Fw: Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to screw you

[brian carroll]

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

<dan at geer.org> 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]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 51748 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140109/996a2bbc/attachment-0001.txt>