The“dark care” frame is excellent. Caring + bad models turning into harm.

Where I’d push back is on the numbers. 4 absolutely has the “earth / square / cube / base” resonance you’re pointing at, but I wouldnt say base is automatically “low consciousness.” Foundation is where anything stable has to start. From a sovereignty / Bitcoin lens, 4 is also: boundary, property line, protocol layer, the box you stand inside so you can actually build. Also the number reduction of 444 → 4+4+4 = 12 → 1+2 = 3.

But, importantly, that doesnt make your core point about “dark care” less valid. If anything, BIP444 is a live example:

i.e., dark care: sincere concern channelled into centralizing moves and content norms onchain.

I just want to make sure that we are not building a new preist-class of 'light occultists' who get to assign what the numbers mean. Decentralized symbolic literacy is great, and interpretations are critical. But, I would like to make the argument here that final judgment on BIPs should still rest on incentives, property rights, and whether the change preserves or attacks content-neutral consensus.

In other words: the real occult move around BIP444 is in the attempt to smuggle moral panic and legal anxiety into the base layer under the story of “protection.” The numbers help us analyze and diagnose all this for sure, but, again, I argue the actual war is over who gets to define meaning and limits for the protocol. And if thats the case, for me, its critical that we dont make the same mistake with a numerological diagnosis (the same goes for all other diagnostic mirrors as well.)