– – – –

perhaps the best security… is giving 100% of us something else to do.

tech that gives

perhaps then:

1. 100% of people would be so caught up in the luxury of doing whatever they wanted/dreamed of [assuming people are good]


2. at least a smaller percentage of people would be running a muck


and perhaps.. our encryption/protection/privacy – comes from the too much ness of documenting everything. begging you to connect with the actual person in order to decode. (like we create our own layer of security – much like what David writes about what the too much ness of bureaucracy does for us – in a bad way)

and again – not even that you couldn’t decode it.. but you have no desire to (for bad) because you’re too busy being. the desire to decode it (for good) is embeded in a desire to connect with the person.


let’s re\wire.

everything else we keep trying– just keeps piling on more to defend/protect/regulate/protest…

what if 100% of us weren’t so blinded/lost/angered/worn by the typical 7ish hours of supposed tos, ie: work/school/whatever, but instead were spending our days, the meat of our days, doing/being the thing we can’t not do/be. (red flags)

what if we ran out of time to harm/steal/accuse/fight/hate/regulate…

the state of being free.. from danger. [can that ever happen?]

how about..

the sate of being free.. to be.




added the page in the midst of snowden/dirty wars/taibbi/swartz/Ed/….

specifically.. after reading this post tweeted by Alexis:


comment at davos 2015 at 45 min – security in open:

not about education or economic status.. but about how much you feel you are a contributing player in the community/society

50 min – Ken Roth – only have a right if you act responsibly.. danger… then someone is deciding what responsible is.. and right is contingent upon that

55 min – to have an open society you have to have a cohesive society.


– – –

ps in the open

global systemic change


seems our only insurance/security.. whatever.. is if we let go.. and go with antifragility.. with gershenfeld sel

ie: hlb via 2 convos that io dance.. as the day..[aka: not part\ial.. for (blank)’s sake…]..  a nother way


Ilan Goldenberg (@ilangoldenberg) tweeted at 8:43 AM – 3 Feb 2018 :

9. God knows how many times I saw stupid things being done in government in the name of “security.” (

Ilan Goldenberg (@ilangoldenberg) tweeted at 8:41 AM – 3 Feb 2018 :

1. In the wake of the Nunes memo let’s have a broader conversation about how genuinely screwed up our entire security & classification system is & the governing problems it causes. (

Ilan Goldenberg (@ilangoldenberg) tweeted at 8:51 AM – 3 Feb 2018 :

33. So maybe it’s time to have a serious discussion about how we classify things & protect information because how we do it these days is causing a lot of damage & just isn’t working /END (


from Erich Fromm‘s escape from freedom:


the new security is dynamic; it is not based on protection, but on man’s spontaneous activity.. it is the security acquired each moment by man’s spontaneous activity. it is the security that only freedom can give, that needs no illusions because it has eliminated those conditions that necessitate illusions.. 

security ness.. and again.. why gershenfeld sel would work


Joan Baez:


1:00 – joan: and is there such a thing as security.. i don’t think there is.. in the end.. what does security mean (girl w her: the search is over)


from Krishnamurti‘s total freedom:


the problem is to experience directly the state of complete uncertainty.. to be w/o any feeling of security .. t.. and that is possible only if you understand the total process your own thinking.. or if you can listen w your whole being, be completely attentive w.o resistance..

taleb antifragility law


the truth is that as long as there is a point in the mind which is moving toward another point, that is, as long as the mind is seeking security in any form, it will never be free from pain.. security is dependency, and a mind that depends has no love..t..  w/o going thru all the process of examination, observation, and awareness, just listen to the fact, let the truth of the fact operate, and then you will see that the mind is free from pain..


in ‘s democracy not.. but miss


security, understood as equal access to the means to meet one’s needs, would be a basis for social freedom, not something we have to sacrifice liberties in order to achieve..

security.. maté basic needs


It’s this fear that keeps us tied to mediocrity.

What a read. via @TheMinimalists

Original Tweet:

We hold on to jobs we dislike because we believe there’s security in a paycheck. We stay in shitty relationships because we think there’s security in not being alone. We hold on to stuff we don’t need, just in case we might need it down the road in some nonexistent, more secure future.

But if such accruements are flooding your life with discontent, they are not secure. In fact, the opposite is true. Discontent is uncertainty. And uncertainty is insecurity. Hence, by definition, if you are not happy with your situation, no matter how comfortable it is, then you won’t ever feel secure.


i don’t think uncertainty is necessarily discontent.. in fact.. i think it keeps us alive.. ie: taleb antifragile law

It turned out our paychecks made us feel less secure, afraid we’d be deprived of the income we’d grown accustomed to and the lifestyles we’d blindly coveted. And our material possessions exposed countless twinges of insecurity, leaving us frightened that we’d suffer loss of our personal property or that someone would take it from us. So we clutched tighter onto these security blankets.

But you see, it’s not the security blanket that ensures a person’s security.

i don’t think a person needs to ensure security

People latch on to security blankets because there’s a deeper fear lingering at the ragged edges of a discontented reality; there’s something else we’re afraid of. The fear of loss. We’re afraid of losing love or respect or comfort.

It’s this fear that keeps us tied to mediocrity. We’re willing to sacrifice growth and purpose and meaning in our lives, just to hold on to our pacifiers, all the while searching all the wrong places for security, misguidedly programming ourselves to believe there’s a strange kind of certainty within uncertainty.

? sounds like you guys are against uncertainty?

carhart harris entropy law et al

But the more we amass, the more we need our stockpile, and then the more uncertain we feel. Needing more will always lead to a pall of uncertainty and insecurity.

testart storage law

insecurity yes.. again.. i think uncertainty is ok/good/life

Life isn’t meant to be completely safe. Real security, however, is found inside us, in consistent personal growth, not in a reliance on growing external factors.

Sure, we all need a particular level of external security to function: food, water, shelter, clothes, health, personal safety, positive relationships.

? i don’t know if i’d call that security.. none of that is ever certain..

But if we jettison life’s superfluous excess, we can find infinite security within ourselves. Security blanket or no, we can be absolutely secure alone in an empty room.

hmm.. i’d call that fittingness


safety addiction et al

astra on security

red flags