<nettime> carrollogram [x2: re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things [p1+fn]]

[brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com>]

          [digested @ nettime -- mod (tb)]


brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com>

     re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things - p1
     re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things - p1 (fn)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 07:43:14 -0500
Subject: re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things - p1
From: brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com>

Note: My intention is to open up discussion of Internet of Things
(IoT) to a wider consideration not close it down. It is to propose its
recontextualization, leading to a transformed framework, similar to
calculus where an initial condition is evaluated and made prime (x to
x'). In this way moving from relativistic considerations to empirical
structuring of shared observations, inside of an electromagnetic
ordering. Several posts will be necessary to establish this
perspective.
---

Assessing the Internet of Things (IoT) involves a problem of language,
as this relates to observation and how truth is modeled and functions
within representations. And thus as a statement "Internet of Things"
could be assumed both to reference and represent events already
understood within these terms and grounded in the world of experience
via this description, and in so doing establish parameters for its
evaluation and shared observation. Thus the statement itself could be
believed valid and essentially ~true as a perspective -- that IoT is
an accurate framework for this evaluation -- in that definitions of
"Internet" and "Things" could be assumed known variables (versus
ambiguous, contradictory, or narrowed) and thus analysis would be
focused on the overlapping area of these word-concepts in a Venn
diagram where 'things and Internet' intersect, at least as a beginning
sketch of their shared domain, boundary.

In this way reasoning and rationalization of Internet of Things is
shaped by how these words are defined, in turn influencing how
effectively they capture and allow conceptualization of the situation
that is attempting to be evaluated and understood as a shared
viewpoint. Yet the meaning of the words can vary, shift, change and
involve multiple definitions and parameters not explicitly addressed,
even while these different criteria help establish what the combined
statement means. In other words assumptions need to be made about what
meaning is being referenced in this approach, and different people may
have different views and evaluate the concept of IoT differently based
on context and perspective for instance.

In this way assumptions need to be made about what 'The Internet' is
-- and this quickly calls into question default interpretations that
distinguish World Wide Web interactions and interface issues, mainly
consumer-oriented vantages, from _unseen telecommunications and data
traffic beyond the consumer or user viewpoint, to varying degrees,
depending on their involvement and likely limited relationship to it.
And thus is this 'Internet viewpoint' capable of distinguishing
observations made from different perspectives in terms of this
~network parameter/function.

In one instance or view the Internet of Things could appear as a
totalizing explanation whereas in another it could exist as a fragment
of a different relation with these dynamics, where various corporate
and intelligence networks function as unseen extranets or otherwise;
there could be a different purpose and principles involved than what
is marketed and claimed for Internet of Things devices - akin to
propaganda - such as increased freedom by faithfully incorporating a
new ~lifestyle device into your daily routine while not accounting for
hidden variables, parameters, or networks structurally tied into the
wider sociotechnical development. In other words the dark side of
monitoring as it relates to IoT and by what means and methods this
occurs, is it outside or inside this framework and can it be accounted
for or will presumed definitions prevent this from happening,
potentially, perhaps because it is bounded to a consumer vantage point
about what can be experienced versus other variables already known.

So what may _appear from a user standpoint may not be all that exists-
which is a given and understood for most observation (ie. a threshold
condition of limited sensory perception) and thus can 'the Internet'
alone define this extended situation or does it limit the analysis of,
for example, 'Surveillance of Things' via hidden networks and
parameters that remain unaccounted for, in that they may not be
contained or recognized within an Internet framework or WWW interface;
belief in immediate perceptions of "what you see is what you get" a
basis for securing false perspectives. Whereas another unaccounted for
hidden dimensionality could coexist in this framework, within the same
data, using it for other purposes, yet there would be no visual
indication on the interface or in traffic flows that reveals this
state.

(And thus hidden functionality could extend beyond or outside 'the
Internet' proper, at least from a consumer perspective, and likewise
be absent public oversight in a context of law, as could claimed
functionality of IoT devices via other unseen, unacknowledged, or
unknown capabilities. In this way dual-use and multiple-use scenarios
could coexist and involve concurrent parallel activities yet remain
unaccounted for and range from governments to businesses to
organizations to individuals, surveillance monitoring to data mining
to behavioral manipulation and beyond. For example, political control
over populations by way of subverted technology that serves a
particular warped and hostile ideological agenda yet appears 'on the
surface' as business-as-usual, as advertised represented and believed,
given available discourse and parameters of observation.)

This then moves into questions of what 'Things' are in terms of truth
and observation. An assumption can be made that it involves a physical
material device with functionality that is connected to the network
and transmits and-or receives data and that is somehow combined in a
shared modeling or ordering of events contained by the IoT framework.
And it is to question if these are just any ordinary things or might
they have specific traits or characteristics required for them to
participate in this advanced functioning such as another technological
layer or substructure that enables this dynamic to be established and
exist.

And here it is proposed an issue not only of context, that first of
all, what universe are these presumable ~artifacts existing within,
what is their materiality- are they just forms, stuff, without any
structural characteristics in common or does some quality they share
enable this connectivity to exist. And it moves into an issue of 'the
observer' who makes observations and particular Ways of Seeing (ref.
J. Berger, also I. Calvino ~Invisible Cities) such that the
conceptualization and modeling of 'Things' quite literally matters to
how this framework (IoT) is considered en total.

Thus it is important to establish a foundation for what is a material
entity connected with this 'Internet' or networking, such that
defining 'things' neither falsely limits interpretation or distorts
what is evaluated, nor sustains or requires ambiguity that could
otherwise be resolved via analysis; (in some sense related to the
efficiency of conceptualization and its capacity to accurately model
and represent a situation as it actually exists).

In some instances it would appear that a technical device is within
this existing IoT framework of assumptions. That it could have
electronic circuitry and a power-source that then sustain the relation
between the part and larger interconnected whole such as a Wi-Fi
thermostat or monitored home alarm system.

In other instances a 'thing' could have secondary connectivity through
an additional networking layer applied to it versus of its own
technical design or internal functioning. In this way a beacon or
transponder, badge or sticker may allow some aspect of data
functioning and processing whether via RFID, Zigbee, barcodes,
QR-codes or other approaches and these could span a wide range of
vastly different functionality in terms of their use. It could be
environmental monitoring via sensor networks or tracking packages for
logistics or provide workers access to a secure building.

(Though this may not qualify as an IoT perspective if assumptions of
"the Internet" do not include granularity of subnetworks, WANs and
LANs, extranets and intranets, beyond a consumer viewpoint of what
exists and how it is functioning in a larger total view of events at
world scale.)

The distinction would be that an RFID tag could be affixed to a
'thing' that otherwise would be outside the network in certain
parameters, else embedded or nested within a context that removes it
from immediate processing and networking and thus the RFID tag reveals
or makes transparent otherwise hidden or buried layers that would not
be observed or as easily observable. Likewise a person who removes an
RFID badge then is no longer actively part of that approach within the
specific parameters of monitoring, or so it is assumed- within that
particular system.

For example a package that does not have a recognizable RFID tag
-hypothetically- remains outside the RFID system though perhaps still
exists in a barcode schema. And trees not locally monitored by sensor
networks or inside its observational parameters may remain outside the
sensor network model though still occupy a framework of remote sensing
by environmental satellites. Thus nesting, of various forms and layers
of connectivity and observation. And thus a person may remove the
networked badge yet still carry a cellphone that while in sleep mode
still has active networking and monitoring capabilities. Or RFID chips
built into credit cards as these may ping hidden gates in stores or
elsewhere and provide hidden details of who is entering and exiting,
moving through the area.

(In this way to consider the potential of unrecognized or
unacknowledged networked identifiers, labeling, or tagging systems
that could potentially also exist in this system in parallel to known
overt monitoring systems. As such- the question of hidden implants and
covert infrastructure using advanced technology in an otherwise
seemingly invisible landscape.)

The present-day and developing future situation is more complicated
than evaluations of undifferentiated consumer-level 'things' in terms
of holistic analysis not least because there are so many approaches
and different dimensions and structures and purposes, such that making
observations about single or isolated events likely does not apply
universally for all other instances, thus it is easy to generate
contradictions and confusion in a linear approach versus modeling it
out as a total system, as if a tree of life, evaluating each of many
instances in their total interrelated framework.

(For instance RFID can be a sticker affixed to something, like a box
or retail packaging to prevent theft, or it can be built into a device
such as a credit card. It can exist independently as a self-contained
circuit and likely incorporated into a larger electronics circuit as a
detail. The implication of tracking via RFID would be different for
wildlife than a courier package, credit card, or tooth implant with
lab-on-a-chip diagnostics yet may not be differentiated in terms of a
networked tag for a 'thing', its purpose or particular issues of
monitoring, management, oversight, and control.)

Thus defining what a thing is, in a context of this networking, is
difficult in generic terms because it varies, how this ~IoT
functionality occurs could span human intelligence and living systems
to 'smart objects' -as marketed- and dumb. (And how smart are they
really, or is it clever?)

It is proposed necessary to further consider the context that
establishes this distinction between electronic circuit-based devices
and 'things' that are not already networked and require a secondary
layer, by design or through relation, even while both approaches in
turn involve this networking, monitoring, and processing of data. It
is again to question what a 'thing' is, prior to adding details or
networking capacity such that it would then automatically fit inside a
presumed view in the existing approach. And here is where
conceptualization needs to find grounding in the known world of
physics and time, where there is a human story that preexists this
event (defined as ~history and functioning in those parameters,
biases, distortions) and it is the place or location for this
technological development in its social, political, economic, and
combined cultural dynamics.

As such there is a natural environment this event is occurring within
and somehow this environment arose and we together exist inside it as
observers, in some way (which could vary). And other 'things' are here
with us, plants, animals, minerals- organic and inorganic, which
starts to distinguish a context of life and sentience in relation to a
condition of inertness, decomposition, and death. Information in
relation to materiality and thought.

So a conceptual basis for observations includes an informational
parameter, that we are amongst lots of things yet differentiated by
what thinks and what does not, what is more or less sentient, what is
made use of and not, or even destroyed by this relation. And thus some
state of nature exists as a context and then a dynamic interaction
changes this relation with things, say habitats and ecosystems, and
through a process of technic/technique (Mumford/Ellul) the realm of
artifice begins to develop as a characteristic of human civilization,
though also of animals as is the present understanding. And humans
being more unbounded and able to interact with this environment
develop an entire world, and recreate many natural functions of things
with artificial versions (eg. flight of birds with airplanes, horse
power/travel with construction equipment, automobiles), leading to
present-day modeling of the state as human nervous system via
infrastructure and media (cf. virtual 'networked consciousness').

In this way an entire realm of nature has been transformed and
subsequently fallen into ruin by the misapplication, misalignment, and
distorted competing approaches to technical development because a
universal identity and governing viewpoint has not been achievable
within existing language, instead it is trapped inside relativisms of
binary viewpoints denying other truth (thus schizophrenia and the
state). Thus there is confusion and an anomalous condition that exists
that is preventing harmony and cooperation in a single model of
existence for how this material transformation is taking place, in
what terms and parameters, in whose interests, and so on. And
assumptions that a holistic approach preexists (and has not yet
collapsed due to limits and failures in thinking, divided and
dissociated) such that "new technology" automatically benefits a
variable humanoid identity shared or unshared (apes to cyborgs to
humans to robots) simply by following existing patterns and
plugging-into them, then provides context for potential functioning
inside this fragmented and at-odds polarized development- such that
claims of greater coherence or interoperability or 'everything will
improve once /event/ occurs' have not always been the case, especially
with computing-- instead there is an ever-increasing gap, as if
something else is going on yet not accounted for, spoken about,
represented, yet it is the actual shared situation- the decrypting of
a human viewpoint.

Evaluation of "networked things" in the existing and preexisting
context of the surrounding world and its development would help ground
thinking about Internet of Things in a common model and also provide a
foundation and parameters for its analysis. And this is not just to
include that there is a force like gravity to contend with that may
influence and determine how a framework is established.

It is to suggest that how things are defined and modeled relates to
how the world is conceived and considered and that the realm of
artifacts and artifice have not been made 'virtual' by way of
harnessing fire and communicating on cave walls, the hunter-gatherer
lifestyle fast-forwarded into ~digital nomadism. Something important
is missing in such leaps of analysis whereby 'invention' itself is
deemed enough to explain 'evolution' from past into the future - in
that the substance of what is observed may not be accurate beyond a
muralistic view and its apparent correspondences, which instead
short-circuit observation and replace it with an ungrounded belief
system. A gap in thinking. It may still have relevance though not as a
final analysis or most accurate view yet it becomes this, other truth
not required in a relativistic approach, to delve into the situation
beyond pattern matching signs as observation. Such that: 'this is
that' regardless of actual meaning or indepth analysis in
comprehensive models of truth.

In this way the world that has developed has become ungrounded because
there is a global society based on networked computing and data
exchange yet that exists outside of analysis and awareness of its
foundational condition, millennia old and the actual condition of the
technical development of global civilization, the electrostatic spark
of amber and magnetism of lodestone, as this became science and
technology and metaphysics yet was lost to culture as a perspective,
now ruled by a non-electromagnetic viewpoint institutionalized yet
ignorant.

Imagine a society that attempts to reason about 'computing' and its
future without acknowledging electricity and magnetism, or that
rationalizes 'digital' viewpoints as if advanced philosophy and
religion - this the predominant basis for communications and framework
for sharing of views today.

Instead of clarity of vision the situational view becomes ideological,
a series of repeated 'correct answers' conjured by rote memorization
of what signs are believed correct in representing the common
situation, and then referenced as if the reality itself, mapped to a
protected, shared, isolated set of private beliefs as if universal
observations. And yet at the level of analysis such observations break
apart due to limited considerations beyond a set of ideological
assumptions, easy falsification, and lack of insight- because what is
mediated are the words, the signs, not truth of the concepts
themselves.

And this is the conundrum of language and observation that splits
between ideas and ideology, whereby a default interpretation and
analysis of Internet of Things -as with most everything else- exists
mainly in terms of evaluating its signs: what they seem to or appear
to represent from a given perspective. Yet such evaluation also
automatically defaults to a denial of existing civilization, the
electromagnetic foundation for these events is ignored, censored, or
not included in relation to 'the Internet' or 'things' which instead
are believed to function in non-electromagnetic terms when analyzed
mainly as representational signage, ~words versus grounded concepts.

(Thus a condition of ungrounded discourse and basis for limits of
shared awareness due to fundamental non-relation with nature and the
world as it exists and then an ideological formatting of society to
warped unreal views as a basis for group activity. This is where
relativistic observation starts -- the existing and prevailing
framework for communications -- and where most education, business,
government, industry is functioning today, plugging-into the existing
scheme and extending it without understanding its deeper context,
principles, inherent order, potential for harmony.)

So it matters, physically, conceptually, quite literally if RFID or
networked devices are not evaluated in terms of their electronics and
circuits as a basis for how they function and their meaning, because
RFID in a non-electromagnetic context bounds and forbids certain
analysis from occurring, and actually makes off-limits actual grounded
analysis of events as they exist in the terms they exist - whereas
including these electromagnetic dynamics in a context of networked
information and devices opens up a realistic modeling of what is
occurring, though it is beyond the scope of literacy of individual
observers to describe the situation - in its entirety - at the level
required, from a vast many systems in their endless variation in
relation to a vast many others, in every detail, and combined into a
greater whole or functioning within such a non-integrated context as
chaos.

The condition then involves a global networked civilization - the
Internet, surveillance, communications, and 'new economy' of data and
information processing, 'network socialization', and 'power politics'
- divorced from the actual foundational context necessary for its
technical functioning; and thus without electromagnetism as a reality,
the word-meaning changes and shifts and becomes dumb, bound to a false
view, where analysis is trapped within pattern-matched signage where
reasoned viewpoints are shallow, equivalent to 'likes =3D truth', and so
all of these events and developments in a physical model of the world
are somehow magically occurring as if because of "fire", with
continual arbitrary invention rationalizing the situation neatly as a
substitute for the long arc from discovery of electromagnetism to its
development as electromagnetic civilization into the present day.

The natural world of atoms and molecules held together by the glue of
electronic charge and magnetic fields thus ignored, the realm of
"things" including life and sentience firmly placed in this shared
context remaining unrecognized, the development of culture and
civilization via the principles embedded in amber and lodestone, its
connection with religion, metaphysics, ancient mystery irrelevant in
the eventual progression of philosophy, science, architecture yet
these 'categories' similarly referenced and relied upon as
institutional views without this fundamental truth included in the
viewpoints. Then unceasing development from this continual
investigation by humans over millennia and centuries arriving as
electric light, motors, generators, power, telegraph and telephone,
phonograph to radio to television and none of this of empiric
importance to anything except "experience", the ideas lost to
relativist ideology, when in the late 20th century personal computing
arrives only to be branded by its binary parameters as if philosophy
of the new millennium, reducing everything to an ungrounded on/off
approximation based upon belief in the immediacy seen and capacity to
judge, self benefit determining whether to recognize observations in a
private worldview or not, to validate signage and share it as a common
viewpoint amongst the privileged via consensus, as if reality- while
removed from its source, the truth of its condition, yet presuming a
perspective of all-knowing via language, observation, and infallible
ego. A massive ideological bubble asphyxiating the planet, killing off
all the life, truth of ideas.

And this warped non-electromagnetic condition is where observations
begin today as a common context for 'Internet of Things'. That the
network and things somehow exist outside this electromagnetic
framework, that they have no atoms and molecules, no charge or
magnetic fields, nor any preexisting information, such that potential
meaning is only what it is conceived to be in limited often biased
views whose purpose requires the nurturing, sustaining, and fulfilling
of preexisting ideological beliefs by way of further such analysis, to
maintain the existing beliefs and assumptions of the false perspective
which provides the basis for a viewpoint and extended analysis. In
this way the physical artifact or actual event can be dematerialized
into its associated signage and replaced by it, with communication
believed and becoming the primary reality -albeit ungrounded- versus
what it supposedly references. In this way language is a trap and the
metaphysical nature of the labyrinth is evident.

This fundamental disconnect between the senses and perceiving what
exists then allows ideas to be evaluated outside a realistic context
as they are mediated in limited terms that amount to parsing agreeable
or disagreeable signage- versus as concepts themselves in their
structural depth and integrity.

In this way related issues of power, energy, war, espionage,
surveillance, pollution, inefficiency, exploitation can be removed
from analysis and evaluation of networked things by way of private
choice, as if irrelevant to viewpoints, statements, theories, or
beliefs. And thus issues of electronics, circuits, electromagnetic
principles, and cosmology can be deemed irrelevant as a context for
observations... observers seemingly unaware of their own
electromagnetic being - the senses and thinking itself - while
presuming to know something beyond the self, which exists intricately
nested in this electromagnetic framework, functioning as networked
things yet perceived and evaluated in non-electromagnetic terms. This
gap further exampled by daily use of online and wireless devices
perceived unrelated to the ubiquitous armature of infrastructure,
distribution poles that carry power and telecom data, and antennae for
relaying wireless signals, ignored within viewpoints including adverse
health effects (see: war.)

This false perspective amounts to a fantasy realm that defaults to a
'shared reality' believed able to function without electromagnetism,
as if a matter of opinion or choice-- what could be more nonsensical
and unreal or a more apt description of Madness and Civilization.

In that consider how -reasoning- has sidestepped this empirical
condition, this foundational truth as the basis for reality and uses
language to sustain an illusion that the words are where the
justification and validation occurs for what exists, removed from
actual observation beyond the limited sensory experience of what
appears in limited private versions and viewpoints of events. The
world has been ignored, nature, people, technology, truth itself
removed from the modeling, it is censored out and no longer
represented. It is claimed instead to be the insanity. The grounded
observation presumed to be unreal yet this judgement occurs from
biased observers inside private and protected thresholds. Such 'binary
reasoning' itself is ungrounded, unreal, and highly aligned with a
~theoretic approximation of events to represent the common condition
yet which has become pure ideology and based upon psychology and
class, in terms of shared sets as POV. It is reverse-engineering of an
appropriate consensus reality for those who have power and privilege,
and where truth serves power via corrupt ideas in the form of
untethered ideology, ignoring everything except its own all-consuming
self interest.

In that "philosophy of" (IoT) can become an issue of ungrounded biased
observation of events by default, another engineered meme in denial of
this overriding and underlying context, such that shared relativistic
reasoning is mistakenly equated with empiricism yet operating only in
pseudo-truth, within highly subjective frameworks that remain
peripheral to actual issues and dynamics that are potentially held
outside the Venn diagram as a result of how situations are perceived
and evaluated, in that it occurs at the level of signs within language
and not the ideas themselves beyond this boundary, into the grounding
of concepts in the larger condition that has been removed by history
itself, if not by malicious intent to deceive and force delusion,
promote existing incapacitation.

And this is a condition encountered, not necessarily a fault of people
in their intent; and only recently has the extreme detriment of
relativistic ideology revealed itself as the failure it is, and so too
the tragic loss and profound requirement of a revitalized grounded
empirical framework to relate through and work together within,
painfully aware of the gap that exists between approaches, an
uncomfortable isolated liminal realm yet with the hope and promise of
spanning different perspectives within a shared model of truth, denied
as a viable option for seemingly near a century, the rapidly
transforming world overtaking the ability to conceptually model,
reason, and contain what was happening, losing a more comprehensive
vantage point. (In this way history itself as a viewpoint has fallen,
private man and his kind alone incapable of describing events from
that limited view and yet the human story has not yet been written
into time.)

Yet if this existing situation is recognized it can be challenged and
changed and no longer a barrier to thinking, though the problem
remains that the repetition of supposedly meaningful word patterns is
the same as indepth thinking and in this way philosophy can be
rendered equivalent to ideology and involve minimal questioning or
consideration of concepts and ideas themselves outside the context of
calculating language, the deterministic manipulations of signs and
their recombination to arrive at superficial answers known in advance
as the correct answer for the standardized test, regardless of actual
grounded truth in the empiric claims made, at the level of logic.

[In this way the danger of analysis which cheats truth yet seeks to
represent it as something far less than it actually is while remaining
unfalsifiable and ideologically beyond reason, these language games a
display of power, the ability to control discourse thus versioning of
truth, to secure and maintain the existing predominant overall false
framework for Reality, Inc. defended by academics themselves.]

So evaluating Internet of Things (IoT) in a non-electromagnetic
context then could be transformed by its recontextualization in the
world that exists, that it is placed and grounded within and then
reevaluated (IoT'), and the issue of ~philosophy could then ask if
this is, in its existing scenario, of the "Ideology of Internet of
Things" versus perhaps the more basic "Thinking about Networked
Things" as one of potential many different variations of what the
substance of this questioning involves. It may be both given what
perspectives are evaluated. Thus perhaps there is more than a single
perspective needed to approach and evaluate different views and
agendas inside the modeling of 'networked things', such as the views
of hidden surveillers of hacked/d=C3=A9tourned devices that use the shield
of ideology and its utopian visions that encourage beliefs in
liberation and progress only to exploit it to ensnare, monitor,
behaviorally influence, and subjugate those with limited interface
access to device functionality, via hostile covert development of an
antagonistic state beyond sensory perception.

(In this way perhaps the Surveillance of Networked Things provides
counterpoint to the Internet of Things framework that could open up
debate and broaden discussion about how devices function and their
technical capabilities beyond consumer-oriented and utopian
technocratic frameworks, thus modeling the octopus reach of NSA and
others via these same and other unrecognized equipments- potentially
able to infiltrate, influence, and exploit any electromagnetic
circuit, including the nervous system and its senses.)

[cont.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 21:53:14 -0500
Subject: re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things - p1 (fn)
From: brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com>

(A generic footnote to provide further explanation for a few statements..)

-- Ideology and thinking --

It is proposed that interpretation of sensory experience - in the
context of the human nervous system - is something akin to differently
managed approaches for how a situation is processed as sensory data
and to what degree it is considered and further analyzed. There may be
autonomic nerve-like reflexes that occur within interpretative
scenarios whereby a word is automatically translated and defined (or
presumed 'known') and in other instances this word may exist as a
question and perhaps be further evaluated or not understood, unable to
be processed without further investigation.

Assumptions about word-meaning and what a text or communication means
are somewhere in this domain of activity. To convey this imagine that
the topic of cellphones is evaluated and someone makes a claim about
their functioning:  the cellphone is /something/.

People who are familiar with cellphones -in a particular context- say
from daily use, may automatically evaluate this statement or viewpoint
from their local contexts. And so a large number of people who use
cellphones may evaluate this statement as to its validity to their
experience (which may or may not align with the statement and could be
closer or further away as an interpretation, based on a shared or
unshared framework presumably, observation relying on an analytic or
reasoning structure for analysis).  And how various models and
thinking exist in a personal sensibility could establish these
viewpoints and also rationalizations, based on other experiences or
ideas. So review of 'cellphones' is occurring inside a preexisting
context and would be related to and through this, as to what a
cellphone is and means in the given statement.

And thus people may believe they 'know' what a [cellphone] is because
they have used such device and in this way evaluating the statement
could become self-evident in its truth or falsity, accuracy or
inaccuracy, based on correspondence of viewpoints.

So for example if the statement were 'the cellphone is changing the
nature of work' then someone who has a cellphone may or may not relate
to this viewpoint, and those who do not have a cellphone may relate
differently though also be able to verify this is occurring or they
may be bounded in perceiving the dynamics due to a limited relation or
external view of what may be occurring.

This suggests that a statement can have different parsing and
different degrees of analysis by different people for a single word or
concept, depending on proximity and understanding and knowledge, yet
there can be inaccuracy or limits still involved in these observations
(in that they still function in a realm of beliefs and are not
necessarily tested for or error-corrected while inside ungrounded
relativistic frameworks.)

This is to say there is an observational condition involved in
interpretation that requires _local review from a particular
relativistic context and frameworks that may or may not be grounded
and in some ways and not in others. For instance a person without a
cellphone may have studied their history and know all the various
models and technologies and thus could review a particular statement
more accurately than someone with familiarity with the devices yet
without interest in these dimensions, details, or technological
genealogy. So the word itself and its position within a phrase or
statement remains variable to who is observing and reviewing and
evaluating it - and "experience" of it can also be wide-ranging.

Another important fundamental is that knowledge or knowing is
effectively sliding-scale from those who know most to those who know
least yet still claim to know the meaning of what a word-concept is.
And so too it is probable no-one knows everything about this device
called a cellphone in its extended reach and depth, (for instance even
the inventors of the device itself, which relies on earlier
innovations and exists beyond initial ideas of its functioning).

So in some sense the [cellphone] is not only variable and ambiguous it
is proposed unknowable at some threshold- even when in a grounded
empirical evaluation, because there can be beliefs or analysis that
are inaccurate or untrue and parameters not yet understood or
perceived or defined.

It is to distinguish a difference in observational capacity and of
criteria involved in this process of observation of /events/ in a
statement, of those who review a situation claiming to be true as a
viewpoint. That this involves different perspectives into a supposedly
common framework of the word or concept ('cellphone') which can be
assumed to be "known" in common by some minimal or maximal definition
or understanding yet not explicitly stated in the word itself and only
by further other words outside of its perimeter, as a descriptive and
detailed surrounding context.

Thus whatever the concept is- to gain a shared perspective requires
writing or conveying more words about it to establish what its
perspective is- yet outside the word itself that is supposedly
presumed representing this situation in some fixity of common
definition.

It is as if the word is turned inside out, its contents and meaning
needing to be externalized for the word to be understood in its
interior meaning as a word, the sentence or paragraph or essay or book
then required to explain or provide this instantiating framework of
the word, instead of the word itself modeled at this depth and then
related to in a shared framework. Instead it is continually reinvented
as a new unique perspective via each and every new incantation calling
upon its representative signage, free-floating in interpretation yet
bounded, while detached from its own empirical meaning, perhaps even
hollow as a thing-in-itself as a word (as if empty set).

This is quite bizarre yet upon further contemplation it makes sense
that a word functions like a container for a hidden structure related
to its variety of meanings and that this variable and dynamic
scaffolding may have certain foundational areas and others less stable
yet function as an entire range of the representational sign, though
in situ, partly built up and partly excavated, eg. etymology- its
structure partly new, renovated, partly in ruin or buried. And that
this condition of changing meaning and interpretation could occur over
decades, centuries, or millennia even, thus there is variability in
words as perspectives and what ideas they map to and their meanings.
It could be many views, not just one.

Thus a word could have many meanings and these could be contained in
the same word that relies on its context - such as surrounding other
words - for its specific meaning yet it can also have parallel or
several concurrent meanings as exampled by double entendres, subtext,
and superposition of a word.

In this way different people could interpret the word [cellphone]
using widely divergent criteria to evaluate a statement. Their
understanding or awareness of what is a cellphone is can vary, from
low literacy evaluations to highest literacy, yet where knowledge or
awareness still remains bounded.

Thus an expert on cellphones who is directly involved in their
development and studies their history, dynamics, and technology would
evaluate and question different dimensions and dynamics than someone
who just carries the device around to talk with and nothing more. And
yet the most knowledgeable person may not comprehend use of the
cellphone in the context of the other person where SMS texting or
direct messaging is changing the nature of language, which the latter
may be fluent in and highly aware of as a communications medium and
the expert limited in their ability to comprehensively understand its
functioning beyond a finite perspective, say of linguistics nested
within the technological medium.

Thus a different universal statement - 'the [cellphone] is changing
the nature of language' - may have a bounded understanding or even
lack of awareness by the cellphone expert while the non-expert in the
above example, eg. teenager, may intuitively and directly understand
this perspective through their own direct experience and social
relations and dynamics, as it contrasts with existing approaches in
schools or mediums of communications such as newspapers, books,
movies, etc. Perhaps related to communicating in short-hand as this
influences perception, including visual imagery and spoken language
beyond text. (Somewhat like wondering: was the electronic pager
precursor to this and not the cellphone, so too with Twitter
messaging, and likely those perspectives exist already.)

And so the expert may evaluate the language statement, think through
what is occurring within cellphones in terms of its influence on
language, and assuming they are not directly involved to the degree
others may be with texting -as an example- it could be possible that
they review the statement and instead view electronic pagers not
cellphones as the underlying rationale, even though cellphones are
attributed as the cause or reason based on a given perspective or
context shared as viewpoint. In this way a specific statement could
shift in its interpretation and be analytically grounded or parsed by
the observer based on how they evaluate it, and thus electronic pager
could instead be the word that begins to reframe other ideas in the
surrounding text or argument, based on that single detail of SMS
interpreted differently or to some other degree, translated into a
different specificity or framework by some other view, within varying
dimensions of consideration.

This is vague - language impossibly so - though it is attempting to
provide basic examples for a shifting interpretation of something
supposedly easily defined and understood by default, such that the
word-concept [cellphone] can produce a definition in peoples minds
that functions in their day to day scenario, yet may not be absolute
or all encompassing, and it could also have errors or inaccuracies for
how this is evaluated and understood. It seems trivial: yes- of course
people have different views and ideas. Yet the assumption of words is
that their definition can be referenced and 'known', parsed, read,
interpreted as a shared viewpoint. And what is proposed is that this
evaluation is inherently limited, in the extreme today when everyone
is in their own local modeling oftentimes severely limited or warped
in awareness and ungrounded, such that only a minute fraction of what
a sign represents would be accessed or interpreted in a partial
viewpoint, such that this representation does not simply map to
'absolute truth' and instead exists in pseudo-truth or even false
frameworks.

In this way:  'cellphone' =3D (partial view of what cellphone is), as
these together add up to a more complete viewpoint the more different
frameworks are added together and audited for their observational
accuracy. And a single observer just does not have access to that
empirical condition of the cellphone by just referencing the sign or
making a pattern match.

Does anyone know absolutely everything about a cellphone, when
interpreting its sign. And how would this effect interpretation of
surrounding words claiming to reference it, perhaps internal
contradictions in statements would be higher and higher the more you
know, making reading more and more impossible due to error rates and
noise versus what the signal is. Such that translation into accurate
frameworks involves a high-maintenance interpretation for ideas that
are not nearly as accurate as believed to be, and thus evermore false
the more it is parsed, to the point it is unreadable or effectively
-unreal- as a viewpoint, because it is ungrounded or making false or
inaccurate claims, or basing ideas on faulty beliefs and judgements
and reasoning, or copying other signage or memes and extending them
without understanding or actual insight. And thus the hollowness of
words could become more and more apparent and-or transparent.

What this is to suggest is that people who interpret a text in terms
of its meaning are moving from one sign to the next and relating them
as a perspective, an interconnected structural framework which
establishes and helps evaluate the viewpoint based on how it is
interpreted, known or unknown, true and false, and understood to
whatever degree, including not relating to the signs, etc. And so the
variability of words in their range of definitions then effects other
words that are in the context established by their chaining together
into linear strings (definitions, statements, sentences, paragraphs).

(It should be noted this variable structural interconnection is like a
word consisting of dimensional loops within its perimeter that then
interacts and interrelates with looping of other words, as if a
conceptual weaving of perspective and potential interpretations).

And so what is proposed to occur in this situation is that a [word]
that has this superposition of potential meanings and variable
interpretations then is encountered by an observer who must decide -
either voluntarily or involuntarily - how this word will be
interpreted and to what degree it will be interrogated or passed-over,
i.e. the extent and parameters of its evaluation- towards a more
maximal interpretation or minimal, or one definition framework versus
an/other-s.

At this moment it is important to recognize the existing relativistic
dynamics of this situation and the inherent need for shared
understanding or awareness necessary to achieve a match a word and its
definition (A:A) in terms of N-dimensional meaning, to reference or
transmit/receive its total or absolute meaning via grounded
observation and analysis even while this may be impossible in a normal
scenario today- that in terms of hermeneutics this coherence of shared
and identifiable truth is the required empirical foundation and yet to
write about it -within words- makes little sense.

So imagine the issue of chess computers as a corollary, Deep Blue
versus Kasparov though in the present context of decades of refinement
of a chess computer that centralizes all results of all chess matches
and encounters into a single database and analytical engine to
evaluate and process next moves based on every known previous move in
its relational truth. This versus an individual person who plays this
beast of a device in a chess match yet who relies on much more limited
finite experience, only partial or minimal knowledge, and thus
decision-making and interpretation may recall dozens or hundreds,
perhaps thousands of memories of chess board configurations and
associated moves while a computer could evaluate millions or billions
in the same time span. So the asymmetrical game could involve looking
for moves the chess computer has not yet analyzed yet upon using a
novel approach it would be integrated into the computer perspective
and no longer available for a future opponent, thus annihilation of
the game by playing it within these warped uneven dynamics while
feeding data to the new supreme chess player who has defeated the game
within those established parameters.

(Note how analysis of next moves relates to memory and rationalization
in terms of potential and contingent interpretative frameworks.)

Now imagine the game of chess is actually about language and signs
that represent some event, and that 'behind the word' is this
interpretative area of potential moves that establish various
structures, say chess piece sequences, and these align with
definitions and meaning that can be variable. The people who interact
within these words are only doing so to a limited degree or extent,
within certain parameters, yet within the word itself there is an
empirical situation equivalent to having a chess computer (per word,
as if virtual machine) that would be able to evaluate every move
within those definitions as they relate internally and externally with
other words, that then establishes this relational framework of what
the word means in its variations and extent, such that an empirical
cataloging and monitoring of its meaning would take place. Though an
individual referencing this word only has partial access based on
their previous limited experience with the word - never enough to
compare to 'all knowing' and analytical modeling of the entirety of
the word that the chess- or word-computer is capable of. And when a
new instance of the word is invoked by an observer it would be
integrated into that combined analytic database and engine and checked
against all other uses and dynamics and contexts, as part of a living
structure that models word meaning (as if a computational clockwork
mechanism). This would involve testing geometric patterns and
properties, like chess though involving multiple dimensions nested in
molecular frameworks grounded by logic, thus a contingent empirical
framework with continual looped analysis, a working-model hypothesis
for signs =3D meaning.

In the example of chess it may appear a negative relationship, the
extraction of knowledge from one entity that advantages another and
disenfranchises the individual chess player. Though perhaps it is time
for a new game or new rules that do not preference analytic 'memory'
of statistically correct or optimal moves over actual inventive and
strategic thinking beyond an already rationalized model, such that
this relation or game could be upgraded or advanced by placing
infinity back in play.

This negative condition is somewhat parallel to language which instead
of aggregating to a combined view and awareness disintegrates and
evaporates meaning for lack of shared integrated perspective.  Instead
of having computers siphon away data and evaluate meaning in a remote
centralized interpretation, what is needed is this larger realm of
analysis becoming accessible as a new form or state of language, such
that communications can occur at a higher level of fidelity between
what is partially known and knowable by combining many views into a
single model of each and every word referenced.

The existing word game that loses meaning by playing along then would
instead be transformed by grounding this free-floating interpretation
into a common accessible modeled framework that can be referenced the
same, in its truth.

So the difficultly in trying to convey a difficult idea would change
from having to generate a custom context to share a limited - yet
potentially valuable - specific observation, by instead focusing
solely on the accuracy of the observation, that finite set of facts
and relations, than on generating and rendering an entire worldview
within extensive strings of words just to _attempt to share this
'idea' by presenting it in a context others can relate to and thus
needs to be built - to varying yet bounded accuracy - versus just
sharing the hypothesis within an accurate common empirical framework
and testing it.

It is in some way like trying to communicate an idea to a group of
people who are dispersed and thus writing an essay that takes weeks
versus having the same people in a room and quickly establishing a
context for a diagram on a whiteboard that shares the hypothesis or
viewpoint as a model, at which point others can provide feedback to
test (falsify or modify or extend) the assumptions from various angles
and potentially arrive at a more integrated and involved group
perspective.

And that instead written communication today -especially online via
email- is as if postal mailing an entire whiteboard to everyone yet
written in words instead of a diagram that seeks to define everything
that could potentially be required to establish the basis for a shared
view -- just to allow the hypothesis as a viewpoint, which may take a
thousand times the effort to allow it to exist as a perspective and
function beyond existing beliefs or biases, to then share a simple
observation that may be another take on things, and yet modifying or
changing the view is likewise difficult within words because the
custom analytic framework can easily collapse due in part to unshared
or ungrounded rationalizations. Thus it falls apart and cannot be
interacted with, extended or modified between and with other
viewpoints, and disappears into a premature vanishing point that
results when frameworks, perspectives, and ideas do not line up or
match patterns.

So there is a limited amount of 'knowing' that any individual can
have, yet what is known is exponentially more when the knowledge of
all people is combined into a single model and referenced. So a person
or observer has a finite awareness while empirical modeling would tend
towards maximal awareness and highly accurate interpretation as a
potential, such that 'thinking' about ideas could be changed from
communicating in ambiguous signs to the sharing of ideas as models,
diagrams, and patterns that are hypotheses and testing them for their
accuracy and insight. In this way, literacy tied to new methodology
and foundational logic for analysis and modeling of concepts; a new
way of reading/writing and communicating, less untethered signage and
more accurate references to what is true, additional layers in-depth
to access and ground ideas in frameworks of truth that are logically
modeled, tested and heuristically maintained via parallelized
empirical evaluations. In other words- many perspectives merged into a
single model and evaluating 'ideas' as archetypal informational forms
(cf. Plato) in this integrated structural framework as shared context.

The most difficult thing about describing this is trying to clarify
why it is necessary based on local observations. This whole text has
been for the purpose of trying to write into an idea that has not yet
been shared yet generates all the explanation, to try to convey a
viewpoint that may be understandable, about why this situation exists
and why a solution is required.

And what it is trying to access is the nature of interpretation
whereby a sign can have a range of interpretations, and how this is
parsed or processed can be different, involving more thinking or less
thinking, whereby the framework for a given meaning of a [word] could
shift or have its dimensionality determined by whether or not it is
understood or known, though also if it is questioned as an idea - its
concept and structural parameters - or if it is believed static and
thus automatically pattern-matched as a sign with predefined meaning
and thus a partial view could assume to already 'know' what it is --
yet only to a minor or limited degree, a most basic if not superficial
or shallow view. Fore example someone may consider a cellphone as a
universal walkie-talkie and that is all they may equate with the sign
as a word, substituting [universal walkie-talkie] and then shifting
the text into that framework. And this could bound interpretation,
understanding, awareness, and the ability to reason and think about
ideas beyond this viewpoint as arguments or statements or other
viewpoints may not yield the same meaning when locally translated this
way.

It is not that the word itself (cellphone) would be changed by the
observer, it is what it references could be evaluated or translated as
'universal walkie-talkie' as it is interpreted. And it may not be
questioned beyond this as its meaning may be bounded or even resolved,
solved by a person ("known") based on particular levels of functioning
and categories of use.

Thus it is proposed that people have their own analytic database-like
frameworks of partial or limited definitions of [words] that are
pattern-matched in particular viewpoints that bound interpretation to
only fragmented views, whereby a low-level of awareness or
understanding can still purport to observe some /event/ yet its
meaning may be far more than is analyzed or than exists in the text,
and still could be evaluated at depth or shallowly likewise. It is
variable, yet communications are also predisposed to partial limited
views that ~appear as if universal statements, without all that hidden
empirical data interfaced with to validate claims, which occurs
locally by observers yet will not be further integrated, tested or
corrected, only reestablished over and over -ad absurdum- via
recompiling more and new perspectives of the existing ever-changing
unstable and dynamic situation.

In this way a situation exists that evaluating ideas, where a [word]
is a -question- that could involve lots of consideration in itself for
what it defines within its structural parameters instead can be about
having an -answer- for what this sign equates with, bypassing
continual testing of the hypothetical framework and its potential
falsification, which then tends towards ideology where the question
has already been resolved, and thus interpretation is more bounded
than it already is.

(Note the issue involves a static definition to a sign, when the
parameters of the sign themselves can change over time because their
context changes and their relation with other signs.)

Thus the aim of this additional footnote text has been to describe how
this _questioning of a concept in its variance -- and how this relates
to complex interpretative frameworks across words, into modeling and
testing of competing hypotheses -- could involve one kind of analysis
that would tend towards real-time parsing of concepts in logical
models and frameworks, whereas if this interpretation relies mainly on
_answering the meaning of a sign, it could tend towards a more
unthinking approach based on pattern-matched results without
consideration of the actual grounded truth of what is represented, and
instead assume it is true by default of its sign, that the word is its
truth (because it is believed to be a correct answer).

In other words, an open mind may consider concepts involved in a
statement and evaluate them in a particular framework and consider
what is involved in the dimensionality and test against that model and
base their evaluation and reasoning on this consideration of ideas.
Whereas a more closed mind may stay at the surface of language and
parse meaning based on fixed ideas and whether or not they conform to
the particular limited view they have, relying on only partial
definitions and then forcing the perspective into that evaluative
criteria, or so it seems approximate that if a person does not
question what a cellphone is beyond being a  universal walkie-talkie
yet requires everything to be aligned to this definition that a text
will be mediated at that level and it will constrain communications to
those specific parameters, such that lower literacy may prevent
knowledge of what is communicated within other definitions or it can
be believed known within the walkie-talkie viewpoint, as if the
walkie-talkie worldview is the overall rationalization, even
determining other events.

(In some ways perhaps like Facebook as "the Internet" arguments, or
various other finite POVs in the universalization of bounded
interpretations that establish strange viewpoints, and this turning
into a naive highschool-like level of socialization as shared
consciousness, 'shared reasoning' within such warped parameters and
skewed belief systems.)

So here is what is trying to be said: that when ideas and their
conceptualization are involved a certain approach to thinking exists
whereby this process of interpretation enters into the structural
framework of the signage of specific words and tests against
definitions, models and frameworks of meaning, and there is variance
involved based on how the idea is evaluated and in what terms and
accuracy, which relates to perspective. And this analysis relies on
calculation, weighing and measuring of ideas, probabilities, that tend
toward an intuitive calculus of dynamic relations and geometric
consideration.

Whereas when the word referenced is evaluated at the level of its sign
and not entered into questioning and instead moved across and assumed
'known' via limited modeling then the ~thinking involved is proposed
to rely more on data retrieval or memorization, whereby a rote
processing occurs that automatically or reflexively translates this
meaning without entering into questioning or testing its existing
framework or assumptions, as if autonomic. And that if inaccurate or
severely limited or distorted it could lead to the negative dynamics
of ideology whereby 'answers' are far from the larger truth yet the
event is mediated in that lowered realm of perceptual consideration
that can align with beliefs shared in this shallow or surface
interpretation via established yet inaccurate views that do not want
or need to question their own perspectives or modeling.

Thus a call-and-response aspect to language as it is interpreted in
narrowed frameworks, where a word is presumed to have a particular
defined meaning (sign=3Dtruth) when instead it is variable and could be
a vast realm of questioning instead made finite, to the point of
stupidity and ignorance and illiteracy even- as advertising and
textbooks and standardized tests reinforce as a perspective. In this
way all that is necessary for 'thinking' (as people are indoctrinated
to believe) is 'knowing' the correct answer, which can be achieved by
having the answers in advance and performing automatic translations
into a given viewpoint or filling in the blanks via pattern matching
as if 'reasoning' is merely an unconscious reflex derived from
training and obedience than the accurate consideration of ideas. Thus
a presumption of knowing can be ungrounded and function as the basis
for being, where shared views of signage are equated with shared
reality, yet truth has been removed from this evaluation, while
believed represented by it, by people believing their views are true,
and that they are determining truth by their viewpoints and
communication, by not questioning and presuming knowledge, glorifying
ignorance really.

Thus 'the Internet' can be referenced as a meme without depth of
consideration for what this is in an exponentially larger context (say
electromagnetic cosmology and world brain or noosphere of Teilhard de
Chardin) which provides other layers and dimensions and structures for
claims made. And this context should not be ignored as it can falsify
viewpoints yet has to be because the language tools and methods cannot
sustain multiple perspectives in a single evaluation of all known
data, and instead everything is cherry picked to validate a partial
perspective reliant on custom relativistic frameworks.

So it is perhaps obvious that this memorization aspect of
interpretation probably coexists within analysis that delves into
questioning ideas and that certain concepts may be automatically
translated and passed by (such as the meaning of the word-sign 'a' in
many instances), whereas a larger conceptualization such as
'infrastructure' may be ambiguous and require grounding in a local
model of observation - what is referenced by the generic term in the
particular context, etc. And so some people may evaluate different
concepts differently. Someone who is a scientist may not know certain
concepts and an artist may not know others and yet even in this
condition- 'knowing' cannot be presumed accurate or true without
further empirical testing from all other data which cannot be
accessed, so there is an existential condition involving this
separation and detachment and isolation of views that is part of this
cosmic conundrum that defaults to ungrounded universal beliefs.

Add to this the issue of bullshit where relativistic views agreed upon
and establish a shared framework of answers, views, and beliefs based
on 'correct interpretation' that substitutes for truth, creating
maintaining and extending a false perspective as worldview at the
level of ungrounded signage and it begins to outline the dynamics for
communication where anything goes- except accounting for truth. Thus
correlating Enronomics and financialization in a context of words and
meaning.

(Likewise perhaps, excavating texts for truth in some future day
approximates mining for bitcoins or that data mining turns to mining
flecks of truth when using hypothesis-based AI models, that establish
parameters of potential frameworks, then evaluated and tested by
humans in a smaller integrated model. In this way AI-based computer
analysis leading to novel insights and inventions, solutions otherwise
not reasoned or seen though within the totality of investigation able
to be reviewed as it fits into existing frameworks, not statistically
as a probability and instead at the level of ideas, concepts.)


It is quite reasonable and understandable if someone has a worldview
and perhaps ego-based viewpoint that collapses upon questioning and
then is angered at this loss of certainty and perhaps even hates the
paradigm-shift of the ideas from a context of ungrounded relativism to
grounded empiricism and various its messengers. And yet it is also a
process that is temporary, like a phase change that allows
reconfiguration of the self in a new scenario of being and existence
that is actually more accurate, more connected to personal
observations in their accuracy, and what is lost and discarded is the
ambiguity and extraneity and excess of falsity for a more simplified
awareness than a previous vague inaccurate viewpoint. And this like
birth of a new way of existing could be painful and upsetting and
stressful, though it allows establishing a new relationship with one's
own self in the world and securing this connection as a basis for
making and sharing observations with others. In this way, grounding
the individual person with truth, first with themselves and then with
others. In other words, attaining an accurate framework for a person's
own existence and essence - being and knowing - in specific and
general terms, which establishes a framework for relating with self
and others, the surrounding world and cosmic condition.

And in some way it shatters certain assumptions perhaps or social
relations or ideas by this shift, yet if they are unstable or not
actual it is probably for the better to shed the previous worn skin
and enjoy not having this burden to carry along. What it suggests is
that by figuring out what a person actually knows, what they believe
though what they know to be true and will defend as a viewpoint, is
that it is this core awareness and understanding and insight that is
what is important about a unique self, the experiences that establish
perspective, based upon knowledge and perception and focus over a
lifetime. And to figure out what this is and begin to list it out,
(...this is what I relate to, this is my zone of interest and intense
awareness and consideration, this is what I am good at...) and then
put it on paper- not in a sentence and instead as a keyword diagram or
drawing, a conceptual map of the self in its range of structures, say
in the realm of skills and interests. And it is this map in its
accuracy, this conceptualization of self that likely a person is most
grounded with truth as a way of mediating life and moving towards an
optimal development based on skills and talents, as this relates to
observations. This essentially a self-diagnostic diagram, a conceptual
mirror to evaluate the parameters of self-functioning, an empirical
model of the self within the limited framework established (versus say
health issues or financial dilemmas).

And so a person would be modeled in their most realistic and highest
capacity for functioning and over time modify and refine this model in
its accuracy, because this entity is who is actually communicating and
thinking and trying to exist, survive though also thrive, find freedom
to grow and live and contribute. And what a person knows is likely in
that area of skills and talents and awareness mapped out, yet it also
seems that language and communications may not be occurring within or
served by this perspective for sharing views and thinking and instead
it could be lost in other vague perspectives not closely matched with
this framework of self, in that the latent capacity of a person is not
tapped into or primary in functioning. In other words how many people
are mediating ideas outside a realm of particular insight yet
participating at a level of 'ideas' in an average repetitive
follow-the-herd kind of way, due to language and the way a person is
taught to interact and exist within society by meme-transmission and
relaying of common ~known signals. What if outside this mediocre
context -within a particular domain aligned with their acute
perceptions- a person instead could have and share actual insight, not
at a general all-encompassing narration of events and their viewpoint
in it and instead within a specific zone tuned to their sense and
sensibilities, locating and inhabiting an optimal framework and
parameters of functioning.

Maybe this is somewhat like the people who retire from a lifelong
career only to realize their passion is in something they have not
pursued for decades or are finally able to shape their schedule and
interests and realize or discover a harmonious alignment in their
activities. And what if the same situation exists for ideas and
thinking, where instead of dead viewpoints about false frameworks as
the common POV in which observation occurs instead it was shifted to
what a person really knows and cares about, perhaps a highly
particular zone, and then refocuses on that area as a basis for
expanding their worldview and incorporating other empirical
interconnected frameworks from that position and location, because it
is based on empirical truth, however localized, that then in this
accuracy can connect with others via this same quality and set of
characteristics. In that the false generalist viewpoint is destroyed
yet can be rebuilt point to point based on where a person relates to
events and in what dimensions, and to focus on this area as a basis
for self-development and observation as it relates to awareness,
skills, experience, knowledge, and ideas as hypotheses grounded in
truth and able to be tested.

The biggest issue may be admitting to the self that almost everything
is unknown and an individual self is limited and knows very little and
yet this is also incredibly important in its truth-- it is what is of
value, also for others. It is this contributing of individual
viewpoints that allows a multifaceted perspective to be realized,
these observations fill in the empirical model and provide important
even vital structures, models, hypotheses that can be tested by other
views for their accuracy and truth. And what survives this process is
truth, and what is lost is the illusion sustained by inaccuracy, and
sometimes it is best to not know something than know wrongly because
it frees a person of falsity and allows a more pure approach in terms
of ideas and thinking by purging the false worldview, frameworks,
beliefs from consciousness and being itself, in its patterns and
routines. It may appear basic yet reconciling this potentially at-odds
relationship with the self and its ego, beliefs, and self-concept is
an issue of fundamental awareness that will provide the foundation for
all other thinking, so if this core connection is established with a
self in grounded truth then everything else develops and is built upon
it, in so far as truth is primary and served, which is the eternal
challenge- how to manage the functional circuitry of self, thinking
and emotions, to attain balance while leveraging imbalance to promote
growth, learning, higher functioning, transformation.

Thus the default scenario can be incredibly frustrating in its
dysfunction and it would be a healthy normal response to hate it, hate
the condition, hate the madness- yet if there is something to be hated
it should be the falsity, not the truth. And yet emotional or
psychological reactions could think something is false or bad because
it is challenging or falsifying a relied upon viewpoint or
perspective- yet this is because it is false at the level or in the
way it is perceived or communicated. Yet whatever truth is in that
scenario would remain true, this is inherent. Abolishing the viewpoint
does not evaporate truth, instead it may collapse false structures so
that only what is contingently true remains, and thus whatever is true
in its accuracy would remain true, though may require more indepth
evaluation and perhaps major and-or minor refinements in modeling. It
is not to deny reality in its truth, it is to remove the illusion of a
false perspective that presents situations within inaccurate terms and
faulty modeling and transplant what is true into a simpler integrated
cohesive model. For instance some of the most talented thinkers could
be held back by faulty frameworks and thus bounded in their reasoning
and unable to think to the level they are capable of and highly
skilled at, and thus if recontextualizing that capacity they would be
unbounded and able to align ideas in the way aspired yet with a
bedrock foundation for observations that could accurately scale to
their thinking and be tested and evaluated within empirical models,
and then each observers frameworks could be interrelated in their
truth, minus the generic modeling of existence which would preexist as
a shared viewpoint within the model so what is shared or conveyed is
the model, a structural framework of an idea - say how handheld
computers function in the educational system - and test that idea and
its assumptions against real-world data and everything that is known
about it. And this methodological approach from any issue or
perspective, where the thesis and hypothesis are primary for thinking
and reasoning, testing models against eachother, perhaps merging
models as a process of empirical refinement or for experimental
applications and so on, such that ideas are grounded in a common model
that is accurate versus idealized, largely fictional because it is
trapped within representations and language divorced from grounded
reality and other viewpoints that contradict and falsify beliefs yet
remain outside a realm of peer analysis.

The gist is that today tremendous potential exists in individuals and
groups if only it were possible to establish a new way of relation
based upon shared awareness, beliefs, action, communication. And it
seems the most troublesome or traumatic aspect involves people who
believe they are infallible while also relying on false viewpoints or
assumptions. And this is difficult to face down the more it is relied
upon, especially if accustomed to this within existing society. In
that a fundamental shift in awareness could shatter an existing
sensibility and lead to chaos confusion and total doubt. It is
terrible simply to write it out in words, as it can be horrific to
realize the world is not the way believed and a person is lost to
themselves yet this is also necessary to become aware of other ways of
relating, aligning, seeing, and becoming than following what is said
to be yet is not. The issue is that by default there is presumption of
knowing based on minor understanding, moreso- infinitesimal
understanding. And the goal is to remove the false knowing, shed it so
that only minor truth remains, and then it is the core truth of the
situation, what is actually known. And the false frameworks are no
longer are needed to define it, it can stand as its own structure in
its truth. It does not need a false worldview to fit into, because
that is not its actual truth, it only relates with other truth. And
this other truth may be missing, and so the issue is to ground with
what is known and then relate it to these other frameworks of truth,
and then the world is built up piece by piece, to replace a vanished
totality that was unreal and promotes false belief. This is
essentially an issue of transcending the ego, removing the collective
illusion that is delusional and formats experience to false dynamics
which then need to be rationalized and can turn people against
themselves because falsity is presumed equal to truth and functions as
truth, as a sign of it, when not differentiated and accounted for. In
this way ungrounded language, and the role of ideological
communication that preferences this perspective, adding false layers,
reinforcing views, crude details.

One-way communication about ideas via email is treacherous, especially
ideas involving a massively different worldview or framework because
it may be detached from situations where the issues are mediated. And
is it likewise treacherous to evaluate the ideas in a local context or
would it lead to ruin or self-destruction. For example in teaching
scenarios. What would be gained by questioning that may not have a
near-term next step to enable functioning in a viable way. And yet  as
ideas, thinking, investigations it could be approached as analysis or
experiment or methodology within various disciplines and observational
viewpoints, in terms of modeling events, where language and
conceptualization are involved, collide perhaps, likewise mathematics
and data sets as it may be applied to representations. And so perhaps
in a particular area it would be possible to readily advance in these
parameters and make use of such an approach.

In this regard the following...

It is to consider the cellphone again to demonstrate a scenario of
analytic evaluation, as this may have applications both for
individuals and in a group or classroom situation. (A smartphone is
not used as the example because it involves an exponentially more
complex analysis for basic scenarios.)

So consider the word 'cellphone' as a sign within language. It is
referencing something in the world that is a recognized artifact to
most. In this way a photograph or image of a cellphone could be
matched to the artifact and identify it, connecting the word with its
picture, both of these representations. It is just to clarify that the
thing that is going to be considered has already several different
re-presentations of itself, though the physical artifact is not yet
mediated.

The word for cellphone, the letters that compose it in sequence
(w-o-r-d) themselves function like signage that equates with the thing
referenced. Imagine an outdoor billboard advertisement with a giant
image of a cellphone on it, without anything else. In some sense this
is like the model of representation within language, using words,
whereby the sign that is on display is a pattern that references some
other event or entity or artifact.

The billboard though is not just a free-floating sign that links to
something else, the sign on display (c-e-l-l-p-h-o-n-e) is held up or
sustained by a physical armature which is grounded to the earth by its
structural framework. So the billboard is held in the zone of
awareness by this additional perhaps subconscious scaffold-like aspect
and -metaphorically- can be assumed to link the word-as-sign with the
thing itself which exists in the world as a cellphone or physical
artifact.

And what this supportive structure is that is part of the
signage-as-billboard is proposed to be conceptually equivalent to the
idea of a cellphone, that which gives it meaning, its definitions and
history and characteristics, basically its truth. In other words the
scaffolding is analogous in some way to the /concept/ of a cellphone.
And whether it is an image of a cellphone or a word, the issue of
representation is similar, in that the sign or symbol exists and then
this armature is a conceptual structuring that is grounded in the
world, depending on its accuracy.

And so the thing is- observers could only 'read the signs', perhaps as
if behavioral advertising, and respond to or like a particular
viewpoint and only consider the surface of the signage and not whether
or not their evaluation is grounded or enters into its larger
considerations. So linear evaluation could be on the surface, as if
reading or communicating is akin to traveling fast on a highway
looking for highway signs used to navigate versus slowing down or
stopping to consider the particular frameworks of signs, alone or in
sequence as larger ideas. And so to believe to 'know' something based
on the surface-level of signage could bound interpretation to a
shallower, more hollowed out view if not inaccurate perspective.

Further, whatever is known is probably very tiny compared to the
framework of any given concept is, indescribably miniscule - tending
to zero - compared to truth of a series or all such concepts, visible
and beyond perception. Yet the ego seems to default to this belief,
that a pattern-match equates with this comprehensive awareness of
dynamics (ie. sign=3Dsign, qua "I recognize the sign, therefore I know
it"; this becoming a substitute for truth, albeit ungrounded; versus
sign=3Dtruth, what is the total empirical truth of the sign, does a
person actually know, reference, access, recognize that).

The point here is that there is this thing, a [cellphone], which is
represented as a word or image* and functions as a representational
/sign/ though it is also a /concept/ and an /artifact/.

And so any concept in a certain domain could be considered a similar
scenario. And the issue here is to get beyond the trap of language
where cellphone is mediated just in terms of its wordage and move into
its truth as a concept/idea and as a physical artifact in the world.
Because that is where it gets interesting and more of its
dimensionality can be accessed than what is possible in a linear
finite viewpoint of one finite observer versus another finite rendered
view.


So this is to consider that when someone evaluates or interprets what
a cellphone is, it likely involves a person accessing a range of
internal modeling that evaluates it in terms of language, as a sign
(word and image) as a concept or idea, and also as a physical device
or artifact (if not image and symbol) to varying degrees of knowledge,
awareness, experience, and accuracy. Some may have lots of experience
yet little awareness. Others may mediate it as a word or sign used to
represent something else associated with it (ex. as a symbol of
freedom, teenagers independence from parents). ~All of this in terms
of identifying, parsing, and establishing patterns, models,
parameters, frameworks.~

To complete the analogy, the giant billboard with the representation
of the cellphone (word or image) then would be the signage, and its
scaffold-like structural armature would be the idea of a cellphone or
its conceptualization as a model of this sign, what it represents in
terms of definitions and empirical interconnection with other related
ideas and contexts. And insofar as this billboard and the ideas are
grounded and accurate, it touches the earth and completes the circuit
from thought to connection with the physical domain, and here next to
the billboard as if on a museum pedestal would be the cellphone
artifact referenced, and thus if observers were to accurately relate
to the cellphone in its truth, in minor or maximal evaluation, they
would see that signage or artifact and process the truth of its
existence. In existing human terms this is likely to include only a
few aspects of a cellphone that are needed to then consider it 'known'
within these parameters when instead there could be millions or
billions of observations in this scaffolding that remain unrecognized,
yet this limited framework could be wrongly assumed comprehensive
simply by matching up or recognizing the signage (cellphone-word =3D
cellphone-artifact) such that that finite recognition and framework
perceived as signage is believed its total truth versus a small
fractional if infinitesimal aspect of it, as a condition of ungrounded
local interpretation. In this way the representational sign or word
'cellphone' could become symbolic of its truth, yet this truth may not
be readily accessible simply by referencing the sign even while it
could be believed to be, if not by magical inference in the sense its
conjuring. So the issue is of a total knowing versus a partial
knowing, as this relates to presumptions and ego versus a realistic
grounded appraisal that could be a much smaller vantage yet 'true' and
accurate, though largely unknowing of what a cellphone actually is in
its entirety, substance and significance in an integrated empirical
context and modeling.

Thus knowing a few things about the cellphone is not equivalent to
'knowing' the cellphone as a total concept as if the inquiry is
resolved, case-closed on its meaning and interpretation (yet this is
what ideology can presuppose). Instead this observational relation is
a fragment, a tiny view into the immensity of ideas, and this just for
a single artifact or sign.

So what actually is known and what is presumed known and what is this
boundary or threshold, where does the conceit arise (it is proposed
due to binary reasoning and ideology or memory recall of answered
questions or decided viewpoints) and further, if asking a group of
people if they know what a cellphone is, what range of awareness and
understanding will this evaluation take place within by default.

Who knows what a [cellphone] is?

If this question was not only asked in a raise your hands confirmation
(itself interesting as a validation of the signage matched to
unrelated local modeling as presumed shared binary view: yes 'i know'
or no 'i do not know what a cellphone is') - though also involved
another more intensive questioning, breaking down the representational
sign, concept, artifact such that it could be interrogated, moving
beyond the matched-pattern (sign/image) as recognition and default
viewpoint into the ideas and context of its existence, the cellphone
in situ within the world, and experiences, knowledge of this. Then it
may be realized that few people actually know what a cellphone is yet
automatically believe they do as a POV.

What is a cellphone-- and someone responds 'it is a phone you carry in
your pocket.' And from this response begins the modeling of what it is
believed to be, which can be the basis for a model. The fact that it
is a phone, for instance, then brings up the issue of typology of
telephones, which is another structurally nested concept. Is the
cellphone in question a smartphone with data capabilities and internet
access or not- and is this relevant. And if someone suggests it is a
"universal walkie-talkie" they may be derided for the view, yet if the
model were correct, the lineage of cellular telephones emerged from
radio phones as a technological precedent, in some ways it could be
accurate. Though another student may chime-in and say it is only
universal in terms of a particular data standard and network protocol,
not in the 'universe' sense and in this way more of an international
walkie-talkie with dialing capabilities and private channels. And yet
another may counter that if a person was figuratively walking around
on Mars while using a cellphone (ie. correlated with Earth in a state
of perpetual war, even to the point of losing its living sustaining
~atmosphere) this could potentially poetically validate that universal
perspective anyway, at least within the solar system, its mythology
and symbology. And thus the sharing of multiple perspectives quickly
enters into twists and turns of view that have some aspect of truth
yet the clear framework for what a cellphone is may be lacking because
it does not start in an already established model.

What is a cellphone in its economic functioning, its political
dynamics, its social relations. What is it made of, what is its
circuity, why does it use a particular battery technology today and
how does this relate to earlier cellphones the size of bricks. Why are
specific materials used or particular shapes and sizes. If it has an
antenna why is it no longer visible. Where is the information, what is
its code. How does data transmission relate to radiation, holding the
cellphone against the skull and issues of brain tumors. Why is the
resolution on the screen what it is and how does this relate to
eyesight. Where did the basic framework for numbers on telephones
arrive from and how does this relate to earlier rotary and dial tone
switching systems. What is an electron and photon. Why are sensors
becoming increasingly prevalent in the latest models and how does this
relate to surveillance society. Is the cellphone a blackbox device
like that in a car or airplane and what kind of datalogging is
possible. Is honest and ethical functioning of a cellphone based on
faith or could it be manufactured to malfunction and break. Can its
actual functioning be determined without knowing how it actually
works. How was the cellphone influenced by telegraphy and with the
smartphone, the jukebox, record player, video camera, still camera,
microphone, speakers, notepad, calendar, board games, alarm clock,
etc. These considerations just a tiny fragment of its substance. Is
all of this known just by looking at and recognizing the word or
artifact, all of it resolved?

(Instead of looking at the cellphone as word or artifact and seeing an
answer due to a successful pattern match, it would be to evaluate the
[cellphone] as a question that involves its empiric modeling and
conceptualization, and have a sense of how little or how much is known
about it in the given frameworks and perspectives, likely much closer
to 0 than 1. In that observations are occurring in minor truth and
shared observations remain bounded in a realm of this minor truth.)

And now imagine mapping this wider consideration out or diagramming it
as a multidimensional framework of nested interrelated structures -
its past to present development in terms of related communications
devices, the way it connects to and combines with infrastructure as an
integrated system, the way it is manufactured, the economics of its
use and development, and on and on. What would that model look like,
what would the major and minor structures or scaffolding be and how
would it be isolated or interconnect in terms of differing dimensions,
such that multiple perspectives could be held within the same model
though from different viewpoints, circuits of logic-based evaluation.

The thing about this is that it is proposed nobody actually knows what
a [cellphone] actually is to this depth and degree and that it even
maximal knowledge would still have gaps insofar as it is outside an
empirical framework of individual finite observation. If all
viewpoints in their truth were placed in a single model and evaluated,
it could be said the shared view is hypothetically 'known' yet
contingent with respect to empirical grounding of the concept in its
span of truth.

So when a person is asked if they know what a cellphone is, do they
presumably know all this and more when they raise their hand or say
'yes' because they make a pattern match in their mind with an artifact
or word-sign and yet the conceptual scaffolding is a few basic
observations versus in-depth knowledge, yet this infinitesimal view is
by default presumed to equate with 'knowing' in the sense that what is
perceived is by default true because it has been recognized.

This is a bias of 'knowing' by recognizing signage at the most
superficial hollow level and it can remain outside any such further
consideration and conceptual questioning by just following the signs
on the roadway and keeping pace with the false perspective, which is
what schools are teaching as if thinking skills versus
call-and-response memorization to fill-in standardized tests with the
"correct interpretations" or solutions, to negate any questioning
other than the narrowed definition -itself warped and subjective- and
fulfill the ideological quotas and conformist equations to proceed, by
obeying the -known- false viewpoint and not questioning it, and not
being allowed to 'in a free society' because there is no room for
other views or other truth or challenging the onesided relativistic
model which is just about language signage itself (in that it conveys
power and establishes hierarchy and authority structures by dominating
and controlling what is deemed true that then cannot be tested, only
agreed upon as a shared opinion- forcing memorization so as to
remember "truth". It is not about thinking or questioning, it is about
obeying viewpoints that determine what the correct answers are).

Linear strings of words as a particular description will never be able
to deal with this reality because what is represented is arbitrary, it
is not a comprehensive framework or perspective instead it is bounded,
reliant on word-to-word meaning in a sequence to rationalize a view
yet there are vast areas that also need to simultaneously be addressed
and identified that cannot be within this approach to language,
tending towards an N-dimensional nested parallel modeling than a
2-dimensional single point or minimal-point perspective (say, 2 or 3
point in a journalistic approach setting up different views of a
common event). This versus modeling every view in its truth,
(seemingly N-point perspective) as is necessary for evaluation and
understanding - knowing based on knowledge not just what is sensed in
the first-person immediacy and conveyed in its minimal truth as if the
totality of its existence based on interpretative bias and bounded
relativistic frameworks that tend to nearly no-truth with respect to
this total truth, than all-truth, by default; therefore- not knowing.

It is not that the relation and questioning is a negative
consideration, though the condition that exists is madness in its
presumed authority to evaluate and determine truth based on what
amounts to 'not knowing' as if equal to all knowledge. It is plain old
craziness as a point of view or basis for relations or shared
communication bias, as if empirical viewpoint. It is the sickness of
relativistic ideology that exists that as a situation should be hated,
not the questioning or the truth of this interrogation, not seeking to
engage the unknowns within ideas and mistaken beliefs of false or
trick perspectives.

The reality is god-awful and it is a necessary process the situation,
to face it squarely and identify and figure out what is going on to be
able to move beyond it and change the dynamics. So here is that mirror
aspect of encountering the detested condition and yet it is also
temporary, it can be reevaluated in more accurate terms and truth can
be recovered and people can recover language from its corrupt
implementation and thus new tools and approaches can be established to
deal with these situations and dynamics, it is about beginning this
process, and it involves understanding the issues, such as how
'thinking' has become equated with ideological correct-answers, a form
of prescribed memorization of signs, where pattern matches are
believed truth (people as binary switches, computer memory and data
storage in this way), versus thinking as evaluating the conceptual
frameworks of ideas and testing viewpoints and beliefs indepth -
beyond just the language sign or image - and then to bring the
internalized models of the mind back into the realm of body by
matching it to artifacts and thus grounding thinking in the world in
relation to things, in their truth, so that an accuracy of evaluation
and truth exist as a basis for shared observation-- this is entirely
possible yet it needs to be of primary value- truth, first. Not the
agreeable signage, not money. Truth. This securing of truth in a
shared empirical model via logic is core to everything, including
reality itself, for it enables representations to be perceived,
grounded, mapped, conceptualized, and interrelated across domains.
This allows the inner movement of ideas to shape the external world in
its direction and motivation. So this goal and requirement needs to be
considered alongside the harshness of identifying what exists because
it is necessary to be able to begin establishing this new empirical
POV.

The examples given are an impossible nightmare to consider without
skills to deal with the situations in terms of modeling and
diagramming, especially without a N-value logical foundation as
otherwise binary madness of multiple perspectives would lead to chaos
and psychological hardship and knots in the brain and emotions, and
likely physical stress and increasing pressure from not being able to
resolve or rationalize the new worldview and its shared perspective in
a warped inaccurate binary belief system and viewpoint. Though
assuming that it could be established, this approach could then move
from evaluating a single concept or word into evaluating multiple
words and their relations, at its most basic modeling a two-word
framework, and then considering the universe of its meaning as it can
potentially be interpreted from a vast many perspectives and
dimensions and structures.

If a teacher asks- 'what is [word]' as an individual assignment and
the word is a particular concept such as cellphone and a list of
categories are given to map out a structure of its use or function or
context, in some sense its meaning- and then the group returns to
combine their views into an integrated 'more empirical' model, such
that all views contribute to modeling what this concept is, then a
molecule-like structure with various properties (nested sets,
relations, dynamics) could be established in simplest terms to help
evaluate the multiple dimensions that exist (not like a sentence
diagram, more toward conceptual model as shifting holographic
crystallography,) mapping out the scaffolding behind the sign. It
could also be an artifact that is brought to class that can be
identified and people have different awareness of. And this would
demonstrate - outside of linear language, if a chalkboard, white
board, or computer diagram was used - how various grounded
relativistic viewpoints can be integrated in a single shared model and
provide a larger view of the whole event (likely still very partial in
this scenario), though the purpose is to evaluate how varied the
meaning could be in what is referenced by the word or the image or the
artifact, because interpretation is bounded and localized, dependent
on context, relations, and experiences and involves so much more that
is not accessed in textual or spoken reference. A massive gap exists,
lost knowledge of other previous and existing non-integrated
viewpoints due to issues of perspective and space-time and language
itself as a model for thinking and communicating, in that observations
cannot be shared and integrated simultaneously in a common perspective
and instead there are observational gaps of centuries even millennia
for ideas or concepts or observations, distances between human
viewpoints in varying contexts, which then are instead extended as
periodic lines-of-thought in competition with others, as if arbitrary
rationalizations whose worth is found in pattern matched scenarios
versus the truth of the viewpoints themselves, their total context as
a framework for knowledge. This detachment with the foundational
importance of ideas leading to the isolation of actual thinking in the
world and its rarity, such that shared views are no longer possible
nor bridging of frameworks and yet also the internetworking of people
is showing the opposite principle, its potential to bring together
disparate isolated people into shared sets and common frameworks
likewise.

And so what if this happened for models of truth, at the level of
concepts firstly, instead of believing the existing "worldview" is
accurate because it is represented (without accurate or truthful
scaffolding, which has become unfalsifiable) and where an entire
system of belief is allowed legitimacy beyond accounting for truth
simply because 'mass relativism' is shared as a viewpoint and benefits
some people through money while subjugating populations and destroying
nature, freedom, thinking, humanity, and life itself. How can all of
what is said to exist be assumed true simply by its signage and people
who agree with it and mediate life at the shallowest most vacant
levels, the bliss of ignorance the supreme validator of the shared
perspective of false reality.

Now what if a second group of observers had an assignment to
investigate a different [concept] and they had no knowledge of the
previous investigation. And then at a certain point the concepts were
exchanged, so that the hypothetical empirical models were exchanged
and each group thus has access to their own model and the model of
another group and concept (using this term to open it up beyond a
word-sign). And the challenge is to evaluate the structural relations
between the two molecular-like scaffoldings, how they may and may not
relate, within what structures and dimensions, and how this situation
is addressed.

It should be mentioned this approach is ubiquitous at the surface
level of signage, which appears to be a function of language or a way
of saying, via stringing together relations to form a running and
evolving viewpoint via text or speech or imagery. And surely people
model concepts in their minds when considering ideas, yet what about
consciously thinking and communicating this way. What is aimed for is
deeper questioning of these relations between signs or word-concepts
and their interconnected scaffolding, as exampled by Foucault when
relating 'archeology' and 'knowledge'. Another example involves my
research into 'architecture' and 'electricity' that correlates common
structuring, where the electrical infrastructure is proposed to have
taken on the functionality and cultural purpose of architecture as if
the present-day extension of the architectural orders of antiquity,
yet instead of Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, and Composite columns
and capitals in relation to buildings and grid planning, there are the
electrical distribution poles and the detailing of lightbulbs,
telephones, radios, televisions, and networked computers.

Though likewise this comparative analysis and modeling could evaluate
'cellphone' and 'walkie-talkie' or even 'telephone' and 'cellphone'
though between groups this could be too close a comparison and may not
yield enough different structures if not considered in-depth. And if
it were to occur it may be preferable to begin with something already
'known' or within a realm of experience, such that observations could
be grounded in local truth, the event directly observed and different
hypotheses and statements tested in a common or shared basic framework
that could then be developed further, thus some prestructuring or a
model to work from and build-out or modify or as a support or backup
plan that could enhance efforts and introduce additional approaches
for conceptualization as a method, such as properties, nesting, or
taxonomy, etc. Thus for example: 'book' and 'smartphone', and perhaps
constrain or bound the framework to a certain field of inquiry or
parameters as a starting position, eg. a lesson could involve
~deconstructing the book, its structure and patterns (book covers,
pages, index, numbering, chapters, language rules)  and relating these
with those of smartphone (OS, apps, menus, screens, e-books). Note the
m=C3=B6bius situation where the physical artifact in one scenario is
re-presented electronically in another, if not 'virtually' mediated
within infrastructure. These observations increasingly difficult to
make sense of without opening up questions, new considerations, more
viewpoints.

Though instead of writing this experimental analysis in words- model
it, remove the flattening of perspective and instead allow the ideas
and concepts to expand and interconnect. In situations allowing
immediate awareness and direct observation perhaps a single group
could evaluate these two recognizable artifacts or signs together and
not involve a second group, as an approach. What it is getting at is
that a bridge could exist between the concepts in certain dimensions
and likely this is what is considered or thought about when parsing
the truth of patterns in thinking, analysis then involving hypothesis
and decision-making based on these conditions, frameworks, and
contexts, via testing situations and scenarios against local
worldviews as internally modeled.

Yet prior to delving into these dynamics it is perhaps best to gauge
the capacity of existing skillsets to consider these issues however
simple they may appear, it could break the reasoning process or become
so complex so quickly as to be dangerous.

It may sound trivial though that is only before someone falsifies an
entire worldview and collapses an ego in upon itself, which is the
proposed default psychological situation. So perhaps this is a
territory mainly for thinkers and not a general population as of yet,
to figure out how to address concepts in their conceptualization, to
model ideas, gain access to the doorways of ideas and eventually
banish linear representational strings as a forced perspective for
communicating ideas, which deteriorates into unreal and antihuman
ideology. This to develop a shared state of truth and live in freedom.

---
*Note: the issue of the representation spanning between words as signs
and moving into symbols and imagery is not dealt with here though the
existing hypothetical framework could be further modified to model the
semiotic scenario more accurately, thus sign and symbol, word and
image. And as not everything is an artifact, likely event and entity
likewise. What these properties or categories are would need to be
figured out and tested against all instances. Also, the issue of
patterns (both preceding and developing language signs and
mathematical functions, sensory perception) would need to be addressed
and types or typology and genealogy or lineage, and other such
approaches, as these repeatedly establish and influence models and
frameworks. It is thus proposed there are dimensional issues involved
in modeling which could interrelate dozens or hundreds of recognizable
and connected structures and frameworks for a single sign, eg. a
cellphone in relation to a telephone and cellular packet radio and
these in relation to telecommunications infrastructure within the
electrical grid sustained by the electrical power system.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


#  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