brian carroll on Wed, 14 May 2014 06:18:02 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> carrollogram [x2: re: Philosophy of the Internet of Things [p1+fn]] |
[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