SRF: crypticl

[brian carroll]

<dan at geer.org> wrote:

> Show me the man and I will find you the crime.
>   -- Lavrentiy Beria


in a relativistic world, this viewpoint could function as an absolute
determiner of truth, especially in an authoritarian context. yet the
concepts referenced can themselves be ungrounded, empirically, such
that [crime] is only evaluated in a realm of partial-truth by default.
thus the concept of ~crime would be relativistic, given who is
observing, potentially.


     [observer]  ---->  ['truth']


the most basic issue in this, and where even scientists and
technologists get it wrong is in the belief of a limited or bounded
objective methodology, that accounts for 'truth' only in a limited
framework while ignoring other truth that still could be relevant.
this bias is built into the methodology via what is essentially
private psychology, the role of the observer not itself being grounded
in truth, yet believing itself capable of determining external truth
based on this subjective existence: (A=B) ---> (A=A)

it is just not that simple as willing into being a model of universal
truth based on observation, without error-checking the observer
themselves for flaws in belief, which instead function as if by
default capable of discerning truth, yet this occurs in shared beliefs
reliant on pseudo-truth, which is where ungrounded or relativistic
(warped) ideology operates best.


     ['observer']  ---->  ['truth']


in this way, an ideal observer would be accurately grounded in truth,
neutralized observational bias via other observers of their own
observation (qua: "observing the observer") which is necessary to
model the observer in A=A terms, to remove falsity from those
structural frameworks relied upon to make judgements.


     observer (pT) ---> ['truth']


absent this essential rigor of observation, whereby a self-evaluating
observer is themselves acknowledged in their fallibility, and
finiteness and boundedness in a particular perspective of an event,
their private relativistic belief of what is occurring could /claim/
to be able to discern this external truth, yet, it is probable it will
be bounded within the limit of their partial viewpoint by default,
thus whatever 'truth' exists would need to be self-serving to uphold
their viewpoint that establishes this truth, though it would be
reliant on the errored framework for its reasoning, also highly likely
of binary mindset that takes some aspect and makes it the 'whole
truth' because it fits or matches a particular pattern or belief, thus
validating it in the limited context. at most, it is only a 'partial
truth' that can be ascertained this way - also likely unchecked for
its veracity beyond this limited structural boundary...


     observer (pT) ---> ['pT']  ||  ['truth']


in other words, in this ambiguity, both the observer of an event
defaults to a pseudo-truth observation, and the limited observation of
an external event is captured within this bounded observational
framework, and thus reliant on this partiality for its reasoning via
pattern-matching -- though this occurs in a realm of matching signs as
language, "images" in effect, that fulfill an objective criteria
(A=A), though it is of [signs] = [signs] that are ungrounded, only
partially truth, and yet what is partial is viewed 'whole' or given
universality - including errors and flaws and wrong or warped
assumptions, left uncorrected because these allow the viewpoint, the
belief that this is true because it can be ideologically equated with
it, via surface-level signage, versus the larger truth it involves,
which remains unaccounted for, ignored, or denied outside the private
boundary, though also inside if it contradicts a belief, it thus will
be subjectivized, cherrypicked to -prove- "true belief" as a form of
dogma, a settled fact that is incontestable.

in other words, the ungrounded observer influences the observation,
their measurement and momentum effecting what is observed and thus
their biasing reflected in biased viewpoints that can limit truth so
as to privately secure it in binary onesided frameworks.


for instance, the observer of the man (who thus is determining crime)
could view a situation in their own limited threshold while leaving
out other relevant data, which is what onesided binary viewpoints
allow, an ideology of this as a faith-based belief system, yet not of
external truth -- instead it is of a protected truth, inside the
private framework of the observer themselves, where they are the
determiner of truth, on their own terms. that is, the observer takes
on god-status, places themselves as the determiner of universal truth
even while in a warped relativistic viewpoint, and decides what will
be true, as if this is not a conceit and egotism.

this ungrounded form of observation places ['truth'] secondary to
belief about [truth] which is how the intellectual aspect of ideas can
be short-circuited to just allow surface-level superficial pattern
matching of [signs] in a realm of pseudo-truth, which speeds up
processing and decision-making and allows easy alignment of mass
viewpoints based on answered questions in a common POV though this can
be and is ungrounded and relativistic by default of its boundedness,
finiteness, controlling a version of ideas and events (essentially all
of politics and religion and science and culture) yet that is actually
detached from accounting for these beliefs in terms of their truth,
beyond the given and protected boundaries and borders - these,
profit/prophet-centers no less.

ungrounded beliefs then, by default, are assumed objective because
~facts can match a pattern and be edited to onesideness and then deny
other facts both within and beyond the protected boundary, leaving a
model of 'total truth' or universal shared belief that is based in and
reliant upon inaccuracies yet in denial or disregard of these, because
it is about power firstly, not truth, and truth is serving an agenda,
a rationalization and viewpoint that it is forced into conformance
with, versus existing in its own right and beyond a context of
inaccuracy. this is why accounting for truth via logical reasoning
beyond binarism is basically illegal, it has no place within society.
the observer can be proved wrong, faulty and flawed in observation,
yet in a hierarchical society this cannot be allowed, thus censorship
and editing of viewpoints, who is in-group and excommunicated or
barred from entry, so as to maintain the ideology that is A=B in its
partialized "universalism" that is a self-serving, biased, inaccurate,
relativistic framework.


(the observers are essentially highest truth, their views made
infallible, people serving themselves firstly -- not truth itself.
this is the ultimate corruption of the self and a condition that
people can be born into and can maintain throughout an entire lifetime
as an ideological belief system, where 'truth' is meant to serve their
immediate needs firstly or it must be wrong, damn the evidence)


     [observer]  --->  [person]  --->  [event]

     [observer]  --->  [criminal]  --->  [crime]


in other words, the-sign-of-crime could be patterned matched to some
event, and evaluated only in a limited biased framework, thus
regarding only the [event] and not the ['event'] in its total truth,
nor likewise the total evaluation of said ['crime'] beyond a certain
self-serving observational threshold allowing the default viewpoint,
favorable to an observer seeking out such justifications.

this is why the method to establish grounding is needed. what i refer
to as ~recontexualization into a shared framework of parallel
observation, an event taken from every perspective, which will be
beyond a single observer or finite dimensions and instead model a
situation in all the dimensions it exists and can be accounted for,
say N-observers and N-dimensional evaluation.


     ungrounded_observer (pT)  ---> "crime" (pT)


the situation likely involves every observer having access to 'some
truth', though it is only when it is compiled together that the total
situation in its truth can be accounted for. what if, for instance,
the observer who is after a person for a crime is actually themselves
involved in setting someone up for the scenario, and yet this is not
accounted for in their 'belief system' about what happened or how it
should be dealt with. that is- they themselves are left outside the
equation even while they may have a hidden agenda or motive for the
given rationalization. so what if falsity or deception is part of the
pseudo-truth observation, what if there is more to it and yet they are
willing to cede anything to such truth that ties them to the crime,
and yet other observers can account for the same event in these terms,
and have evidence corresponding to this scenario.

what that would involve is an observation existing beyond a finite
viewpoint that the original observer seeks to determine as A=A (T) in
a warped and twisted way, without accounting for their own errors or
falsity which could be covered up by a simplistic view of [crime] =
[crime] as it equates with language, pattern matching of signs, versus
the real ['crime'] in its empirical truth, what the dimensions where,
say decades in the making for a setup and takedown, and thus the
observer could be the real criminal and yet realize they are actually
the one on trial, even though to their limited evaluation it _appears
an exact match to their private reality.

this is where deception and psyops probably do their work, in terms of
the illusion, the exploit of pT=T and A=B as if A=A when instead it is
B=B. another way of saying it is that there could be parallel truths,
some grounded some not, and these could co-exist in superposition from
any perspective, and events could appear a certain way given
predisposition, logic, and belief system, such that realities could be
affirmed yet entirely different in a similar context, while evaluated
in different parameters and by different means, implying here rigor
and lack of or absence of rigor, as the situation may allow ~beliefs
to exist friction-free.


     observer (T)  ---->  'crime' (T)


it is entirely possible an observer could remove themselves of
falsity, include and account for all evidence beyond a private view
and boundary, and evaluate a situation in its entirety to discern its
truth, given the combined evidence. yet if this situation instead
needs to be edited to conform to a viewpoint, to allow a given belief,
and a political rationalization self-beneficial to an observer, then
perhaps the falsity of the observer is involved more than at the level
of inaccuracy, and instead is lying or being deceptive, not truthful
themselves yet seeking to determine it for others -- the ultimate in
hypocrisy. worse yet is this as a management ~ideology or belief
system, where entire peoples are held within dumb, self-serving
hierarchical viewpoints that are not based in a larger truth, and that
over time increasingly become less and less connected with external
reality, including the economics of this, just look at how government
systems serve themselves before citizenry as the major example of a
failed state system.


this same ungrounded relativistic situation of observers (who are not
themselves operating in 'truth', only 'partial truth') likewise occurs
in language and legal systems as mentioned, where ungrounded relations
and exchange are the basis for determining "justice" yet this concept
is detached from its truth, and instead it is a law of signs, pattern
matching, and not of their truth, to the degree that you could make a
logical proof of a situation in its entirety and have that be the
perspective that is evaluated, versus having agreements based on
'shared observation' in a social realm, as consensus is formed within
language, not 1 & 0.