves when we demand the persons behind it.
Stirner’s opening passage brilliantly catalogs the spooks that possess persons. The E-Prime Max transformation goes further: it provides the METHOD for dissolution.
Freedom’s cause: WHO defines “freedom”? WHO benefits from that definition?
Even Stirner’s own formulations contain dissolvable elements. “Der Einzige” (The Unique One) can become a spook if reified—another category possessing the thinker. The question “who?” prevents this: not “What does the Unique demand?” but “What do I, this body, this moment, actually want?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This genre section applies the interrogative “who” systematically to political abstractions, demonstrating how E-Prime Max transforms analysis of power relations.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The government has decided to raise taxes.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.16a Certain persons who hold official positions voted to increase the money they will take from other persons—but who exactly voted, and who will collect the money?
41.16b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[government→persons.with.positions]) who (PRON-rel) hold (V-pres) official (ADJ) positions (N-obj) voted (V-past) to∿increase (V-inf) the (DEF.ART) money (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[taxes→money.taken]) they (PRON-subj) will∿take (V-fut) from (PREP) other (DET) persons (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) exactly (ADV) voted (V-past), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) will∿collect (V-fut) the (DEF.ART) money (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “decided” (as unified act) → DISSOLUTION: voted → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO voted? WHO collects? These questions reveal the actual power relations
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Democracy gives the people a voice.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.17a Under certain arrangements, many persons mark ballots periodically, and persons who count those ballots announce who received more marks—but who decided what choices appear on those ballots?
41.17b Under (PREP) certain (DET) arrangements (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[democracy→arrangements]), many (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[people→persons]) mark (V-pres) ballots (N-obj) periodically (ADV-freq), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) count (V-pres) those (DET) ballots (N-obj) announce (V-pres) who (PRON-interrog) received (V-past) more (DET) marks (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decided (V-past) what (DET) choices (N-subj) appear (V-pres) on (PREP) those (DET) ballots (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “a voice” → DISSOLUTION: mark ballots + count + announce → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO decides the choices? This question reveals hidden gatekeepers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The Constitution protects our rights.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.18a Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons today who call themselves “judges” sometimes cite those words when limiting what other persons with weapons may do—but who decides how to interpret those words?
41.18b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[Constitution→persons.who.wrote]) wrote (V-past) words (N-obj) on (PREP) paper (N-obj) long (ADV) ago (ADV-time), and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) today (ADV-time) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “judges” (N-label) sometimes (ADV-freq) cite (V-pres) those (DET) words (N-obj) when (CONJ) limiting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[protects→limiting]) what (PRON-rel) other (DET) persons (N-subj) with (PREP) weapons (N) may∿do (V-modal)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres) how (ADV) to∿interpret (V-inf) those (DET) words (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “rights” → DISSOLUTION: limits on what persons with weapons may do → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO interprets? WHO enforces? These persons hold the real power
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The party represents working-class interests.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.19a Certain persons who call themselves “party leaders” claim to act for persons who sell their labor—but who among those laborers chose these leaders, and who decides what counts as their “interests”?
41.19b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) themselves (PRON-refl) “party (N) leaders (N-label ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[party→persons.calling.selves])” claim (V-pres) to∿act (V-inf) for (PREP) persons (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[working-class→persons.who.sell.labor]) who (PRON-rel) sell (V-pres) their (PRON-poss) labor (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) among (PREP) those (DET) laborers (N-obj) chose (V-past) these (DET) leaders (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) counts (V-pres) as (PREP) their (PRON-poss) “interests” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ)?
SPOOK: “interests” (as objective) → DISSOLUTION: what someone decides counts as interests → STRATEGY: D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ
∴ “Class interests” dissolves into what specific persons want or what leaders claim they want
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Public opinion has shifted on this issue.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.20a Persons who conduct surveys report that more persons now answer certain questions differently than before—but who wrote those questions, and who decided which answers count as “opinion”?
41.20b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) conduct (V-pres) surveys (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[public.opinion→persons.who.survey]) report (V-pres) that (CONJ) more (DET) persons (N-subj) now (ADV-time) answer (V-pres) certain (DET) questions (N-obj) differently (ADV-manner) than (CONJ) before (ADV-time)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) wrote (V-past) those (DET) questions (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decided (V-past) which (DET) answers (N-subj) count (V-pres) as (PREP) “opinion” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ)?
SPOOK: “has shifted” → DISSOLUTION: more persons answer differently → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO frames the questions? This shapes what “opinion” can appear
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The international community condemns this action.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.21a Certain persons who represent governments issued statements expressing disapproval—but who among the billions of persons on Earth agreed to call these officials “the international community”?
41.21b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[international.community→officials]) who (PRON-rel) represent (V-pres) governments (N-obj) issued (V-past) statements (N-obj) expressing (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[condemns→expressing.disapproval]) disapproval (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) among (PREP) the (DEF.ART) billions (N) of (PREP) persons (N-obj) on (PREP) Earth (N) agreed (V-past) to∿call (V-inf) these (DET) officials (N-obj) “the (DEF.ART) international (ADJ) community (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ)”?
SPOOK: “condemns” → DISSOLUTION: issued statements expressing disapproval → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO do these officials actually represent? WHO gave them this title?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Terrorism threatens our way of life.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.22a Persons who use violence for political purposes sometimes kill other persons—and persons who call this violence “terrorism” benefit when others feel afraid and accept restrictions that protect those who govern.
41.22b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) use (V-pres) violence (N-obj) for (PREP) political (ADJ) purposes (N-obj) sometimes (ADV-freq) kill (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj)—and (CONJ) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) call (V-pres) this (DET) violence (N-obj) “terrorism” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[terrorism→label.attached]) benefit (V-pres) when (CONJ) others (PRON-subj) feel (V-pres) afraid (ADJ) and (CONJ) accept (V-pres) restrictions (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[threatens→causes.fear→accept.restrictions]) that (PRON-rel) protect (V-pres) those (PRON-dem) who (PRON-rel) govern (V-pres).
SPOOK: “threatens our way of life” → DISSOLUTION: causes fear + accept restrictions → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ The label “terrorism” serves those who apply it selectively
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The rule of law must prevail.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.23a Certain persons who wrote rules, and other persons who enforce them with weapons, want everyone to follow those rules—but who wrote them, who benefits from them, and who suffers when they apply?
41.23b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[law→persons.who.wrote]) who (PRON-rel) wrote (V-past) rules (N-obj), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) enforce (V-pres) them (PRON-obj) with (PREP) weapons (N), want (V-pres) everyone (PRON-obj) to∿follow (V-inf) those (DET) rules (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) wrote (V-past) them (PRON-obj), who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) from (PREP) them (PRON-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) suffers (V-pres) when (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) apply (V-pres)?
SPOOK: “must prevail” → DISSOLUTION: want everyone to follow → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ Triple “who” exposes the full chain: writers, beneficiaries, sufferers
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “National security requires sacrifices.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.24a Persons who hold government positions claim that protecting their power requires other persons to give up things—but who decides what counts as “security,” and who makes the sacrifices?
41.24b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[national.security→persons.with.positions]) who (PRON-rel) hold (V-pres) government (N) positions (N-obj) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) protecting (V-pres.PART ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[security→protecting.power]) their (PRON-poss) power (N-obj) requires (V-pres) other (DET) persons (N-obj) to∿give∿up (V-inf) things (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[sacrifices→give.up.things])—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) counts (V-pres) as (PREP) “security” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) makes (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) sacrifices (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “sacrifices” → DISSOLUTION: give up things → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “National” dissolves—whose nation? WHO included, who excluded?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Progress requires difficult choices.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.25a Persons who want certain changes claim those changes require choices that harm other persons—but who defined which changes count as “progress,” and who bears the harm?
41.25b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) want (V-pres) certain (DET) changes (N-obj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[progress→changes.persons.want]) claim (V-pres) those (DET) changes (N-subj) require (V-pres) choices (N-obj) that (PRON-rel) harm (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[difficult→harm]) other (DET) persons (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) defined (V-past) which (DET) changes (N-subj) count (V-pres) as (PREP) “progress” (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) bears (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) harm (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “difficult choices” → DISSOLUTION: choices that harm persons → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO labels certain changes “progressive”? WHO gets harmed by these choices?
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The economy needs stimulus.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.26a Certain persons who benefit from increased spending claim that more spending will help many persons—but who receives the money, and who eventually pays for it?
41.26b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[economy→persons.who.benefit]) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) increased (ADJ) spending (N) claim (V-pres) that (CONJ) more (DET) spending (N-subj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[stimulus→spending]) will∿help (V-fut) many (DET) persons (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) receives (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) money (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) eventually (ADV-time) pays (V-pres) for (PREP) it (PRON-obj)?
SPOOK: “needs stimulus” → DISSOLUTION: claim more spending will help → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO receives? WHO pays? These questions reveal distributional effects hidden by abstraction
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Tradition demands respect.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.27a Certain persons who benefit from continuing old practices expect me to continue those practices—but who established those practices, and who benefits when I defer to them?
41.27b Certain (DET) persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[tradition→persons.who.benefit]) who (PRON-rel) benefit (V-pres) from (PREP) continuing (V-pres.PART) old (ADJ) practices (N-obj ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tradition→old.practices]) expect (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[demands→expect]) me (PRON-obj) to∿continue (V-inf) those (DET) practices (N-obj)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) established (V-past) those (DET) practices (N-obj), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) defer (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[respect→defer]) to (PREP) them (PRON-obj)?
SPOOK: “demands respect” → DISSOLUTION: expect me to defer → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ WHO established? WHO benefits now? The genealogical question reveals interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Science tells us what is true.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.28a Persons who conduct experiments report what they observed, and other persons who repeated the experiments report whether they observed the same—but who decides which observations count as “scientific,” and who funds the research?
41.28b Persons (N-subj ◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ[science→persons.who.experiment]) who (PRON-rel) conduct (V-pres) experiments (N-obj) report (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[tells→report]) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) observed (V-past), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) repeated (V-past) the (DEF.ART) experiments (N-obj) report (V-pres) whether (CONJ) they (PRON-subj) observed (V-past) the (DEF.ART) same (PRON)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decides (V-pres) which (DET) observations (N-subj) count (V-pres) as (PREP) “scientific” (ADJ-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) funds (V-pres) the (DEF.ART) research (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “tells us what is true” → DISSOLUTION: report what they observed → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ + E1
∴ Even scientific institutions consist of persons with interests
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “Human nature determines our behavior.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.29a Persons who study bodies and brains report patterns they observe, and other persons claim these patterns explain why we act as we do—but who decided which patterns count as “human nature,” and who benefits when I believe my actions follow a fixed nature?
41.29b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) study (V-pres) bodies (N-obj) and (CONJ) brains (N-obj) report (V-pres) patterns (N-obj) they (PRON-subj) observe (V-pres), and (CONJ) other (DET) persons (N-subj) claim (V-pres) these (DET) patterns (N-subj) explain (V-pres ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[determines→explain]) why (ADV) we (PRON-subj) act (V-pres) as (CONJ) we (PRON-subj) do (V-pres)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) decided (V-past) which (DET) patterns (N-subj) count (V-pres) as (PREP) “human (ADJ) nature (N-label ◊ᴸᴬᴮ[human.nature→label]),” and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) I (PRON-subj) believe (V-pres) my (PRON-poss) actions (N-subj) follow (V-pres) a (INDEF.ART) fixed (ADJ) nature (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “determines” → DISSOLUTION: explain (weaker claim) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “Human nature” often serves those who want to discourage questioning
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ORIGINAL: “The future belongs to those who prepare for it.”
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
41.30a Persons who prepare for what they expect to happen often get what they want—but who told them what to expect, and who benefits when many persons prepare in the same way?
41.30b Persons (N-subj) who (PRON-rel) prepare (V-pres) for (PREP) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) expect (V-pres) to∿happen (V-inf ◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ[future→what.they.expect]) often (ADV-freq) get (V-pres) what (PRON-rel) they (PRON-subj) want (V-pres)—but (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) told (V-past) them (PRON-obj) what (PRON-rel) to∿expect (V-inf), and (CONJ) who (PRON-interrog) benefits (V-pres) when (CONJ) many (DET) persons (N-subj) prepare (V-pres) in (PREP) the (DEF.ART) same (ADJ) way (N-obj)?
SPOOK: “belongs to” → DISSOLUTION: often get what they want (correlation, not ownership) → STRATEGY: D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ
∴ “The future” often serves those who want to direct present preparation
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
41.16 “Certain persons who hold official positions voted to increase the money they will take from other persons—but who exactly voted, and who will collect the money?”
41.17 “Under certain arrangements, many persons mark ballots periodically, and persons who count those ballots announce who received more marks—but who decided what choices appear on those ballots?”
41.18 “Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons today who call themselves ‘judges’ sometimes cite those words when limiting what other persons with weapons may do—but who decides how to interpret those words?”
41.19 “Certain persons who call themselves ‘party leaders’ claim to act for persons who sell their labor—but who among those laborers chose these leaders, and who decides what counts as their ‘interests’?”
41.20 “Persons who conduct surveys report that more persons now answer certain questions differently than before—but who wrote those questions, and who decided which answers count as ‘opinion’?”
41.21 “Certain persons who represent governments issued statements expressing disapproval—but who among the billions of persons on Earth agreed to call these officials ‘the international community’?”
41.22 “Persons who use violence for political purposes sometimes kill other persons—and persons who call this violence ‘terrorism’ benefit when others feel afraid and accept restrictions that protect those who govern.”
41.23 “Certain persons who wrote rules, and other persons who enforce them with weapons, want everyone to follow those rules—but who wrote them, who benefits from them, and who suffers when they apply?”
41.24 “Persons who hold government positions claim that protecting their power requires other persons to give up things—but who decides what counts as ‘security,’ and who makes the sacrifices?”
41.25 “Persons who want certain changes claim those changes require choices that harm other persons—but who defined which changes count as ‘progress,’ and who bears the harm?”
41.26 “Certain persons who benefit from increased spending claim that more spending will help many persons—but who receives the money, and who eventually pays for it?”
41.27 “Certain persons who benefit from continuing old practices expect me to continue those practices—but who established those practices, and who benefits when I defer to them?”
41.28 “Persons who conduct experiments report what they observed, and other persons who repeated the experiments report whether they observed the same—but who decides which observations count as ‘scientific,’ and who funds the research?”
41.29 “Persons who study bodies and brains report patterns they observe, and other persons claim these patterns explain why we act as we do—but who decided which patterns count as ‘human nature,’ and who benefits when I believe my actions follow a fixed nature?”
41.30 “Persons who prepare for what they expect to happen often get what they want—but who told them what to expect, and who benefits when many persons prepare in the same way?”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
41.16 Certain persons who hold official positions voted to increase the money they will take from other persons—but who exactly voted, and who will collect the money?
41.17 Under certain arrangements, many persons mark ballots periodically, and persons who count those ballots announce who received more marks—but who decided what choices appear on those ballots?
41.18 Certain persons wrote words on paper long ago, and persons today who call themselves “judges” sometimes cite those words when limiting what other persons with weapons may do—but who decides how to interpret those words?
41.19 Certain persons who call themselves “party leaders” claim to act for persons who sell their labor—but who among those laborers chose these leaders, and who decides what counts as their “interests”?
41.20 Persons who conduct surveys report that more persons now answer certain questions differently than before—but who wrote those questions, and who decided which answers count as “opinion”?
41.21 Certain persons who represent governments issued statements expressing disapproval—but who among the billions of persons on Earth agreed to call these officials “the international community”?
41.22 Persons who use violence for political purposes sometimes kill other persons—and persons who call this violence “terrorism” benefit when others feel afraid and accept restrictions that protect those who govern.
41.23 Certain persons who wrote rules, and other persons who enforce them with weapons, want everyone to follow those rules—but who wrote them, who benefits from them, and who suffers when they apply?
41.24 Persons who hold government positions claim that protecting their power requires other persons to give up things—but who decides what counts as “security,” and who makes the sacrifices?
41.25 Persons who want certain changes claim those changes require choices that harm other persons—but who defined which changes count as “progress,” and who bears the harm?
41.26 Certain persons who benefit from increased spending claim that more spending will help many persons—but who receives the money, and who eventually pays for it?
41.27 Certain persons who benefit from continuing old practices expect me to continue those practices—but who established those practices, and who benefits when I defer to them?
41.28 Persons who conduct experiments report what they observed, and other persons who repeated the experiments report whether they observed the same—but who decides which observations count as “scientific,” and who funds the research?
41.29 Persons who study bodies and brains report patterns they observe, and other persons claim these patterns explain why we act as we do—but who decided which patterns count as “human nature,” and who benefits when I believe my actions follow a fixed nature?
41.30 Persons who prepare for what they expect to happen often get what they want—but who told them what to expect, and who benefits when many persons prepare in the same way?
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The political analysis genre demonstrates the systematic application of “who?” to dissolve political abstractions.
Pattern observed: Political discourse relies heavily on collective agents—government, the people, the international community, the economy, national security. Each functions as a spook when it appears to act, decide, require, or demand.
Ask “WHO suffers?” to complete the power analysis
WHO benefits/suffers?
This triple structure comprehensively dissolves political abstractions by revealing agents, origins, and distributional effects.
On “scientific” spooks: Example 41.28 demonstrates that even scientific institutions consist of persons with interests. Asking “WHO decides what counts as scientific?” and “WHO funds the research?” does not reject empirical inquiry—it recognizes that persons conduct inquiry and institutions shape what gets studied.
On reflexive questions: Several examples end with “who benefits when I believe X?” This reflexive move applies dissolution to the effect of the spook on the speaker, revealing how belief in the abstraction serves certain persons.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Transform these Standard English sentences containing spooks and “who” into E-Prime Max:
Exercise 1
Standard: “Who is the real authority on this matter?”
E-Prime Max: “Who gives commands about this matter that others follow, and who granted this person the position to command?”
“real authority” → “person who commands + who granted position” (D1-◊ᴾᴱᴿˢ + D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: No “authority” exists as essence—only persons commanding and persons obeying, plus the chain of authorization.
Exercise 2
Standard: “Society must decide who deserves help.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons around me express opinions about who should receive assistance—but who among them will actually provide it?”
“deserves” → “should receive” (softened to opinion)
Revelation: No “society” decides—only persons with opinions. WHO will actually act? That question cuts through endless debate.
Exercise 3
Standard: “History remembers who was truly great.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who write books in future years may or may not mention persons who lived now—and who will decide what counts as ‘greatness’ then?”
“was truly great” → “what counts as ‘greatness’” (D5-◊ᴸᴬᴮ + E1)
Revelation: No “History” remembers—future persons may write. “Greatness” exists as a label future persons may or may not apply.
Exercise 4
Standard: “The law doesn’t care who you are.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who enforce rules with weapons claim they apply those rules regardless of who faces enforcement—but who observes whether they actually do?”
“who you are” → “who faces enforcement” (E1—avoiding identity predication)
Revelation: “Law” cannot care—only persons enforce. The claim of impartiality requires verification: WHO checks?
Exercise 5
Standard: “Freedom is for those who want it.”
E-Prime Max: “Persons who resist others’ control sometimes face fewer restrictions—but who told them to call this ‘freedom,’ and who among those who want fewer restrictions actually achieves them?”
“those who want it” → “who want fewer restrictions + who achieves” (D2-◊ᴼᴾᴱᴿ)
Revelation: “Freedom” exists as a label for certain conditions, not a thing to possess. WHO achieves these conditions? That question matters more than the abstraction.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
The Latinum Institute has developed language learning materials since 2006, pioneering the construed text methodology for autodidact students. This E-Prime Max course applies the same principles to English itself: by seeing the hidden structures of our own language, we develop the capacity to think and write more precisely.
The E-Prime Max curriculum synthesizes D. David Bourland Jr.’s E-Prime discipline with Max Stirner’s analysis of “fixed ideas” (Gespenster). Bourland showed that eliminating the verb “to be” reduces dogmatic thinking. Stirner showed that abstract nouns—when they appear as agents demanding service—function as possessing spirits. Together, these insights enable comprehensive “spook dissolution” through linguistic discipline.
This course follows a 1000-word CSV vocabulary system, ensuring systematic coverage while maintaining the E-Prime Max focus on spook identification and dissolution. Each lesson introduces a common English word while demonstrating its use in spook-free constructions.
Reviews: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
@ᶠᴵᴺᴬᴸ.ᵂᴬᴿᴺᴵᴺᴳ
Remember: This discipline exists to serve you, not the reverse. The moment E-Prime Max becomes obligation, identity, or a way to feel superior to others—you have found another spook. Longer chains remain chains nonetheless. Use this practice while useful. Discard when not. The unique decides, always.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
“Ich hab’ mein Sach’ auf Nichts gestellt.” I have placed my affair on nothing—on myself.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
END OF LESSON 41
Published by Centaurus Press · Universitas Scholarium · All rights reserved.