Started munching on this thought and... I don't know, just want to put it into the world, the world that we build.

We live in uncertainty. Uncertainty in ourselves. Uncertainty in our facts. Uncertainty in what we believe is fact. Uncertainty in what we know. So, we build systems to process the outputs that other systems give us. But the underlying principle of systems security is that we can never know that our systems are giving the "right" outputs even if we receive an expected output. So, security requires trusting the people who build the systems to build systems that give not just the expected output, but the output we perceive to be right. Even if your "right" is simply that which is most objective.

But what if the builders are unknowable? Then, you have to use a system you trust to verify if the other is worthy of trust. In computers, this requires the trading of pgp keys or checksums or what have you. Computers and software are themselves systems we use to verify the trust of the other. At the end of the day, you never know that the system itself isn't compromised.

In a real world sense, we can't know who builds the reality that our body perceives. All we can do is try to trust that what we perceive, what we believe, what we do is not just expected, but is right. If there is no right, then there is no point in doing or not doing anything beyond respoding to bodily stimuli. It's ethical nihilism and it's pointless. So, regardless of whether there is objective right, I must build a world where there is. I may not finish building it, but I'll never know if I don't try. I'll never know, if I don't hope.

But, I don't perceive the material world as being in flux. I perceive my mind as changing the state of the material world through the material systems it perceives to affect directly. All I perceive is all I can know. All I know is all I can perceive. Perception shapes both the world we perceive as well as the world we know. In fact, it muddies the waters between what we know and what we perceive. Perception is perhaps better understood as Ideology. It distorts everything. All we can hope is that our distorted perception of reality is "right". All we can do is trust our Ideology.

But, what builds our Ideology? Our mind's perception is the subject of our Ideology. But what we, our body, perceive is the object. What our body perceive are other systems. Our Ideology, our world, is based not on knowing, but on trusting ourselves to perceive what is "right". What is right is a difficult question.

To use a cliche, all that I know is that I know nothing. Socrates is an interesting person to me. He concerned his life with finding out what he could know and decided that he doesn't know anything. I see many other smart, trustworthy folks arrive at a similar conclusion and I see many other smart, trustworthy folks say they know. To be honest, I don't have a clue if either one knows what they say they know. They can argue they're positions logically, poetically, and/or modestly. So, who am I to trust is right? I don't know, but ultimately what makes people so ama

Right is not something that exists materially as evidenced by the fact that not only do people disagree about what is right, they disagree about what right is called. Some call it the good, ethical, moral, etc. Ultimately right

I will try to deconstruct. I will try to make a blueprint out of what is

Knowable - Nothing is known, we may only trust what we think we know based on other knowables. A knowable is what is trusted to be a known.

Input and output - inputs and outputs are constructs. The distinction is relative to the usage. It is unknowable if

Construct - a construct is anything that is.

System - an inorganic input output machine. Unknowable knowable.

Assemblage - an organic system. Knowable unknowable.

Trust - trust is analogous in some ways to faith. It is what we use to validate systems and assemblages. It's based on consistency. It represents the application of our totality of knowables to produce an output that will determine whether a system

Approximate Facts or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Write Philosophy

Zeno says that motion does not exist. Or at least, that's the conclusion that Aristotle states repeatedly. Zeno may have been trying to argue that, but that's absurd. Additionally, the particular's of Zeno's argument are too far removed for reliability. The particulars aren't important, however. What is important is his conclusion. I think it's best to understand Zeno's paradoxes as a sort of Tractatus Illogico-Philosophicus. So, let's start with a counterfactual: how might motion not exist?

0.1.1 What I see can be represented on a plane.

0.1.2 I perceive myself as a point moving across that plane.

0.1.3 As I move from one location on the plane to another I progress through a series of locations.

0 In order to move from one point to another requires moving through an infinite number of intermediary points.

0 It takes an infinite amount of time to move to a location.

0.2.1 As you move through space, you necessarily move through time.

0.2.2 Space and time are relative.

0.2.2 Space and time can be understood as a line occupying a plane.

0.2.3 I perceive myself as moving along that line.

0 All I see occupies the same point in time and space.

0 All I see occupies different points in time and space.

0 All I see occupies the same point in time, but different points in space.

0.3.1 All I see occupies the same point in time and space.

0.3.2 Space and time are relative

0.3.3 Space and time can be understood as a line occupying a plane

0 Space and time is finite.

0 Space and time is infinite.

0.4.1 Space and time is infinite.

0.4.2 Space and time is relative.

0.4.3 All that is exists at one point in time and space.

0 Motion is progression through space-time.

0 Space and time does not exist.

0 Motion does not exist.

1 All that is exists at a point in space-time.

We ask what did the ancients know. Zeno did not know that space and time are relative. However, it seems that he understood the principle underlying it in the only terms he could. Perhaps what he did know is that the only people who insisted that motion was real were the people talking about motion. Perhaps he did think motion was not real, but it seems equally likely that he understood that it was as absurd as the alternative.

What we can learn from Zeno is not predicated on what he said, but on what we do with it. From what we do with it perhaps we may come to approximate some true potentiality. Zeno's paradox is the paradox of knowing when we can only approximate what is knowable from what we know.

"My name is Zeno, man: Look on my works, ye fools, and laugh!" - Zeno, approximately.

I abide so weird