Dan, thanks for the challenge. here is my feedback...
   <[1]dan@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
   [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff%C3%A9rance
   (1) books by Paul Shepheard
   [3]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]

References

   1. mailto:dan@geer.org
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différance
   3. http://www.paulshepheard.com/books/195/what-is-architecture