clarification re: [20] ii

[brian carroll]

Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:


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


apologies for delving deeper, it is a fascinating area to consider the
dynamics involved at this threshold or juncture, because interpretation and
relations can be defined and changed by the above mentioned criteria. thus
how is the information modeled, in what dimensions, concepts, and
abstraction...

what might the word [истината] mean if the language is not known, and thus
cannot be deciphered, decoded, or decrypted. might it operate on a visual
level, like a rorschach test, via whatever is recognized, or is it instead
ignored as a failed pattern match and thus upholds a boundary or perimeter
between known and unknown, like and unlike.

could it be possible to utilize these dynamics in other ways, such that
graphic elements of dε|cθи-şλวực+相ή could be utilized across conventional
boundaries and perhaps unlock other interpretative or structural layers,
via ambiguity or alternative readings of the potentials involved with
superposition of intrasign characters

another way to consider this is that until now the [sign] has functioned as
a whole concept, yet what if each letter was considered in its variability
in terms of its potential <multiple> meanings. such that |e|a|c|h| letter
could have variability, as demonstrated in HIOX dynamics, e.g. |a|e|n|y|.

in terms of superposition of a given letter, how this ambiguity could shift
meaning: |v|iew -> |c|iew, in phonetic terms (view, cue). in this context
of superposition of variables and their n-potential, i like the comparison
to juggling, as to what interpretation or pattern exists in a given
viewpoint or contingent framework, yet that can be swapped out or evaluated
in other patterning, as this relates to numerous available or unknown
interpretations. inter-sign, yet also infra- and intra-sign. as these views
could be grounded in some conceptual or methodological framework. for
instance as cipher systems or whatnot.

does the meaning of the word [nest] change with a variable character, such
that |n|est could become ήest. perhaps suddenly the out-of-bounds extra
information accessed via this new juxtaposition opens meaning, such that
jest appears as a partial variable, as if a spread of an orbital cloud of
electrons over their domain. another example: hat & hật, beyond
pronunciation, graphically that the additional caret symbol (^) could be
read as 'top hat' via symbolic processing, in some interpretative,
arbitrary framework based on what is referenced and how, in what terms.
graphically, outside the conventional language boundary, it could still be
functional as graphic language or data in this way

the issue then of subsign meaning as this relates to subtext and issues of
bounded interpretation, where the lines are drawn- via what parameters of
literacy. perhaps in this way 'not knowing' can open up potential readings,
as if approaching a rosetta stone of meta-language. and yet keyboards are
formatted in a particular way that prohibits and forbids this as a
practice. though ascii emoticons and icons (say in instagram or other
social media trinket-based visual feedback) are of this same nature, some
repurposed for graphical use, to communicate and allow such symbolic
communication and processing, relations and exchange in a perhaps similar
realm of communication.

i was going to be writing about this soon, typography and geometry, so will
save the larger evaluation for that conveyance.

there are examples of this same interpretative superposition within
language that i wanted to share, to clarify the point and its use within
culture. one is quite bleak, so the good things first...

Olek example
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151655052466759

note: this could be evaluated in terms of a billboard and external
armature, outside the frame of the [sign]. yet instead to focus just on the
superposition of letters in the text within the boundary of the frame...
what is the [word] in the frame? #cool, #bod, #cod, #cool, #God, #feel,
#fool, #Bed, #66 eel, #GG ed, #Beef, #ceel, #coed, #Coal?

how do each of these potential meanings change the relation between the
observer, the self evaluating the event, and the surrounding context within
the image. how does the meaning shift as the combined signs tabulate into
different frameworks of reference. how does the circuitry transform.

also, conceptualization of the situation itself, what if the frame is a
magic device that shows someones hidden thoughts, as if a decrypting
device, and that this is what the artist is potentially conveying, in terms
of deep aesthetic insight and questioning.

an attempt at approximating and mapping this superposition:

     # [c|GG|66|G|f|B] [o|e|e|oa|oo|ee|ed|od] [l|d|f]


now you could go a long way with this, into what it potentially means. one
interpretation could be 'bod' as it relates to body, where a face is
unseen, and how the body of a female may not actually be grounded to an
female-born entity, and could be a male in drag for instance. thus
questions of [woman] and [man] as this may involve signage, versus
grounding of the meaning of these words beyond a partial evaluation. such
that superficially [man] could equate with driving a truck and drinking
beers and having a dog, the image matching and pattern recognition of this.
such that a [person] who is male, on a motorcycle who wears a leather
jacket is automatically a man, while perhaps being completely subservient
to a machine worldview and submitting to its values, no fight left in the
person. yet perhaps costumed as if a rebel or somehow radical, etc, as
signs may become props and so on. lots of not-tough-guys taking on the
superficial appearance, ungrounded, as if roles. lots of females who in
certain dimensions appear female yet are not. just like having ungrounded
political analysis, such as ["republicans"] whose ideology actually maps to
the far-left in terms of worldview and values. the image of the sign can be
grounded in more than one way, given its hidden armature. how much is
encrypted in boundaries that are not understood in the depths this way, or
how much of knowledge and intelligence exists in being able to evaluate
these situations accurately, learn, become literate of the issues and
dimensions involved

music is especially involved in this variability of language dynamic.
listen to some song that you are trying to figure out the lyrics for, only
to realize that someone wrote a different word in the lyrics than what you
hear in the song- and yet it possibly ~could be misinterpreted or forced
into that interpretation, or could be stretch there, yet it may also be
mismatched, inauthentic, yet provide other meaning. i would say this
variance is occurring in 50% or greater of the lyrics i have referenced, if
not a higher percentage.

(there are some artists who are adept at exploring these issues with
language and meaning, and they are differentiated from others by their
extreme aesthetic awareness, that aesthetics are a condition of their life
values and consciousness, a higher level of awareness than is ordinary.
Olek is certainly one of these rare birds, and others exist across various
disciplines likewise, though i think they are actually the exception, it is
natural talent born of intuitive understanding versus contrived and born of
artifice)

Santigold is another wild one... consider the lyrics to this song...

Santigold - Rock This
http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/06/24/santigold-the-heat-soundtrack/

cf. Rock This [shi-t|p], we [vicious|bitches], [fat|bad] bitches

Santigold - The Keepers // aesthetics, boundaries, interpretation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZoHSce004M

Santigold - Disparate Youth // masterful symbolism...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIMMZQJ1H6E


In relation to language techniques, in a 60 minutes Eminem discussed his
technique...

2010 Eminem 60 Minutes Interview // video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPSRqVXEQ4Y

he confirms it involves 'bending the word' via its annunciation (5:04m),
which can map into superposition of interpretation- how a subsign unit is
~processed or parsed as data. thus a word like [data] could be
reinterpreted if d#ta was the condition, and spoken as [dota], for
instance, this being my example. though it could inflect or spin or process
and rewire meaning, sending it to different or multiple circuitry,
especially in a looping condition of continual evaluation. thus, insight
into consciousness, observation, relation itself as experience is tested
against an empirical model, refined, error-checked and corrected, expanded
beyond given parameters and boundaries, etc.

thus the potential that each [l|e|t|t|e|r] in each word or concept or
[s|i|g|n] or even their combination or relation, could shift or
_recontextualize meaning via variability that leads to parallel structures
of interpretation, different mappings and circuitry or co-existing
frameworks, latent and hidden, overt and otherwise, perhaps even encrypted,
[signs] as sarcophagi, the bones these entombed structures, of past lives
revealed. thus what if every [sign] has other potential meaning buried
within it as a potential, in that there could be some other dimensionality
not accounted for yet accessible, say through a typoraphic error, and how
that recontextualized and rewires meaning, say if a missing 'j' is
revealed, or double jj, as r and g could structurally relate via a missing
puzzle piece, though other evaluations are likewise possible. thus, rabbit
holes into labyrinths, this

there is a last example that is extremely disturbing and it gets to the
subliminal use of these techniques. a local television commercial, likely
non-profit, has lyrics to a song or jingle that have a very menacing double
meaning. that context is forgotten is not particularly helpful either,
though in general the commercial is of a 'helping nature' and about caring,
etc. so when it sings, if remembering correctly: "wake the sun" or "wake
the son", as this is repeated, it sounds very much like "rape the son, rape
the son, rape the son". and this stuff is going on all the time in terms of
semiotics and symbology. so what if that is a coded or programmed message
that is formatting the behavior of someone via broadcasting an encrypted or
encoded message and that their interpretation could find authority-based
validation, ideological confirmation this way. well, without empirical
truth no one could argue this is happening- it is all subjective and to
consider this a person would have to be sick in the mind, etc, as plausible
deniability goes. and yet these types of activities are everywhere,
violence against women, subversion of principles and values, hatred,
discrimination, contempt, anti-[religious] messaging, etc. the binary
biasing allows this to proceed apace, as if subconscious, and if it cannot
be named or grounded, rationalized in a sane worldview, it is madness to
even speak about it or observe it because no one else will likely confirm
it and then will say it does not exist, it is just imaginary, etc. this is
what [signs] allow, in their surface manipulations.

the boundary or limit or threshold of interpretation, the issue of pattern
matching, then involves very deep and potentially disturbing correlations
that are exploited and hacked and influence interpretations. yet likewise,
if relating on this level, observing it, trying to deal with the reality,
an enforcer of relativism could 'fix' the interpretation to a given limited
boundary if the viewpoint is unfavored, via diagnosing mental illness and
proscribing psychiatric treatment and corrective pills that numb the mind
so that it receives such information uncritically, comfortably numb,
xanaxed or otherwise. so there is danger to 'unshared interpretation' that
is ungrounded, because it may be real madness though also 'unshared
interpretation' that is grounded though unfavored, which calls for remedial
action by those upholding the false perspective and managing rogue state

this is why logic is needed to deal with these ambiguities, otherwise it is
opinions in pseudo-truth reliant on false assumptions and frameworks by
default, cherry-picking data to support views, ignoring others via binary
ideology. and thus ungrounded binary evaluation in terms of "beliefs" based
within consensus superficial language where signs are equated with truth,
as *theorized*, versus grounded (1/N/0) logical evaluation based in
empirical modeling of many simultaneous, parallel observers of the same
event from its various angles, facets, structures, and dimensions, to error
check and correct and improve upon the hypothesis.

(i.e. how are claims of truth accounted for, as this relates to
interpretation)

so one of the structural issues is- what is the unit of measure for the
sign itself. especially if it can be recontextualized. is the letter the
unit, such that a [w|o|r|d] can be made particulate, atomized. perhaps, in
part. though the examples above show that pronunciation or combinations or
fusing or ambiguity or overlapping of cursive or script can blur this
boundary as well, as if particle clouds and probabilities, or wave
functions that can be temporarily established then collapse again into the
surrounding ambiguity. so what if this could be expanded or unlocked, and
the unit of measure could be intra- or infra- or inter-letter, or likewise
-alphanumeric symbol or sign. that could recontextualize and provide
different structuring, perhaps even overcoding or transcoding or paracoding
texts in some way that allows multiple readings, possibilities, parallel
perspectives.

thus, a question of what a unit of the subtextual may be. and how this
could relate to fonts and typography, functioning of keyboards as dumb
peripherals where the existing assumptions and conventions lock-in a
particular perspective that instead could be opened up- if someone is
really willing to break all the rules, crack the code, etc. then language
may not be delineated in the same parameters, as there could be 20 letters
'A' to choose from, etc. and their could be a range of meaning, especially
when combined with other letters. and thus a new form of symbolic language
could develop that is akin to code, in some sense. though this could go
much further than a superficial reading of [signs] as fancified text, as if
another font style, and involves access to structures of truth, different
awareness, conceptualization, perspective. paradigm shiftkey.

⊺⧢s⟘ ⋋ëst t∈s⨁

(another reference test for wordwrap) - 77 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16873 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131015/ab6c588a/attachment-0001.txt>