clarification re: [20]

brian carroll electromagnetize at gmail.com
Tue Oct 15 14:28:42 PDT 2013


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

∄ ‱ ∃
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 17383 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131015/fedead88/attachment-0001.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list