<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">uǝlƃ ☣ -<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">1st order) When we encounter a signal (use text stream as a familiar example) we may or may not recognize that there is obfuscated meaning in that stream. In the common example, of course, the stream usually looks like pure gibberish... having an *apparent* high entropy. Attempts to decode the stream usually involve seeking transforms which yield a low entropy or high information content. Ideally, yielding a very specific, highly unambiguous text stream which is not only recognizeable to the decoder but possibly directly meaningful. In the classic imagined examples, we have spies and counter spies attempting to pass messages and intercept/decode those messages, etc. This is where the specific technical term /Steganography/ takes on interest and I think alludes to or defines your 3rd order? I'm not trying to impute specific meaning that you didn't intend, just looking to tease out the language you are seeking to use and align it with existing lexicons which may
or may not be fully apt for what you are getting at.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I don't quite understand how you're criticizing the 1st order idea. Is it only to say that I've mixed up my orders? ... that I'm confusing 1st with 3rd? If so, then yes, I probably am. The particular examples of steganography I identified were "hiding" a QR code in an image (or vice versa) and hiding 2 images inside 1. And I used these as a foil to talk about the combinatorial explosion. So, while steganography, in general, and even these 2 examples are *not* purely 1st order, they help (I think) highlight the 1-many mapping. The more strictly 1st order demonstration of the 1-many mapping was the string comprehension example. Sorry for the confusion.</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry... I probably misinterpreted what you mean by criticism (you
were explicit about some of the things you didn't mean by
"criticism"). My intention above was to try to (continue to)
niggle out a more complete context for what you are proposing in
your n-order idea of privacy. I *did* jump ahead in the
next-to-last sentence reference to your 3rd order. I wasn't
criticizing your reference to 1st order, just jumping ahead, not
suggesting YOU should restructure.
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2nd order) I am literally not clear on what the implications of many-to-many are here. 1st order... one-to-many would seem to imply that the *decoder* is searching through the space of possible decodings (combinatoric) for the presumed singular encoder, but it also implies that the *encoder* is choosing from a similarly large number of *encodings*. Perhaps you are alluding to the case where some encodings can be decoded by more than one decoder or in some cases, multiple encoders can be decoded by the same decoder? I'm not sure what you are getting at, though I *am* confident that you are getting at somethings specific that I'm simply missing (so far).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The most important point to 2nd order privacy is the ability to use composite *encoders* whose [quasi]independence/[quasi]orthogonality is conserved across the many-many mapping. If there's a pattern on the surface that has been generated by a composite encoder-plex (with invariant orthogonality across the map), then you can use *either* decoder1 or decoder2 and get an independent decoding, that stands on its own. This is akin to your idea that your 20-year-old decoding of Pirsig was/is still just as proper as your recent decoding.</pre>
</blockquote>
I think I'm getting more of the gist. It seems to me that you
could be talking about iterative or superposive compositing of
multiple encoders? Iterative, however, would not allow for
decoding by *either* but instead would require decoding by *both*
(and in the correct order). Superposive would be more like
encoding the signal with two distinct encoders and then combining
(shuffling, concatenating, ???) the two resulting signals such that
applying either of the decoders would yield a combination of signal
and (apparent) noise. If the combining method were simple/obvious
like concatenation then the decoded signal would be half signal and
half-gibberish, otherwise, the combining method itself might stand
in for it's own *encoding*, complicating things further. Once
again, I'm not really criticizing your order-2 description but
trying to reflect to you how I am (partially) understanding it, so
you can set me straight on what you meant (not what I thought I
heard?).
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
And 2nd order says it's *irrelevant* whether Pirsig did this intentionally or not. What's relevant is that the map is many-many ... i.e. allows for composite encoders with this invariant property across the encode-decode map.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>With this example in hand, I'm trying to sort out my own
question/observation above. In the case of Zen++ and Pirsig, I
would say that his encoding method was in fact functionally very
composable, probably hierarchical. Some of his narrative and
imagery was targeted at "any human being", other parts of it were
targeted more specifically at "those who have ridden and wrenched
on motorcycles", and others on "people who have undergone
significant psychological/emotional transformations/trauma", and
some on "parents with a troubled teen", and some on "those who
have studied western philosophy and it's implications on one's
personal moral systems". (and many more?) to some extent, my
primary decoder for him (40 and 0 years ago respectively) was
"what of this sentence/paragraph/chapter do I understand
implicitely and what to I need to delve deeper, contemplate, or
pass off as a question for later scrutiny or to be forgotten
mostly?" This unshuffling left me with the impressions that I
was able to process intuitively/immediately (and for the most part
unable to actually reflect on because they sortof went straight
into my psyche), and those which I mulled as I read, or mulled
with Mary after a reading, discussing some of the aspects, and
those which I am still mulling or have forgotten. My first read
through 40+ years ago had a lot more in the last category. As I
reread what I write here, I wonder if this is a particularly bad
example. To the extent that this fits what you are talking
about, it is an extremely rich/layered/convoluted example. </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">3rd order and beyond) I don't know the technical implications in cryptography for iterated encodings by different means. My own preferred examples have multiple encodings being very different in quality... and in particular semantic and socio-cultural encodings of a message as implied by your reference to Moorcock/Joyce and poetry in general.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Excellent! Bring up "quality" is probably important, not least because that's the heart and soul of the hard problem ... the ultimate metaphysical assertion of privacy. </pre>
</blockquote>
Interesting that Pirsig harps on his own definition of "quality"
(not unlike Alexander's "Quality Without a Name") throughout. I'm
not sure if you mean it in the same sense though?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">But I do think this is beyond 3rd order. Maybe it's the 4th and final order. It introduces an additional boundary. And (hearkening back to your and Jon's suggestion that the maps have to be lossless and maybe invertible) we'll have to start talking about whether there is a closure of the spaces beyond the boundaries. But I feel like you've jumped ahead and your inclusion of "and beyond" is making us sloppy.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm happy to let you manage the categories for the most part.</p>
<p>This brings up a struggle I have that might be worth sharing in
this venue on the off-chance that others here struggle with the
same. When you first started using the term "straw man" or
"strawman" I took it to mean something modestly different than you
intended. I first encountered the idea of a "strawman" NOT as
something that an adversary would create as an easily taken apart
effigy for your real argument, but rather as an armature for
consensual building of an idea. More like a stick figure with
the general proportions of a final sculpture that 2 or more would
build together. <br>
</p>
<p>I see your throwdown here of 1,2,3rd order privacies as *that
kind of* strawman and the process for the rest of us being to
offer adjustments/additions/modifications to it to try to shape it
into a more elaborated "figure" that we might all come to share
not only an understanding of, but a stake in.
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">FWIW, I would like to suggest that not all obfuscation is adversarial in the strong sense.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I agree completely. I tried to say that by mentioning positively intentioned meta-games. Another of my favorite novels is "The Magus" by John Fowles. But I think pretty much any mentor-mentee meta-game falls in the same category.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I have read but not fully processed more of this thread and
appreciate the tack (if not tangent) it has taken toward
collaborative/co-evolving games with other's responses. <br>
</p>
<p>Reading reviews of your book reference (Magus), I am reminded of
Jim Dodge's book "Stone Junction" which I also read twice (1990
and 2015) with less distance of understanding but definitely
*additional* if not significantly *different* decoders. <br>
</p>
<p>I offer the following copy from the back cover for a hint of a
taste:</p>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px 0px 4px; margin:
0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; font-weight: 400;
font-size: 21px; line-height: 1.3; color: rgb(17, 17, 17);
font-family: "Amazon Ember", Arial, sans-serif;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color:
initial;">Editorial Reviews</h2>
<div class="a-section a-spacing-small a-padding-base"
style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 10px
14px !important; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: "Amazon
Ember", Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration-style:
initial; text-decoration-color: initial;">
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px 0px 4px; margin:
0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; font-weight: 700;
font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.255;">From the Back Cover</h3>
<div class="a-section a-spacing-small a-padding-small"
style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 6px
10px !important;">Stone Junction is a wise and wildly
imaginative novel about Daniel Pearse, an orphaned child who is
taken under the wings of the AMO-Alliance of Magicians and
Outlaws. An assortment of sages sharpen Daniel's wide-eyed
outlook until he has the concentration of a card shark Zen
master, via apprenticeships in meditation, safecracking, poker,
and the art of walking through walls. The AMO know wizards are
made, not born, and this unconventional education sets Daniel on
the trail of a strange, six-pound diamond sphere, held by the
U.S. government in a New Mexico vault, rumored to be the
Philosopher's Stone or the Holy Grail.
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px
14px;">Shadowing the slippery netherworlds of role-playing
games like Magic or Dungeons & Dragons, Daniel's quest to
retrieve the magic stone and discover who killed his mother
becomes a bravura act of storytelling, both a free-spirited
adventure and a parable about the powers within us all.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: -4px 0px
14px;">"A post-psychedelic coming-of-age fable that's part
Thomas Pynchon, part Tolkien, part Richard Brautigan, a story
that owes as much to The Once and Future King as it does to
Huckleberry Finn. Stone Junction is a rollicking, frequently
surprising adventure-cum-fairy tale. It also has a sweetness
about it and an indigenous American optimism, as if somewhere
out there, beyond the shopping malls, Oz is waiting."-The New
York Times Book Review</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: -4px 0px
14px;">"Reading Stone Junction is like being at a nonstop
party in celebration of everything that matters."-Thomas
Pynchon</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: -4px 0px
0px;">Jim Dodge is also the author of Fup and Not Fade Away.</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: -4px 0px
0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px; margin: -4px 0px
0px;"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:81b66f2f-db76-d453-78e8-029160f4bf79@gmail.com">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>