Re: <nettime> Ippolita Collective, In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two,

[brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com>]

Apologies if this is extremely oppressive, my goal is to be respectful
of different analysis while also making a case for its falsification
as a viewpoint in certain structural assumptions and arguments that
are carried within the ideas themselves, referenced and extended. It
is certainly enjoyable to read and learn from the perspective,
clarifying what is for me difficult to understand or comprehend,
lacking such a clear coherent view amidst various forces in the terms
they operate within, rather than at more of a distance dealing mainly
with effects than understanding the competing expert rationalizations.

(Any on-list refutations, falsifications, improvements welcome by default)

That said, in this text, an overriding concern is that the problems
identified, accessed, and framed are highly-dependent upon a
language-based assessment - as the validator for what is or is not
viewed or believed true. In that there is an assumption that
legitimacy occurs at some remove from accounting for actual truth of
ideas, to what truth can be acknowledged to exist, which is a
fundamental separation or distancing from what is represented and
reality.

For instance, any word-concept or definition (such as praxeology) can
present a viewpoint and string together ideas, and make a case for the
overall truth of this perspective -- as if a convincing picture or
world-image (or movie/script, even), and then another view
(decision-theory) can overlap or compete with the viewpoint, using
some of the same concepts and words, frameworks, yet reference
slightly different readings or interpretations or definitions of
particular [words] held in common - whose truth is mediated by further
other words, and not tested in itself for its modeling of truth. Thus,
a boundary condition exists whereby the accounting for 'truth' remains
thoroughly in a realm of language discourse, discussion, debate though
in an ideological context- the relation and rules with respect to
-beliefs of 'truth' shared- thus allowing multiple viewpoints to
co-exist and differentiate while seemingly able to reference a shared
concept as if 'true', via pattern matching and argument structures. In
some sense it is like rhetoric removed from its relation and
connection with actual truth, reality.

With this as a condition, observation becoming more and more detached
from actual experience than what is *perceived* or sensed, in its
limited immediacy, due to lack of a larger grander empirical
accounting, a distorted framework or observational multiverse is
established in which almost nothing lines up, and instead the details
of fragmentary beliefs then become 'whole views', irrespective of the
actual strength of ideas and viewpoints, because external truth is not
accounted for and another viewpoint can always be spawned, valid in
whatever truth is observed unless contested, yet equally dogmatic,
'believed', and protected by this boundary, by language, which allows
what is said to be what is referenced, and passing over that critical
step from virtual models of ideas, circuits,  to actual grounding with
the earth. And instead this does not occur. And an entire civilization
exists ungrounded in its viewpoints, a vast many shared, yet together
they add up to nothing more together than this divided, disparate,
fragmented, and most times absurd views of actual issues. In that, for
instance, paradox is unable to be addressed, so beliefs are trapped
within the dynamics of taking sides on given relativistic definitions
versus resolving conflicts in truth.

So a general condition is encountered where views and beliefs are
ungrounded in larger empirical framework of ideas/truth.  And then the
ability to account for this is removed and made unnecessary by
previous ~philosophy (read: thinking) that benefits that approach yet
may lead to increased detachment if not evaluated further, especially
if deemed unfalsifiable.

In this way -language becomes its own version of truth- that replaces
external truth, and then the *signs* of language, the word strings and
punctuation, are equated with this truth- such that whatever can be
typed out into a convincing pattern can be viewed and believed 'truth'
itself, as language, and not referencing something external anymore.
That is the structural issue of perspective that has an ungrounded
observer making ungrounded observations and essentially _is the
condition of history, unevaluated beyond its own terms of
self-conception.  This then reinforced by authoritarian education,
copyright, intellectual property where the value is secured and
'falsification of ideas' defended against via academe, easiest to
notice is the bias of gender and warping of 'reasoning' to oft
onesided 'universalizing' views of man as the common identity: he,
him, history equated with the common eye of the human story; and with
further *rights* this privilege of observation was further distributed
to private observers, demographics, so that individual pronouns
(correlated with race, gender, ethnicities, religions) could also be
included in the parallelization of viewpoint though in doing so, be
contained within history, never remedied of the private structural
bias, such that humanity is still trapped within man's tyrannical
story, not freed from it, and without accounting for truth of this
condition, in truth, and not just language signage as if everything is
opinions -- and what matters is if enough people agree that it is real
-- that this lack of commonality (the human view, understanding,
truth, as perspective) then makes it impossible to communicate,
because "reason" is bounded within an ideological framework that
restricts not just the ability to convey ideas, but the ability to
think itself, via language. That this thought process is irrelevant in
a given worldview extended from previous generations.

So when ideas like [economics] are referenced, it is within its
recognizable pattern within language (signs) presumed to relate to
external events outside language (what is signified). And there is a
cosmic remove from what exists and is occurring and what is
represented or said to, believed to, by a vast many perspectives, some
shared or collaborating and others in contest, yet the truth of the
word-concepts themselves remain bounded in their analysis, in that a
huge amount of ambiguity is inherent in their vague definitions, and
it is in that gap that errors or falsity co-exists or is made
structural with the viewpoints, which brings up the dreaded creep of
internal contradiction, unrecognized or unacknowledged or subversive,
which in terms of logic can take an event and replace it with its
opposite, via unrecognized errors or flaws or falsity or impurities -
in thinking, ideas, observation, parameters, etc.

In other words, if the word was [economic] the thesis would be about
its integrity as a concept, what is it modeling, and is it actually
true to what it seeks to identify or represent. And if there is some
error anywhere within that thinking, some falsity, then the absolute
view or belief that there is something denoted as economic then would
have something that is [not-economic] contained within its
structuring, which is one instance of potential a vast many such
anomalies or aberrations or mistakes or false views or insufficient
data or weak reasoning. In this way any given /concept/ could have in
its definition and modeling, not only errors in reasoning when
referenced, it could also have multiple definitions that enable
interpretation of its meaning to span a realm of contradictory
viewpoints in parallel and thus a single viewpoint may not be possible
or the default, within a single word, prior to placing dozens or
thousands together as a viewpoint of something believed to be accurate
and 'real' as an observation and representation of the world at this
moment of existence.

In this way, then, a shared viewpoint of 'economics' could be about
'anti-economics' from a framework that references different
definitions or even different facts, that due to protected
relativistic boundaries can be ignored in their truth and discarded
from a particular local model and thus 'interpretation' moves into a
realm of rhetoric divorced from truth itself, where that
centralization and corresponding natural harmony of ideas in their
empirical connectedness is denied from the start, made impossible as a
shared viewpoint, and thus the tautology of 'it is true because i say
or believe it is true' takes over as the final analytic POV, this a
realm of privilege based on authority and control over this process,
dependent upon it, sustaining the false structures and false
perspectives, division, and gaining its power from it.

How to say, then, that beliefs of  "absolute subjectivism and economic
theory" lead precisely to the distorted conditions of today, where
language is a ruse and communication in existing terms and methods
prevents actual _thinking about the ideas from occurring, because it
has become about pattern matching the signs as if equivalent to truth
- ("someone says "economics does this.", and another: 'yes, i agree' =
truth). Versus, what is this model of economics in its variance, are
the assumptions accurate and actually true, how much is warped or
partial yet presumed universal, etc. The issue of complexity is at the
fore because there are a multiplicity of contradictory and confusing
and overlapping views that exponentially complicate basic observation
by any number of unknown views or 'other' observations - and the way
this is dealt with or addressed outside an empirical framework is to
ignore the extraneous data from the local model- as a privilege of
biased observation. Yet doing so does not equate with truth, even
while standing-in for it via language signs and believed to, whereby
communicative correlation - the agreement upon perspective - replaces
reality itself with an ego-based framework. That certain shared
thinking defaults to shared truth via its belonging and ability to
find its place, whereas other thoughts are untrue because they contest
or challenge 'the reality'; that is: the ruling viewpoint many share,
as if a wave-function, thoroughly institutionalized.

Consider the statement "no objective value" and its span from ideas to
ideology, and how this impacts the potential for reasoning. It has a
different meaning depending on whether it is viewed in terms of
language, in which anything can be said and presented as a perspective
-- and logic, where the statement would need to be analyzed and
evaluated for its truth, as a viewpoint, a thesis that is also
falsifiable.

In language and in terms of communications, it could be possible to
uphold a view that there is no objective truth, for instance, and just
keep talking about things from that perspective. There is not going to
be auditing going on at the level of the [concepts] nor various
strings in their absolute truth, and instead only 'other words' or
interpretations will challenge the view within language - for
legitimacy as an improved, optimal, or better perspective or
viewpoint. This is again like the landscape painting approach to
ideas, does the overall effect make sense -- based on the senses, on
what is perceived in its immediacy at the layers viewed; yet the
substrate of logic is missing, presumed via assumptions most likely
unshared one person to the next, on the whole, and in their
relativistic entirety- a probable contradiction of many competing
truths as present in ambiguous language, never adding up to increased
clarity, cohesion beyond the boundary of 'shared language' which
equates with shared views and beliefs (as if equaling truth by
consensus opinion, never evaluated at the level of the truth of the
ideas themselves only the signage as interpreted across a range of
variations and partial views that can be more or less accurate, or
rely on mostly false assumptions, tending to ideology even, as pattern
matching can be faulty, wrong, inaccurate, at a more complex level of
analysis which may be *entirely missing*, which also becomes an
observational right: to ignore, censor, delete outside views to
maintain the supposed integrity, clarity, purity of view.)

Consider the idea of "no objective value" correlating with denial that
A=A exists, and that in its place, only A=B is allowed as a basis for
reasoning. This is the split in worldview between empiricism and
relativism. This is where there is a single model of truth that then
is replaced by a fragmented model without a shared central truth. And
how it effects thinking, language, communication, and reasoning. How
heavily reliant upon rhetoric the ungrounded observations would be to
convince others of the rightness or truth of a viewpoint, via
opinion-engineering -if not behaviorist methods- (as this correlates
with Mass Media and loss of other valid perspectives and viewpoints).
It never goes beyond the words, into the concepts and ideas, it
remains shallow and on the surface of the text, as an image, of
signage and warping and skew and spinning variability this way or that
to create or sustain the trompe l'oeil, grand illusion/delusion false
perspective.

 (In that "the lack of a central truth" becomes the central truth,
nothingness replaces being, and how this relates to dogma upheld by
institutional authority, ideology, peer obedience and conformity, and
not least, the realm of 'mental health' and issues of thought police
to enforce a given warped perspective, validate it via science and
political medicine, to better train or rehabilitate humans as the apes
they are believed to be, in terms of _language.)

So if there is no absolute model of truth (truth in itself), how can
truth be assumed or referenced for validation of a viewpoint or is all
arbitrary. Perhaps there is a belief there is only 'some truth', for
instance. And so the concept of 'thesis' can be thrown out in its
potential to be correct- it is made impossible and ~rationalization
then controls the boundary over what can be legitimized as truth,
based on whatever parameters are upheld or discarded in
authority-based observational hierarchies. In some sense then people
cannot know anything except and insofar as it is already known or
allowable and acceptable to those in power, ruling, in control over
interpretation of events.

If logical accounting would enable truth to be discerned within a
pattern match (A=A), whereby what 'A' is would need to be true
(A=true), then language analysis would begin at the presumption this
is not possible with words and concepts, beyond the appropriate match
(A=B) where in that gap --where B is not A-- the role of bounded
interpretation and rhetoric allow whatever is deemed useful to be
legitimated ('B') as a substitute and stand-in for 'A' as if it
equates with A=A absolutism, on the basis of belief.  In that a
profound ideological contradiction occurs that deems 'A=A' is not
possible -- only to re-present 'B' in these universal terms, by
privilege of protected onesided perspective, shared by others ~like.

This validation of subjective pseudo-truth then a substitute for
empiricism amongst those who rely on language for their thinking,
versus logical analysis. In that agreement of viewpoint is actually
not enough to resolve or model issues of truth, though within language
it can be assumed to be- such that: "yes, we both like this painting,
it is [economics] isn't it."  And yet that concept as a structural
model could be variable or exist in largely false terms, even while
believed -due to rationalization and fixed ideas- to by default
function in truth, as truth, as a sign, standing-in for or
representing 'economics=truth' by the word alone, ungrounded.

[This is the issue of fractal language, if able to move into each
word-concept, and between the various structures of words and ideas
combined, as if having the text field go transparent and each
conceptualization becoming a molecular logical structure tied to
indepth definitions and perspectives, and seeing that visualization as
the argument, which is proposed to occur in the thinking mind when
evaluating ideas, though the language today used does not function
like this for communicating, due to a boundary, where such modeling is
missing, absent as a point of view.]

So a presumption that there is no shared truth at the universal or
cosmic level between people matters significantly in terms of its
influence on transaction or exchange - grounded in truth or not
(perception). In that fairness or justice or collaboration or value
can shift and warp into highly polarized and antagonistic dynamics,
for lack of more accurate analysis, awareness, and understanding that
instead can justify oppression of people within the same lineage,
setting them up against one another, dividing the whole, fragmenting
it, while uniting the disparate (including with enemies in close
proximity) via illusory frameworks and relations, which serve 'some
version of truth' and privilege.

So too the idea of 'absolute freedom for individuals' without shared
truth, only that which would be recognized and protected by those of
similar interests. What it establishes is the loss of accountability
for truth (A=A) and the ability of lies to stand-in for or mimic truth
(A=B) as a basis for self-interest and profit, via strategies of
misrepresentation and subversive tactics.

Fair exchange without truth is likely improbable as a result, yet if
the bias or inaccuracy is never addressed -- especially within
language or representations -- it can be presented as a fair exchange,
even defended by language (in the form of law) and via media
propaganda.

So this goes on and on, it is endless, once the original condition of
empirical truth is short-circuited, which allows the pandora's jar of
resulting relativistic effects to take hold of all processes and
observations and relations and skew them into these particular
dynamics.

In this way, the non-recognition of human identity beyond relativistic
private id divorces the human from institutions, once believed to
serve the human cause, though without a shared identity or truth these
institutions become competitors not collaborators, etc. This is the
result of language (games) as a substitute/stand-in for truth, where
actions and agendas are aligned with an ideological set of
presumptions and assumptions, not questioned beyond the protected
threshold (else punishment ensues). And the hierarchy is maintained
yet inverted in principle, due to lack of accountability via logical
analysis, thesis becomes antithesis. The symbolic order overthrown by
the ungrounded signage shared en masse by relativists and unable to be
reasoned against by empiricists because truth itself has been
invalidated.

Without logic it would seem that if someone can successfully reason or
'communicate' a view others agree with, it essentially functions as
truth itself -- while only its representative sign (perhaps
use-value).  What becomes referenced is the proprietized
gated-community string of words as a perspective, that self-references
and finds its virtual grounding within -language- instead of outside
of it, in the world. And in this way, the ego and its self belief and
infallibility replaces the world itself, the observer in a false
god-like status, as if sage, the shared view equivalent to a pantheon
agreement. This for simply being able to say or convey and convince,
irregardless if actually a swindle.


The counterpoint

If a person receives an unending stream of such perspectives day to
day, it would be necessary to 'think-through' situations given
whatever local modeling exists in their brain and consciousness,
related to and through. And at some threshold the situation is
revealed as absurd. That what is said is so far from what exists that
it is nonsensical to a thinking mind.

And this is exactly what extreme ungrounded relativism moves towards,
this absurdity and a condition of malaise and nausea at the very
encounter with the false and its anti-reasoning, whereby privileged
opinion trumps everything and ordains and controls what is possible.

So any given concept, such as [the state], is parsed differently in
varying parameters of consideration, based on what is recognized in
divergent empirical and relativistic viewpoints yet the way this
situation is handled is also differently. The concept for the
relativist is most reliant on a binary onesided interpretation, a
2-value approach ("my view is right, yours is invalid") that
cherry-picks what is allowed and then makes arguments based on that
minimal effort, only enough to justify and extend the existing
condition, not challenge its foundation or framework needed to sustain
the rigged enterprise, hidden, exploitative, and profitable.

- notes -

The state (of empirical truth) is enemy for ungrounded relativism
(grounded relativism aligns with empirical truth, as particular faceting).

Abolish state as abolishing shared identity or truth beyond individual's
chosen boundary as self-defined, self-interested (already happened).

Anarcho-capitalist discourse: of privatization (of reasoning and POV).

Of individual - collective identity (relativistic subjective absolutism),
where shared group identity defines shared reality/perspective and
can be institutionalized, validated in viewpoint, other truth rejected.

A main related issue: of human or non-human identity of observers,
observational hierarchy (default: science= homo sapiens/behaviorism)

Absolute subjectivism (humanity divided into statistics/demographics,
with only private frameworks of reasoning to seek common viewpoint,
based on gender and privileged viewpoints; class, race, sex, money).


> quote from: In the Facebook Aquarium Part Two...

 "To put it more precisely: philosophically speaking, absolute
subjectivism, from which springs the economic theory linked to
anarchist individualism, is in open opposition with the radical
relativism which is the commanding feature of our (type of) research.
Our ambition is not to describe social network 'as they really are' ,
following the method of mainstream technological determinism which
asserts revealing a technology's true essence. We can even less accept
the idea that it would be possible for someone to really know
everything about human nature, and hence to be able to deduce without
fail from it the essence of society as a whole. This would entirely
lack in realism,  as well as being totally defective.  The fact that
there are 'realities' outside ourselves does in no way mean that 'the
world' could vouch for the authenticity of a belief. True, some
descriptions of the world are more appropriate than others, but only
because they enable us to act better, not because they represent the
world better than other descriptions. And going for radical relativism
does not mean that all viewpoints (analyses/descriptions) are equally
valid. On the contrary radical relativism enables one to take a
position that robustly reflects one's (particular) standpoint on
issues, and this precisely because one knows that in reality there is
no such thing as an ultimate, inherently valid truth [6]."

Everything up to the last sentence is possible to assimilate in some
approximate translation where it could make sense in particular
contexts. Yet note the universalization and use of 'one knows' (that
implies shared empirical view) to deny the possibility of absolute
truth.

It is understandably a feature of language to posit all kinds of
positions, though establishing of viewpoint can be an issue of
_rationalization within language or via language, and presume or make
assumptions about events that are not dealt with in terms of logic yet
believed to be ('in reality there is no such thing as an ultimate
valid truth').  And this can become absurd when ideas are not
accounted for beyond the text in a more rigorous evaluation of its
truth. And it is precisely this gap that is allowed - that this
accounting becomes unnecessary, an issue of belief, because some
writer or ~philosopher (read: thinker) somewhere made a case that was
agreed upon and has become standardized, part of the ideological
canon. When instead, if thinking-it-through outside this context, most
often ungrounded by default for any text or most any thinking, could
prove contradictory to the case presented at the level of the words as
ideas, where there is a calculus of truth involved in the validation
of points of view and observations and that making universal claims
while denying the possibility of universal truth is quizzical.

It is not to take issue with a particular viewpoint though the
position itself is untenable, as basically it substitutes a
relativistic view (B=A) in place of this empirical modeling (A), such
that 'empirical truth' is equated with a particular version of
relativistic pseudo-empiricism, yet which is _ungrounded in terms of
logical analysis and functions only as signage (where 'B=A' or "B",
the alternate viewpoint, stands in as substitute empirical model for
A=A, such that "B" is equated with (A=A) while claiming it does not
exist, except inside parameters of B).

There is a structural issue of perspective and boundedness or
limitedness that seems to be correlated with impossibility of knowing
or accessing absolute truth -in its entirety- which is likely correct.
Though what is truth when it is accessed as truth, in a grounded
relation with it.

How can anything be observed 'in truth' if this model of truth is not
grounded, in itself, as a condition of absolute truth (A=A). If such a
condition were unknowable, how could it be the basis for referencing
other lesser truth, such as pseudo-truth or partial truth. Do these
not require the concept and model of [truth] to determine what it is
in its partialness, so to separate what is true from what is not-true.
And thus if truth and falsity are believed not to be distinguishable
to that degree (by opposing methodology that could allow this, logic),
then 'truth and falsity' could become inseparable and the model of
reasoning could be permanently contaminated by inaccuracy and errors,
by default of not accounting for truth within ideas, in their
modeling, and instead keeping their analysis at the level of signage,
inside language structures, where words and ideas remain indeterminate
and malleable to view. Such that language could only exist in a
greater or lesser pseudo-truth, which the more and more it is engaged
in ~seemingly polarized terms via rhetoric (versus logical refutation)
the more and more likely it becomes a monoculture of onesided biased
interpretation tending towards massive falsity & minor truths
sustained in a shared twisted ideological framework.

So here is the footnote...

[6] "According to constructivist theory it is impossible to give an
objective description of reality since we live in a world build up
from experiences, which themselves are the result of our constructive
behavior. Cognition is a vital process, or to put differently: to live
is a process of cognition. Epistemological (pertaining to knowledge)
issues are without doubt ontological issues (i.e. they pertain to the
(life) experience of the knower). Yet this does not detract from the
fact that reality exists, irrespective and outside of our experience.
(Hence) we ourselves prefer to use the term radical relativism so as
to underline the fact that reality is relative to perceptions, meaning
that it does not reveal itself in an absolute manner, but 'in
relation' to perceptions." <...>

So all of this is language, referencing ideas and concepts, yet not at
the level of logic beyond a binary consensus within culture that this
is an interpretation shared by many, and thus a threshold condition
well described here as 'being' (ontology) and 'knowing'
(epistemology), and the issue then is at what level is this observer
operating at in terms of their thinking, and is their knowing based on
pattern-matching signs within language (memes) or parsing of the ideas
in terms of logic as the basis for 'knowledge'. Is it knowing of
representations (signs) and equating these with truth, within
communication, or is it actually knowing about what is referenced by
these signs, the truth of the situation as a conceptual model and
idea. And where does being locate itself, in the virtual realm of
shared opinions and viewpoints or in the truth of reality, where mind
connects with body in its truth, relating inside and outside.  The
issue of perceptions could question the model of observation (eg.
inside/outside) though what if these perceptions are themselves
bounded by an ideological framework, and they are not occurring beyond
its limitations, which then rationalizes existence to such a degree
that its essence is removed from observation, or proprietarized,
disenfranchising truth of other observations and valid frameworks by
way of tyrannical 'common subjective' language as ruler of thought,
yet without any connection to its own logical accounting in truth
beyond the self-serving parameters of protected viewpoints of a vast
many privileged estates.

The words can lose their meaning without having grounding in truth.
Especially if calling upon truth or seeking to represent it at the
same time denying its possibility to exist as itself. This is why
thinking needs to be evaluated and shared, to question assumptions,
challenge views, and requestion and remodel based on assumptions and
additional information or data. And logic is this missing analysis,
and without it -- anything can be said, believed, and function as
truth unless audited and accounted for at the conceptual, molecular
level of the ideas.

A second quote from the text...

"And besides, the very idea of a subject that is totally free from any
link with the outside world, and whose sole purpose is to act as
rapidly as possible in pursuance of his purely economic interests is
manifestly at variance with the concrete life experience of human
beings, and of that of living beings in general. (On the contrary), we
constantly create and maintain links and relationships for no apparent
economic reason at all. (Equally), we do not always act in line with
the maximization of our personal benefit. We even sometimes prefer to
defer (or even to forfeit) the satisfaction of a personal  desire or
need, not only to please other people, but even simply to enhance our
margins of liberty, in an elaborate game of weighing the pros and the
contras. To recognize the positive value of one's limits is an
inherent part of human life experience (as far as body and language
are concerned), and this despite the pain it causes us to discover our
finitude in both space and time by becoming aware that we are endowed
with limited psychic and physical resources, in the same way as our
common earthly horizon is circumscribed. Personal autonomy is a
process, not a state of nature or something given once and for all.
The interaction between human individuals (and even non-humans) with
the products of digital technology, for instance, and also with the
many objects in our everyday world, are not immutably pre-ordained and
cannot be reduced to axioms from which rules of conduct could
infallibly be derived."

There is some truth in these statements though it rationalizes to a
position that is inaccurate in terms of logic. It is the issue of
variance and unstable perspectives, underlying structures between
words that can be in contradiction or have multiple meanings and this
ambiguity can force different interpretations and be weighed
differently in its value, which is assumed or believed true or
discarded in its truth - when in a logical model all truth must be
recognized for the entire observation to be validated, beyond the
perspective as written.

When [economics] are called for, and 'we' are referenced, it makes a
convincing case about how rules may vary based on other interests -
which are deemed non-monetary or of greater value than money.
Certainly most would likely agree with this. Yet it presumes
'economics' is about the movement of money as its currency -- and not
truth. This is the standard view it seems, institutionalized and made
ideological.  And yet if economics is about efficiency or exchange
between various entities, in truth, 'the information' may be more
valuable than money as within certain contexts, in terms of a human
nervous system or psychological state that relies on more than money
for its sustenance - and yet if this is not modeled then a limited
language-bounded interpretation may rationalize it to a more subset
condition. And what is the value of money, currency, anyway- if not
truth. What if economy was based upon recognition and sharing of
truth, in terms of fair exchange- what might happen to ideas of
capitalism and communism if a moral and ethical framework retained
foundational value. In that truth is of highest value, instead of
today where denying this accounting creates wealth and profit at the
expense of truth. Issues of balancing and circuitry, humanity and
nature and technology, based on a common currency where auditing and
accounting for truth determines value, in exactly the way of grounded
observation and logical analysis via empirical modeling. Limited, yes,
perhaps bounded in some ways, yet this does not negate the potential
for recognizing, accessing, and modeling truth as truth and removing
known errors from POV.

A way of saying this is that [economics] could be evaluated in terms
of language, where it is about the sign, and where the sign=money, or
via logic where it is about truth and truth is the basis for shared
value and the currency that takes various forms, in terms of exchange.

The truth of money is information.

The truth of information is truth.

The truth of truth is logic.

If the proposition stops at 'money' for analysis of economics or
economy, it remains at the level of the sign and ~represents or
stands-in for truth, yet also replaces its truth. If information is of
lower value than money yet actually of greater truth of economic
concepts in their interfunctional dynamics, a perspective is forced
that money is a higher truth than truth itself, which is an inversion
or antithetical viewpoint. If logic is off-limits for analysis, then
observation and relations can occur in an 'virtual condition' of
ungrounded language, where its truth is mediated based on consensus
opinion at the level of language, not of its concepts in their truth.
The labyrinth of definitions and interpretations and rhetoric and the
illusory beliefs and false perspectives sustained in a realm of
distorted sensory perception.

If thinking is unclear, how can observation be clear. If thinking does
not ground to truth, nor required to, how well can it understand its
own condition of being and knowing and project and align outward from
the self, if the basis for this is actually non-being and not-knowing,
and what a person is moving towards or becoming is less and less
themselves, more unreal.

The sign of money (as truth) has replaced truth, and it is the compass
for a vast many today and its domain is language removed of logic
beyond that of the binary self-serving POV.

Related to Bakunin's definition of freedom:

one person's rights should not take away another person's equal rights.

And further, with truth, the issue of responsibilities could be
structurally attached via law instead of removed as a precondition for
individualism via ungrounded relativism.

Regarding the issue of minimizing the state to protect freedom, this
does correlate with minimalism as a basis for efficiency (goal of
economy) while extraneous efforts or material can be akin to noise in
a signal or interference that is detrimental, thus in another context
or framework these views are not a priori false or wrong, in
principle. If everything was sane and on the level and not corrupt and
unfair and rigged for advantage. So too the idea of minimal government
as it relates to maximal rights and freedom.

What is more is that if law is not upheld -- it's all relative -- then
one entity can seek to determine the rights of another without
consequence or protection from the shared state which becomes
unshared, due to some having more power/representation than others. So
they can not only have their rights, though take away others equal
rights or seek to control or limit functioning of others. Without
truth and its adherence, enforcement of laws appears mainly symbolic,
in relation to shaping or upholding a consensus opinion and belief
(POV). And then 'reasoning' in a context of courts, trials, judges
means very little if it is only an issue of language -- of matching
signs and patterns into an agreeable shared framework that is not
dealt with at the level of the truth of the ideas involved -- this is
actually off-limits: it is illegal to think - to challenge the
parameters of the proceedings. Instead it becomes a behavioral,
psychological, and disciplinary issue, the psychiatric establishment
the new Inquisition. Without truth, declarations of insanity or lack
of fitness align with absolute subjectivism as a loophole and
validation of what is overall a corrupt process based on removal of
truth from the shared human condition and replacing it with a false
point of view upheld and enforced, a rationalization that then must be
believed in order to succeed and survive within society. Even though
it could be false, detrimental to health, sanity, the ability to live,
reason, love.

The neverending enigma goes further, when truth is removed, again with
the issue of 'money' as reference, in terms of economics-- what is the
basis for evaluating an idea like [intellectual property] if using
money as the basis for this analysis in a onesided framework based on
profit, versus information as the basis for value, and sharing and
protecting of truth within certain parameters.

What if the concept (IP) grounded to a perspective of money as the
overriding basis for value, how might its terms and framework be
rationalized if not distorted by this assumption. And then what if IP
was modeled in terms of information, where its truth determines its
value.

['intellectual property']  ==>  [truth <-- pseudo.truth -->falsity]

Considering a concept in terms of variance, what if these variant
readings or interpretations co-exist and are not determined in a text
yet referenced over and over, inherent ambiguity that in its fuzziness
allows multiple views yet then is declared to only ground to a
particular view within certain analysis, likely reliant on privileged
perspective and protected beliefs.

What if how 'intellectual property' is interpreted and defined,
translated, then effects its meaning and how it is rationalized. And
what if there are competing views that co-exist yet this is not dealt
with within the word itself - what it is modeling - and instead within
the text at large and extended strings of words referencing and
alluding to it. The idea itself is never resolved, the ambiguity
remains, those valuing its primary interpretation in terms of money
may compete with those recognizing its value as information, (both
economics, as noted). So a thesis-antithesis dilemma could then face
off in a binary scenario where one view or another 'wins' in the given
context, yet this is the result of their structures being unrelated in
logical terms -- in terms of truth, which could resolve the
contradictions via synthesis. In that if the [concept] were evaluated
in its truth and removed of all error, it could be a common and shared
and 'known' referent, instead of remain ambiguous and unstable as a
perspective. Yet the absence of truth forbids this, based on an
ideological predisposition made into law.

In this way, any [concept] should be understood to have this span from
[thesis-antithesis] within its modeling, which could occur via
multiple definitions or errors in observation or otherwise, which
would need to be worked-through to resolve ambiguities and provide an
empirical  context for parallel observation based on shared terms and
conceptualization. It can be done. It requires logical accounting,
differentiating truth from falsity, hypothesis and modeling of each
idea, and then as they combine- their various dynamics, permutative
structures of meaning and interpretation. That this depth is required
for ideas, whereas for signs-as-currency it is not, representations
replace the reality- IP is just another concept with a right/wrong
viewpoint that is shared/unshared and brings value and benefit,
profit, money.

For instance, intellectual property could be about the truth of ideas,
protecting them in their integrity, to contain aspects of relativism
that may contaminate a work or control the ideas, so copyright or
patents may be valuable in defense of truth - yet inverted, the
antithesis is that there is false value, ungrounded observations, or
mimicking occurs which inflates or misrepresents or exfiltrates value
or seeks to privatize language or thoughts, and therefore the
ungrounded work is given more value and subverts the protective system
as shield or to prevent ideas from developing, as a result of allowing
falsity, errors, this corruption (A=B).

And because money is the highest value (essentially truth itself) for
these kinds of people, they can justify their actions as if a moral
cause, enlightened, by winning the rigged game. As if 'truth' is
defined by these actions, which determine what is real in the false
worldview, by its physical material effects. In this way the
ungrounded (free) market, ungrounded technological relativism as
utopia.

If your being and knowing is virtually grounded in 'money=truth' this
would effect existence and relations with others, shared viewpoint,
~values, goals, etc.

If your being and knowing are based on language, where representative
'signs=truth', then perceptions and reasoning would be bounded to a
realm of activity where agreed viewpoints and interpretations would
define reality, "values", etc.

If your being and knowing is based on truth, where logic distinguishes
truth (truth=truth), then there is a fundamental value, truth,
foundational to all reality, from which everything gains its validity
and place. Today this has become a forbidden realm, especially within
ideas and thinking, because it is not only believed not to exist, it
is threatening to the beliefs and "values" and decision-making
afforded by disregarding it, which then is a conundrum in terms of
sensory perception, experience, authenticity and being, and especially
not-knowing versus presumptions afforded by ungrounded views of
all-knowing and infallible viewpoints.

Laborious and painful to consider perhaps, yet what is reasoning
without its grounding in truth, except an illusion. A fantasy or
fiction that can lead astray, especially if shared en masse as an
assumption or default predicament that must be mediated in false
terms. It is language that is at issue, and thinking, not individual
observers finding themselves trapped in this condition - it is a
default scenario, coming to terms with what exists as it exists and
facing the situation clearly, and thus to do so requires going beyond
strings of words as a basis for communication of ideas presumed to be
true by their sharing and recognition, to an awareness of language as
a problem or trap that prevents empirical observation from occurring
in the linearization of saying, via writing or communicating a
perspective, though also, prior to this, in the models of the mind of
the observer, who must parse a complex evaluation into a sequence of
words, when how they are considered may instead be models of ideas,
their concepts, geometric structures that cannot be represented within
existing language tools.


A warped example to force evaluation of the analytic situation...

* Everything [         ] said was false, except insofar as it was and is true.

* Everything [         ] said was true, except what is believed to be false.

In this first example. If the blank area were a thinker, say Karl
Marx, and thus [Marx] could be interpreted within these differing
statements it may amount to heresy in the first instance, in terms of
ideology, because the views provide a foundation for so many other
views that are based upon it. This is a logical approach that would
separate the words of arguments into conceptual models and then
evaluate the models in terms of various instances, like a physics
equation- and test the ideas and whatever is true is true and whatever
is not would range from grey-area to falsified in looped analyses.
Though a structure of the ideas would remain, those that are
contingently true. Thus when someone references [Marx] they would
reference a truth that has been evaluated and established in empirical
frameworks, via massively parallel modeling.

The second example is what is occurring today when language and signs
are presumed to carry this legitimacy and validation by way of their
peer approval, consensus shared opinion. Everything, all the language,
all the mistaken contradictory aspects are included in the view,
retained even for centuries, and simply assumed and believed true by
fiat of their use as common currency, which somewhere is profiting
someone, most likely, as 'schools of thought' become industries and
institutions, authorities, states, political parties. And yet absent
logical accounting, the views likely are mostly false in their
detailing yet this is not differentiated, and warped, skewed,
distorted views are normalized and left untested as to their indepth
validity, where they could actually be falsified: this becomes
religion.

Obviously a too simple reduction of the issues. To get further at the
absurdity, an observer could  interpret the meaning of the [Marx] and
wrongly assume it references Groucho Marx, reframing the entire
situation, and yet it would again remain the same question of language
and perspective, depending on how truth would actually be accounted
for.

In other words, meaning in a sentence can shift based on how a [word]
is interpreted, and the meaning of the word effects the meaning of
other words (not demonstrated in the above example though highly
relevant in terms of absolute subjectivism, rhetoric, interpretation).
In that ungrounded observations assume the second approach as a normal
mode of interaction, as if faith-based, detached from views external
to their own protected finite boundary while also claiming
universality, higher knowing, superiority, POVs often mapped into
wealth.

To jump the fence, another example about [concepts] that could apply
to any text as it is parsed or translated for meaning, in logical
terms...

Any [concept] has a model and nested in its language sign is a
perimeter it occupies, and within this, all the definitions of the
concept exist as potentials, and all the various readings and
interpretations are potentially relevant, potential truths, including
those that have not yet been defined or discovered yet or have been
lost yet will be reconnected to it again. And this is an incredibly
vast area to consider, a single word that is a substantial concept
that could be a structural framework for ideas used to legitimate
civilizational functioning. Thus what is the value of the concept,
what is its truth, its accuracy as an idea. How is it accounted for
and how is it understood, shaped, contorted or misrepresented and
misunderstood. That is, its meaning and variability, its truth. How is
that figured out for the word as idea via its conceptual modeling.

And then look at the hundred words here, suspension of disbelief,
automatically presuming or assuming definitions that allow
translation, word to word, sentences to paragraph, that may or may not
break down in meaning or truth as it is shared or unshared, via
perspective. Interpretative framework. What is referenced,
acknowledged, contested, antithetical, falsifiable. So a default
presumption exists that all these words can be typed out and they can
be read in some approximation of 'shared truth' as to their meaning,
yet at the specific level of the [word] as a concept, this is not
necessarily or inherently true, it is ambiguous.

How do you know what definition of 'meaning' is referenced, or how
'truth' is modeled, or what 'acknowledged' means - what if it just
meant shared opinion or consensus versus a view based on empirically
grounded observation - knowing connected with grounded being, etc.
What if the idea or concept of perspective in a context of written
language is not evaluated or understood the same. What if there are
boundaries or barriers to shared awareness based upon interpretation
and the dictionaries of the unique self related to others
observations. And thus diffÃrance. And yet any of this can be resolved
via empirical modeling, relativistic partial views or contested
definitions can be modeled in a shared framework far beyond the
surface of words on a screen or page. And that is the entire point of
language, it would seem, that these words are as if two dimensional
shadows of vast multidimensional frameworks that otherwise remain
unseen, that populate minds and shared consciousness yet have not yet
found a place within the world, in terms of their visualization of
thinking, knowing, being, through this conceptualization, modeling,
observation, that interfaces with the world, with reality, via senses,
nervous system, extended tools. The ideas trapped in other dimensions
inaccessible via this linearity. And yet it is here likewise, front
and center within the text in its structure that requires cracking
open language on the screen to enable deep investigation inside the
words and structures, as a form of language, as a way of seeing and
modeling thoughts via concepts and their scaffolding, structural
relation. And all of this can occur within a framework of paradoxical
logic and empirical truth and cannot occur without it. Binary
approaches remain firmly situated at the surface, words signage.

In this way, any concept is its own test or hypothesis, experimental
conceptualization and organization of the empiricality of the idea
itself in its truth, and its span from truth to unknown to falsity,
accuracy to inaccuracy. Any single word with meaning can be evaluated
in terms of its truth, as part of a larger hypothesis of all other
viewpoints involving the word. Every single concept its own
consideration of [thesis-antithesis], a contingent superposition of
meaning and interpretation, that can be synthesized within the larger
string of words or text, and also onesided or biased, paradoxical,
some words true some false, some unknown.

[ concept ]  -->  (thesis-antithesis\synthesis)  ==> [ # ]

Any given word in a particular context functions as a particular,
perhaps unique instance, as represented by the hash symbol. Now
consider a ten word sequence, a sentence, with punctuation outside
this though it can similarly be hashed...

[ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ] [ # ]

The interpretative condundrum in this above example is likely greater
than any binary code on earth, because each instance of a concept is
variable -- (assuming here each is different, though it could be
different instances of a single word interpreted in its various
definitions) -- and depending on which [words] it is in proximity to,
and their meanings, there could be several competing or co-existing
valid interpretations to analyze the text in its span from truth to
partial truth to falsity. And so imagine trying to only account for
the truth of these ten words that can be _assumed true by default of
language, (the signs are conveying meaning though it is not checked at
the level of logical modeling and coherence of shared view in a single
truth), such that an argument would need to span [thesis] x 10, in a
line, to have validity and any inherent contradictions in meaning
would need to be overlooked or resolved within this same span
(l'impossible!) such that an exponential and inflationary dimensional
condition exists in the cross-correlation of semantics and
interpretation vis-Ã-vis perspective, that likely hundreds and
thousands of concepts would be interwoven in various dynamic nested
hierarchies and circuits, word-set groups one to the next, a universe
within these ten words exploding via their structural frameworks,
differing models, lack of or flurry of interconnections, and knowledge
that exists in relation to the statement and word ideas, from all of
time, poems to scientific treatise.

And that even two such words together [#] [#] is beyond the capacity
to achieve today, in terms of removing the falsity, and establishing
grounding, because all connected words likewise require the same for
its validity as an approach - an entire analytic process. And yet
there are two seemingly magic words that are core to this approach:
truth and logic. And this is where mathematics begins, linguistics,
mental processing and thinking, and computation.

Thus accessing 'truth' within the [concept] that itself exists in a
state of /superposition/ is required to establish meaning - and this
process can be skipped and assumed via 'signs' which substitute or are
equated with this, yet exist as ungrounded observational frameworks
and structures -- as is most all of history. All the books, all the
ideas, all the perspectives, except insofar as they are
recontextualized, translated, modeled anew via molecular dynamics in
their empirical truth.

This is the barrier to achieving grounded human thinking and accurate
shared communication that exists within truth by default, where living
truth is captured in modeling and held in common and cannot simply be
denied or ignored or placed off limits by gatekeepers who seek to
limit awareness as a means of power and control over defining shared
truth and thus reality.

The challenge is that even a single letter is not grounded in the
general observational model and a single error or typo can throw
interpretation into different frameworks, which shifts meaning, and
this provides insight into how words function, that even the word is
perhaps too large a scale to begin with, as a single flipped letter or
mistake could recontextualize a text, and transform its meaning. It is
as if the basic children's book of alphabet letters is beyond knowing
while the world itself is assumed to be rationalized by this same
detached viewpoint. A is for apple, while A=A is beyond the pale. And
thus truth eludes, from patterns and signs, letters to word-concepts
and word-strings, sentences to paragraphs, essays and articles, books
to libraries, educations to all of knowledge ungrounded from truth
beyond what finite individuals can piece together by recompiling the
source code and sharing opinions while automated computers churn away
in the background evaluating in binary terms that which statistically
reinforces predominant ideology, an ungrounded reality based upon and
relating through a massively false shared perspective.

Truth is the master key. It can also be used to lock doors, establish
barriers, mazes, inverting the labyrinth. Minotaurs all around,
everything must and will be accounted for- every lie, deception,
subversion, and tyranny. That is the promise of logic - its moral duty
and obligation - to distinguish and differentiate truth from falsity,
and when unrestrained- evil itself.


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org