| brian carroll on Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:29:06 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> subjective math |
Hello, Thanks for the feedback and suggestions...re: How the hell can you ever dream to make us think that you work on anything more "people-centric" (what ever it means) with comments disabled on you Word Press blog ?
1. [comments] + [wordpress blog] = "people-centric" This example is similar to assumptions of social media, 'participatory internet' of Facebook, Google+, Twitter, blog dialogues and other exchange of communications. I do not participate in these conversational ecosystems and find it constitutes chit chat, in terms of feedback. It seems you are referring to the larger text regarding developing a computer focused on humans versus itself, where cultural questions exist beyond technical issues in how technologies develop and interact with people. Consumption of information is a particular approach, with movies, music, magazine and newspaper articles, and various devices to interact with these & stores, for buying, selling, and group dynamics from this. It could be claimed this is actually people-centric, to have access to 'culture' as media via computer devices, yet this is occurring within a certain set of limits & boundaries for what is produced and can be exchanged & communicated within these same controlling structures. Not just any idea gets developed, and what things mean is also relevant, what finds support that actually is questioning the way the mechanism is operating, outside a safe zone where income is still allowed to function. Perhaps there are othernets and othermedia, yet it seems it is also the deterministic self-interested nature of the technical enterprise, to keep operations within a given dynamic, whatever change occurs being sanctioned and controlled, like fuel rods in a nuclear reactor. So within boundaries and limits of a private/particular framework, certain interactions happen and find support. People interact with technology and it helps them within their lives, within certain dimensions. Yet within the same mechanism, throughout from the education system to computers to the internet as a platform, there is nearly no room for 'ideas' themselves, within this machinery. Ideas, actual complex thinking, is not being advanced by the existing equipment, and instead it is held outside of its processing beyond a highly constrained limitation. It is proposed this is connected to binary ideology of how truth functions within society, peoples reasoning, yet also how things are made to function and evaluated. The following quote from the larger essay says what to me is the general direction of existing developments:"In terms of communication of grounded ideas within a neutral framework removed of known errors, nearly the entire society and civilization is
illiterate. The context of existing language unable to communicate information and ideas beyond conditions of bias, warping, one-sided evaluations. And this short-circuiting is built into basic exchange,scaled all the way up from individual mental processes to how the state
is governed and world economy is managed. A lot can be justified if discounting and disregarding truth for more suitable and favorable alternatives. The loss of language then becomes a loss of coherent action via this division and inability to recognize and serve shared truth. Most everything including the education system itself relies upon this situation – it is the basis for the social order, itsinstitutionalization. Incapacity allowing things to be the way they are, evermoreso. It effectively turns people into animals and that in turn is the ruling ideology. Truth is discarded for behaviorist policies, basic
rights are denied on the basis of superior authority, as if livinginside a zoo. And if logic is disallowed none of it can be addressed in
a legal context. The law becomes lawless, justice defending only the
rights of those in power. Computers, tools in 21st century democracy,
designed for the consumption of sanctioned and controlled information
versus functioning outside these bounds to protect and sustain basic
freedoms, empowering citizens by enabling greater representation
within governance versus casting populations as extras in the digital
shadowplay of mass media, the devolutionary aim seemingly to turn
the internet and personal computing into interactive television."
By contrast it is proposed that allowing for ideas within
computers and infrastructure then would turn reasoning into
programming versus esoteric languages and rulesets, where
every person would be modeling what exists versus middlemen
who mediate and interpret relations between people & computers.
A cartoon would describe it: a person goes to their psychologist
who sits across them in the room, eyeglasses and notepad and pen
and asks the person what is the matter; the person responding
'my computer is ignoring me'. This is the essential situation.
Other than this it is not know how to address your statement.
re: Do you really think that the difference between binary thinking
and critical (seems paradoxical only to idiots) thinking is
mathematical, or logical, or linguistic or semantic ?
2. Paradox could be seen as a type of Michelson-Morley experiment
of ideas, in that it separates two very different versions of events,
in that case the aether and electromagnetism going separate ways. In
the present situation, it seems binary absolutism could arrive in the
21st century directly from Aristotle's position on paradox, though I
have not read the source itself so have only seen it as a reference.
My understanding is that it is to claim 'there are no true paradoxes'
and that whatever may appear as paradoxes can ultimately be resolved.
Thus the middle or superposition between states of truth or falsity
could, with enough processing, be determined beyond such paradox.
That is an ideal scenario, involving issues of absolute knowledge
and relativistic knowledge, The problem would be to resolve any
such existing paradox by determining or forcing its resolution,
when perhaps it would lead to inaccuracies due to limited data.
Binary either-or thinking often is deterministic to grey-area
situations, making snap judgments and fitting observations into
existing categories because that is required of its processing,
whether by people or machines. "Neutral" or paradox is not an
option in the absolute sense, if it must be forced into 1 or 0.
So this is where unknowns or other ambiguities lead to various
approximations and inclusion of errors and rounding of models,
which itself is a type or form of inefficiency in the accuracy
of the truth it seemingly contains, by default of assumption.
To deny paradox exists would be difficult outside an absolute
frame of reference, and that absolute frame of reference is an
ideal condition that is worked-toward, and not pre-existing,
though some may believe it is, faithful to it as an ideology.
As if existence is occurring on that clear-cut demarcation,
every decision by the next. It would seemingly be difficult
to sustain such functioning, literally, due to its unreality.
In that feasibly a person would need to know everything to be
able to make right and correct decisions in every instance
and maybe this itself is a conceit of rationalism, where the
onesided thinker can 'logically reason' their own rightness.
I think the key issue in this is that there is a contingency
to observation and experiences, they occur in a context that
often is not fully grounded or thoroughly understood, and so
sometimes frameworks are not know or already worked out as a
common reference, or may be beyond existing knowledge. And
in situations such as these, where there a limit and bounded
interaction involved, perhaps a threshold condition where an
idea or experience exists, that in these difficult realms of
the ambiguous that perhaps multiple observational models may
overlap in trying to estimate or approximate what is observed.
For instance, it may not fit clearly into existing ideas else
it may call into question existing hypotheses for their errors.
Thus the role of anomaly as it relates to the scientific method
and other empirical approaches, where 'questions' reoccur even
if having already achieved a working and functional framework.
Paradoxical logic (3-value or true/neutral/false) can readily
deal with this anomaly, whereas binary or 2-value (true/false)
cannot, because it would need to determine its validity in
those terms, which likely would result in its being ignored
as a question because it does not fit the available answers.
It would seem both the discipline of ecology from late 19th
to early 20th century origins and its later development in
the 1960s, and also 'new science' of the 1960s involve the
issue of paradox and this questioning of anomaly as a basis
for further inquiry, questioning of assumptions, new models,
and so on. Observationally, evaluating an environment and
trying to 'know' in absolute terms how it works would be a
daunting task given the multiplicitous interactions across
various scales in any given perspective or context, micro-
scopic from the soil to habits to weather systems & climate.
There are far more unknowns than knowns to work from, and in
starting such a review and research, it is assumed that the
multi-linear aspect inherently involves questions that will
remain 'contingent' or in superposition, essentially unknowns
until further data is processed or another study conducted.
And in such a way, as with thinking as a general activity,
that there are these suspended judgments that are included
in our models, contingent aspects that may not be resolved,
and thus may stay suspended or in a partial-condition as it
is not yet clear or resolution is not possible in the given
situation or condition. Thus living with ambiguity and not-
knowing, and how does a person manage that in terms of their
thinking, yet also their emotions and psychic equilibrium.
So it would be quite important if society were to teach its
citizens only in 2-value considerations and reward that kind
of approach, including with very complex multilinear issues
for instance psychiatric (large percentages of populations)
where something like 'depression' could involve issues that
go well beyond that, or that it could be a natural state if
working through certain gloomy realities of daily existence,
yet instead a yes/no, bypassing all that multilinearity, is
that the category fits, take a pill to resolve the problem.
Versus identifying and dealing with any connected dynamics.
That is binary ideology as a health, social, political, and
cultural practice. A lot of things are institutionalized this
way, though it is often subtle, especially since 'logic' is
often equated with such overly simplistic binary evaluations,
these 'arguments' propping up industries and also oppressions.
If having to organize linguistic, semantic, logical, binary,
paradoxical, mathematical, and critical, I would propose it
is that logic is the basis for mathematics, thus binary and
paradoxical logic are a way of thinking that leads to the
mathematical systems such as sets: logic {2-value, 3-value}.
From there thinking seems to break into mathematical and
into language, therefore: logic {mathematical, linguistic}.
I think this is still the domain of philosophy in so far as
it involves logic, in the most ordinary sense of questioning.
That simple observation via numbers and letters is processed
in this realm. Now consider what would happen if it was only
binary logic occurring: 2-value {mathematics, language}
If there was an ungrounded condition, a binary mathematics
and binary language, each potentially biased if ungrounded,
could lead to a onesidedness of closed 'empirical reasoning',
such that: onesided-reasoning {binary math, binary language}
And yet it would not necessarily correspond with actual truth
and instead only virtual truth in the given partial framework,
such that: onsided-reasoning {onesided math, onesided language}
This is essentially the default or starting condition of the
binary worldview, this is the assumption of a pre-existing
absolute that is being referenced and that is required of it,
except that it is based upon falsity and the attendant bias,
skew, warping, and distortion of approximations and errors,
which is why relativism is so conducive to this, cordoning
off areas via boundaries and limits into a separate zone,
each and every observer their own universe, then correlated
to span observations across these necessary dividing lines,
while not removing the errors that sustain the barricades,
as it were, as the ideas rely upon them for their existence.
That is, the inability to account for errors and corrections
allowing the binarist worldview to function friction-free.
And by default, 'reasoning' is allowing this day in, day out.
Even appeals to logic only reinforce the sustaining beliefs,
that somehow language itself is the validator of such truth.
A different approach would neutralize and search out error,
via 3-value (T/N/F) if not N-value, where N = any number, if
not to infinity, or perhaps more accurately a grayscale area
between the black and white, existing between absolute truth
and absolute falsity. In this way, a sliding-scale between
truth and falsity, tending towards greater truth or lesser,
towards greater falsity or lesser. Essentially analog if
considered in a realm of electronic circuits & components.
Thus 'variableness' or gradation between truth and falsity
that function as bookends of 3-value and N-value logic, then
allows for ambiguity and unknowns to be mediated in a finer
resolution than simply yes|no or on|off or true|false. It is
akin to being able to process 'maybe' and 'sort of' and also
'perhaps'. And if is never absolute or certain within the
existing limits or framework, it could remain a question
within the logic in this way, even if 99.9999999% reliable.
Thus even this state of near certainty remains outside of a
context of the absolute (actual truth), yet still provides
a highly accurate approximation though still contingent on
unknowns, known and unknown. And thus that '1' of truth is
evasive within 3-value logic, unless it is actually secured
and very little is, yet much is assumed to be, especially
in a realm of science and mathematics which, as ideology,
attains this belief through binaristic reasoning and not
in a context of paradox and a single empirical modeling
of events referenced, removed of known errors. In this
way, economics and other calculating fields are perceived
and granted a grandeur that is not theirs, and look how
this "objectivity" then is exploiting the realm of the
supposed 'shared observer' (the public). It is madness,
granted because bad ideas are not being accounted for.
They are given the weight of physics, yet perform this
way only by requiring structural error be normalized,
thus it is a relativism functioning in its own facts.
Essentially an issue of private perspectives, reasoning
that is justified and validated by other shared biasing
likewise institutionalized, modeled within the state.
What I was trying to convey is that this involves and
is based upon the ordinary language we use day to day,
that it is the justification for these unaccountable
procedural onesided interactions, and use of language
is involved in this expropriation and exploitation of
truth from within conversation and communications, as
if in itself 'the proof' of the legitimacy, because it
can be approximately described and mediated in exchange,
yet is not actually controlled or manageable within it,
where any of these errors and distortions can be dealt
with and resolved. Language is the trap, the labyrinth.
Back again to the idea: logic {mathematics, language}
2-value logic {2-value mathematics, 2-value language}
This is the nature of both computers and communications
today, where 'reasoning' defaults to private onesidedness.
3-value logic {3-value mathematics, 3-value language}
This is what is proposed is necessary for a new computer
and programming language, (though more likely N-value in
its infinite dimensions). This is to say that even issues
like semantic errors in mathematics could be addressed as
anomalies and questions inherent to modeling observations
accurately, via observing the observer (as the basis for
achieving 'self-aware' observation as empirical observer
via panoptics as people error-check one another and share
the same identity as observer). It is easy to fall into
less tangible abstractions via description in keywords,
trying to avoid it here, yet essentially the situation
today cannot be grounded by existing 2-value approaches,
they are fundamentally inaccurate, requiring of errors
and censorship to protect "reasoning" from feedback that
could invalidate them, yet still presume the position and
role of authority, based upon specific partial-worldviews.
What occurs if binarist ideologues occupy institutions,
government, society, then is a too-simple worldview and
attendant reasoning that requires bias and is onesided,
(their truth) and requires compliance and obedience to
succeed within the structures so controlled. This is
where the Socratic Method is turned against itself as
Questions will be asked, yet only some Answers allowed,
and always only those that are allowable and acceptable.
Otherwise it is a disciplinary issue, a wrong worldview.
In those terms, the outsider exists in a false-reality.
It is not a bubble-boy or bubble-family or domed city,
it is an entire society and civilization so enbubbled.
Those within have enough air, food, water, shelter, and
most especially money. Those outside struggle. And it
seems there is a progression of fewer people inside,
and more people outside the bubble as time goes on.
Such that the Spencerian fitness via further extremes
of polarized and competitive scenarios forces people
into lower or higher states, as if the state is a
game of musical chairs, and many chairs have already
been taken away, those without a place then relocated
to the outside of the private bubble reality, inc.
Getting back inside likely requires indoctrinational
training, which is heavily based in the ideological,
ignoring everything going on, to fight for a place
in the machinery so to be one of those who survives.
The thing about it is that it is an ungrounded reality,
it is propped up by errors, falsity, lies, and relies
upon them, yet asserts a onesided 'true/false' modeling
as if it is already figured out, justified by math and
language that is communicated in facts and figures and
this is just not true if evaluating the reasoning it
involves, such that it can be proven to be incorrect.
Paradoxical or 3-value logic is what allows for this.
2-value {math,language} <--> 3-value {math,language}
The existence of ambiguity and unknowns and then the
forced approximations in binary reasoning, deciding
or 'determining' truth by forcing the perspective, is
easy to identify within expedient thinking and ideas.
In practice, 3-value logic is a tool that is capable
of popping every last bubble of inaccuracy within the
2-value mindset, error-reliant and onesided empirical
framework. Perhaps it is even its empirical purpose,
so to purify the realm of such 2-value determinations,
because they are the result of the peak of empirical
analyses as absolute conditions, yet can function as
cheap formulations of ideologic opinion if ungrounded,
showing lack of intellectual rigor or even respect
for ideas in their integrity, their founding in truth.
These types turn knowledge against itself as part of
its exploitation, and make those who seek truth into
the idiots for not knowing or believing their answers.
So there is false reality, false exchange, and so on.
And it is institutionalized, normalized, and the basis
for policy, including within social relations even.
A type of presumption based on social status, success.
How many have benefitted from this - probably most in
some way or another, yet some a lot more than others.
As if it is their faith, what is at its core- falsity.
That internal nothingness is the governing principle.
That is where things are headed by ideological default.
Towards greater falsity and those who are embracing it,
and in this way helping extend and further its control.
Including by the design of things, like computers and
bureaucratic operating systems, dysfunctional tools.
I would read Lewis Mumford, Technics and Myth (I & II)
to get a grand conceptualization of what is going on
from ancient times into today, vs. any contemporary
work that seeks to reference events in the existing
categories and rely upon the given rationalizations.
For completeness, I was going to propose likewise
that semantics could be included in the modeling of
these structural relations, such that:
logic {mathematics {semantics}, language {semantics}}
Yet it made me wonder to what extent a crossover may
exist in shared yet perhaps separately modeled aspects
of mathematics and language (numbers and alphabet say),
in that signs are active and variables are referenced
in similar ways, such that X stands for something in
the way WORD stands for something, in certain ways.
And so in this way, semantics within mathematics, yet
perhaps also syntax, grammar, if not ontology, etc.
And so it is a fascinating question to consider.
Such that perhaps it could be modeled as:
logic {semantics {mathematics,language}}
And that this is a question of the relation between
logic and semantics as it effects math and communication.
Then what if it is 2-value logic where it in turn becomes
onesided in terms of its meaning...
2-value semantics {mathematics, language}
...
biased semantics {biased math, biased language}
And maybe this is the case, that exists, and it is
evaluated in these terms due to feedback provided,
so it is perhaps in this realm of the unknown and
further questioning, how does it relate in this way,
how might it relate, which is a 3-value consideration
or an anomaly or unknown- and thus open-minds are able
to evaluate and test models and hypotheses as part of
the reasoning process, and this is part of that.
re: You seems to mix candidly logical truth and empirical truth.
There is a critical difference between them : logical truth is purely
internal to abstract system, it does not say anything about what is
really going on in reality, it is (as) simple and clear (as
possible) ; empirical truth is a relation between words and facts,
it is the reason's faith that facts have to be logical (a pretty
reasonable faith, indeed) and it is the reason's challenge to find
logical systems that explain how the things really work - but things
do not reduce to words and their description can always be improved
and forever. Finding logical systems that describes quite well our
world, improve logic to cross the gap tot reality, is the endless
task of reason in the History of Man. You can not deal with this with
percentages as you did. Is this truth 51% or 49% true? Is the
sentence : "This sentence is 49% true" true or false or 49% true?
3. First, I think you are right and I understand the criticism
and perhaps it was due to not setting up the situation in
advance, describing it upfront. This is terribly [complex].
I should have given a real-world example of its tangibility.
Electronic components that are on a circuitboard provide one
way to evaluate binary versus 3-value / N-value differences,
in that some digital switches may only be on or off, whereas
others are analog in the sense that a gradient exists between
these, as a range. It is forgotten what components exactly do
this, if it is a variable resister or a whole class of sensors
that function in terms of ratios, though this is essentially
of the same percentages scenario. The original idea was based
on a proposal for a computer that would loop data continuously
through the same framework, plotting it between truth & falsity
as a form of pattern-based computation. For instance, if using
HTML color coding, and #F was white and #O was black, then the
web-safe gradient between these would be #C, #9, #6, #3, going
from light gray to dark grey. So the idea of percentages was
that if looping data through such a processor, some may exist
at further towards truth or falsity or remain ambiguous, until
more data arrives and in turn, causes it to tend one way or
the other. For example, some data may arrive as black (#0)
and other as white (#F), yet some data may tend to black
(#3) more than others (#6), which could correspond in the
approximate 83% black (#3) and 66% black (#6), so even while
data is not fully black or white, i.e. binary, it can still
be mediated in terms of blackness and whiteness, via such
a grey-area, perhaps more grey than black, or dark gray
and less dark gray, given context of the tones compared.
So the gradient could be 1,000 grays between black/white,
or just one color, middle gray. The latter is closest to
the most simple 3-value modeling, a single extra option
as unknown or neutral, the more advanced N-value could
make the gradient anything, seemingly, given frameworks.
What happens to this middle realm of ambiguity in the
2-value deterministic evaluation, is that the grays
are forced into an either 'black' or 'white' decision,
the greys as greys become white or black even if they
are not, which is where the error, skew, distortion and
bias are made structural this kind of "rationalization"
process. In this way, partial-blackness may be forced
to be 'black' even though it is not wholly black, and
in this way, an approximation occurs, yet thereafter
it is viewed as 'all black' and its irregularities must
be denied to uphold the onesided reasoning it involves.
It is deterministic, arguably a sin for real thinkers
who try to fit everything into a preordained model,
versus dealing with the ideas as they exist beyond it.
As if everything is as simple as such persons need it
to be in order to maintain such rationalization, which
is basically translated directly into power, by its
control over what 'truth' is allowed in the worldview.
This phenomena is requiring of the infallible observer
which then further translates ideology into religion,
yet not based upon truth, and instead upon the observer,
which becomes a faith in their own self-certainty and
righteousness as a powerful entity, while ungrounded.
Only virtual, the power, contingent, these things known.
Here is another way to visualize the gradient:
[black] [grey] [white]
That would be 3-value. N-value would be a question
of how the grey area is mediated, via one option,
or many greys inbetween black and white. If only
one grey, it would function as a middle, most likely,
like 50% between black and white, as a middle variable.
It could represent a function as 'neutral' or 'unknown'
in a context of truth and falsity, different approaches.
If expanding the grey into a line, a gradient...
[black] <------grey-------> [white]
Then this more the N-value approach, where grey as
a variable (say, N) could be plotted in different
locations, tending closer or tending further away...
[black] <--grey-----------> [white]
In this way, grey could be 80% false or 90% true...
[black] <------------grey-> [white]
It is proposed most things that are encountered and
mediated in everyday living exist in this grey area
and tend towards truth or falsity and that is how
they are naturally reasoned, empirically, within a
self as a diagnostic being - whereas the intellectual
processing is forced to occur in black or white view
that loses the fidelity to the more complex reality,
and thus continual approximations of truth remove it
from equations (math and language) that represent it.
(~perhaps even 'language' functions as kind of computer
compiler for such approximations of truth within the
programming of language, or however it may be compared.
though that such translation occurs in a removed way to
allow for functioning within the communication platform,
and this would seem to be a leap of faith, how the truth
is translated from intent into & via this modeling of it.
that somehow it is pure via its abstraction, intangibility
when instead its loss of transparency could be the very
process requiring of opacity to maintain its functioning.
in other words, the blackbox or code other people wrote
that this code relies upon, even structural opaque data
unseen, as if somehow it is all simply true. this is a
problem with ideas themselves, as thinking is extended
over centuries and millennia yet not error-corrected
and compiled into single transparent model of truth.)
The following words or concepts in your critique will be
used to go a step further...
[{logical}{truth}] [{empirical}{truth}] [reason] [faith]
[facts] [reasonable] [reality] [logical systems] [things]
[{History}of{Man}]
In simply trying to communicate about this situation, a
text that has ideas that make claims and are contested
for their validity based on common frameworks and truth,
it is proposed that the above language, as concepts or
words or truth or facts, remains in a grey-area and is
unresolved. There is no single model that is shared as
an error-corrected referent which we can both refer to.
It is unknown what each of these terms means to you or
to me or to others, how many errors my version may hold
and likewise everyones, until they are brought into a
single framework, all the various relativistic views,
and modeled empirically. My question would be if it is
actually words and facts that would be modeled and not
perhaps models themselves, where words and facts are
the attributes and not the 'patterns' or forms that
may actually best represent the idea as a conceptual
molecule or ecosystem in its dynamics and relations.
Thus the disembedded of concepts from alphabet into
geometry removed of serial linear-communications,
for the N-dimensional modeling within computers of
these various logically and structurally nested
ideas (perhaps as organisms even) & perspectives.
Hypotheses essentially. Working models to evaluate.
A quick way to it is that [reason] for you and [reason]
for me may have contradictions both within assumptions
and then between interpretations, such that [reason 1]
and [reason 2] could be said to exist by default, and
that we are not referencing an absolute [reason] in
that binary on/off, true/false condition via exchange.
Instead its grey-area, unresolved, contingent, vastly
difficult if not impossible to resolve in this way.
Thus, [reason] as a question, in superposition even,
to every reader or thinker who exists and has ever
and may ever exist, that as a the basis for what it
is in truth and what may only approximate its truth.
[reason 1] [reason 2] [reason 3] ... [reason N]
And so empirical modeling of reason would take every
instance in its truth, from various perspectives,
all the way up to infinite observations, and model
[reason] as contingent upon these, their accuracy,
via various error-correction, anomalies, etc. In
some era it may exist as relatively unimportant
and in another of highest importance and thus the
corresponding accuracy could shift from lesser to
greater truth within the framework defining it.
[reason] = [reason123...N] - falsity + unknown
At most most, very accurate and pure understanding
towards 100% could exist, yet it is not inherent
and does not exist by default of the word 'reason'
being referenced in language - if not any word,
though i tend to believe 'love' is different and
the basis for grounding of absolute truth. And in
this way 'love' and 'truth' may be unique in some
fundamental sense that currently I could only refer
to by what Plato mentioned in Timaeus, about how
there may be preexisting knowledge, and it is an
issue of remembering rather than a blank slate
for attaining such fundamental awareness. In that
a revealing of truth may involve confirmation of
something already known of an essential condition.
Though that goes straight into metaphysics and is
not something I can relate to within these terms.
My interest is Plato is as a generalist thinker,
the conceptualizations very rich and opening up
the imagination, though likely misinterpretations
in my readings exist though I think it is more an
issue of conveying ideas than referencing some
historic thinker as the basis for its truth or
legitimation or authority. His view was common
sense, thinking it through, and thus it seems
within the capacity of every person to whatever
degree to do the same, if mediating questions.
And the weirdest thing is: binary ideology has
removed questions and ideas from civilization.
Its not even recognizably of the same culture.
This to me is explained by the anti-reasoning
that governs today and rules thinking & ideas.
re: Many people thinks, with some reasons, that the world is
frightening and binary thinking is an answer to this fear. Of course,
binary thinking is certainly one of the main cause that make the work
so frightening. So, trying to avoid binary thinking should certainly
be a way to make the world better, but it seems to me a
psychological, cultural, political problem. And, have you ever think
that your paradoxical thinking could be used in a binary way? Binary
people are sometimes clever, you know.
4. Yes, the approach used had limits and you raise interesting counterpoints about distortions the view can present if not clarifying further or readjusting the perspective of considerations to see it from different angles. I do think binary thinking can be frightening if it is representing truth and yet is not itself true. And that interacting with such views become relations based upon subordination to authority and of acceptable beliefs in order to be allowed to persist in society. Yet it has the potential also to be a caricature as if making binary thought itself into the problem, for any such contemplations or considerations and this would be and is inaccurate because there is always a contingence in thinking that must mediate in terms of truth & falsity and for me it is a question of whether this consideration is occurring in a realistic, sane, accountable worldview or one that is detached from it, truly insane, dangerous and most especially unaccountable, so then very powerful. Those who think and contemplate are not necessarily the people who are most susceptible to this ideological POV, instead it is those who do not think or cannot think in more complex ways, because populations are not taught how to think, by design. Thus animal behaviorism and Skinnerian social experiment engineered worldwide, television and internet and billboard advertising relying on technique of salivation for their power, their money, their authority, and their 'reasoning'. It is not to assume that people cannot think in more advanced ways and are doing so, certainly, and moreso than I ever imagined due to my own limited awareness. And yet there is a context that is shared and it is a structural flaw that is the basis for the society, for the civilization, for its communication, and it is this that I do not think an individual can resolve in terms of their own transcendence of these issues. In part people may be able to temporarily exist in a heightened realm of shared interaction, yet it must grounded into the dysfunction, its operating context whether anonymous or well known or whatnot. There is inherent susceptibility to the world, its strictures and it seems improbable someone would be mediating events in 'all truth' all the time, in this realm, because relying even on this language is itself in error simply for lack of shared purified referents. To be in this world is to exist in realm of error. Whether it is breath dirty air or drink toxic water or try to communicate with another who is not of a shared framework and any misinterpretation or bias that may result in everyday exchange, these flaws the default condition, this dysfunction the norm. In that way, like an ecology, an entity functioning with it, must mediate its corresponding dimensions and if these are founded upon error then this is not separable from the shared environment, nor its impact on interactions large and small. Cleverness is important to mediate the difference between the two logical systems or worldviews, I cannot do it, it is beyond me and hard even to comprehend how any could manage such a difficult condition. What that would seemingly involve is very close proximity to the issues of similarity and difference, and of a perhaps closer connection to the issue of bubbles and how they are popped, due to mapping out the 'lines of force' as it were, of how distortions, warping, bias, and error-ridden viewpoints are sustained and create illusions of false-reality, perhaps these the surveyors and documenters of false perspective, knowing it by mediating it. That takes savvy and social ingenuity that are absent from my skillset though admirable yet also beguiling because it is all so insane. The deep politics of it, the commitments and sacrifices made, the burdens carried by people. And like the recovery of truth, it is not to need to be in a condition of absolute rightness to be valid in actions, it would seem. Instead, by identifying and acknowledging and honoring the truth that does exist, that some portion of a life mediates this and often sacrifices for it, for the larger cause of truth, and in this way, it may be the focus of a life, yet exist as a hidden detail or form of service otherwise unobservable from external views unless mediated within its terms. And here it to try to clarify that that fragment or that aspect, in its being true, even if it is partial or part of a larger situation where there is dysfunction or compromises or whatever, that to achieve and sustain and serve that truth and to deliver it as structure into the larger truth and its bridgework- that this aspect of the self could be functioning in majority truth, towards or tending to 100% truth if removed of errors as an issue of obligation to its (sanctity), that commitment to ideas, which I think a lot of those who consider ideas are functioning within, where they are carrying questions and it is their major contribution, as thinkers. Perhaps it is even self-evident and not even an issue in the same context, yet may require an acknowledgment of shared endeavor to allow polarizations or oppositions to be neutralized, or errors corrected for via further interaction. And that just seems part of the human compact, assuming we exist in a common empirical framework. And yet what if we are functioning against each- other by default of the way things are and are being thought about. What then. And that is why logic is critical because it can reprogram the structural dynamics, alignments can be shifted not just through language, communications, by ideas that can shape these, and it is not that this is unknown, yet what if a potential exists to go far beyond the existing limitations for where relations and exchange may temporarily exist or reside, and to move things around a bit, strategize at perhaps a different level or in a different range of considerations. And so that is why perhaps contention or the issue of conflict or anomaly or unknowns or ambiguity and things not fitting exactly right could also indicate possibilities, opportunity, and that the reality that is involved is the shared truth that spans across the differences. Like a potential energy, what if harnessed and released, put to work, that prime motivation. My personal view is that any individual by themselves taken out of the context of others has likely very small amount of truth that they contribute, yet it may also be essential, and its value, its greatest impact, is in relation to not only itself, but to everything it connects to, and that includes others and others truth that they contribute and share that helps model the whole. That to me approximate the human project itself. The way to get past the binary ideological issue is to be honest with the self about limitations, errors, imperfections, and come to terms with things as they are and as they realistically exist, so to be grounded with the self, in relation to the self, and with others, to allow grounded interactions that error-correct versus to require and sustain dysfunction by default. And so too this is something that is not the automatic, a person must develop themselves and perhaps it is a stage of life, to be able to get past the self to finally be at peace, outside of the societal or other programming that brainwashes people throughout their lives. To gain independence, a sense of life outside the sickness, & foster friendships accordingly. That purification of truth in logical reasoning is also an issue of purifying the self in relation to its truth, and this is alchemy, the metaphysics of Jungian if not other practice, though with the theme of purgation related to error-correction. And so this is said to try to convey a sense of personal fallibility within many things yet of an obedience to truth and logical reasoning as what may justify otherwise pitiful existence for what a given container may sustain of this truth and share with others. That it should be removed of impurities in thinking and actions, which is a process and in various stages can be very difficult if not requiring acknowledgment of limits, that imperfection is fundamental and will always persist seemingly, yet it does not need to include wrong-thinking and wrong-actions that move a person away from greater truth or to ignore truth to maintain an inferior state, a form of regression. Perhaps most terrifying is to face the binarist within the self, that that is the monster that needs to be destroyed, by for instance allowing the self not to like the self, and in this 'dialogue' of self-self, when finding grounding, there is peace within the heart, a non-conflicted state of being in which grounded reasoned truth governs the self, and is maintained as a higher consciousness, where the best self is steering the ship and not some chaotic back and forth between the various perspectives or personalities, which is a tremendously difficult situation to face down, and why others are necessary at times so to go further beyond the self and its limits, because others experience these things too, and much psychology exists in mediating this realm as a form of practical knowledge and wisdom in how to better adapt the self to a situation and also resolve internal paradox or conflict, so to attain balance inside and outside, in the same truth, however minimal it may exist in present society, it is more grounded than that that is virtual and will be essential to mediating the transformation from an unreal worldview to its resolution. So this is to try to convey that perhaps it is not an issue of paradox or binarism and instead how they are managed, and this relies upon the person who mediates them, and it is inherent that they co-exist, yet it could be an issue of chaos and confusion versus of a clarity and coherence of purpose and insight. And so in this way, a question of individual circuitry, how a person is configured, wired, and rewires themselves, and that this is a state of questioning, of continual learning and trial-and-error, especially reasoning. The societal problem appears to be that the ego is required as a mask for the false-view and that certain stresses and biasing is part of adapting, and these take tolls on people in ways that other dynamics may for others, such as poverty, or poor education, whatnot. And everyone has their issues to work through. And so from that context to relate, though it may only be ideal in certain scenarios due to what is required of people, in terms of what dynamics and stresses can be maintained. An issue related to this and perhaps also with ecology in specific, is that oftentimes there is more than one way to do something, and it becomes like a safety valve for deterministic views, that by listening to strains and stress that it provides indications that should and must be accounted for in their truth, thus it can be an issue of becoming literate, being fallible and unknowing and then beginning to discern beyond previous limits, the greater truth a situation may involve than modeled or imagined. The difficulty of not-knowing, when others may already inherently know. Yet everyone goes through it in their own way, in this or that realm, this or that detail or shared social awareness. And a question is, what if persons do not share this knowledge the same, and the stresses may be mediated in polarized terms of reasoning, else, that the preexisting views shared may themselves be in error, how do groups go about error-correction or does this cause splitting as the result. It would seem a universal condition, whereby any potential truth could involve these and other dynamics for a person and and groups of people as they relate and interact within the society. And so what vectors or mallet strikes of a given perspective may chip away at a self and cause pain or damage and yet open the self up to its more true state via new self-awareness, or a recovering of what may have been buried by accommodating the virtual realm of things. And perhaps in some instances it may be the stark forcefulness of a binary truth and in another the paradox of ambiguous truth, that in turn falsifies a hypothesis or forces a view into reconsideration and requestioning, and yet these can be positive life-affirming events, and that is the nature of truth that is involved. That it benefits from its error- correction refinement, what could be a greater purpose for reasoning than for establishing and conveying this truth. And thus, what if psychologically people are averse to it by default of binary programming of populations such that the fear of being wrong means that a person is worthless, a fraud, and so on. And its that kind of societal hostility to ideas that is the daily environment, often within schools and educational institutions and especially standardized testing as an ideological 'quantification' of knowledge, as if stupid for not memorizing the facts. These questions are of vital importance and everyone has experience with various issues involved, and so it seems a matter of finding ways to situate a self and begin relating in a more accurate framework to allow possibility beyond that deemed safe within outdated views, such that institutions may dictate the outcome, based on precedents that limit what can happen. Or beliefs may be need to be reconciled with a larger context of truth, in whatever ways. And here perhaps the missing piece is that people could be working for one another in such a way though otherwise may be seen working against, and this is occurring and mediated in language. Again logic is the way to begin deciphering all the various dynamics and frameworks so that such collaboration could be achieved. re: The Machine That Won The War by Isaac Asimov 5. Thanks for the links, very interesting. There is a videogame called Splinter Cell and in one of the versions there is an old punch card mainframe computer that is referenced as an infinite state machine. I found it an interesting concept, and the proposal for crystal ball as future computer is similar, in that a circuit of thought in the mind could also exist on the computer and be scaled up to the size of the world, in terms of the related logical structures, that without any limits could model the cosmos itself as a circuit. 6. 7. Sanford & Son! Brian Carroll # 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