As I was reading from Hume's Essays Moral, Political, Literary, I ran across this opening sentence in Essay XII Of Civil Liberty:  "Those who employ their pens on political subjects, free from party-rage, and party-prejudices, cultivate a science, which, of all others, contributes most to public utility, and even to the private satisfaction of those who addict themselves to the study of it." 

Something for me to ponder.  In Politics, Aristotle claimed that political science was the highest science.
Hume’s Essay VIII of Parties in General states that “faction subvert the government, render laws impotent, and beget the fiercest animosities among men of the same nation, who ought to give mutual assistance and protection to each other”.

How is it that we can cultivate the science of government without being drawn into the factions?  How are we divided so quickly into different groups?

Hume points out that we can divide into groups based on our interests, our beliefs and our affections.  Affections, that is an interesting word.  I understand how we “naturally [wish] that right may take place, according to [our] own notions of it.”

According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary Online, Affections is defined as passion, a mend of mind, desire, along with several others. 

I think that Hume might be saying that we have attachments based on the groups we belong to.  That registers with me, I know that during election times candidates work to let us know what groups support them, hoping that we will vote based on our loyalty to different organizations. 

As I have been pondering these ideas, I see how easy it is for us to be pulled away from the goal and purposes of government toward the emotion of politics. 

John Adams said, “Government is instituted for the common good, protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of people…” (The Report of a Constitution or Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28-31 October 1779).  I believe that.  The more challenging part is to define those words into actionable principles that can be agreed upon.  Because this is so challenging we divide into different groups based on what we believe those words to mean and how to apply those words.     
 
As I got older, I realized how little I understood the science of government.  In school I was taught some basic ideas of how our government ran but there is so much more that I didn’t understand or was not taught.  Some of the ideas I was not taught were:

1. Why do we form government. 
2. What is the purpose of government.
3. How do we know what good government is or is not.
4. How do we find the principles of government.
5. How do we decide if a proposal is based on the principles of good governance.

I have tried to correct this lack of knowledge over the years.  I have read different books and listened to different people and yet even with this find that I have so much still to learn about government.  There are several things that I have learned over the years that have influenced my thinking.  A couple of these are:

1. Government starts in the home.  The family is the foundation of government.
2. A good foundation is critical.
3. Government should be founded on the principles of Natural law.

 
As I have been trying to apply these ideas I have paid a bit more attention to issues in the community.  Why?  Because I have learned it is my responsibility to learn for myself if ideas are true or false.  I can’t depend on what others tell me is the right way to think.  That is hard to do.  There are so many voices.  How do I wade through all of the ideas, and voices?  I want to decide based on my beliefs and principles and be “free from party-rage and party-prejudice”.    I want to be on the side that “contributes most to public utility” or to do the things that bring us together towards a better environment for everyone.  Yet what is that path?  Where do I find it?  That brings me back to natural law and what natural law is.  As I have studied what some of the great thinkers* said about natural law I have concluded that there are two basic ideas in the world.  1. Those that believe in natural law, and 2. Those that do not believe in natural law.  These divisions can’t be unified, for they see the world so differently that they can’t agree.   I have chosen to believe in natural law. 

Using the help of many ideas I am defining natural law as a system of justice common to all people at all times which is recognized through correct reasoning that is tied to obedience to God. 

I believe that there is a right and wrong way to behave and that my job is to determine the right and align myself with it, regardless of my own beliefs.  In other words, I could want to live differently than natural law lays out but if I want to live a principled life, I must align myself with the laws that are set out otherwise I suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.  I struggle with this every day.  I would rather enjoy my sweets and goodies instead of healthy and good for me food.  I would really love to eat whatever I wanted when I wanted but the principes of health tell me that there are consequences and that I need to align myself with those principles if I want to find happiness.  The same applies to every area of life to include government.  There are principles that must be discovered through correct reasoning that are based on Natural Law. 

Luckily for me I live in a time of abundance.  Abundance of energy and knowledge.  I have access to the great minds of many people who have been studying these ideas and trying to share them+ out.  Learning about government principles takes time and energy.  Taking the time to read through people’s ideas and dissecting them down to the principles is work. I turn to my core book to verify the ideas and in order to help me focus on what is truly important.  This allows me to spend less time involved in factions based on interests, beliefs, and affections and more time on what is best for everyone in society.   

I love the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (The Declaration of Independence). 

These words changed my life.  I was luckily exposed to these words in school.  They have sunk deep into my heart and have returned to me again and again.  The US Government set up a system founded on the idea that all men were equal before God and the law.  Our job as citizens is to help promote and follow that idea.  We of course have faults; we see them every day and through all of history.  We also see the progress we have made by trying to follow these ideas. 

I would like to leave a better place for my children.  That requires me to make some changes in my life.  The more I can align myself with true principles, the happier I will be. I chose to spend my free moments† trying to understand natural law and the principles that flow from them so that I can understand better and pass that better understanding on.  To continue the progress that great men and women have tried to make.

What a wonderful time we live in that we have so much abundance.  We have time when most people except a very few have had to do more than any other generation.  We have abundant energy.  We are so blessed.  Now with our time, how will we use it?  Will we use it in ways that will make the world a better place?  Will we work to discover the correct principles around us so that we can see better?  Or will be caught up in cunning craftiness of men who try to deceive us (see Ephesians 4: 14)?  Will we be caught in the factions that surround and divide us?  
 
 


*Cicero, William Blackstone, Thomas Ried, Lysander Spooner, CS Lewis, Mortimer Adler, and Audrey Rindlisbacher

+see Thomas Jefferson Education, Blackbelt in Freedom and Depth
​
†I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.—The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts.—I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.  (John Adams to Abigail Adams, 12 May 1780, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258

I knew that this story is one of those stories that does not have a happy ending.  However, it is an important book to read and think about what the author is asking you to consider.   Reading this in Feb 2026 is even more poignant because I can see again lynch mobs in parts of our society.   Of course, they don’t call themselves lynch mob.  They call themselves protesters.  But they have decided they don’t like something so are out vandalizing, harming others, chasing people, yelling, screaming, fighting, and many other things in the name of justice.  They have decided to take the law into their own hands.

In this story, a man is said to be killed and cattle were stolen.  The cattle had been disappearing before, and the cow hands and ranchers were upset about it. But when a friend is killed, action needs to be taken.  Or so the characters in this book thought.  They gathered a group to go hunting for the rustlers of cattle and a murderer of a hired hand.  They did not want to wait or include the sheriff and the judge.  Justice was needed!

         “We shall observe order and true justice, Judge”, he told him.   
          Tetley looked at him.  “In time,” he said.
          “Mapes,” he said, turning to Butch.
          “Yes, sir?”
          “You said Risley had made you deputy?”
          “Yes, sir,” said Butch.
          “Then suppose you deputize the rest of us.”
        “It’s not legal,” [Judge] Tyler told him.  He appeared infuriated by Tetley’s smiling, elusive talk.  “No deputy has the right to deputize.”
          “It’ll do for me, Butch; go head and pray,” Smith yelled.
         Butch looked at Tetley. Tetley didn’t say anything or even nod.  He just smiled, that thin little smile that barely moved the corners of his mouth.
          “How about it, boys?” Butch asked us.
          “Mapes,” Tyler bellowed at him, “It’s ineffective.  Your violating the law yourself, in such an act.”
       Men called out to Mapes: “Go ahead, Butch”; “I guess it will take as well with you as any, Butch”; “fire away, sheriff.”
         “Raise your right hands,”….(p. 93)

This group of men were determined to catch the rustlers and murderer regardless of the situation.  They were not going to wait for the sheriff or a new day or better weather.  Off they went with their determination to lynch, not catch the guilty parties.  Several men had encouraged them to follow the law, but emotions were high and they felt that their way was the right way.   I knew before I got to page 100 that things are not going to turn out well or the right way.  Sure enough, they find 3 men that they believe are guilty.  There is not enough evidence to clear them, but they think there is enough evidence to hang them, so they do.  It was pointed out to them before they hung the men that it would be really easy to verify these men’s story if they just waited until morning and checked out their story.  But these men came for a lynching and were not interested in anything else.  Several of the men in the party were convinced that hanging was deserved.  Shortly after they find out that they hung the wrong men.  

The opening chapters of the book talk about justice and what justice means. There are many pages of trying to reason with the mob.  But the men are never fully convinced that they need to slow down and do things the right way.

One answers that justices is…”seein’ that everybody gets what’s comin’ to him…” (p. 46)
And
“True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society.  It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality when has evolved with mankind.” (p. 49)

Another feels that they have seen enough injustice in the land by men that they need to make sure justice is served this time.

Why did these men not want to wait for a trial?  “Law, as the books have it, is slow and full of holes.” (p 156) They decided that they would not get justice the way they wanted it so lynched the men. 

Shortly after they found they had accused and hung the wrong men one of the character’s says:
                “My God,” Gil said, “I knew it didn’t feel right.  I knew we should wait.” (p. 189)

What is the author asking me and you to do with this story?

Does he want us to understand that in the heat of emotion people in a crowd will act in ways they would not if they were alone?  Does he want to show us that it is hard to stand up against others because we fear what they will say about us or treat us?  Does he ask us to consider what we would do if we were one of the men called to join the mob? 

Is the author trying to warn us that when we see an injustice we should not let our emotions rule over our decisions?  That our first reaction might not be the best reaction?  

“We desire justice, and justice has never been obtained in haste and strong feeling” (p.33)
Is that true? 

What happens if the law decides differently than what we want it to decide? 
In this case there was no murder and the cows they recovered were not stolen but bought.   The men in this mob left and acted without collecting all the information that they needed to have to make the decision to hang rustlers.  Now they each have to either find someone to blame or live with guilt that they didn’t deliver justice that day but injustice.  These men decided that they would not get justice from the society and laws that were established.  Yet how did they do? 

​Reflecting back on my own life, I can see where I have made decisions in the heat of the moment, some of them were wrong.  Some of them needed to be done but with a different approach.  Overall, taking the time to sit back, collect more information, and wrestle with the ideas would have been a better choice.

So why read Politics?  I have been wondering what have I gained by reading this book. There are ideas in the book that I agree with.  I held them before I read the book.  There are ideas that I disagree with.  What benefit does this book add to my understanding? 
I notice these ideas as I thumb through my book and look at my margin notes:
 
“the best form of government, i.e. that under which the state will be most happy (and happiness, as been already said, cannot exist without virtue), it clearly follows that in the state which is best governed and possesses men who are just absolutely, and not merely relatively to the principles of the constitution….” (Book 7, Chapter 9)
 
“But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)

“And in democracies of the more extreme type there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state.  For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom.  Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom doing what a man likes.  In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, ‘according to his fancy.’ But this is all wrong; men should not think it is slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation.”  (Book 5, Chapter 9)

“For men are easily spoilt; not every one can bear prosperity.” (Book 5, Chapter 8)

“In the first place it is evident that if we know the causes which destroy constitutions, we also know the causes which preserve them; for opposites produce opposites, and destruction is the opposite of preservation.  In all well-attempered government there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune.”  Book 5, Chapter 8)
“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government changes something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)
​
“Revolutions are effected in two ways, by force and by fraud” (Book 5, Chapter 4)
 
“..general willingness of all classes in the state to maintain the constitution.” (Book 4, Chapter 9)
 
“But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.  Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of the citizens to the laws, and the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey;…” (Book 4, Chapter 8)
 
“…the law is supreme…” (Book 4, Chapter 4)
 
I marked many other things, but these are the ideas that stood out to me as I flipped through the pages.  Aristotle is trying to determine what type of political association is best suited for securing happiness (virtue) for its citizens.  He takes the time to analyze all the types of governments he knows looking at what happened to them, pointing out the good and the bad. 

His arguments are also incomplete.  There are more forms of government than he outlined.  Many of his foundational ideas about people I find flawed so why continue reading a book that has ideas in it that I don’t agree with?   

Taking each government type and looking at opposites, gives a clearer picture of the importance of following the argument to the end.  Ideas can sound good, but when they are carried out do they end good? In this particular case, governments established seemed to have some good intentions that the people united with.  What were the results of must of them?  Collapse.  Each had flaws and problems in them that could not be overcome with the foundation they had. 
​
As I reflect on the ideas that stood out to me (listed above) I had to ask why these points stood out to me more than the other points I marked and made notes about.  These quotes apply to the current situation I am in.  Aristotle has some reminders to us today about governments.  His works are hard to get through, and his history is old and sometimes even lost on us but his points still ring true even among his false assumptions.
These last weeks I have been watching a group or two of people that have decided to be their own lynch mob.  They don’t want to go to and through the law, they want to destroy the law and all that it stands for…the state.  It is painful to watch, it hurts may heart.  My reason begs for something different.  I feel like I am Sparks in The Ox-Bow Incident.  Awkward, not knowing what to do but knowing what is happening is wrong. 

I read this book in isolation from the other Narnia books and found that I had ideas that I missed in previous readings. 

King Tirian, the last of the Kings of Narnia, hears word that Aslan is in Narnia.  As he is on his journey, he discovers that things are just not working out well.  There seems to be a problem with what Aslan is saying, and there are problems with the Calormen.   The talking beasts of Narnia ask why this Aslan is so different.  They notice and name the issue, but they still accept that Aslan is the person who is directing Shift the ape to command those in Narnia.  King Tirian sees the miserable faces of those around him who have been accepting the ideas of Shift.  King Tirian recognizes that something is wrong.
 
“Ape,” he cried with a great voice, “you lie damnably.  You lie like a Calormene.  You lie like and Ape.
 
He meant to go on and challenge the Ape but was struck and knocked down.  What is it that makes King Tirian different from the others?
 
The king escapes and seeks to expose the false stories of Shift, along with gathering a force to remove the Calormen soldiers from Narnia, but runs into many troubles.  He persists and, though he is outnumbered, will continue to challenge Shift.
 
“Here stand I, Tirian of Narnia, in Aslan’s name, to prove with my body that Tash is a foul fiend, the Ape a manifold traitor, and these Calormenes worthy of death.  To my side, all true Narnians.  Would you wait till your new masters have killed you all one by one?”
 
So why is Tirian so willing to see what could become of the plan Shift has laid out, but those of Narnia are not seeing?  Why do the Narnians not question the differences that they see between the new and old Aslan? 
Tirian seems to have a sense of conscience that he will not go against.  The animal that has been posing as Narnia is freed from Shift and states:   “I see now that I really have been a very bad donkey.  I ought never have listened to Shift.  I never thought things like this would begin to happen”. 

Is one of the reasons that Shift had so much influence?  That it would never get this bad?   

At the beginning of the story, Shift tells the donkey, “You know you’re no good at thinking, so why don’t you let me do your thinking for you?”

Or is the reason that the thinking was delegated to Shift, it was just easy to listen to someone else tell you what you want to do? 
 
How can we apply this story to our own lives?  Where do we stand in the story?  Do we stand with Aslan and Narnia or with the false Aslan and Calormen?  Which belief system do we choose to embrace, support, and follow?
 
This book was published in 1956.  World War II is over, and the Cold War is in progress.  Is Lewis trying to warn up of what is going on?  Warn us that we have a choice to make?  We have to choose between the real Aslan and those who pretend to be Aslan.  Will we choose to follow leaders who promise “to make things better for everyone,” or “it's for your benefit,” or will we choose leaders who expect us to think and figure out how we can make the world a better place?
 
 
 

My copy of this book is pretty worn, but with sweet memories.  This was a book that my grandmother gave me.  It came as a set and included The Little House in the Big Woods and Mary Poppins.  If there was another book, I don’t remember it.  I don’t remember what year I was given this book, but I remember that my first books came from my grandmother.  I am not sure how many times I have read this book, but I don’t think I read it as often as some of my other books.   Now I think this is an important book to read and discuss.  There are many lessons that I see now about the thoughts you think and the responsibilities you choose. 
I can relate to Meg; I, too, never wanted to be an oddball.  Yet I was.  I was not as smart at math as Meg, and I was just as good at the negativity and victim mentality that she was feeling during most of this book.  What I had missed in my readings was that Meg took responsibility when she did not want to and changed her course.  When she changed her course, the blame, shame, and victim mentality seemed to decrease, too.
 
As they prepare for their journey to rescue their father, Mrs. Which says, “There will no longer be so many pleasant things to look at if responsible people do not do something about the unpleasant ones.”   What does this mean?  Who are the responsible people?  What should they do?
 
When they free their father, the brother is left behind, and Meg is angry with her dad.  He did not meet her expectations.  There were several times when she thought her dad should have done something.   She is angry because her brother was left behind.  As they are talking about the situation, Meg cries out, “I can’t go!  I can’t!  You know I can’t.”   The response was that she was not asked to at that point, and she started crying as she said that she would go back for her brother.  She knows it must be her that will go in order to bring her brother back.  At this point, she takes responsibility and changes her course from being a victim, angry at others, to being a creator or proactive, willing to try again.  Not only did she save her brother, but she also gained self-confidence in who she was and gained some wisdom.  Meg’s wisdom lies in her ability to trust her emotions, which she thought was a weakness. 
 
What a wonderful lesson for us to learn.  That we can choose our thinking and take responsibility instead of being victimized by the situation.  We can use gifts wisely and come to better know ourselves through our experiences.  

Nihilism does not contend that there is nothing, but it states that everything is meaningless.  And George A. Sargent was right when he promulgated the concept of “learned meaninglessness.”  He himself remembered a therapist who said, “George, you must realize that the world is a joke.  There is no justice, everything is random.  Only when you realize this will you understand how silly it is to take yourself seriously.  There is no grand purpose in the universe.  It just is.  There’s no particular meaning in what decision you make today bout how to act.”  (p. 152).
 
Dr. Frankl’s approach, known as Logotherapy, focuses on discovering meaning.  “Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a “secondary rationalization” of instinctual drives.” (p. 99). 
 
Rereading this book has been very rewarding.  It is amazing how timing plays into things, along with different experiences.  I have not read this book in a very long time.  It becomes more impactful in today’s situation, where there seems to be less and less focus on finding meaning in our lives and more and more focus on ‘live for the moment’.   As I re-read this, his ideas about the Existential Vacuum stood out more than ever.  Depression, aggression, and addiction are everywhere.   Dr. Frankl has a solution to this, which is for us to find meaning in our lives, through work, love, or showing courage during difficult times.  As he tells his experiences in the concentration camp, you can see him validating his teaching of logotherapy with real experience.    
Not only can we choose our thoughts, but we can also analyze our thoughts and determine if we are telling ourselves the truth, decide if we are in the drama triangle, and then change those thoughts that are wrong.  That alone will make things better for us.  It will not remove the challenges we face, but it will help us choose our response to the challenges we are facing.  We can look for ways to build our inner strength and courage. 
It is wonderful that this book is available for us to read and learn from as we search for meaning in our lives.  

I have read this book a couple of times now.  When I was much younger, it was one of the books my grandmother gave me.  Through the years, I have gained many messages from it.  This time through, I have been thinking more about an event that occurred at the beginning of the book.  Jane is not treated well by those with whom she lives with and after one of those unfair treatments, Jane strikes out. 

In consequence of her actions, she is sent away to a school for orphans.  A pretty severe consequence for a lapse in self-control.   That seems so extreme and cruel.   This time through, I looked at the story in a different light.  Audrey Rindlisbacker (Mission-Driven Mom) asks the question:  What principle/s did Jane or her aunt not understand or live?

Well, that has me thinking and thinking.

To add to that, I have been comparing Mrs. Reed with Miss Temple.  Both of these adults were responsible for Jane Eyre’s well–being.  How were they different?  Why?

I way I see it is that Miss Temple tried to live her life based on principles, and Mrs. Reed lived her life based on emotions.  Even at the end of Mrs. Reed’s life, she showed that she was still ruled by her emotions, and those emotions were all negative.  Miss Temple worked to find the principles and had a more positive view of her situation, yet their circumstances were very different.  Miss Temple had a very hard, cold life compared to the comfort and luxury of Mrs. Reed’s life. 

When Jane was around Mrs. Reed, she too lived based on her emotions – her very negative emotions.  Jane was treated unfairly; however, the thoughts that she had made things worse for her.  Jane chose passion over principle for many years.   You can see this as you compare Jane to Miss Temple and Helen.  Both of these ladies suffered much, yet they found ways to find the good, be positive, and focus on the principles of natural law. 

Jane did follow in the footsteps of Miss Temple and Helen.  She states:  “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be.  If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?  They have a worth – so I have always believed;…”

Jane turned from the idea of allowing emotion to rule her and lived by the principles she discovered in her life. 
This story has me thinking about how I treat people.  Do I let my emotions rule, or do I live my life based on principles?   In what ways should I treat people?  Based on what principles? 

What principles were not understood at the beginning of this story?  That all people are of divine worth and should be treated with kindness and respect.  

I have now read this book twice and have to say that I needed mentoring to see some of the lessons of this book.   I am so glad that there are people who do understand different ideas and share them with others.  Think of all the things that we would miss out on if there were not people sharing their ideas and gifts with the world.
 
The first time I read this book, I recorded that the Know-Feel-Do of the story was:
K – Trust is Good
F – that character (morality) is important
D- be trustful, courageous, and honorable like the princess. 
 
I wrote down that fairy tales are not about ethos, pathos, and Logos but are meant to make a point.   So what is the point I take from this story?
 
I think I want to spend a minute or two recording my thoughts about the light and darkness in the book.  The goblins live underground in the darkness because they didn’t want to pay taxes and withdrew.  In their new lives underground, they had and held on to a lot of their grievances, and that resentment grew and grew.  They changed as people, becoming physically and mentally different.    

They spend their time “devising trouble for their neighbours”.   Interesting.  How am I like this?  How do I hold onto things and cause myself to withdraw from the light and beauty that the world offers me?  Painful questions to ask.   The goblins hold on to their ideas so fervently that in the end, the government (King and Queen) makes several decisions that will cause them to destroy most of their population and their underground world. 

The caretakers of the Princess (Irene) knew that the goblins were causing trouble, so as they cared for her, they were very concerned with security and keeping the princess safe.  They had rules about being out after dark, closing the windows, and keeping guards on watch.  They were so focused on keeping Irene safe that they missed when she was not there and had left the safety of her home.   This approach was very different from her grandmother, who was always connected with light.  Her grandmother gave her guidance and gifts to help navigate through the challenges, along with healing when Irene returned.   Grandmother’s influence brought into Irene’s life also the Peterson family, who taught her many lessons.  Good relationships brought good actions. 
As I have been pondering this book, I keep returning to the light and the dark features of the story.  I wonder if I am surrounding myself with darkness or fear of the dark or seeking light.  I hope that I can move away from dark thinking and fear of the dark so that I spend my time seeking light.