Dan, thanks for the challenge. here is my feedback... wrote:

Would you accept the following restatement of your points?

i think this approach is very interesting, first off. it provides a perspective or different view into the framework of issues; my understanding and awareness of these as universals is extremely limited by lack of experience and understanding, and i thus immediately a boundary presents itself involving being able to take such a view, because of the complexity that is not sorted out within the various terms as they may split, one or many ways, into very different interpretations or even realities. i tend to think that this top-most view is subsequential to figuring out such contradictory dynamics though as a hypothesis or starting point it presents the idea of modeling the situation in these terms and given parameters, which is interesting to me because it is a view i do not readily consider and yet it also is a series of recurrent questioning oftentimes encountered as if a boundary or enigma, how is this situation constructed, how can others exist within such seemingly different frameworks yet share similar values, etc so, my sense is that -as a perspective- it is one view into this situation, which i think could be called a [model] of the stated dynamics, and people or machines existing within whatever this model contains could have different views of or into the various structures it contains, perhaps some are similar or different, shared or unshared structures yet in their truth there is universality within the modeling itself so the idea of establishing an accurate model via concepts, trying to hypothesize and capture this situation within some approximate then refined structure, ~categories, though also questioning this as a paradigm that may actually break away from known or accounted for history or challenge conceptions, perhaps most in an integrated interdisciplinary view woven of the many dimensions and dynamics as they overlap, begin to take on shape of a larger whole. and to do this, within a condition of paradox, then requires more than the prevailing and instituted binary view (2-value) in a relativistic context. thus to get at and access and 'model' [concepts], such as the various structures and links and relations and dynamics, then requires an increased diagnostic capacity able to adjust and account for individual and group views, that may begin in specificity or observations of finite observers, where bounded observations also -because of language and communication- have inherent bias, warping, skew, distortion built-into this process of exchanging ideas, information, viewpoints. thus issues of différance (0) a la de|con-struction of linguistics and other methodologies, which i propose include 3-value and N-value logic to address this issue of paradox and in this way, also establish a common empirical framework in which various views can be resolved, error-corrected via many observations of an event, in parallel, (this, panoptic) so a question pre-exists about how could such a viewpoint be established in a common frame of reference, a 'world' that is shared, even while people are separated, isolated, and perhaps exist in chaos, decoherence at every level with very few shared links or nodes in common, such that _language and _communication may not account for what is actually shared versus what is represented; like the disconnected between one-way mass media and viewers and readership which are fed a propaganda diet which becomes normalized as a viewpoint, this sustained by institutions and culture at large, including educational programs from K-12-PhD -- while also a false perspective in that the inaccurate 'shared view' held in common then is based in a distortion feeding energy into some process by its adherence, allowing the machine and people to be defined in such terms as a basis for existence, relations; even though it is hostile, against life, truth, principles, etc and so to realize and recognize this 'shared view' is false, in some fundamental way, then maps back to its structures which sustain it- and these indicate the underlying [model] itself is false in some significant and profound way yet it is also not being accounted for, and instead ignored, as if a non-issue and people are stupid and just supposed to obey their rulers, go along because it benefits those at the top of the machinery which it is killing and crushing those below thus it is necessary to consider there are different positions within the existing model, viewpoints, that may access the truth contained or embedded within it, in its accuracy and depth, perhaps hidden to many people who may never be able to escape the illusion and delusion due to brainwashing of media, and conversation and language as standardized as it relates to indoctrination into a belief system where certain ideological dogma is rewarded, and helps people to survive, as if this then defines 'fitness' within those warped terms and yet what i was trying to contribute to establishing, as others including yourself, is another modeling of events that more accurately describes 'lived reality' from within this state, and yet immediately a limit or barrier exists that divides such viewpoints - for others it may not be equated with living or with reality, it could be a simulation and they could be avatars for instance, in a given view of what is going on, and another view could equate the situation with being in a [movie], and thus an inherent and massive complexity exists where any 'universal viewpoint' is most likely not shared by default, of a given first person model of events applicable to the shared set of humans and instead any such structure must be able to account for, say in the mysterious dimensions, time-travel, aliens, or other dimensions and dynamics that may not fit the a priori 'history' that is the default view as projected by mass media as shared condition or common narrative. it may be in part true, yet not wholly accurate to account for the range of what is occurring nor the depth and breadth (scale) of what the issues involve, and the kinds of considerations that may exist within issues of identity, relations, awareness, knowledge, consciousness, exchange, organization, value, politics, governance, war, etc in that, perhaps historical modeling is significantly off-course in how the past and present-day situation exist and thus how they are represented via words, language, imagery, textbooks, video, radio-- in that 'the perspectives' may be warped or may be too limited, say only to views of private man, universalized, as if the common framework in its subjectivity, finitism, though ignoring this, such that it is beyond questioning or debate at the level of ideas (in terms of actual logical reasoning needed to refute or falsify wrong or errored views and beliefs) and thus a disconnect from 'shared reality' may occur via this relativism, which becomes peoples right, as 'independent individuals', to include any citizen who then can move through the world in terms of selfish genetics as these scale to demographics or private groups with shared self-interest, as the default model of the shared-yet-divided state, the ideology shared yet only benefiting fewer and fewer over time, as the state collapses in upon itself, having no realistic foundation across citizenry in terms of shared value, beyond that of lottery winners of $ either by class or station, circumstance or rigged privilege problem with this is an older generation had success in the false model, prior to collapse. that must have been the game, because their success was at the cost of everyone afterward, yet they view themselves superior, as if people are lazy and not interested in working, etc. 'if i was a teenager today...' thing is: when they went to school, you could still learn and be taught things. in these days, 'truth' has been removed from the education system, there is instead helplessness that is institutionalized, unless you are lucky enough to break free or break into the technology industry and have enough basic support to do, then a viable life path exists- otherwise traditional modes are failures, unless vocational though that also oftentimes is not testing the limits of how things are functioning, and exists within given parameters to some extent, versus a university model of the past that sought to develop these models and test and question them and rewarded scholars and thinkers for this pursuit instead of trying to ruin them and fail them and keep them outside, out of the feedback loop, because it benefits the machine and its tenders the most, the given technocratic governing based on machine-values, people as only behavioral-trained robots via submission and-or psychiatric and "illegal" drugs so, any given issue like [work] or [school] as a perspective is likely unshared because it does not parse the same across generations, and oftentimes an older constituency of the state, those most privileged and served by the existing corruption, seem to think their views superior and more knowing of the conditions and accurate - instead of out of touch and out of date, nostalgic and unreal to others existing in very different circumstances and parameters and dynamics, generations upon generations subsidized by handouts from the retired- class, who have all the money not inside billionaires coffers a level of unrealistic luxury exists that is subsidized by this oppression of the state over entire populations to support and sustain that illusion -- yet some of that ilk _believe that their success is due to their hard work, entrepreneurial savvy and not from advantages of structural injustice, exploitation of others, crooked operations as it were, in the day to day. instead, they are superior, the false supermen, propped up in this narcissistic illusion where they are the standard and ideal, not relating or accounting for the wasteland created so they could have all the goodies and then gloat about it in terms of caesars -by the millions- villas everywhere with lavish accoutrements, and yet none of them leaders either in this expanded domain. instead, followers of the zeitgeist within the given parameters, not questioning beyond those self-interested and defining conditions allowing this 'being', the civilization of war and ruin driven by their selfish desire in that it is not questioned, instead becoming ideological, the rule and the measurement by which others are judged and this equates with money as ultimate, absolute truth, that level of materialism then believed as if UTOPIA for the friction-free set who take on these machine values and succeed within those parameters, highly aligned w/ institutions, science and technology, professions, and the given 'economic' system as a social and political agenda (questions of its grounding or in-depth analysis of views of this, not delved into to retain ongoing sketch of relations..) so there are many who 'succeed' in this system, many of whom are 'types', such as [hackers] or [cryptologists] who may either work for businesses built-by such ideologues or partake in relations in and across the various frameworks. and yet again this is split, just because employed or in a subset relation within these structures, say directly inside ~technocratic management of automated state machinery, does not necessarily align with values or self-governing yet in some cases it does: money-money as major world axis, as it supposedly grounds into a localized fiction as if reality for others, [hackers] and [cryptologists], this state condition is dystopia, an inversion of the ideal, opposite the goal and a condition of cognitive dissonance, by a variety of means and measures- whether drug culture versus traditional values or the problems of thinking, where supplanting 'programmer- concepts' onto populations is a dangerous judgement made and foolish if not considering and accounting for implications of treating humans as binary bits, leaving out the anomalies (this a diseased view of scientific ideology as if pure religion) any category that exists, any concept within the model has differing dynamics and exists in differing contexts that then influence what is observed, related, exchanged; in this way, like the archetype, some symbolic calculus could occur or be performed that, if not accurately taking into account the differentiation or specificity (additional or unique dimensions) could then arrive at the wrong sums or viewpoints in turn a classic western example of the Church being [angels]... if someone starts to convey perceptions about 'angels' that could indicate a range of interpretations in the given category or set. such that: angels(good,bad). further, some accounts of angels have 'bad angels' as ultimately serving good and likely 'good angels' who fail to do so, so even that next level of structure is still ambiguous in terms of definite meaning 'angels' (good{good,evil}, bad{good,evil}) likewise with hackers, or cryptographers, etc. and thus this sets up a condition that in non-religious terms may reflect a certain complexity of stated versus unstated values as it may relate to how relations or exchange exists, given the context an entity exists within, how they are situated, operating in it in other words, ---deep---in---technocracy--- there are people who value 'money' and others who value 'truth' as their basis for governance and rule, of self and in relation with others the issue of dual-hats is thus contextualized within this, as it may relate in these parameters yet not be recognized via language or communication -openly-, outside an encrypted form of communication, due to secrecy, limits or thresholds that format behavior, relations, 'the common viewpoint', as it is standardized, becomes social, political, society at scale people alone, isolated, in their unlike and unrelated identity that may remain hidden, even persecuted if not following the ideological framework, even if 'alternative' or rebels or whatnot; there is basically no outside to this condition, unless somehow you dig yourself into such a strange isolated scenario that the lack of capacity to describe or account for it is a boundary for others accurate perceptions or accounting, if not as stealth; in that it cannot compute, exists beyond categories, etc the great thing about isolation and individuals who are human and live for truth, achieving grounding with all that is, cosmic circuit as consciousness, is that as with the noosphere or atmosphere of ideas, a person can be alone and still tap into this larger truth, its dimensions beyond local constraints and limits of relations of those surrounding. unlike having no money, a person cannot then enjoy the riches of money. or perhaps more accurately, whatever truth a person accesses then can be linked to a larger interconnected realm, this richness then opening up as awareness, unfolding as new consciousness which is shared by those of the past, present, future, even and especially with nature as this open-book, if finding keys to unlock various chapters, categories, concepts, dimensions so a person could exist in an organization amongst others yet their 'shared condition' could be split between [money|truth] as the parameter of value, say at the material level of work and of pursuits and life goals. and what results could then be thought about and evaluated in these terms, perhaps a range of them; the necessity & utility of money balanced by/weighed against truth and moral and ethical principles and guidelines, direction. so the simplest thing like a person having a job or career as it translates as categorical [work] then is loaded with potentials, as to how this situation grounds, into the larger empirical truth and-or into the surrounding falsity and its 'shared perspective'; noting that this 'sharing' could be at the group level or rely on a case-by-case basis, or unshared in certain dimensions, etc thus, a model, people as observers, context in which views are established, and relations, as it relates with core value it is impossibly difficult to generalize this at the top-level as this 'shared condition' is without accurate foundation, in that each _structure or concept is itself split to multiple levels & interconnected with others in ecological, nonlinear dynamics that may be as unique as N-dimensional fingerprints for each view, and then as differing or shared views relate, this further difference and connection, coherence and alignment and-or else decoherence and misalignment or detachment, isolation if considering humans may have innate capacity for modeling such empirical truth as 'shared consciousness' by default, it then could be questioned if human relations are based within a framework of quantum dynamics, where information flits in and out of various paired or entangled patterns, recognized or fragmentary constructs awaiting corresponding puzzle piece, and thus this 'reality' is computational as logical reasoning, awareness related to grounding circuits, energy/matter/truth as mentioned previously, then, a concept such as 'the military' could be split as a category and may map differently for some people than others, based on values, relations, circumstance and it seems in the superficial materialistic view that drives this madness that what is represented as [military] equates with a representation or model aligned with the values of money above all else, serving the ideology and its greed, as if the military is a toy moved around on a gameboard, even while immense suffering is involved, death, torture, all of this ignored for the lifestyle it affords, power it allows thus, it is as if there is a fantasy going on, an ideological entity called 'the military' that for some is icon of patriotism and mediated this way, as with those out-of-touch, such that it seems as if it is a movie set that events take place within, as if a CAVE simulation that is modeling devolved society, and then having avatars enter into events as mimics or actors that are also detached from 'the situation on the ground' that exists, that coldness that is machine-like if not unthinking, the brute force approach then equating violence with truth, the more powerful then defining or determining what is real at the same time not allowing this analysis to take place within civilization in terms of logic, only shared faith, belief that then becomes and is private, faith-based 'government' i imagine you and i and others relate to a different [military] that orients itself in terms of truth-- that this is its mission. and that observation alone reframes historical dynamics in a geopolitical framework, the cold war instantly remapped, and things begin to make more sense in these parameters so how could more than one [military] exist? it could be an issue of perspective, seeing something from different angles or it could involve more than this. a different military exists within different parameters, though may not be related to as such. this is to then consider, for instance, how this situation could be planned for millennia in advance, to include creating a power vacuum filled by impersonators with a hostile agenda, whereby territory or categories are ceded in order to establish an illusory perspective at scale this is the same situation as citizens, whereby any given [citizen] could be friend or foe, worldwide, in human terms. the truth is more involved than the category alone, and thus [human citizen] who aligns with truth, in shared framework is a different citizen than [antihuman] aligned with money so upon further reflection after writing and then rereading my recent previous views, it was realized this issue gets right at the heart of empirically modeling the conundrum; that this division or split between money and truth is some way of approximating a condition that is also perceptible or felt in daily and lived experience with regard to existing and immense 'categories' in conflict, such as capital, capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, and so on. the thing is, these ideas or concepts are being mediated within language by default, not within logic beyond skewed binary viewpoints as a basis for communication and relations via language. in this way, the way they parse as 'data' is very different given what perspective an observer has- ie. where they ground.. for instance, 'capital' is a very different idea if modeled in terms of its being money, than in terms of its being truth. and thus [capital] as it is represented, mediated, related to by self and others could split based on how it is evaluated, perceived or parsed, in its money-as-truth approach, or in shared truth as a basis for money, allowing trade, exchange. the latter approach tends towards shared morals and ethics, the former towards greed and selfishness, disregard of others thus, [capitalism] where 'truth' has no value would tend then to have money be this truth, by standing in for it as the most tangible material representation, an icon even of value itself. that would be one version or interpretation, another approach to [capitalism] could value 'ideas' and 'concepts' in their truth, which then is the basis for money, trade, exchange, planning and development. where competition and cooperation ground to different circuits than money as the highest shared value "culture" in these differing approaches would likely be entirely different. the money-based approach superficial, about quick and ever-increasing profit (as morality, ethics, 'the good', etc) whereas in a truth-based culture, ~representation would have depth, connecting and situating the present within the centuries and gain value from this structural relation, refinement, sharing of principles and awareness as integral process of development; in this way, truth and virtue would be discerned within aesthetics, insight and education and learning would be cherished, and the pursuit of higher goals, principles, and ideals the common fabric [democracy] likewise splits the state along these similar lines, in which money and politics establish ungrounded relations with the communication of media and those people 'representing' us, becoming a form of detachment, isolation, division, confusion in that what is said is not what is done, what is believed is a lie. whereas if it is based in truth, another layer could co-exist that servers beyond parameters of politics and money, involving the subtleness and nuance of governance with truth at its core, as an encrypted channel that those of others value may never see nor identify nor relate to or through, this boundary unshared by 'citizens', in this difference, a pretext for civil war, for both sides; those who conform and those who do not fit in, based on values [religion] could be parsed in this money/truth context yet it is likely self-evident, the superficial versus indepth commitment to truth, as institutions and representers may be corrupted or fail or serve other beliefs - though at its core, an issue of faith and belief -- in truth, or in money as this ultimate truth, which side are you on, who do you serve, what principles, etc. (the point here being that [institutions] can become faith-based, once based on unfettered truth then falling to money as truth, via corruption of ideas, organization, relations, via ideology) [socialism] also, aligned with money or aligned with truth. and this is one of those scenarios where it is oftentimes a layer in another category- say: religion(socialism) as this parses different if truth of ideas are of value, the basis for human relations, or money determines, formats this firstly; it could co-exist or likely the materialistic money-based view could govern over the other hidden belief in truth as the basis and evaluation of these concepts in their social, economic, or governing parameters. this is the complexity likewise [communism]. say firmly situated in technocratic embrace, both as idea and ideology. in some forms it may be a method of political engineering, say shipping broken items or sabotaging processes, censoring views which is a repeated technique for managing and maintaining control. this could not just involve 'ideas' of doing these things, the goal could be to deprive others not based on greater truth and instead, on power over it, to define what is true as a result of controlling what can and cannot happen, thus the issue of freedom and bureaucracy making the decisions. it would seem at some point this extreme material view aligns perfectly with political opposition and subversion, and ultimately has its truth rendered as money as the highest shared value, in that 'the group' benefits in such monetary terms by their tactics against the opposition, to maintain a given relation via control of parameters and that deep within this is a historical viewpoint functioning as dogma, a belief system based on indoctrination that cannot be questioned in its rightness beyond a particular juncture and thus is 'closed' as a system of questioning, insofar as its economics, politics, relations are already figured out in advance, leading to oligarchy seemingly of controlling and ruling class of upper-level bureaucrats in this way 'commercial communism' and 'corporate democracy' as definers of existing dynamics moreso than any terms of alone. the ideology of "economics" as religion, the dollar as icon of 'shared value' minus the morality and ethics of "In God We Trust" then the compact between producer and consumer, or exploiter and exploited in many relations without 'shared identity' in the same subset, nor similar value as basis for relation and exchange. in this way, shipping of broken goods to those not in the shared set, these politics, while taking the money is an approach shared also by the corrupt capitalist approach-- they are virtually identical, when considered in terms of politics and money, they have the same purpose, this worldly immediate materialism that perfectly aligns with short-term politics and money as if parsing everything in terms of money as ultimate value is morality, and if it is shared by a given group it is good, or if it is not, it is threatening, must be stopped academia is very much under control of this spell, as 'ideas' themselves are forced out, censored, to maintain control over organization and management of resources, the path or assemblyline of culture and its development, as if thinking is bad for factory workers, an evil trait today in fact, it would seem all education suffers from ideology that aligns with this materialistic bias of a too-simple viewpoint, unable to be corrected- because it is religion minus its truth, instead, pure greed and nothingness is at the core, an absence, void, emptiness, non-being as if enlightened, transcendent, instead of devoid, detached, disconnected, disembodied, dumbed-down, destroyed in the past, the ideas of communism in their truth were able to be valued. there is something here that is worth considering and needs to be recognized. note also the role of philosophy in recognizing this form of governance and also religion, carrying on these structures within the various relevant parameters -- in their truth. as they are subverted or corrupt, falling again to money and politics, the great divide of culture, peoples, civilization, both its internal and external fracturing, false pangea to NWO When we -- the collective we -- are dependent on something, we are

at risk w.r.t. its denial. When we are at risk w.r.t. its denial, preventing that denial is a military concern. When something is a military concern, the vigor of concern is calibrated by some characterization of [those/actors] who might participate in attempts to deny us that on which we depend.

i believe [human] as category can encompass all variations in their truth, as a 'we' if this truth is accounted for. if in a simulation or partial-simulation in a parallel-reality being engineered or modeled in suspended- and real-time, some may be interacting in a 'movie' context, as actors or avatars, and others may know only this as their life, as citizens. though i tend to think this 'big split' exists so that there is a bifurcated [model] of everything proposed here. i would then say- yes, i think it is truth that is opposed, denied. as it is bigger than issues of capitalism, democracy, socialism, yet is embedded in these. the view of governance should allow the truth of these dynamics, their dimensions to co-exist in their relational structures, whereas politics and ideology can disallow it. thus calibration is incredibly difficult and mainly an issue of belief, if not grounded beyond language and communication of signage, that is, within logic, to parse concepts and programming in their relational code - evaluated in terms of truth, logical reasoning that addresses and neutralizes binary biasing (evil faith which is what supports and aligns with money as sacrament in church of state) not being able to account for this- while having everything defined in terms of 'economics' by priesthood with business philosophy ?! what humans require is truth, this is necessary to attain accurate relation with self, others, modeling of situation, communications, foundation for civilization and culture, basis for awareness, reality in this way, loss of truth, reality has been stolen, false viewpoint persists, defended by corrupt institutions politically managed The world is increasingly interdependent, hence increasingly at

risk w.r.t. denial of essential things. That growing interdependence is a network phenomenon, per se, hence instrumentation of all items in the network is a military goal, per se.

people(humans,antihumans) exist within a machine state managed in terms of technocracy, aligned both with money and truth as value. hackers, cryptographers, others, situated in these daily frameworks, relating or not within specific dimensions. what is essential varies. money (humans,antihumans,hackers,cryptographers) truth (humans,antihumans,hackers,cryptographers) relation between person and military (money|truth) likewise variable, what military, what network, what is instrumental -as dimension- interdependence is a shared set condition, can be nested, though in terms of grounded circuit, what appears relational may not be how it actually functions in truth, such that if parameters shift or framework changes, a different circuit could appear or co-exist and become operational. what is instrumentalized may be latent or non-operational, potential, like Heideggers 'standing reserve' wonderful books by Paul Shepheard, view conveyed either in What is Architecture? or The Cultivated Wilderness (1) about the military and natural and built if not virtual environment as related to observing, taking notice of what surrounds a person tactics, operations, strategy, delineated/described as concepts it is a difficult realm to communicate within unless others able to situate themselves in these parameters, perhaps inherent in the infrastructure as war model, war machine, fortress, defensive and offensive, preparing the battlefield, etc. i do not have direct knowledge or experience with these parameters, yet as ideas in their truth, they also seem pertinent in accounting for strange and anomalous characteristics that prevail as 'the status quo', perhaps the only way to make sense of the ongoing madness (in its truth, versus represented and believed normal and okay) the issue of interdependence seems miniscule from where i am whereas others are highly-connected, benefit from shared set dynamics and truth that is active, informs shared direction from this perspective in what is proposed as a 'shared model' there is a limit to what can be communicated or related to or through in terms of ideas, based on previous established and- or institutionalized consensus, that becomes a barrier to what can be shared or communicated about due to 'unshared views', experiences or beliefs that map differently, given relativism, narrowed evaluation, and bias including power-based relations instead of: signal <---> signal (signal) NOISE <---> NOISE (signal) that initial protocol and handshake usually mismatched from the very start within [category] relations and between various category-category dynamics and relations, such that the need for interdisciplinary mesh-reality cannot be established within a ruling context of authoritative relativistic truth (based on money as shared framework for legitimacy, versus analysis of ideas), in that economics often determines value and this precedes questioning of ideas beyond that initial boundary, like a stamp at the gate, PASS or FAIL, and most everything fails because grounded reasoning and logic is gone from this evaluation, in that 'binary bias' and ideology manage this interconnectivity it is thus always a fight, to share ideas, to gain access, as ideas are secondary to money as truth, to what manages the 'shared set' and its reality. perhaps a fragile situation and tentative balance, yet it is total weakness and failure of principles of democracy, freedom of ideas, expression, communication, ideals of debate, sharing of viewpoints in terms of a public commons- everything privatized in this narrowed interpersonal collegial framework of privileges & status that then define the atmosphere as an authority- based power-structure, where truth is voted on, consensus. utterly confusing to those not integrated with institutions, to see this compromise of reasoning to a lesser state of relation, managerial, ubiquitous across the internet today it is not to presume there may not be different dynamics than this, yet to 'communicate about truth' or share ideas beyond the known boundary appears to be a serious issue of personal security that limits what can occur at the group scale, as any individual could become gatekeeper or allow such gatekeeping, though email lists themselves basically have died in a larger realm of ideas and thinking, now it is social media where each person has PASS/FAIL stamp as interface to individual reality, constructing own view or relativistic perspective, perhaps largely ungrounded beyond the narrow criteria evaluated, perhaps leaving out other views that could challenge beliefs, etc. 'interdependence' in that context is quite different, the isolation or relations may not ever reach the ideas in their truth, beyond chit-chat, (thus 'Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death'? etc). it suggests there is an absence of 'truth' within communications, that it is very minimal, such that it may maintain connection yet is not involved in significant transfer of ideas or truth at the scale and complexity of the situation that exists and must be mediated, and instead it seems escapist, a fantasyland or pre-school for adults, to fuck around with seeming no consequence while others lives are absolutely brutal for taking it on and suffering alone or being taken out while others 'in group' continue doing the same. the issue of 'trying to have a conversation' is instantly met with censorship, by people themselves because it goes over their own protected viewpoints & must be controlled through distancing, filters, limitations versus - i don't know- questioning beliefs, being fallible, correcting known errors, improving modeling, observation this risk averseness then is extremely relevant to limits to sharing ideas that do not fit into the ruling ideology, because it may harm someone else economic interests and oftentimes these are people are otherwise interesting yet cannot deal with ideas, cannot handle views that go beyond their own framework. and it is crippling, and it is the basis for a conceit that people believe they know more than they actually do, and yet then cannot engage what is going on because it is over their head, own models thus communication, relation, shared views are stopped to some degree it is understandable. though at a certain point it is not acceptable to remove personal responsibility from the equation of 'societal relations' and assume that following is always going to be an option or allowed, for those that cannot think for themselves beyond sharing of beliefs that are not understood or observed in their truth (in this way, ignorance can be evil, and it is institutionalized) so this as an attempt to convey, military dimensions in their truth is a subset condition or relation few seem cognizant of and operate and evaluate in other terms, oftentimes appearing very shallow and in service to wrong values, if through ignorance. i think mass surveillance in society is such a case, where the ideology says only 'few' by default are legitimate targets when this is not the situation on the ground, though it serves the self interest of a naive and privileged set that benefit most from it, who are politically passive and benefiting from the status quo perhaps most, by following the ruling paradigm, operating within the jetstream of culture, then pronouncing morality, ethics, and culture from this position as if of higher virtue even, while taken in the more accurate context it is against security interests for any thinking person who is not bullshitting themselves in the mirror every day to maintain a false-perspective and relations, that is, things just aren't that fucking easy. they never were in the realm that things get done on the scale off civilization For the individual whose mindset of tradeoff is "I want all the

goodies this modern world provides" then with that comes said individual fully participating in the instrumentation complex. For the individual whose mindset of tradeoff is "I wish to be left alone" then with that comes said individual foregoing that increasing fraction of the modern world's goodies that cannot be gotten without instrumentation.

makes sense, well put, it is hard to understand the different circuits and parameters others must mediate the larger shared situation within, i go by my heart oftentimes, though routinely am challenged to think another who has such insight and values truth could perhaps serve a false order than what is allowed in the shared empirical model, because it seems that is what life is about, gaining and securing that access and then beginning to live, after making it through this struggle that this is not a condition of life, that this is hell, this is the world as cemetery and prison, freedom is often not even recognizable in the day to day, when parsed at a fundamental level of relations, identity, culture, the state, etc. the description of hoarding toys is also indicator of that layer of ideology as institutionalized authority and ethos of 'businessmen' as if supermen, again. to mention that the idea of [man] as shared set is largely fictional in the present day in that [man] maps to all of these corruptions, even public man who is rationalizing events in terms of his manness, particular man-story in the epic swindle of mankind as substitute/representer for humanity i think manhood is a 1950s concept that becomes a conceit for mimics and subverts relations between people and with women, and thus 'human male' or 'human female' or 'human wo|man' then is part of this identity issue, as it relates to shared sets (human) versus unshared. in that those who gloat are also 'men' who were at the sweet-spot of this exploitation and further collapse, they are in the best position to manage, and this shared private identity of 'man' and 'men' is part of the dogma, including internal-sexuality (men-men) as a basis for defining the public, without females even yet to mention such things goes against instituted law - based on a flawed constitution - that then upholds these views as privileged and allows the exploitation to be further structuralized, continued thus limit to relations can even be within a gender-category, that as a human male i think most of these "super-men" are full of shit and this has not been accounted for beyond the rigged portrayals None of us here should be unwise enough to describe what we are

individually doing to decouple, but given the character of this list I rather suspect that we are each and severally describable much more as "Leave me alone" than as "He who dies with the most goodies wins."

again, another critically important concept: the short circuit. breaking the false connections and allowing rewiring of self, with others, breaking group dynamics then reestablishing other relations based on shared dimensions, dynamics, based in truth and not serving the regime of pseudo-truth that seeks to manages or keep truth away, out of central or shared processing, scalability there is ubiquitous censorship. it seems to begin in closing of minds. Back to you,

--dan

// funny as hell. thanks for the laugh. (0) Différance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance (1) books by Paul Shepheard http://www.paulshepheard.com/books/195/what-is-architecture note: science and thus technocracy based on limited pseudo-truth (pT) vs (T) is how it is corrupted, turns into ideology, gains political power, not accounting for this allows an immoral priesthood to govern over us and develop and extend onesided policies aligned with machine-values where money is the objective, the determiner of ~reality, 'shared goals' note: more money does not necessarily correlate with greater truth, yet this is often the conceit of those with more money, status, power and how ideas can be shut down based on position within society as if it corresponds with greater knowing, versus other driving principles; perhaps this is why people cannot think for themselves as truth has no value in this scheme, financial punishment following if unfavored; thus forced obedience,obeyance of power over truth as if truth itself, as this cascades through individual, group, society, state relations [20.02] (8) 4Q#1!80e3Hk;&jV'7-2iZeE8qs:q97w (6) [3/4]