<nettime> nettimespace unentangled - part 3

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

[a few more ideas on perspective, identity, ideas, public reasoning...]
---

* the purpose of writing all of this, is that the basic situation for =20=

sharing ideas both online and offline today happens largely within a =20
context of dysfunction, which appears to have a role in undermining =20
the ability to _reason ideas, successfully, versus failing to engage =20
in this process of refinement which enables greater understanding.

  instead, this inability to achieve greater insight by corroborating =20=

and challenging points of view in a shared empirical framework leads =20
to a loss of accuracy in the way ideas are represented, because in a =20
context of relativism each view can co-exist as a private reality, =20
while negating a necessary public reality that exists between the =20
views, or a shared universalism. this is non-sensical yet it is in =20
such a way that 'facts' can be privatized, and become options and =20
choices by which private opinions begin to rule over public =20
knowledge, and likewise, private knowledge over public understanding, =20=

until what is being privately represented is so far away from public =20
truth as to be unrecognizable as existing as a shared experience.

  that is, the bias and distortion of a particular viewpoint can be =20
so extremely unlike other views from an neutral point of view that =20
failing to acknowledge these dynamics lead to a devolution of 'ideas' =20=

into a realm of 'ideology' by pursuing reasoning without common =20
empiricism, as discourse and debate further relativizes and =20
differentiates (difference), dispositions becoming more and more =20
polarized.

so the question may be: what can be done about this dysfunction of =20
'reasoning' in relation to the role of ideas and their accountability =20=

in terms of facts, truth, logic?

some possibilities include: grounding 'ideas' within public fact, =20
truth, logic, and empirical reasoning. if claims are made beyond =20
this, such as with 'theories', it should be the responsibility of =20
claimants to check and balance their own ideas in this regard and not =20=

rely on others to provide such discipline. i.e. if there are =20
universal statements being made that there is some obligation to =20
square these views, as public views, with public reality not only =20
private musings of metaphysics, religion, mysticism and magic, yet to =20=

equate the latter as if equal to neutral, balanced, view of what =20
exists as it exists for all.

so, it is necessary to acknowledge that 'public' ideas are =20
distinguished from 'private' ideas posing as public thinking, yet =20
without the responsibility to defer to public facts, truth, logic, =20
reasoning, etc (which would be to say, a shared empirical reality =20
that exists as this public context). and with relativism, it may be =20
that there are ideas which are simultaneously public and private, =20
with complexity making it very unclear as to what any given idea may =20
be, at any given moment, from any given perspective-- yet that this =20
may again be related to the establishment and respect for existing in =20=

a shared universe, based in reasoning, where these situations can be =20
navigated, this territory mapped, etc. and so on.

* of course, the above ideas could be 'believed' to be right and =20
'proven' to be wrong, rather simply. it is the issue of the Privilege =20=

of Perspective within an infinitely relative worldview that is the =20
traditional context. and it is also related to the binary mode of =20
thinking which is equally prevalent today, which is to consider ideas =20=

in black and white terms, which may be most effective when there is =20
no shared view because it chops thinking down rather fast into =20
manageable bits vs overwhelming complexity.

yet it is possible that observations and reasoning could encompass =20
opposing views simultaneously, if paradox was allowed in the modeling =20=

of reality.  therefore, maybe there are public dimensions that are =20
obviously in metaphysics, so this is too broad a claim against them, =20
yet there is some truth that in a given context they may become =20
detached from shared truth and this perspective is valid, as it is =20
reasoned. so too, it may be that there may be claims of 'shared =20
empiricism' being proposed, yet this is still too private even if it =20
is said to represent a more public viewpoint, etc. etc. -- all of =20
this can be accommodated in shared reasoning if 'paradox' is =20
acknowledged. thus, contradictions do not nullify whatever truth may =20
be existing, and grounded, and thus truth may be 'suspended' in a =20
sense, yet also allowing discarding of the extraneous and inaccuracy =20
through a process of refining of ideas.

to do so, a _full-spectrum consideration between viewpoints (black =20
and white, thus, the gray area) would be to consider ideas in such a =20
range of thinking, if acknowledging that partial truths may exist, =20
opposed, yet not invalidate one another, (zero-sum) and rather share =20
a common empirical _context for reasoning shared truth, which =20
provides a foundation for the development of much bigger ideas.

so, this is logical observation (binary-> paradoxical) and viewpoint/=20
perspective (private->public) and also 'identity' of the person who =20
observes, and in this way it is a question of 'what do i observe'...


* anecdote: in a university class on the history of technology in the =20=

early 90s and there was an older male teacher who was giving the =20
rundown on the 1st industrial revolution in the .UK, which was tied =20
into a reading assignment and an essay.  a young woman in the class =20
(as memory serves) decided to write her paper from her perspective, =20
in terms of the use of pronouns in describing these historical =20
events, possibly writing 'she' instead of 'he' and 'her' instead of =20
'his', etc. this breaking of conventions  in writing style was not =20
allowed and the teacher told her to rewrite it, and she refused. for =20
this act of dissent or rebellion she had to drop the class, because =20
of challenging this authority of perspective. it may be seen in a =20
traditional context that this is just a private individual who is not =20=

respecting existing standards. yet seen from a public point of view, =20
this is a basic and daily constitutional issue which is legitimate =20
and holding things within a distorted and biased historical modeling =20
which has entrapped legions of young minds in ideas of the past, =20
which today function instead as pure ideology.

that small issue of perspective or viewpoint is an issue of =20
constitutional rights, in that the views of 'man', today, are =20
_private views, which have become the default context in which ideas =20
are mediated. that is, mankind has become historically equated with =20
representing all of humanity and the _logic of this is beyond debate =20
-- even though it can be proven to be untrue, absurd, and dangerous.

what this means is that, at the level of students and teachers, =20
public ideas have to submit to private points of view, the example =20
above being one instance where a student challenged to replace this =20
with her own private view, instead, i.e. why not her-story? etc.  to =20
go a step further than this detailed particular, it is that (in =20
the .US) the Constitution itself is, as such, privately biased and =20
distorted in the same way, so as to bound and limit the concepts of =20
'individual rights' (or civil rights) by which to be able to _reason =20
ideas which operate within public and private context, by which to be =20=

represented.

this is to say, that the very .US Constitution is likewise privatized =20=

in its own historical context, for a worldview of 200+ years ago, =20
which become the basis for 'truth' and 'facts' and 'reasoning' and =20
'logic' in that particular context in which it arose -- and the =20
legitimization for what developed afterward, in terms of =20
representation, governance, laws, goals, etc. thus, the _context for =20
ideas at that time was one of private men in an era of slavery who =20
decided to represent a universal state that is based on self-=20
representation, with checks-and-balances provided for by a =20
constitution and 'public' reasoning.

there is no question that this, then, was a _public endeavor, as =20
defined by the context it arose from, in which men could not =20
represent themselves in government, this shared and public reason was =20=

not the guide of affairs of state, as a democracy, etc.  and it could =20=

then be said that this was part of the tradition of 'empirical =20
knowledge' based on the enlightenment thinking, that building upon =20
this shared 'public' truth would lead to a superior state of affairs, =20=

if ideas were to be respected, honored, served.

so that may be a sketch of the ideal, 200+ years ago in the .US, yet =20
what was the subsequent reality of this application of ideas, when =20
time intervenes and transforms the _context in which the original =20
ideas exist in a realm where facts, truth, logic, language, and =20
identities themselves are changed?

for instance, the .US Constitution while planned to be changed every =20
few years instead become an embalmed set of ideas, which would tend =20
toward making it into an ideological document, akin to a set of 10 =20
commandments. and like the Declaration of Independence:  "We hold =20
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that =20=

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" - =20
that this 'we' that is supposed to be represented may have changed in =20=

the last few centuries, yet the laws and basic approach to their =20
representation may still be stuck in the past, when slaveholders were =20=

represented in government, in what would amount to, today, as =20
privileged classes of citizens who represent the remaining others. =20
further, this _public 'we' that is represented was largely male, of =20
European ancestry, and Christian - all of which today would be =20
considered in the category of 'private' dimensions that are not =20
universal to all .US citizens, upon which to claim a universal =20
perspective-- without significant bias and distortion which can work =20
against reasoning ideas and instead, propel an ideological agenda of =20
the past, forward, for centuries, until it is its own antithesis of =20
representation: that what is claimed to represent the _public state =20
only represents a _private state, and subsequently, what is believed =20
to be _public reasoning is more actually _private, and so on and so =20
on-- all of which can be proven based in logical analysis::: that =20
the .US Constitution is inherently biased, in its creation of laws =20
and a _public state, because of errors within the document itself, =20
which bound and limit what can be reasoned, based on its =20
implementation of a model of ideas which need to be refined, as =20
source code which is used in larger state programming, by which all =20
of the .US policies ultimately derive and the cybernetic organism =20
finds its raison d'=EAtre, and on and on...


* the point being, this issue of reasoning of public ideas in schools =20=

between teachers and students ends up being a much larger issue to do =20=

with constitutional government, and issues of 'reasoning' within a =20
'democracy' -- and issues of 'self-representation'. and in this, in =20
today's traditional context, that through the perils of unforeseen =20
change and its consequences, what was assumed true about the nature =20
of questioning which became the basis for later decision-making, may =20
actually have now been proven to be false and a faulty assumption =20
needing to be addressed- which may not involve the logical reasoning =20
of people within government (say in the .US) with regard to these =20
issues, and instead the _inability to reason within a world context =20
in which the outcome of the existing processes is to pursue state =20
policies that are automated developing that are the antithesis of =20
originating ideas. that is, the claims that democracy would be =20
building toward peace, while instead, it defaults to war.
why is this? it is in the ideas, it is in the thinking, it is in the =20
code, rules, laws, limits, and perspective, it is in the modeling of =20
a government which failed in its self-correcting and checks-and-=20
balancing of the cataclysmic changes over the last 200 years, by =20
which to adapt to what amounts to a new reality.

i.e. while in the past the state may have accurately modeled a public =20=

context for shared empiricism, this has since changed and the state =20
has not been able to adapt, in its basic mode of operations. in such =20
a way, an 18th century worldview would be guiding a state in the 21st =20=

century which would then be bounded and limited by what the ideas of =20
a 'public' were in that day and age, which today would be to equate =20
private perspective, rights, morals, with those of a more universal =20
and shared public. in this way this conflating of what amount to two =20
realities, the traditional view and this new paradigm (of empirical =20
reality), would place simplistic relativism in contest with complex =20
universalism as to issues of representation. the former being what =20
exists, and the latter being what is necessary so to mediate issues =20
as they exist grounded in the world, not only as they are believed to =20=

exist centuries prior. it is this aspect of _assuming the originating =20=

model to be incorruptible, which is the status quo, which is also a =20
way of bringing forth more ideology in making public ideas into =20
private religious ideologies, in that lawyers can interpret =20
Constitutional Law as if it were infallible, to equate once-public =20
reason of a given context as 'public reason' for all-time, which is =20
antithetical to reasoning itself, i.e. it is privatized.


this is to say, that it can be proven that what is held up as the =20
basis for public governance today is in fact biased to private =20
perspective which bias and distorts the development of the state and =20
its laws, and issues of citizens and representation, which then =20
guides or governs both the collective and the individual states in =20
their affairs - which then becomes the context for interactions =20
elsewhere in this model which is said to protect freedoms of thought, =20=

reason, speech, rights, religion -- such as in the educational =20
system, yet has instead helped in taking away these rights through an =20=

inversion of truth, in which truth is separated from facts, in the =20
present, and instead is relegated or defers back to this private =20
empiricism, and its limits and boundaries for how things can be =20
conceived and represented.


* this may sound boring or inconsequential yet it is the difference =20
between the status quo as being the best of all possible worlds, and =20
another perspective which questions the basic claims being made and =20
what is more accurately the situation -- and seeking to represent and =20=

govern in a shared reality.

for instance, consider the disproportionate amount of African =20
American males held within .US prisons in relation to this issue of =20
'individual rights' in an 18th century context. slaveholders had more =20=

rights than their slaves, etc. the freedom of slaveholders was often =20
at the expense of the slaves who they profited from, etc. and this =20
was called a democracy. in terms of distortion and bias, it may be =20
allowed that with hindsight and moral accountability such a dynamic =20
was unconstitutional and unjust, yet it was through ignorance and the =20=

process of reasoning that this situation was seemingly rectified -- =20
within what is claimed to be a 'public' system of democratic =20
representation (self-government). that is, there have been improved =20
'civil' and 'equal' rights which have evolved, via the .US =20
constitution, that have adapted as feedback in the further automated =20
cybernetic development of the shared state.

yet, there is a big difference between what may be able to be =20
reasoned and represented, versus what may more actually exist-- and =20
it is herein contended that there is _inherent bias and distortion in =20=

the .US Constitution which is *sublime* and functions in the logic of =20=

interpretation, in the language used in its writing and reading, and =20
in the identity of those who represent and are represented, that it =20
can be said that the 18th century mindset exists embalmed within the =20
Constitutional Coding and its programming of state (see: prisons, =20
poverty, institutional racism, Katrina in New Orleans, etc) that the =20
_reasoning which most describes this situation is of a slave-based =20
political-economy which is to equate the private self-representations =20=

of this class, and its empirical reasoning, as public reality-- this =20
inherent distortion and bias then becoming structural in the working =20
and development of state, both in individual (minds/bodies) and their =20=

interactions with other citizens, and the government itself.

this is to say, the perspective of observers in the 18th-19th century =20=

is the traditional context or status quo for engaging ideas in the =20
21st century and limits and bounds reasoning, which defers to a model =20=

of facts, truth, language, logic, and reasoning that is out of touch =20
and out of date with what exists, yet it has become a guide for =20
subsequent development without insightful correction into known =20
'issues' or programming errors or 'bugs' which illuminate certain =20
dynamics where the thesis of democracy is to clash against this very =20
state becoming its own antithesis, based in new facts, logic, and =20
reasoning. such as, the private right to take away the public =20
freedoms of others, torture as a human right, etc.


* while people may have faith and truly 'believe' the .US =20
Constitution is securing self-government via a process of =20
(enlightened) public reason, the empirical accounting of this =20
situation says the opposite. that, instead, a private reason has =20
secured the public state, when then serves its privatized agenda. =20
this analysis existing at the level of mathematical logic, =20
paradoxical logic, venn logic diagrams, etc. in other words: the core =20=

code for establishing maintaining legitimizing and guiding the state =20
is corrupted and causing the problems the state seeks to resolve. =20
that is, the .US Constitution is the cause of the state's own =20
destruction, because it is critically faulty, and short-circuiting as =20=

to the original intentions versus their more actual implementation of =20=

these ideas, as this systematic thinking has d/evolved. another way =20
of saying it is that what was once reasonably constituted as a public =20=

state has in time reasonably become a private state, via this same =20
constitution - which has to do with issues of logic, perspective, =20
representation, etc. what does this matter? well, most everything =20
else may only be an effect of this larger causation, such that to =20
address the problem of how the Iraq War came about may have more to =20
do with the .US Constitution than any vote in the .US Congress, or to =20=

address the  inadequacies of Hurricane Katrina may have more with =20
bias and distortion the .US Constitution as it is developed in =20
relations of states and citizens, than with the failures of FEMA in =20
responding, etc.


* that is, if taking the state as a cybernetic organism, and a =20
feedback based device, whose context is a world environment in which =20
it can both compete and cooperate in order to evolve, or fail to and =20
to devolve or even go extinct-- that in a 'democratic' processing of =20
ideas, grounded in a shared reality, that would inform this automated =20=

development, that _reasoning would be key to its performance, and in =20
this, the .US Constitution and its role in creating these conditions, =20=

paramount. and further, to consider how 'public' and 'private' ideas =20
become represented in such a system of governance, and what ideas =20
exist, and how they are engaged, on what terms, in what logic, within =20=

what psychology...

it is in this sense that the .US constitution becomes the _basis for =20
later discriminations and itself is a reason for this 'loss of =20
reason' elsewhere, because of the substantial bugs in its state =20
programming.

it is the private individual 'right' of the teacher to disallow the =20
students 'right', in principle, neither of these existing in a shared =20=

public realm, and only in the shifting scales of relativistic points =20
of view, as the .US Constitution currently does not protect a shared =20
_human right to its own self-representation. that is, both the =20
teacher and the student are human beings, and to place a story of the =20=

past within a perspective of man alone, and to force reasoning by a =20
student from this perspective, as if it is their own, is to limit and =20=

bound a person's (in this case a female) to what is a lesser reality =20
than actually exists, as it exists, and instead downgrades thinking =20
to the confines of this vantage point of the past.

that a student should have to write from this perspective is a =20
'compromise' that ends up taking away the right of all students who =20
share these issues with identity, logic, and language, to be =20
subjugated to a private limit upon their public (human) perspective, =20
including its full spectrum (e.g. female POV).

likewise, if a teacher simply denies public facts, truth, logic, and =20
reason for private belief or ideology it is likewise taking away the =20
rights of what can proceed within the educational system and, in =20
turn, what eventually will help in self-correcting, error-checking =20
and balancing issues of the state for its own optimal development as =20
a sentient organism, versus an automated machinery running amok, =20
without human insight, morals, or values with which to guide its =20
responsible ongoing development.


* as such, when the words and ideas and thinking in the .US is said =20
to be related back to founding
ideas and principles, which becomes the genesis and national story =20
which validates and legitimates the status quo -- i.e. a set of =20
assumptions about the originating ideas and their supposedly ongoing =20
'truthiness' -- that _the_reasoning that this enables is today =20
equated with that of a public mandate as being self-evident in its =20
modeling, when in fact this is unarguably a private mandate as it now =20=

exists, which is the more accurate (public) reason why things are =20
happening the way they are in the world. i.e. what was once public =20
(in language, logic, identity) has become private by failure of =20
adaptation.

i.e. there are two realities which are dueling: the existing 18th c. =20
worldview, and the 21st -- and there are likewise dueling logics =20
(binary vs paradoxical), dueling languages (private vs public), and =20
dueling identities (demographic wo|man vs human) -- and that, when =20
this is an issue of empirical reasoning, and involves the existing =20
dynamics of relativism and establishing a universal relation between =20
ideas, that for this processing of ideas in democratic governance, =20
both in the self and the nation/world, and thus in policy, there =20
exists a requirement to ground 'ideas' in shared facts, truth, logic, =20=

by which to _reason the best path forward, in an open and evolving =20
system, based on certain inalienable rights.

yet the *failure* to accurately _account for public truth, facts, =20
issues and ideas within such a system is then to corrupt the public =20
operation of this system, which separates out _public reality from =20
what is instead its private representation; that which then limits =20
and bounds what can be publicly reasoned, based on the confinement of =20=

ideas to a smaller class/set of ideas, within which thinking is allowed.


* in this sense, in terms of reasoning of ideas based in empirical =20
facts that represent a public reality, it is a critical issue if 'the =20=

philosophical system' which is supposed to support such a public =20
agenda, in fact, does not. and to assume it does is to do so on the =20
basis of belief and faith in this modeling that may, in fact, be =20
proven wrong. and the ideas that supposedly uphold certain ideas may =20
instead be the very ideology which is oppressing their existence, =20
should the system of thinking short-circuit and the truth gets =20
separated from the facts, rhetoric from reality, and representation =20
from responsibility.


what does it matter if the .US Constitution is ineffective in =20
securing the rights and reality it lays claim to? how about global =20
war, loss of rights, enslavement of populations, loss of public =20
representation, on and on. and why is it relevant to those not in =20
the .US system? because it informs the development of global systems =20
and the application of ideas by which to ensure certain rights which =20
are, instead, by this miswiring of ideas into ideologies, has the =20
opposite effect than that which is claimed/stated: human rights can =20
be equated with torture, civil liberties with patriotic conformance, =20
lies with truth, etc.

it is in this dehumanized 'anti-reason' that the existing cybernetic =20
machinery of state now exists, on autopilot, in terms of its self-=20
development in the world, by those willing, ready, and able to serve =20
this agenda as if it is in the best interest of the human public, =20
when it is largely only in the best interests of machines, who happen =20=

to be private corporations, and likewise without 'soul', and greater =20
purpose than their own limited self-interest (profit, capitalism, =20
etc) within the existing out-of-balance situation.

this is to say that _reason is not operative in this machinery of =20
state, if the status quo is just left alone to do what it does - no =20
questions asked, no answered demanded. "let it be, don't look back" =20
etc. that is, empirically, nothing relates to nothing else and in =20
this relative state of affairs the purely Darwinistic survival of the =20=

fittest will evolve the best of all possible states through private =20
competition, which as it is informed by social behaviorism put to =20
these ends, will end up representing human citizens as apes and =20
machinery and natural resources for this automated mechanism to =20
exploit for its own growth.

that is, if ideas are ungrounded and anything goes with regard to =20
facts and fiction, no responsibility for others, for a larger purpose =20=

or worldview, only private self-interest in an era where corporate-=20
machinery is the competition, and now runs the government, sans human =20=

ideals or human purpose, because of the short-circuiting of the core =20
ideas: the core concepts: the core coding: the philosophy which is =20
wrongly assumed to protect certain truths, when instead these truths =20
have changed as has reality, yet no one can reason this because the =20
ability to do so has been lost within the system itself.

there is no democracy there, in that constitution. no human =20
representation, which instead defaults to demography which =20
privatizes, relativizes, manipulates what exists as the status quo, =20
and this then is to represent a supposedly more universal empirical =20
reality, existing as free-floating correspondence.

* the role of representation and identity in reasoning can be made =20
clear by considering that the Earth has some 6 billion human beings =20
on it, which is a shared class, 'the human union' one could say. if =20
taking the view of any one person, as a human being, they could say =20
"from this perspective I see [this]..." and if it were based in human =20=

language and logic it would be able to be shared by all other humans, =20=

that while a relative viewpoint of a particular human being on the =20
Earth, that it still exists in an empirical context of all humans on =20
Earth, and may describe to a greater or lesser degree what is =20
experienced by others in the shared public. for instance, this one =20
human may see a lightning, and all other humans may recognized the =20
common event, however varying the public account of it may be. so, =20
imagining that most humans have seen lightning (e.g. 5 billion) then =20
this could be a widely distributed and familiar experience. though, =20
this same human may observe a strange object in the ground (#) that =20
has never been seen by anyone else, and this shared perspective may =20
be unique. so there may be more public and more private views within =20
the full spectrum of human observation, in relation to issues of =20
relativism and universal experiences, which underpin the reasoning of =20=

ideas.

now, if one considers the same set of 6 billion humans on the planet, =20=

and the person who observes the lightning is to mediate this cosmic =20
experience in terms of being a 'man' versus a human being, it would =20
be to represent lightning in this particular context including =20
inherent bias and distortions which would instantly delimit the =20
experience of lightning to some approximately 3 billion males, if in =20
terms of 'mankind' where this private view is presumed to equate with =20=

representing a more public humanity.

of these 3 billion males, there may be only some who can speak of =20
lightning in the terms of the 'man' who is representing this view, =20
and thus only other 'men' can check and balance this perspective in =20
terms of its particular reasoning, because these are the terms that =20
lightning is being mediated within. in other words, boys may not be =20
included in this view, nor those deemed 'unmanly' etc. etc. until, lo =20=

and behold, the representation of a public event can be further =20
limited to a given man and his kind, mankind, and their story, or =20
history. in this sense, there can be a 'public' which is defined by =20
this view   of 'man' as ideas are represented, yet it bounds and =20
limits a larger human reality for only that which can be described in =20=

these constrained terms. what this is to say is that the .US =20
Constitution is written  in terms of this man and his kind as =20
representing public, human reality, and it is a programming error =20
which leads to equating private self-interests (of man/corporations) =20
with the (human) public interest.

and by retaining the original 19th c. context in which it was =20
written, the .US Constitution has since corrupted the ability to =20
reason, based on its own 'bugs' which in turn threaten the state =20
itself in terms of its own principles of governance: whereby tyranny =20
has automatically replaced democracy through this process of logical =20
inversion, the private agenda with the public, slavery over freedom, =20
etc. and as such, by way of reason, the very document and its spirit =20
necessitates the destruction of the state so as to reclaim the ideas =20
that have since become ideology and work to dismantle the state =20
itself-- as such, a short-circuiting 'democracy' is in the process of =20=

destroying itself unless it can be rewired. this is what the =20
Blackflag Operations mentioned previously refer to, as a no-nonsense =20
matter-of-fact situation that must be dealt with -- that it is not =20
option or opinion or conceit, that this is real true and necessary if =20=

people, citizens, humans, want to live in a democracy and reestablish =20=

self-government.

'the loss of reason' makes none of this compulsory, of course, yet =20
the facts remain, as does a larger truth of this situation, which =20
will prove itself to be the case if as reason has itself been =20
abandoned, as it cannot model what is going on within traditional =20
terms and in the relativism of false perspectives. it requires =20
empirical modeling of the situation, as it more accurately exists, =20
and deferring to this public dimension, in making claims, and then =20
engaging this situation so as to shape it, with the purpose of =20
righting the overall situation, and learning to navigate through it =20
by working with our fellow humans.

'climate change' is one of those 'lightning' questions that, when =20
placed in the private context of 'man' can be limited to such a =20
finite viewpoint as to make what is publicly reasonable into an issue =20=

that is of 'private belief' in what exists, and how. it is not =20
necessarily a failure of an individual, to hold such an opinion, for =20
it is dependent upon greater reasoning to make case based on superior =20=

knowledge and even understanding. yet if the .US constitution itself =20
is biased and distorted so that one individual's private =20
understanding (based on faith or knowledge) can trump a public =20
understanding (man over humanity) -- is this not an issue related to =20
the core corruption of the code from which _reasoning is to occur, =20
which allows this to exist as a situation? that a private reality can =20=

limit and confine a public reality shared by '6 billion -1' people on =20=

the planet, by constitutional right -- is this not backward?

* it is this core dysfunction that is here argued as a structural =20
issue to do with reasoning, which as it now exists only facilitates =20
private representation, and in doing so, the .US constitution itself =20
becomes *unconstitutional* in its very operation, which is the cause =20
which is seen in other areas where private views have moved the =20
public state against its own interests, as part of its status-quo =20
operations. that is, the decision-making which is supposedly to =20
'responsibly' guide the public state has failed to do so and instead =20
threatens the overall viability of the state to continue, for it has =20
ceased in functioning as a public democracy and instead exists as a =20
corporate democracy governed as a private dictatorship.

and if this decision-making of the cybernetic state which is =20
purported to be serving the public interest were instead to only be =20
exploiting the bugs in the constitution, which allow a private =20
perspective to totally replace the public agenda (hacking and =20
cracking the code to attain god-status in democracy), what happens if =20=

this exists beyond the ability of supposed 'checks and balances' to =20
ensure this does not happen, and if it does, the public state can be =20
reclaimed as a self-representative government? further yet, what if =20
because of the historical failures of philosophy, that what is =20
informing the state in its ongoing development has become an anti-=20
human viewpoint, based purely in scientific ideology and technique, =20
which becomes the basis for the state to function autonomously as a =20
machine, yet it is this very 'empiricism' which is without a human =20
dimension, in the terms it exists on, within laws -- such that the =20
dehumanized perspective of a machine could lead to machine-based =20
decision-making in which machine morals, machine-ethics, and machine-=20
rationalization may become the status quo for how to proceed: which =20
if downgrading humanity to natural resources by which to enact its =20
agenda becomes fascists and beyond any democratic oversight by which =20
to hold government accountable?

what if the short-circuiting in the .US constitution leads to all of =20
this, and justifies all of this, yet it also exists _beyond reason, =20
where no one can really say one thing or the other regarding these =20
issues, as they are largely unreal, for they are unrepresented or =20
unrepresentable in the status-quo context?

* it is proposed that when there are problems with reasoning online, =20
in trying to mediate ideas about a larger or shared worldview, that =20
this is the context they are occurring within, in terms of reasoning =20
in such a dysfunctioning environment -- and that unless engaging this =20=

as public reality, that most all pales in comparison to the base =20
situation that exists, day in and day out, within world mechanisms.

and that to ignore this, or to allow this to continue in the =20
background while looking at some smaller slice of it, in terms of =20
logical reasoning of truth and fact, is insufficient as to the actual =20=

conditions that this questioning requires. that the scale is larger, =20
the issues more severe, the task more daunting...

and that while it may be believed as absurd to claim that the .US =20
government needs to be abolished and reconstituted to address the =20
basic situation today, as to the root cause and the myriad effects =20
that require engagement, that this cannot be denied as the first step =20=

which would allow the changes. and that everything else is minor in =20
comparison, if unreal, given the situations that exist in this day.

that this claim is the view of a public citizen and of a human being, =20=

that if there were other reasoning human citizens, would be able to =20
discuss these facts, and reason this to a more refined perspective =20
which accurately represents what is going on, as it is going on, not =20
only as it is believed to now exist.

that this is the price of 'democracy', of 'freedom', of 'liberty' and =20=

of responsibility to ideas which are the basis by which these are =20
upheld, in constitutional law and in constitutional government-- and =20
the failure of ideas to do so is ultimately seen in the failures of =20
these laws and this government, as today.

is this 'loss of reason' actually the 'loss of sanity' for what is =20
going on today, and as such this loss of thinking would help explain =20
the loss of action, motivation, by which to match the ideas we share =20
in our minds about what needs to be done, versus what can be achieved =20=

in the existing _context of tradition, which has been thoroughly =20
corrupted?  might it be possible that all that stands in the way =20
between our ideals and a new reality is an empirical connection =20
between people, that is, a sharing of truth and respect of this fact, =20=

in a public realm which has yet to be founded within terms of humanity?

is it not enough to see the Pavlovian behavioral training of terror =20
stimuli and response to see how this loss of reason is also a loss of =20=

humanity, to become instead an ape or machine to be trained?

can the exploitation of relativism be recognized in its privatization =20=

of demographics, dividing reality into subgroups and classes of =20
perspectives which are be co-opted, managed, and status-quo?

is the role of theory in all of this benign, in its false-=20
universalizing, without responsibility to the greater 'Empire' it =20
itself helps facilitate by its very privatization of public ideas?  =20
are not the Neoconservatives theorists too, and entirely wrong in the =20=

premises yet unrepentant and unmoved by contrary truth? is it =20
possible to separate this existing situation in academia from the =20
existing politics and their policies? is not theorism =3D globalism, to =20=

some extent, whereby the same rule of hypocrisy becomes the law?

has DIY become an incentive for do-your-own-thing (DYOT) which feeds =20
this very ideology of privatization through a relativism of ideas =20
which exists outside of a shared empirical framework by which to =20
publicly cooperate and build ideas beyond that which small groups or =20
markets will allow? that is, ideas which relate to truth and greater =20
public purpose, beyond issues of exchange alone?

*  without accurate _reason it is possible that the state as a =20
behavioral and automated mechanism may be forced to make decisions =20
which would otherwise have different options if human reasoning was =20
part of this governing process. the morality of a cybernetic state =20
that is operating beyond the guidance of human reason in its =20
operation may not be an issue of 'free will' and instead, it may be =20
that it is necessary for the state to function in dehumanized ways if =20=

(objectively) there is no other choice available by which to proceed =20
to enable better modes of governance, checks and balances, etc. the =20
failure of reasoning ideas, grounded in reality, or the lack of =20
upholding this responsibility by reclaiming it, would potentially =20
lead to justifying the necessity of the state to act against its =20
population to ensure its own survival, as if a monster on the loose.  =20=

the moral failure may not be the state, it may be the people who do =20
not require themselves to accept the responsibility of ideas, to =20
greater truth. and this may not have been an issue, until it becomes =20
one, an issue of choice and thus of the culpability in the decision-=20
making process: do you have faith and belief in the status-quo, or do =20=

you dissent the existing state of affairs and apply reason until this =20=

situation is grounded and bug-fixed?

the problem of politics as such is that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney both =20
want _actual opponents if it is based on substantive ideas and not =20
simply ideology, and if it can be reasoned and not just rhetoric. =20
they not only have called on people to speak out, and within reason =20
they have proven themselves to respect (if even generously) the =20
result because 'grounded' thinking is so absent within the status-quo =20=

which then denies the state of the democratic feedback it needs for =20
its optimal evolution-- beyond the views of private ideology which =20
lead to gridlock and then a competition of private power politics.

  in this view, it could be said that, from such a perspective, the =20
privatization of .US Energy Task Force meetings within policy was not =20=

just an issue of corporations, it may have been necessitated by the =20
problems of _reasoning within the existing constitutional framework =20
where it is a private tit-for-tat, in which environmental lobbies may =20=

have contributed to necessitating such a workaround, so as to get =20
things done, however corruptly, because the core functioning of this =20
system has been corrupted. that is, the .US Constitution is the =20
biggest enemy of the .US and this is where _public reason begins.

in such a view, if this were to be considered a common situation, it =20
would not be of demographics of a particular person and what they see =20=

and instead of a general condition and truth and its modeling: the =20
existing 'thesis' that exists that the .US Constitution supposedly =20
upholding certain ideas assumed to be true, has instead become its =20
very own antithesis. and this can be proven in logical reasoning =20
based in empirical facts to be more actually the case. and the =20
perspective here, is of a human view where what exists as problems =20
are identified as shared problems, and not held for advantage in the =20
shell game of rhetoric. instead, everyone is on the same side if the =20
problems which exist are able to be recognized and represented, as =20
they exist, so a shared public can address this situation together.

it is the same issue for students in school, yet it is also a =20
'Western' zeitgeist which has transformed what was once 'freedom' =20
into a free-floating 'terror' which exists beyond reasoning as it now =20=

exists.

if thinkers, academics, intellectuals, theorists, citizens are not =20
going to grapple with these ideas, as they exist as ideas and not =20
ideological rhetoric, who is going to govern and find self-=20
representation and guide the state of affairs of children? only apes =20
and machines can accept these as the rules of engagement for ideas in =20=

the world, that hold no responsibility to greater truth or purpose or =20=

shared reality, and if ignoring this public responsibility that is a =20
choice to give the power of truth to this lie. and to become this =20
fascism by melding with this status-quo, however opposed, in inherent =20=

ideology. it is a trade-off that goes on daily, hourly, every =20
millisecond in minds that compute decisions and the compromises which =20=

negated possibilities for the self and others, so that this automated =20=

machinery could grow into what it is -- and now, largely helpless, it =20=

is reliant upon _reason to regain what has been lost, and to do so by =20=

more accurately modeling what is going on, so as to take on governing =20=

and the application of ideas into improved policies which will enact =20
the ideas in the world, reality.

this cannot and will not happen beyond reason, it can only happen =20
through and with _reason, and if this basic aspect is missing, so too =20=

is the reality that is required for anything else to have foundation, =20=

and not exist untethered and free-floating, empirically unrelated to =20
anything else except for fleeting connections which, if the ideas =20
were grounded in the world, would coalescence in a larger worldview.

in this way, acknowledging this need for empiricism so as to publicly =20=

reason and engage world issues in their existing complexity returns =20
to the issues of education, and how the existing University systems =20
could be 'recontextualized' to allow for some of this to develop, if =20
empirical truth were to be respected and recognized, *accounted for*, =20=

and adjustments made so as to relate what exists in the ways it =20
exists, and start to engage the 21st century that we exist within and =20=

not from 18c. viewpoints.

[post on establishing 'electromagnetic studies' may follow...]

---
Against School* John Taylor Gatto** (via Digg)
How public education cripples our kids, and why
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm

" Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the =20=

United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much =20
earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The =20=

reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural =20
traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:

1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most =20
of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of =20
public education's mission, however short schools actually fall in =20
achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the =20
fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly =20
consistent statements of compulsory schooling's true purpose. We =20
have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American =20=

Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not

     to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their =20=

intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The =20
aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the =20
same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put =20
down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United =20
States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else. "


  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/brian_carroll
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/


#  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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net