It could be inherently flawed. We look at a picture or a symbol and pretend it’s real. That’s insane. I mean, I know that’s kinda how it works, but still. Insane.

Or maybe it’s imprecise to call it a flaw. Maybe call it a trap, to be careful of. But nobody’s careful. (So that’s maybe an “out of control” situation)

(I know I’m not. I mean case in point. I’m watching this movie “don’t look up” right now and I’m getting all teary-eyed and stuff. It’s a fucking movie. An illusion of flickering images and bullshit. I know with great certainty that it’s just a fantasy but I’m still having this reaction. So that’s insane)

Is it inherently bad? Out of control? Something else?

We could order understanding by quality.

First there is perception. That’s the closest. Then there is thought about that. Then there is the secondhand form of that, gotten from a friend. Then gotten from a mere associate. Then a stranger. Thirdhand and fourthhand. And so on.

Close to far. That close kind you don’t even have to think or talk about it.

Perceptions like rightness, beauty, gut make a good guide. Art and invention are proof of that. Call it a good source of truth.

Not too good for building objective consensuses tho.

Hypothetically, one could step away from the whole internet/media/information system. Stick with firsthand experience and the testimony of trusted friends.

To what degree would that include “science”?

What would that look like. Amish?