ZerkonX wrote:

I agree with you on both both your points. The 'process' is as much
about the behaviors of the operators, as the person on whom they
operate. It seems to me the process is one of layered, or privileged
understandings.

Put another way, the control of man, must mean the control of the
controllers of man. To that extent the process relies on its motives
remaining hidden, buried on all levels of rational understanding.

Reasoned adaption, nice phrase. Yet i wonder how this might be
judged. One might take knowledge for what is claimed and not see
this prerequisist level of control, and thus adaption. That initial
investment of study implies a belief in knowledge. All that time
accruing information, must on some level adapt the person who
accepts his studies.

Knowledge which is not questioned, which is unquestionable, which
allows no room for the question, must surely be said to adapt in
unreasoned ways. On this level, the level of accepted facts or mere
association, knowledge can be assumed falsely, with the mind adapting
conversely to remain in accord with what it accepts.

The point is this mode of acceptance, where any will to question
is subsumed by the claims of knowledge, must promotes that level
of judgment in its practitioners. The truth is simply what one is
told, the immediate level is all one need see, one makes no further
attempt at understanding.

This is going beyond the initial scope of ethics, but i think it is
valid. So much in this sphere is about human judgment and control,
that one needs to consider the deceptive use made of knowledge.

Claiming to know the person better than he knows himself, one might
as well be controlled by lies and not know it. Which begs a question,
who would have a keener sense of the truth, than the person about
whom these assumptions was made? Who else would raise a question
of the professionals in this area?