[Archi, thoughtfully]: Although the outline is easy to understand, it does not make it clear that under each bullet point there are techniques newly developed by us that make it easier to seek meaning in life itself and to give one’s own life a self-chosen meaning.

[Alice, in the annoyed tone of nerdy Venus]: That’s where we have to trust that visitors to our website will explain some things to themselves from the narrative context of the new techne. That’s the charm of our solution, that everything happens in a situational context made up of theoretical, technological, technical, decision-making, action-related and political contexts, which together narrow down the situation’s scope for decision-making until the real situation is revealed in the flow of time.

[Archi, mischievously]: How poetic! Well said, but do you think that everyone understands without further explanation that the theoretical, technological and technical contexts objectively exclude from all the logical possibilities of the situation those that are not available to any given person in the situation? And that they are therefore accessible to the concept of objective truth. Do you mean that the decision-related, action-related and political contexts enable individuals in organizations, societies and communities as decision-makers to choose from the remaining possibilities through decisions, actions and their policies those that most closely correspond to their goals and desires? And that in the case of an individual person, the concept of objective truth is not that we are all the same and all make the same decisions and do the same things, but that we objectively question whether our decisions and actions are in line with our goals and desires or whether we are lying to ourselves. The objective validity of the chosen goals and desires only applies in the context of the person in question and cannot be generalized. Such a concept of objective truth is fundamental to our learning behavior and demonstrates the naivety of subjective truth.

[Alice, seriously]: No, that’s not what I mean. I mean to understand the connections, we can’t really make it easy for them. They have to learn that there are no shortcuts or easy ways to deal with the meaning in life, the architecture of their own life or the meaning of the tasks they have chosen for themselves. In order to tackle the necessary efforts, they need the desire to want to understand the connections without lying to themselves. It is so difficult to decide to take care of the architecture and contexts of one’s own life and not simply accept a happy message with an idealized meaning of life. Life crises help too, of course.

[Archi, thoughtfully]: So you mean that only a great longing for a self-determined life or crises in life drive people to question all the influencing factors. Only when we really want to take our lives into our own hands do we understand the blessing of architectural schemes that are built up from context hierarchies and in which all contexts can be built up as teachings. Only such teachings provide orientation without influence.

[Alice, serious]: It’s a difficult path that many shy away from, and it doesn’t help to bang the door down and explain all the connections right at the start. It doesn’t help those who are already in a life crisis in particular. It is better to get help out of the crisis first and then proceed step by step to do better in the future. That is why we have divided the guide into three parts. It’s hard enough and it takes time and patience.

Just as little, however, can there be something in the middle (metaxý) between the two members of the contradiction, but one must necessarily either affirm (phánai) or deny (apophánai) each of them. This first becomes clear from the definition of the terms true and false.

To say namely,
the existent is not or the non-existent is is false,
to say, on the other hand
the existent is and the non-existent is not is true.

So whoever predicates being or non-being must pronounce what is true or false.

Aristotle

[Alice, amused]: Well anyone who asks, like Pilate, what is the truth, is surely in a deep crisis.

[Archi, smiling]: Yes, and he still hasn’t gotten a comprehensive answer.

[Alice, amused]: Well, I’m glad we have a comprehensive answer then, looking at the signpost – Truth, Reason and Reality, and have a relatively simple one here.

[Alice, amused]: With semantic chains, the answer is practically child’s play!

Ralf Moser | Wegweiser für kluge Avantgardisten |
Was ist die Wahrheit |
Denkzettel – Semantische Ketten | 2020 |

[Alice, enthusiastic]: Some of our memos can be downloaded. Others you have to buy for a good cause. When they are printed, they can be clipped to a leash, and then it looks like a scholar in the old days. To read them, take them off the leash again and read our Metaloge at your leisure.

[Archi, mischievously]: Perhaps we should now address an important hurdle that lies in the path of every clever avant-gardist after all. One of the big hurdles is that today only language is formally capable of truth. There is actually no formal definition of truth for images. But the semantic chains in our semantic machine can change that. Semantic chains are a difference that makes a difference 😉

[Alice, looking intently at her tablet]: Perhaps we should first deepen the connection between photographs, maps, reality and the modeling of our new theory of meaning. Our semantic chains capture the designated context in a new, formal way. We are now ready to clarify the objective truth not only for languages, but also for measurements and thus for images.

Ralf Moser | Vorbereitender Metalog über die objektive Wahrheit |
Denkzettel 2022 |

[Archi, serious]: Perhaps we should first make it clear how measured data becomes information in communication media. Aristotle was the first to see media as an independent entity and as a mediator of information and coined the term media. And ultimately, semantic chains make images capable of truth, because as communication media they carry information. This is later very important for our understanding of art, because all art is a medium of communication. At least all most people agree on this point today.

[Alice, looking at her tablet with motivation]: Good idea for getting into the topic! So, the various map services on my tablet are a retrievable service based on different communication media such as photographs, maps and texts. All communication is based on measurements whose data is processed in models. In both photography and cartography, the measurements are based on optical models. In one case, the measured data results in a photograph and in the other case in a map. Maps and photographs are information and data carriers as well as communication media that carry different information about the surveyed territory. The information has become data and can be processed and stored.

[Archi, concentrated]: If you compare the map and the photograph, you will see that the same territory is depicted in the photograph and the map. Cartography is an engineering science for the representation of celestial bodies in topographical and thematic maps – i.e. country maps, hiking maps, road maps, cycling maps and so on. The maps convey spatial information as communication media for various target groups and in particular contain information for the intended purposes of the maps. Hiking maps in particular contain hiking trails, cycling maps in particular cycling trails, road maps in particular roads and so on. The information can be objectified because – without exerting any influence – it shows the same options for everyone. Photographs contain information that is made visible on the image plane by the optics of the camera during the recording process.

[Alice, in the tone of nerdy Venus]: For example, the path we always walk on from Feudenheim over the pedestrian bridge under the Carlo-Schmid Bridge is not visible in the photograph because it’s under trees. But on the map, the course of the path is visible. On both, the territory includes two large and two small bridges, which are clearly recognizable both in the photograph and on the map. The two large bridges differ in that one runs straight and the other curves. The two smaller bridges also differ in that the railroad bridge at the top left is significantly larger than the smallest bridge in the middle.

[Archi, in the casual tone of the master architect]: We learn that those who can read photographs and maps as if they were plans no longer have a problem with orientation in life, because they can extract and combine information from different images to determine location and orientation. Such a process can be objectified because the underlying techniques work the same for everyone and can provide the same information. The map and the photograph reflect the territory for a certain point in time and may contain errors, deceptions and measurement errors, but the semantic process of reconciling map and territory makes deviations and errors recognizable.

[Alice, mischievously]: Many only seek information that fits their beliefs, ideas and interests. Information can also be tied to interests. However, this does not make it subjective, but only incomplete, irrelevant, unverifiable, misleading and thus more or less useful for the uninfluenced orientation in the possibilities that our reality has to offer in a context that we consider. We may even be spied on in our search for information in order to deceive us, to better influence us or worse; but nevertheless, we put the subjective blinders on ourselves if we do not see that idealizations are influences in the guise of faith on our decisions.

Hannah Moser | Werde ich von Maschinen beobachtet? |
Was beobachtet mich, wenn ich durch die Stadt gehe? | 2012 |

[Archi, amused]: Yes, that’s the point of looking at reality and objective truth: to understand that the boundary between objective possibilities and possibilities that have already been constrained by subjective choices is the boundary between possibilities that are objectively true for everyone in every context and chosen possibilities that are objectively true only in the context of a community, an organization, or a person. For a person, objective truth merely tests whether the person is lying to themselves with their subjective choice or whether the subjective choice in their context is objectively consistent with their feelings, desires, preferences, and so on. Anyone who generalizes across personal contexts or wants to limit their objective technical options is exerting influence. This is necessary in education and politics, but one should have a mandate and it is advisable to teach and not idealize.

[Alice, serious]: Sure, when I walk through the city I can be photographed and spied on. What’s the point? It is more important to understand the cybernetic modeling of the context hierarchy as an architectural schema and the significance of the architectural schema with its meta-levels of life for learning. An individual always decides and acts in an individual context. With regard to our learning behavior, subjective truths are almost a naive idea of the function of truth. When making decisions and taking actions, it is important to question them for ourselves. Our thinking notes promote learning behavior and are very easy to understand – child’s play, so to speak.

[Archi, amused]: But now you’ve brought the child’s play thing into play!

[Alice, thoughtfully]: Here I would actually like it to be clearer that by architecture of the mind we mean all the senses, all the information-processing functions of the subconscious and conscious mind, and all the linguistic functions of the ego and its self. Even then it does not become clear that ” [Alice, thoughtfully]: Here … ” is an utterance of the context of my self to the context surrounding me, which reveals through my voice, for example, that I am currently pensive.

Ralf Moser | Die Architektur des Selbst als persönlicher Kontext des Ichs |
Denkzettel 2022 |

[Archi, smiling]: The only thing missing now is that you wish that it would become clear that you could observe yourself on several levels in the process and recalibrate and realign your perception and your self in the process. Perhaps even that self-observation across several meta-levels by means of reflective levels, photography and video describes the cybernetic modeling with which you learn. And the icing on the cake is that this requires your mind to function so that you can recognize yourself.

Hannah und Ralf Moser |
Die Konstruktionsstückliste einer Werkgruppe im persönlichen Kontext des Betrachters |
Denkzettel 2022 |

[Alice, amused]: There it would be more important to me that it becomes clear that observers can observe their own observing simultaneously and that second-order observation is only then, an observation, if it can be explained how the observer is connected to reality via his observation through perceptual functions. Our semantic chains build up semantic correspondence principles for this, but Luhmann and all those who refer to Spencer-Brown and his algebra only observe themselves when playing with language and modeling.

[Archi, mischievously]: Do you think that many know the premise of Luhmann’s systems and art theory. Do you think they know how the radical constructivists and he refer to Spencer-Brown. That Spencer-Brown idealizes and mystifies model building and denies the idea of truth for model building.

[Alice, amused]: No, but I hope that everyone will have an easier time making it hard in the future and that they will come to terms with our semantic machine and that they will have a different understanding of art and culture; an understanding that understands all the functions of truth for communication and learning in and about cybernetic contexts. And I hope that the meditative art of Carpe Diem et Noctem will help many to understand that it brings a new understanding of culture and lifelong learning. Only then does it actually make sense to talk about culture 😉

[Alice, amused]: Do you think anyone realizes that the stone could be an architectural model of the building.

[Archi, smiling]: To do that, they would first have to notice the similarity in geometric shape between the building and the stone. Do you think many people understand the mathematical background of architectural plans? Although they often have to deal with building plans in everyday life, I’m not sure that they know the “Dreitafelprojektion” or whether they know Le Corbusier’s Modulor, for example, and its significance for architecture and art.

[Alice, amused]: Then they could also see that the modulor and perspective can play a role in photography if the photographer is going for the classical beauty of the golden ratio and wants to use it to communicate the photograph. No, I think very many people don’t know the three-panel projection or the modulor and only a few would see the connections with art, photography and communication.

[Archi, mischievously]: Then there’s still a lot of work ahead of us and even more think pieces. And they have to be very, very easy to understand.

[Alice, amused]: A child’s play,, so to speak!

[Alice, amused]: When it comes to beautiful women, you’re usually not at a loss for words. So why not tell the story that fits you like a glove? One with A. and O. and the serpent.

[Archi, thoughtful]: Which one do you mean?

[Alice, amused]: Well, which one do you think I mean? You always have to do everything yourself. So I’ll tell it myself: And thus, the story plays with the contexts of [A.] and [O.].

Ralf Moser | Mein christliches Testament | Und erlöse uns von dem Übel |
Der existenzialistische Stein des Anstoßes | 2015 |

[Alice, narrating on the meta-level of the story]:

A. struggles under the midday sun, pushing a stone up a steep hillside. Just before reaching the summit, he fails again and again, and the stone rolls back down each time. Exhausted, he sits in the shade of the stone as his wife O. arrives and brings him nourishment. She takes a loaf of bread from the basket she brought, breaks it, and offers A. the broken piece.
[O., caring]: ‘I brought a loaf of bread. Would you like a piece?’
A. takes the piece of bread weakly and bites off a chunk without saying a word. A serpent, lying in the grass at some distance, lifts its head to better observe the scene.
[O., smiling seductively]: ‘I also brought wine and grapes. Would you like some?’
A. shakes his head and smiles a little painfully.
[O., smiling]: ‘Yes, I know—this heat doesn’t go well with wine at midday. Perhaps just a few grapes?
A. shakes his head again, his smile now less strained.
[O., smiling seductively]: ‘Well then, maybe this evening.’
The serpent, thinking to itself, slithers closer to get a better view: ‘Let’s hope someone else hasn’t already tasted the spiced wine and grapes by then.’ Why does this guy keep rolling that stone up and down? This is absurdist theatre!
[O., curious]: ‘Why do you even want to get the stone to the top of the mountain? Usually, people put a summit cross up there.’
A. begins to answer, but O. is quicker.
[O., concerned but also reproachful]: ‘And if you get heatstroke out here, you’ll be completely worn out again by evening—and no one will be able to do anything with you.’
A. begins to answer again, but O. is once more quicker.
[O., speaking to herself with determination]: ‘One no longer needs to sacrifice oneself. Today, we can face nature’s selection by other means—and let our expectations, our ideas, and our assumptions die in our place.’
Popper, the serpent thinks. The late work—the one with the worlds.
[A., with conviction]: ‘This rock belongs to the Lord. I will bring it to the top of the mountain, build a new work of art for the Lord, and pray.’
He’s been in the sun too long, the serpent thinks, slithering closer to the two. The stone must be a readymade. Protestant, the serpent muses—too hard a bread for a Catholic.
A. looks at O., but O. is still lost in her own thoughts. In her mind, the stone would be at the top in no time, she thinks.
[O., thoughtfully, questioning the purpose]: ‘What for?’
When she sees A.’s questioning face, she corrects herself.
[O., questioning the reason within A.’s worldview]: ‘Why?’
[A., with conviction]: “I accept my self-chosen God in a self-chosen way, submit to Him, and follow Him. That is, after all, the foundation of our pact. We freely fulfill the rules that society imposes on us; but we are free to accept our fate. If we reject it, we go to our death of our own free will.”
A Protestant existentialist, thinks the snake. He’s probably afraid of change because he’s overwhelmed by the many possibilities and weighs every decision with extreme care.
[O., rhetorically questioning]: “Doesn’t reality carry the wrong weight in your thoughts? Shouldn’t there be more hope for change?”
The little one got it too, thinks the snake. And she knows Murakami—smart kid.
[A., uncertain]: “Maybe it will get worse. Maybe it will never be good again.”
I knew it, thinks the snake — an existentialist, just thrown into this cruel world.
[O., hopefully]: “Maybe we would be better off! Maybe you’re not taking enough risks. Maybe you just don’t feel that wild urge for change. Wouldn’t it be better if something just changed for once?”
A. looks unhappily at his stone. O. stands up and gathers herself.
The snake thinks that for him, simply carrying on is the easiest path.
[O., pleading]: “Don’t come home too late, so we can still have a nice evening together.”
[A., confidently]: “I’ll just try one more time.”
O. turns away and walks off. A. relaxes and gazes dreamily into the distance. The snake slithers closer, curious.
[The snake, feigning concern]: “Where is the little one going all alone?”
[A., caught off guard]: “Home.”
[The snake, reproachfully]: “And what are you still doing here?”
[A., with conviction]: “I’m mentally preparing myself to push the stone up the mountain. I imagined myself standing at the top, with my stone on the summit.”
The snake shakes its head, thinking: Now he’s sitting there with his stone, still dreaming of pushing it up the mountain. Without the little one, he’d still be in paradise, drinking and watching football. No wonder she constantly feels like she has to get out.
The snake is still sitting in front of A., shaking its head, as he turns away and lowers his gaze humbly.
[A., humbly]: “And deliver us from evil.”