Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote: More important question is: can you pronounce ... all [signs of truth]? And

if you cannot pronounce truth, what other ways can you not perceive or produce it.

interesting considerations. interpretation slightly varying on multiple meanings for pronounce, saying vs. declaring. instead of copying the examples again, an ironic or emblematic representation of "truth" as a sign of truth ["truth"], self-conscious in its structural connection to all other signs as a concept, then could evaluate any sign, though also all signage standing-in for this concept, in terms of the larger integrated evaluation and its accounting... (unbelievable perhaps though am not trying to be abstract). such that: ["truth"] ---> A=A (1) in this way, any language with a sign representing truth could likewise be grounded in 1=1 evaluation (this perhaps more universal as number though as language (A) more insightful in terms of signage). e.g: [αλήθεια] ---> 1 (T) [真実] ---> 1 (T) [ความจริง] ---> 1 (T) that is, all various 'signage of truth' would be grounded in an empirical evaluation of truth (such as A=A) whereby the absolute truth (1) would be referenced as a basis for determining truth (T), noting that my notation here is arbitrary and shifting, trying to describe it. thus if 'observation of truth' is grounded, it would tend towards 1, whereas if based on pseudo-truth and errored relativistic beliefs, where truth is minor and set within prevailing uncorrected falsity, this ungrounded observation could tend towards falsity instead (0), even while it references the same 'sign of truth', the sign believed to automatically verify an inaccurate 'absolute condition' via reading/writing its sign. in other words, the reference to the word ["truth"] is deemed the totality of accounting for truth of an observation, via 'true belief' that is not accounted for beyond the sign and binary onesided evaluations that assume the error-reliant observer is infallible; corrupt POV. [αλήθεια] ---> pT (0) [真実] ---> pT (0) [ความจริง] ---> pT (0) in this way -ungrounded observations- which simply reference the 'sign of truth' could, in their reliance on relativistic frameworks not checked against other empirical observations beyond their given protected boundary or parameters, then have their viewpoint carry only a minor truth (say 1% grounded truth amidst reliance on much larger falsity) yet in binary terms be assumed 'absolutely true' (1) which is what ideology affords- a protected boundary that edits truth to fit a given model, yet the more this occurs, the less real it becomes as a viewpoint of the world outside this bubble condition. in other words, grounded error-corrected observation of empirical truth tends towards 1, ungrounded error-reliant and uncorrected observation of relativistic pseudo-truth tends towards 0 (though can assume to equate with 1 via binary ideology) -- such that both these observers could reference the same sign of truth ["truth"] and yet one observer could be situated in an accurate and realistic empirical model and the other in a virtual, warped, twisted and surreal model that is largely a false perspective, false consciousness, etc. relativistic pT (0) <--- ["truth"] ---> (1) empirical truth and that everyday language in linear exchanges, not referencing a common model of truth and verifying accuracy of observations, of claims and statements and beliefs, actually by default tends towards falsity (0) and nothingness, in terms of empirical awareness. instead >nothingness< is that is shared as the common viewpoint. truth having been removed from the center of cultural knowledge and awareness via relativism and binary ideology. so basically everything exists in this far-left scenario (above) by default, to even include mathematics (psychology of mathematicians, the basis for their analyses in terms of logical reasoning, errors of observers), coding, programming, communication, language, economics, and onward to everything. it is all ungrounded belief, to greater/lesser extents, unless subsets of empirical truth have been achieved otherwise - yet not at the scale of existing government, the state, else people would be able to deal with the situations that exist instead of silence, passivity, and incapacity to question and work-through what is going on, though there is also active hostility to exactly such _behavior, so the animal trainers make sure humans remain the apes so grounded and ungrounded observations influence and effect whether a sign maps into structures of empirical truth or relativistic falsity, and this relates to parameters, boundaries, dimensions evaluated, and the internal processing of the observer, externalized, as a decision-making entity that then interacts with others and various tools, using this operating system or ruleset for guidance, navigation i keep thinking of the Voyager spacecraft gold-record in this regard, the challenges of interpretation this situation involves, especially the further it gets outside of a shared framework- which is how the universality of numbers seem to establish the basic for language outside the variability of signs, assumably recognizable beyond a given threshold of development, say for space-venturing civilizations THE GOLDEN RECORD http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/goldenrec.html it would be pretty hilarious if the aliens could not figure out what the various symbolic language was meant to equate with due to some hidden relativistic bias and get future feedback on such an inherent limit in existing approaches to communication. such that a gap may exist between what is communicated and what is believed communicated. the larger issue involved in the grounding of truth within signs, including the 'signs of truth' that seek to represent it as a concept, is that it is a general condition of linear language that repeats itself endlessly, [such] [that] [every] [word] [and] [idea] [exist] [in] [this] [shared] [existential] [condition] and rely on particular interpretation, to ~account for the truth, however perceived and subsequently evaluated. thus your question of the limits to seeing, saying, conveying this truth, what if there is a boundary and it seems the default condition, that such a boundary exists, perhaps even an extreme limit upon observation of the truth as it exists, versus as it is perceived and-or believed to exist in contingent modeling used in day-to-day existence, trapped within a style of language, styles of knowing, ways of being that could be established via these same parameters and boundaries as a structure, the basis for given observations, specific contexts that make each observer unique (the relativistic context) which can be an asset if grounded and integrated into other views of the same events, versus blocking them out, censoring reality to fit a given parameter that itself may only be partially accurate, etc. in this way the reference to ["truth"] is not only how this concept is referenced by each individual observer (or ignored by computers via their modeling of signs instead as if truth), it is also how this conceptualization exists as an infrastructure within all other signs and symbols and events, as these are calculated, processed, accounted for within observational frameworks. in other words a substructure of this truth, within each and every sign and their combination and permutations resulting in various arrangements of meaning, this in a perspectival (relative->empirical) framework akin to geometric modeling (Plato: Timaeus), such as the nesting of platonic solids or The Architecture of Molecules, though "forms" are ideas, commonly referenced via various viewpoints (facets) and ~dimensions, to model and accurately account for, if not determine, things-in-themselves as concepts map into the world and are repeated and transformed in this way, the [sign] is like the facade of a billboard, a large outdoor wood and metal canvas used for graphic advertisement, mainly for automobile transportation- getting eyeballs to track to the available marketable space between the world of civilization and the empty sky. what is relevant about this [signage] is that the sign itself is held up by a hidden armature that is in the background, while the message is in the foreground. and yet this hidden armature is its physicality, its basis for how it is positioned in space-time and also literally its grounding in the material world, such that a lightning strike on the armature would be sent back into earth via ground wire if atop a building otherwise constructed in the ground as a self-contained billboard, i.e. the various typology of how buildings can exist in this context of the [billboard], as with any sign, its [truth] may be equated with the signage itself, as a surface-level evaluation and thus interpretation not extended beyond this parameter to account for its existence. thus the image or sign may equate with its truth. yet to understand the billboard signage in depth would require understanding something about advertising and real estate, marketing, semiotics perhaps, psychology, economics, whatever themes or industries or business models may be referenced, icons, as these relate to how someone perceives this signage, pattern-matches their dimensional awareness into or onto that framework of the [sign], and thus how 'truth' is determined or grounded, in what context, how much it relies on assumptions in pT or goes beyond these, as this relates to boundaries and parameters and thresholds of observers and knowledge and beliefs. the larger truth, in other words, may exist outside the literal frame of the [sign], its "truth" may go into the hidden armature, here an analogy and-or metaphor, that structures and creates the informational model that is being mediated, evaluated, parsed, ~computed and processed via observers in such a sign-based relation, that as a medium may actually involve connecting two remote observers in a hidden or delayed mode of exchange, symbolic or otherwise (economic, political, social, cultural, informational), including demographic, statistical, ideological, biased, to the point that pavlovian or skinnerian techniques of salivation may be the basis for processing, more than deep intellectual consideration so if it is possible to withstand further investigation into this, it would then be to consider [signs] of language in these terms, whereby their "truth" may exist as this hidden armature that connects into these other hidden yet interconnected dimensions, a substructure or infrastructure of signage or a substructural level of language and-or patterning, and that this is essentially the scaffolding of structure that relates to 'logical reasoning' that connects various ideas and concepts in their 'shared truth' beyond given boundaries that may or may not be accounted for within a given observation. the truth of the [sign] could be interpreted just as its image, yet its "truth" as a ["sign"] involves more than a pattern-match with a preconceived notion that is unaccounted for in its empirical existence, by default. that would require getting into its armature, its meaning yet also its modeling and *conceptualization*, which is necessarily empirical in that the nature of perspective allows an N-dimensional observation, via shared observation, panoptic seemingly, to evaluate every facet and angle and vertex in its accuracy (A=A) and thus get to the thing-in-itself versus remaining trapped in a false perspective of things as they are perceived as [signs], never going beyond the boundary to get at the truth that validates them as ["signs"] in terms of ideas, and this is proposed to be requiring nonlinear modeling, stopping this linear feed of endless unique perspective, to reference the same event or situation (x) via various grounded perspectives, than create new unconnected perspectives, 'reinventing the sign' each time it is observed or referenced (x..n) (else perhaps x^n) (unsure how to denote this at the moment) so there is a correlation between this condition, where [signs] are not similarly referenced, and existing technology: HTML or hypertext markup language. the Project Xanadu approach Ted Nelson invented was not followed. [0] if understanding correctly, it was a common reference for each sign, such that each word would be referenced to a centralized model, a single concept, such that typing this would involve an invisible armature that would map back towards a central model of the same information, as if a weaving of data outward from the core. each [sign] would reference an original, as with Plato and original forms, versus copies and copies of copies (ideology). thus the inherent structure of language would be part of the information modeling, online. the entire internet would be organizable as content this way, if these concepts could then be the basis for modeling and categorizing and relating to ideas, and communicating. or so that is the potential for such an approach. instead, every [sign] remains as a [sign], yet does not reference a common, accountable ["sign"] that can be used to account for its truth, as an idea and concept. friction-free and free-floating, language untethered from its accounting in truth, as if the [word] in and of itself is truth, versus referencing it, a representation that provides a pathway that grounds with reality in this way, the programming conventions themselves can become limits to observation and perception and relation to information and data modeling that becomes surface-based, shallow or hollowed out in terms of issues of representation, what is accounted for and what exists and can be exploited in terms of belief. and by default, it is proposed, due to this lack of accounting for the scaffolding and hidden armature that empirical truth involves, the relativistic approach instead takes over and exists in an ungrounded condition at this superficial level of bounded, limited, finite interpretation trapped within dynamics mostly defined by psychology of observers who, most, are reliant on biased and onesided binary evaluations by default, and entire populations are trained this way, in terms of what they see and how they convey this, what is sayable versus requiring self or other censorship-- and at the core is fear of ideas, fear of truth, the fear that losing these protective parameters will result in loss of self, loss of ego (yes), loss of infallibility (yes), loss of certitude (yes), and thus it is a different worldview, like Copernican and Galilean, though it involves fundamental gains: grounding, neutralizing bias, clarity of observation, access to truth beyond arbitrary boundaries, the capacity to reason, realization of service to truth as beneficent, etc. though instead, as if brainwashed by the ideological nanny-state, the fear of unfettered truth: we cannot handle the truth, therefore... the false perspective and its bliss. draw within the lines. everything will be ok. just take your pills. pre-order your casket... [0] Project Xanadu - Ted Nelson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Xanadu (reference test for wordwrap) - 78 character monospaced Courier New font XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX izod-lacoste, vans, sexwax ∄ ‱ ∃