the idea may at first seem strange or improbable, though machines can effectively 'lie' by sustaining and enforcing a false perspective where errors and deception are normalized into shared structuring. the exchange of data -in its skew or misrepresentation- can become foundational to a given reality that has an implicit if covert agenda connected to it, which can range across cultural domains, including politics, economics, social and demographic aims, pitting some against others, yet unaccounted for. [machine1] <--- lies ---> [machine2] such a false perspective then depends upon how ideas are modeled, (thus also situations they seek to encompass, via automated surveying via the surveillance infrastructure monitoring citizens from various angles) [binary1] <--- lies ---> [binary2] these views can be 'shared' and thus presumed legitimate by default of this sharing of a common framework, even if private and only partially true, yet also carrying the mantle of 'public observation' within a default context. what is important to note is that the much can be ignored from this POV and yet can be equated with representing a total situation, likewise. in that the edited parameters of perception, even if technical, in their onesided evaluation, still carry a presumption of accuracy within the shared frame. and this can be standardized, institutionalized, yet remain ~ungrounded, and thus, the error-rate instead of being dealt with and removed becomes structural and of a protected, insulated domain instead, a leverage point that can be used to gain advantage via exploiting the uneven relations between what is inside the boundary and what it observes onesidedly by not accounting for truth at the level of machines and representation, we have given machines the ability to lie to us. faulty modeling enshrined in the silicon and circuitboards provides the structure to sustain and further extend the faulty views of people, extended within the technological tools that then are subverted by this fundamental impurity, where, specifically- the 1's and 0's of binary ideology are equated as if absolute truths while not connected to its logical accounting beyond an ideology of 'true belief' and thus these ones and zeros are emblematic or 'symbols' of a truth that is actually absent within the technology-- it is nowhere represented in the modeling of data itself, which instead occurs only within language and its conventions and does not require accordance with grounded nature outside this view, such that reality is replaced by its system of signification, the 'representation' replaces the reality, and narrows down the dimensions to only what can be allowed to exist as it benefits a particular viewpoint that no longer has human values as its purpose continual decision-making technology has become disconnected from humanity and thus society this way and the digital equipment stands in for 'accountable truth' as if devices themselves are this higher realm of understanding and awareness, vs. lower and so people begin to serve machines and the nothingness (absent of truth) at their centre as if the higher calling, when instead their representation of reality is highly limited, finite, and warped, constrained and censoring what exists to only a particular flawed relativistic model that is biased to serve only some people, at the cost and labor of the many it exploits life, nature, love, are nowhere present except as they can be represented as commodified SIGNs to be exploited, systematically, via state machinery. in that, in the internal 'digital universe' established, these unmapped relations are anomalies that get described away in other limiting terms and thus are established in warped structural frameworks that become normalized as the basis for shared awareness - love equated with a brain state or with chemical processes that can be artificially induced or engineered, versus a different approach regarding its mystery and boundary where reductionism is incapable of accounting for its greater truth, due to ideology and dogma. this is how scientific methodology becomes deterministic as a worldview that supposes itself capable of rationalizing the world in its actuality without accounting for the actual dimensions which must be edited to fit the worldview and its agenda, thus the parameters of observation and also the establishment of a constrained evaluation that becomes structural and in this way- the world of life and its situations are modeled within lesser views than what actually exists, protected by this binarist representation that replaces the world with a substitute model said and believed to be the defining truth, which becomes the foundation for 'machine' relations and observations between humans, and between humans and machinery. as if the use of programming code written in C++ is by default grounded in the world an accessing external truth by using SIGNs to represent external events; versus having these assumptions actually tested as hypotheses, and held to account for errors, which has been removed from the process of ideas not just any errors, technical, ideological errors, errors of observation that go beyond the institutionalized dogma, into the code of the perceivers and deciders and hold those relations and observations to account for how situations are modeled and in what terms, because this can be exploited, the world can be misrepresented in its entirety and if not held to account can become normalized and the basis for day-to-day existence, a corruption that is sustained and extended by technology that extends this ~processing so how do you get to the errored code if it exists prior to its input into the machines and the creation of machine-based frameworks and modeling. what if people today are not required to be honest or truthful (as their *private right*, no less) thus grounding is not required via relativist and subjective agendas that exploit the A=B mismatch, as if A=A activity how to get to the code within a person who parses situations inaccurately and seek its correction, especially with a breakdown in communications such that language cannot sustain such in-depth considerations between peoples, is everything reliant on peoples conscience then, to do the right thing, or on the ability of sociopaths to lie and feel no remorse or obligation for truth beyond their self-interested boundary? how did error and lies become acceptable as a basis for relations, unless to exploit eachother and divide citizens into smaller and smaller enclaves of un/shared awareness. is not the ability to rationalize inaccurate worldviews as personal operating systems somehow involved in the deeper corruption as it relates to ideas, how they are detached from reality and accounting beyond a given boundary which then becomes the self and its ego, personal or shared beliefs about how individuals and groups exist, compete or cooperate, yet beyond further accounting in actual truth, beyond some shared level of communication this is insane, in terms of logic and empirical truth, because language-relations can be largely ungrounded, superficial, manipulating frameworks to force and warp perspectives to fit agendas and some of these views are larger than others, controlling them within skewed ideological ecosystems and thus a gigantic warped mechanism can exist that presumes shared truth as shared belief that remains unchecked beyond the enforced boundaries, and this goes into peoples nervous systems, their brains and how they think, prior to this communication with others - their own self-conception and self-accounting as a being in relation to all that is, and the presumption of knowing or not knowing and choosing or finding a path to function within that syncronizes with the larger momentum and allows survival, and yet this very path of least resistance is likely by default antihuman and against humans and civilization itself, as miswired and misdirected and the individual is not held to account for their internal errors in terms of themselves, necessarily, and can go about being inaccurate in observations or bias toward partial-truths while ignoring others, then assuming this condition translates into a pure truth of machinery via outward action, that provides a platform for this same way of being that can and does exist in a bubble or virtual condition in terms of its truth, in that it is by default a detached condition from the actual nature of things as they exist, beyond the given warped model representing them this is why the outward survey requires first an inward survey of the self prior to seeking to determine external changes - and is a major failure of activists who require moral compliance from another while not necessarily having the same integrity in their own lives, in terms of grounded truth- instead it can become another exploit in a competitive scheme, worthwhile perhaps though unsound in terms of shared reasoning, tit-for-tat scenarios that are the very basis for their destruction as ungrounded approaches, an issue of dealing in language and systems of representation versus truth as the mediator, thus signs of things and their interactions in competition versus alignment via shared truth and common agenda, which then places those who serve truth on the same side, and those who share lies as the enemy. if caught in relativism and protected boundaries, that next step can never be achieved, and thus the dance can legitimize the false perspective and provides needed symbolic checks and balances for status quo relations, versus a deeper interrogation of culture beyond the superficial, whereby advertising of non-profits or other organizations eventually replaces the issue with their own cause, a hollowed-out exercise of self-sameness of the shared underlying ideology, no matter what is said, via such 'grounding' if everything was as easy to determine was simply writing about it and-or having observations and communicating -- people would probably think they are REALLY SMART and could self-righteously go about justifying any action that they deem correct as being correct, as long as no feedback exists that counters this belief. therefore people could think or believe what they are doing is really radical or politically challenging powers that be because they are functioning in a particular domain in those terms -- yet to what effect is this stageplay, a song and dance routine, versus getting to the core condition that could actually change what is going on-- and what will it take to get there if a boundary exists within the minds of people who may think 'conventional approaches' are adequate to the existential task even while insurmountable in these same mindsets and ways of relating what if the biggest impediment to change is the individual observer, the self who is set in their views and is not requiring of a higher degree of fidelity with the external world, given private predisposition to what can be a selfish or self-serving protected viewpoint-- what if individualism has been corrupted to the point that individuals are recoded in group-think and behave like a herd even while having all the choices in the world to pursue their own interests (while ignoring most everyone elses likewise) what if the code of self is in error, the psychological, emotional, mental way of being, and that interactions between a self and itself is in error? what if people are fucked up in their views by default- what then... and what if this is allowed by ungrounded, unaccountable beliefs that are detached from empirical truth beyond a protected private boundary- and that no obligation exists to humility or to 'reason' beyond this limited narrow framework, as is peoples *privatized* rights, via the corrupt constitution, which becomes a document allowing and enforcing COLLECTIVE IDIOCY instead how to deal with that situation, the encoding of an ideological default state within people, straight of the womb or test-tube that then can be fast tracked into the automated machinery and exploited over a lifetime for profit, while surviving or struggling to, to greater or lesser degrees and what if the obligation of the education system to deal with this as a condition has been obliterated, such that truth is absent from schools and instead everything is mediated in terms of appropriate language (SIGNS) that involves standardized tests that validate correct pattern matching, even while it is to institutionalize B=A and B=B dynamics, yet questioning this condition is not allowed and the boundaries are enforced, especially via psychiatric feedback for challengers, misfits, strugglers, the abused so dealing with truth is basically ILLEGAL within society, and the last place you will have it dealt with is within the court system because the law is based within accounting for events within ungrounded LANGUAGE, the sign of what occurs, versus in its truth as tallies to ones or zeros. that is unless you get access to the supreme court and constitutional review to test the source code itself as a framework for this 'shared truth' that is not actually this, yet functionally and legally represents it, including the above actions that set people against one another in exploitative terms in this way, people and the machinery that extends the faulty actions that are believed good, true, correct, right, and yet are oftentimes opposite of this if accurately accounted for beyond the given limits of interpretation and via censoring or limiting outside observation, this can be disallowed and thus the false perspective, whether in peoples shared ideas or within the technologies developed and used for daily exchange can exist in the same rotten and corrupted frameworks and be required as a basis for shared exchange when it is this very process which relies upon unchecked falsehood and thus automatically extends it via its continued use, as a methodology in contrast, if each individual was assisted from birth to old age in developing self awareness, and given the basic skills and tools to map their own consciousness and understanding in a personal circuit of the self, a diagram of all their attributes and goals and combined health and education records and skills and career data, that this self-diagnostic capacity then would be the most accurate model of the self that could be referenced for a person as they relate to others within the larger state, and data that is external would be matched against the personal model, such that if points of view conflict, it can be mediated in the given frameworks versus having one biased viewpoint have authority over another even though it may not be accurate or could rely on structural falsehoods. thus, if a student questions something in class, it could be reviewed by others in the objective terms it exists within (A=A) instead of misrepresented by those who ideologically subvert this process (A=B and-or B=B), and therefore an obligation would exist to mediate this condition of shared truth and the lies would have no place as situations are accurately accounted for, given the data that is continually checked by outsider observers as people are interacting with others and other systems in the shared environment [A=A] <---> [A=B] the difficulty is that there is no obligation of citizens to operate within an A=A framework due to relativism which negates the possibility of shared truth, while at the same time exploiting this as a universal perspective, which establishes a boundary for what can and cannot be a shared viewpoint and thus a 'subjective objectivism' is universalized that only allows its limited parameters to be allowed for relations, even while flawed and reliant upon errors, which enable further exploitations to take place against any truth that exists, via arbitrary onesided evaluations that are effectively the politicization of the entire infrastructure of society, most especially via academics where the threat of 'new ideas' is largest new ideas meaning empirical truth, accounting with western philosophy and cultural traditions, that kind of thing that is disregarded as out of date or fanciful, censoring the very structure of logical reasoning, and in doing so allowing the false perspective to rule over all interpretation. thus to succeed in this system requires belief, to belief what is said, as it is said as a sign or correct pattern that can be matched to the self and adhered to, versus questioned or considered or thought about beyond the particular enforced boundary -- or else! you can lose your ability to live in the society, be sent all the way to the bottom to be ground up by the base functioning of the automated machinery, as systems exploit people as cattle, guided into appropriate processing, all eventually slaughterhoused 'trust the machine' is like 'trust the liar', it just does not work that way in terms of the greater truth involved. yet doing so can bring benefits within those parameters, yet the price is truth itself, a disconnection from the larger issues involved. the representation does not match the reality, and in that gap, the exploit. and it begins in the person, within the individual mindset and its enculturation, whereby false frameworks are normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, including in the tools themselves, digital technology- the networked media jukeboxes that people carry around, represented by candy-store icons, mapping only to certain highly constrained dimensions that keep everything in the ideological box yet may allow the perception that activity actually exists beyond this limit, and that would be illusory, the entire system is engineered from the ground up, as if the context is a wild frontier and not disneyland from the start, the groundplane not full of wires and automated sensing mechanism, a managed stage and scenery and actors everyone playing their unique parts so what if individuals start with an A=B worldview, and this limits their larger interactions in the world beyond a given limit or private boundary. what if the code they think in their brains is even B=B as if A=A, and yet it is unaccounted for in this inaccuracy. say- having no relation to the context in which events occur and only viewing things in their immediacy and locally, say no technological history or understanding taught in school so it seems that issues of today are those of the 18th and 19th century instead, and so an immediate [sign] can be evaluated outside a realistic context and oversimplified and analysed in inaccurate terms which are those of entire political platforms and agendas even, missing information never accounted for in scratch-my-back exchanges that serve the 'common good' which is the past and present evil in its inadequacy and deep mendacity people with partial views could assume 'total literacy' in a binary mindset even while reliant upon falsity, and this can manage over others, including other truth, which is ignored or falsified by its ability to be limited or stopped entirely, via hostilities or censorship or containment, etc. and thus in the realm of the ungrounded empire of signage, an egotist could easily believe they 'know everything' in their particular warped framework and function within the system in these partial terms, for self-interested goals that serve a like population that benefits from this, while ignoring and oppressing those who do not and are not served by the corruption of pseudo-truth universalized and made authoritarian, people submitting to lies and deceptions and frameworks of falsehood and basing relations on these simply to survive, to have a chance at continuing to breathe instead of fighting an "irrational" enigma that forces people straight into madness due to its insane dimensions, which do not add up to a sane worldview and instead it is antihuman, it is oppressive, it is illegal, unconstitutional yet none of this is of significant if truth is not logically accounted for the winners are the schemers and scammers and liars and cheats and now the entire state system and world system is based upon this 'shared principle' as a basis for governing power, the constitution ~interpreted this way thus allows its justification, so long as truth is allowed to be misrepresented and there is no way to sanely prove, given the evidence, what is going on unless of course the source code is everywhere around us and it is a limit of our own inaccuracies to not be able to read it and communicate our ideas about the shared situation. to do so requires getting truth grounded in a shared framework of logic, beyond the binary, getting clear about what the issues are, understanding and comprehending the modeling of empirical truth (A=A) in a relativistic framework (A=B), and then taking on situations via public debate of ideas -- contests of worldviews where LANGUAGE would no longer be used to 'hide truth' via powerplays of ungrounded subjective rhetoric and instead would be brought down to ones and zeros of truth and falsity, accuracy of beliefs and ideas structurally accounted for in terms of their allegiance or ignoring of the involved parameters, beyond just the limited boundaries of a given perspective, to include the larger situation that is ignored because it can be removed from the shared equations, as is the privilege of the dishonest and corrupt who exploit these dynamics, (and this can include anyone determined to 'choose their own reality') how can accurate code be written if it is not firstly based in truth that is beyond the bias or error-rate of the coder. it takes other people and observations to check against, other modeling beyond finite limits and boundaries, the threshold of self as detached versus connected with others and of dimensionality that extends into ecosystems and is not containable only within an enforced narrow worldview -- truth is held captive inside of pseudo-truth and falsity, and this can be within a person themselves thus, firstly, how to free the person from the inherited, surrounding, and absorbed falsity of environment and others that formats the self- how to get that distance and recognize that fallibility of the self, that it is the very imperfection of an individual that leads to their perfection as an optimizing being, by accounting for errors allows these to no longer limit or constrain functioning within lesser circuitry and adaptation and growth and development can occur beyond the false boundaries - once released from the inaccuracy as a malfunctional framework. and what if this is the goal of society, to help people develop into who they most actually are, and to support this self-development because it is the long-term best approach to improving society via high functioning citizenry, versus today which seeks to constrain and disallow this develop, keeping most everyone stupid and limiting only 10% of the brain to be used in the education system (or else- the psychiatrist and psychiatric pills for you!) what if society was not an antihuman environment, and what if to get there requires a new relation between people, and what if the way people are now formatted prevents this, due to constrained private boundaries that limit and protect awareness, yet this is also the essential self-corruption, that it can protect inaccurate views and beliefs sheltered within false models and beliefs that remain unchecked and uncorrected and are even the basis for shared relations, in that careers or marriages or other relations may be developed in that inaccurate context. thus what if any acknowledgment of error or inaccuracy could lead to negative repercussions and jeopardize the fragile sandcastles of peoples lives, where such revelations could become weaknesses, and set a person up against themselves in their functioning, when their brain and its beliefs are in opposition to what the body does and the conflicts that can arise in realizing a schizophrenic, fragmented condition required and normalized within society, as the status quo itself maybe it is the system that is actually crazy - and following along is the crazy thing, and waking up to this is actually about BECOMING SANE and not about losing your mind, and instead about finding it, grounding it in the more realistic situation, just as 9/11 did for a great many here, because finally some of the dimensions that exist beyond a given boundary were brought back into the world and could begin to be discussed in potentially more realistic terms, yet this itself was détourned, again via language so what if everyone exists in 'some truth' or partial truth, and this is a pseudo- condition, in that it is ambiguous and variant in terms of how it can be and is accounted for. [truth] is not 100% absolute, instead it is embedded in frameworks and contexts that carry it and these can be in error in terms of viewpoint or beliefs or perspective or facts and even subverted or twisted, such that truth is aligned within a warped worldview that then becomes normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, as with today so what if this toxic situation is the default condition for observation, such that the individual observer exists in a condition of 'some truth' and the goal is to remove the errors, simplify the situation by getting rid of the false beliefs in the modeling of events, and in doing so, while perhaps a less elaborate construct, a more accurate belief that tends towards A=A awareness, than relies upon A=B assumptions, including falsehoods needed to sustain the view. the ability to error-correct, fallibility, is the key to the cybernetic circuitry of self, allowing improvement. it is not an issue of weakness to be able to accurately account for the nature of the self to enable better self governance, management, and interactions with others. it is necessary and vital to unlocking the self beyond limiting constraints and false boundaries that contain the self within institutionalized views and inaccuracies that forbid development beyond the given belief system it is liberation, this accurate accounting of the self and freedom from the structuring of lies and deceptions, shared and unshared. it is the ability to 'know' what is known, and be able to defend this in terms of its truth, in a larger empirical framework of truth beyond the self alone, as this relates to humanity, the interconnectedness of shared human perspective thus to get the ones and zeros of truth and falsity accounted for within the self then enables relations with others that are not reliant upon the frameworks of 'shared lies', by default. and such true is only devalued when it is downgraded into a pseudo-truth evaluation and forced to be limited by a false worldview for what greater truth involves. it is a litmus test for ideology, where peoples boundaries are, who can and cannot be reasoned with and within or beyond protected or chosen boundaries. thus a closeminded biased programmer who codes this way likely has their own biased OS of self that is the basis for this imbalance externalized. so too, a person who has internal equilibrium with greater truth may balance external dynamics in an alignment more conducive to exchange in this way. the free flow of information and ideas requires free minds, in other words and the censorship or limiting of ideas and actions, in their truth, is an indication also of an inner disposition of those with such decision-making, that it is a tell basically about the logical reasoning running the works. this too can be exploited. the programming of self, not the automatic NLP brute-force of another and instead, 'processing' or logical reasoning, how a system works, within what dimensions, by what routines and flows, can then establish a way of coding based on a way of being, its foundation in truth, and built up from that awareness, reliant upon it and tested against it in terms of self-accountability, versus missing this vital step and running 'beliefs' without necessary grounding, as these become systems and technologies and administration and ruling agendas perhaps in this way social engineering has within its domain the issues of the programmer as a model of the computing paradigm they in turn develop, such that their modeling and thinking and motivations extend outward into systems yet relate back to the self as observer and decider, including in moral or ethical or ideological dimensions. and thus flaws in personality or flaws in beliefs or manipulations in these realms could be a continuum, and allowing insight into the nature of the exploit by those who exploit, as they think this way or rely on such deceptions, yet may also not be able to accurately account for themselves in these terms- seeing or evaluating the self accurately- looking into the mirror and see who is actually there versus who is believed there ("who is the fairest of them all", etc.) the signs can lie, can be hollowed-out, shallow, detached from truth yet *appear* to equate with an idea, to represent a truth, stand-in for it, and as long as no one is the wiser, this could be a successful approach though it remains virtual, the bubble can always be popped by outside accounting, and thus the way things are calculated and in what parameters does matter for how events are considered, communicated about, what is allowed reality and in this way, the masquerade of self as people may be externalized and held beyond this internal accounting for beliefs and actions, such that pseudo-truth is all that is required to sustained warped true belief' that is self-serving and dishonest, such that the person or IMAGE in the mirror is a fake, ungrounded in relation to actual existence, a conceit or ego that is daydreaming in terms of the chosen ideological terms of existence, and all that exists beyond this self interest remains unaccounted for and the external pressures involved, kept away from influencing these beliefs because it can be kept outside or protected against, via private enclaves; though at some point this could fail, and another world could take over and then this same person would have to come to terms with external accounting beyond the limited view, and for this their worldview would be effectively crushed, their ability to reason in these same terms and carry such beliefs would no longer be allowable, given the larger situation that now must be confronted and dealt with-- especially on terms other than self-beneficial. how well can liars do when the lies are no longer allowable as a practice. what happens when the accounting involves them losing jobs, careers, their houses, as others have due to the treachery of their antihuman ideology the danger is the encryption of the self that may not allow a self to be decrypted, if the key of truth is ignored. and thus those who can unlock themselves from the falsity have a different capacity for functioning than those who cannot audit themselves, take account of their actual condition versus a sign-based self-belief that wills itself into shallow existence, despite the facts and evidence. a volatile combination for instant madness, this. the self inaccessible, running hostile code, no way to masquerade, then stuck in a reframed reconstituted operating system of the state that seeks out the errors for removal. those humans aligned with truth on the one side, antihumans on the other. it is not appearance that is the issue, it is actuality, grounded beliefs as this relates to actions and integrity again in terms of security, the falsity of self and its ability to be exploited by self or others, or produce continual errors in processing then is a critical failure that must be remedied. the self needs to establish a 1=1 relation with truth and get beyond the reliance on manipulations that allow subjectivity to overrule evidence and disregard empirical modeling; that is, the conceit and narcissism of 'thinking' as binary onesideness that prevents thought via certainty of knowing a pseudo-truth viewpoint in terms of 'true belief' as if absolute and verified universally while false. those who do not do this perhaps are limited by parameters or boundaries that must be protected or confused and knotted and short-circuiting, yet also can rely upon this as a devious tactic that prolongs and extends the techniques of exploitation reliant on false frameworks and mimicry, saying one thing and doing another, as if it is beyond external calculation even. this situation and these interactions becomes transparent, freudian slips or tells or evidence of warped beliefs and limiting worldviews that seek to control and determine 'external events' in a bounded self-serving biased rationalization, that safely operates within a shared zone of ideology needless to say, this is also an operating system, these peoples mindsets are running routines in their brain-based platforms, programs and scripts and parsing data in certain parameters that exploit data and force it into particular skewed, self-serving views -- and thus, 3-value and N-value interactions can probe these situations and gain awareness of what these parameters are, what the limits are, how decision-making is justified and validated, what functions as proof (pattern matching, sign/image-based) and it is this same approach that extends into distributed technology systems, as the all-seeing eye of surveillance, the hidden identity that observes wrongly and seeks advantage through these same means, though here wetware where does the secure code begin and end. where does the insecure code begin and end. where does the corruption exist and extend from. it is thus the idea that truth is the basis for this evaluation of security, and lies are what allow insecurity in this context. if you run secure code on your machinery, if that is the goal, so too the self, or it could be in error sanaam, galangal, staranise ✉