As with many things that I write on this site, I discover something that I feel needs to be addressed from My own experiences. In this article I will look at a term that is freely
used with many Masters and a lot of slaves. And as is My habit, I like to begin any discussion of a topic with the definition of the word or words. This article deals with the
objectification of a slave. To put it another way: To view a slave as an "it", an "object" and a "possession". So first the definition of objectification.
1. a : the state of being objectified b : something that is objectified
2. a : to cause to become or to assume the character of an object b : to render something as an object; specifically : to give the status of external or independent
reality to something as an object.
3. distinguished from ego, self-consciousness, and subject (3) : the totality of external phenomena constituting the non or not-self related, no self-reference
For the purpose of a Master and slaves' use, number 3 above is the part of the definition that I will focus on. The next definition that I present is from the meaning of the
word possession.
1 a : the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal
1 b : actual physical control of property by one who holds for himself and not as a servant of another without regard to his ownership and who has legal rights to assert
interests in the property against all others having no better right than himself.
2 : something owned, occupied, or controlled : a thing possessed
The main reason that I thought this was an important subject to address is becuase I have come to discover that many slaves do not fully undersand what being an object, a thing, an "it"
truly means. It is a concept that is freely used by many slaves to offer themselves as an object to be owned and used by a Master as His possession. As a Master I can commit to the
explanation that I will take any slave at his word if he makes it clear that he wants to be an object. However, what does that actually mean and how is the
Master to understand a slave's offer to be His object of possession?
With all of the above definitions (From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 2012) none of them are described as having any condition. In the strictest sense of the meaning of the words
the object of possession is a thing. But I found it most interesting that with third part of the definition of objectification the definition specifically qualifies that to
be objectified means that it is distinguished from ego and self-consciousness and subject and not having any self reference.
The definition of objectification is clear.
With respect to a slave stating that it is an object and desires to be treated as an object as a possession, then the third portion of the definition of the word objectification does not
leave any room for conjecture or opinion. I believe that it is a universal understanding that an object has no self-reference; has no ego; and is not self-related. Should a Master expect that this
is what a slave means when a slave states that he is an object, a thing an "it"? Why would any Master or anyone for that matter, not have confidence in that meaning? So in order for something or
anything to qualify as an object it therefore must contain the quality of not having any self-reference, any ego, or self-relation. I believe it is the universally accepted paradyme for the use of the
word object or objectification.
The Pure Common Law of the land (not specifically applied to Masters and slaves) is law arising from the traditional and inherent
meaning and use of a widely accepted rule. Is it common for a Master to expect that if He agrees to accept a slave who has offerred himself as an object of possession to have the sole right to
use and control such object without condition or interference from any other source and that He deems the object be useful for Him. This represents the common law acepted by
all Masters everywhere. Who would argue against that? The universal understanding therefore of possession of an object, is quite clear without any need for rationalization or argument.
What Should a Master Expect?
When a slave offers itself as a possession, an object, a thing, all Masters commonly understand that the slave is offering itself without condition just as any other object He possesses. If there are
conditions then the Master alone has the choice of whether or not to accept the slave's offer. When there are no conditions, and according to the definitions of object and possession there are
none, then a Master would have no reason to think otherwise than that the object is under His full control and ownership. Who would argue that point?
I own a piano that I prize very highly. Although I am not a very good pianist I however enjoy playing it from time to time when I want to. I have no other reason to think that My piano is anything more
than an object at My disposal whenever I wish. Sometimes I play delicate pieces of classical music and sometimes I pound on it when My mood is in need of some release. This explanation would suffice with
respect to a slave would it not? Should I have any thoughts or perceptions that My piano will not perform for Me in a manner that I require? Of course I wouldn't. That would be like discussing the
concept of marriage between a tree and a rock; it does not apply and is not a valid argument. So why should a Master have any other understanding with regard to His ownership of His slave? Is not
the slave an object? Should I consider the slave any differently than I do My piano or any other object that I own. Of course not. Possession is possession and all that the word and value implies.
This naturally leads to another question. Are there some possessions that a Master might have that he values more than others? I know that I do. Do I value My truck more than My dustpan and dustbrush? Of course.
Therefore, what reason would any Master have for not wanting to view a slave as a particularly prized possession? My truck has certain features and functions that are standard features of most vehicles. So
why does My particular truck have any more value to Me than any other truck on the road? Becuase of possession and the free use of that ownership without conditions. What if I discovered that My truck
had some particularly fine features that I did not know it had? I might come to really like those features and really depend on them? In the sense that a slave is an object of possession the anaology
and comparison works for this purpose.
Over time when a Master learns that He can trust in a slave He might discover some features that He originally did not know the slave had, much like His truck. What would prevent a Master from focusing
on and using those features of his slave possession? Any object of possession may have multiple uses. Like My truck. I can cruise on the highway with it, use it for travel, use it for hauling, use it
for the simple pleasure of detailing it and polishing it or I can take rough road when I desire to becuase the truck will respond without condition and I count on that. So I use the truck for different
things at different times. How is that different from a slave? Shouldn't a Master expect that He should have confidence in using His slave in any manner that He so chooses without
condition? The answer to that should be simple enough with a resounding YES!
An Object or Thing that can Become a non-object or non-thing of its own Volition
This is where I address and integrate the definition for the word possession. The definition succinctly states: "actual physical control of property by one who holds
for himself and not as a servant of another without regard to his ownership and who has legal rights to assert interests in the property" For all intents and purposes of life on this planet and
in this age, the word possession means the free control of one's property. The Constitution of the United States guarantees Americans the right to own and use one's possessions without interference from
another party that has no rights to an object. If an object is
rightfully in the possession of the owner then the owner of that possession has the legal and moral right to control the possession. Is this not the same understanding that Master's have regarding their
slaves?
If a slave holds himself out as an object, a thing to be possessed and used at the Master's discretion should there be anything that would prevent the Master from doing so? You would think not. However,
according to the definition of what an object is ("3. distinguished from ego, self-consciousness, and subject and being (3) : the totality of external
phenomena constituting the non-self or not-self related, with no self-reference): Should a Master expect that there will be no self-reference, no self-consciousness and no distinguishing ego that
would prevent Him from enjoying the ownership of a slave? What educated and self-aware Master would say no? What would the result be for slave who claims he is an object but at every turn
excercises the opposite self-referencing act of ego? Furthermore, what happens when a Master attempts to rely on the slave's claim who holds hemself out as an object yet the slave's actions prove
otherwise?
When A slave Does Not Have a Good Grasp of What it Means to be an Object
So let's consider the case when a slave happens to be multi-talented and fits the purposes for which the Master wants. The slave is the possession of the Master. The Master should expect to have
free control over that possession and the right to exercise His right to use the slave as He wishes or as He determines is most useful for Him. An object, by its very nature, can have no force
upon the Master as to how it is used due to the fact that it has no self-reference. I can sit in a chair or choose to stand on a chair; the chair has no force upon Me to use the chair in any
way that pleases Me. I own the chair and I can stand on it or burn it or do whatever I want with it with full confidence that the chair will do exactly as I percieve it will. The chair simply
serves My purpose for whatevere it is that I need to use it for. Simple.
Now what if that chair were to suddenly disappear from under My feet while I was standing on it? We all know that this cannot happen. After all it is just a chair. It cannot cause itself to
move of its own volition. It cannot react or complain to Me because I choose to use it for something other than what is specifically intended for which is to sit on it rather than stand on it. After
all that is what ladders and step stools are made for. But the chair cannot force Me to use a ladder or a step stool. It is a thing and has no force of its own. This analogy represents a clear and
understandable use of any object.
What happens when a Master understands and accepts the claim of a slave that it is nothing more than an object that expects to be used by the Master as such? Would there be any reason the
Master would not understand what that means? Of course not. The meaning of an object is clear. So let's consider a scenario where a slave strongly claims it is an object to the extent that
he refers to himself as an "it" and never refers to himself in first person. Well that sort of behavior would only cause a Master to further realize that the slave is in fact an object because
the slave himself calls himself an "it". There is nothing else but for the Master to consider that the slave is no different than any other object in His possesssion.
The difference is that the slave is not a dust broom or even a truck. If a Master discovers that a slave (object) which He has possession of, has features that He was not fully
aware of at the time He acquired the slave and those features are useful to Him in a way that He chooses and that serves His purposes then the Master may come to value that slave as one of His
most prized possessions, if not THE prized possession among anything else that He owns. Over time, if He continues to use this slave possession for a particular thing of His
choice and manner of use then the Master naturally comes to depend on the slave possession. Furthermore, over time (let's say a year) of continuous use of His slave possession a Master is likely
to come to depend on that possession and thus will feel more and more comfortable integrating that possession into His life...perhaps into almost every aspect of the Msater's life without ever considering that
the possession; the object of ownership would disappear on its own. Yes, a slave can die, but even that is not something the slave does of his own volition unless it commites suicide. So over time
the Master comes to depend on the slave being there and depending on the performance of the slave. If the Master believes the slave is being honest, why would He think otherwise?
Now I would like you to consider another word and the definition of that word being condition or conditions. That nature of an object cannot have conditions. It is universally
understood that a chair is used to sit on. There are no conditions with any object. A truck comes with no conditions, it is a thing. This is entirely seperate from legal conditions. You can drive
the truck any way you want, becuase it is a thing and is subject to the whims of the owner. However, there is a condition that you cannot drive the truck in any manner without a license or a
registration. So the conditions for use of the truck as entirely separate from the truck itself. Once owned, the owner has every right to use the truck as He so pleases, even if it just sits in the
garage and is never operated or even started. The truck is serving the purpose of the owner.
The definition of condition as a verb and a noun are as follows:
1. to limit and make definite an object of thought (verb), to limit by, or subject to conditions : burden with a condition : make conditional (freedom is conditioned by our opportunities); (his tenure was conditioned on good behavior)
: to restrict or determine as a condition (verb).
2. a : something established or agreed upon as a requisite to the doing or taking effect of something else : a STIPULATION, a PROVISION
2. b : obsolete : an agreement determining one or more such prerequisites : COVENANT
2 c : something that exists as an occasion of something else : a circumstance that is essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : a REREQUISITE.
So, in the strictest sense of the word a condition is a limiting factor to something that is. In the case of a slave offering itself unconditionally as an object, would not a
Master rightfully assume that the slave means just that...an unconditional use of the slave as an object? However, if a slave attaches conditions to his being an object then he cannot rightfully
claim to BE an object can he? Objects have no self-reference by definition. If this were the case then what would be the outcome of two disparate ( one of two or more things so unequal or
unlike that they cannot be compared with each other) lines of thought and understaanding? On the one hand the Master will rightfully assume that the slave is offering itself unconditionally as
an object. Perhaps the Master determines this based on the slave's own references to himself as an "it". On the other hand, the slave holds himself out as an object with no power of self-reference, but
with certain conditions or prerequisites unbeknownst (happening without one's knowledge : UNKNOWN) ) to the Master. The Master's perception of the slave's offering as an object
can not be compared to the value of objectificaton, becuase the slave does so with conditions. The two cannot be compared for the very fact that they are two separate or disparate values.
The values of the One (the Master) do not match the values of the other (the slave); therefore comparison is not possible.
However, for all intent and purpose the slave desires to be treated as an object or possession of a Master to use as He pleases. The slave's own actions indicate that he wants to be
objectified and used in the manner of a simple possession, whatever that use may be. But, and this is a BIG but; the slave's own actions say one thing while the slave is claiming
another. An object can have no self-reference. This condition sets up the Master with impossible conditions: The slave says one thing but goes against every known understanding and definition
of what an object is. How is the Master to respond to this inequality? How can a Master rely on use of a possession if it only serves Him part of the time? An object has no self-reference; no sense
of desire nor force to enact that desire. There is no ego-based force emanating from an object. So then, if a slave holds himself as an object and refers to himself as an object: If it walks like a
duck and talks like a duck...it must be a duck. But what happens when one assumes that from an outward appearance that a duck is a duck and then suddenly transforms into a bat. Then it must not be a
duck. But,...everyone in the world will have the same perception. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...it is a duck!.
When a Master's perception of a slave sounds like an object and performs like an object then the Master is going to use that possession as what it represents without any preconception or condition. The
Master sees a duck and hears a duck and it is a duck and He has no reason to believe otherwise. When a slave does not really understand what it means to be an object but only acts like an object some of
the time this is very confusing to a Master. This is why I counsel Masters to focus on training a slave's mind not his body first. If the slave cannot learn the mind of the Master; if the object does not
serve the Master's purposes then the Master should have the right to retain or dispose of that property. The object itslef has no force to make that decision of its own volition. A chair cannot leave
the house because it does not like the dining room because a chair has no self-reference or condition of whether it likes the dining room or not.
Being an Object
In the strictest sense of the word we all know that a person cannot be an object becuase a person has the characteristics of self-reference and an awareness of self-through the ego. So how does a slave who
desires objectificaton successfully attain that sense of himself as an object? It has to be more and much deeper than mere self-reference as an "it".
There is only one way and that is for the slave to practice disciplining his ego. The slave needs to visualize giving its ego to the Master and in fact does so by assumption
when a slave agrees to become the possesssion (object) of a Master. The slave must be able to give up or at least be prepared to give up all self-reference and not just in deed and in word.
The slave needs to have a full understanding that it relinquishes all rights to self-reference. The only reference the slave should have is how the Masser sees the slave.
The Master takes control of the slave's being and beingness with respect to any desire of claim of non-objectification as may be necessary for the Master's use. It is solely within the perview
(2 : the range or limit of authority, competence, responsibility, concern, or intention) of the Master to determine how He chooses to use the slave wihtout any concern
that the object of His possession has anything to say about it becuase an object has no self-reference. A chair cannot decide to only serve people with nice tight round asses and decline service to
people with big fat blubbery butts.
Conclusion
So if you are a slave that considers himself an object that can be and wants to be possessed by a Master then you had better know what the Master's perception of an object or posssession is and your
perception had better meet His perception or trouble will ensue. Additionally, if you are such a slave and you consider yourself an object to be possessed and owned, then you had better know,
completely what it means. As a slave that wishes objectification and possession, you had better know that it is not on your terms or when it is convenient for you to be a thing. A Master will
fully take you at your word and actions because if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it must be a duck.
A Master has NO WAY of knowing if or when a slave places certain conditions on
being an object and to what degree it wants to be an object of possession. An object has no choice and has no self-reference. So if a Master wants His slave to sit in the middle of the floor
for a week, doing nothing, then the slave will do it becuase it has no frame of self-reference. A Master should expect that any of His possessions will function as He wishes, when He wishes and how He wishes...there
can be no in between or otherwise. An object has no frame of self-reference and therefore cannot act of its own volition.
To try and force a Master into a corner after the fact by switching back and forth from being
an object to not being an object will serve no other purpose than to set up and guarantee disaster and will only serve to further frustrate the Master. Furthermore, a slave that holds itself out as an object cannot by definition demand anything at
all from a Master beucase an object has no frame of self-reference. For a slave to assume that a Master knows this further exacerbates the slave's service to the Master and His efforts to train a
slave to know His mind. An object cannot change its value or purpose on its own. A chair is a chair is a chair regardless of how or why it may be used. An object has no frame of self-reference.
So My advice is that if you are a slave that wants and believes it is an object, that under no circumstance does if have the right of self-reference or to take any action on its own. A chair, no
matter what it is used for is still a chair. If the Master wants to think of that chair as His most prized possession than so be it. If you are such a slave
but your professions of being an object are qualified with conditions then you will find the going very rough indeed. Providing conditions with regard to wanting to be viewed and treated as an object,
at the outset will provide the Master with correct information about the slave and allow the Master to make an informed descision as to whether He wants to accept the slave with such conditions.
A Master is under no obligaton whatsoever to treat a slave in any other manner than what the slave offers itself to be. If you are an object then it is your task to live up to
that label. If not, then you had better make it obvious and clear to the Master or Masters, that you are considering, that your claim to be an object comes with conditions. Furthermore, if you
accept a Master's collar as an object then you had better be prepared to accept how the Master chooses to use you. A slave simply cannot afford to assume that a Master understands your definition
of an object if it differs from yours. A slave should be compliant and accepting of how ever a Master wishes to use the slave in whatever fashion and capacity the Master chooses. Period. Anything else
would make the slave not an object.
© Master Rick, Reno, Nevada 2011
|