I created this temporary group chat in order to provide a place that we can post a message among the four of us as needed.

I have messaged each of you individually in the last 18 hours or so concerning an idea that came up for me last night, as I was designing . .

Gyuri has gotten me thinking about the way that Chitchatter uses cryptography to provide secure communication, but does not provide any means of carrying those credentials between experiences or web contexts.

Gyuri has expressed clearly to me that Basic Authentication is not needed, and that I should expand my mind essentially . . think more holistically. I do not entirely agree that Basic Authentication (standard HTTP practices) does not have its place or that it is not important. I want Situs to meet and then exceed expectations set by the conventional web. Therefore implementing Basic Auth and not having to "reinvent the wheel" is just following through with the expectations set by the conventional web . . now let's follow Gyuri's inspirational lead, and think further ahead, before making a settlement.

Gyuri did get me to thinking. He plants these ideas in my mind . . like weeds! They grow and spread without any attendance, even when I try to stamp them out at first . . here he goes again, inspiring me, cultivating.

I do not wish to go on and on here . . He got me thinking about how to implement public-private key cryptography in a way that will be able to travel between web experiences and contexts. The exact same sort of cryptography that drives (and would be interoperable with) Chitchatter and that whole ecosystem but we need a little engine that provides a secure context for doing:

1.) Proving who you are (and what you have created) by:
a. sharing public key
b. protecting a private key
c. signing authored docs with private key (verifiable with public key)

2.) Verifying the authenticity of others:
d. verifying signed documents with associated public key

3.) Addressing trusted peers:
e. Send encrypted message/file/stream to peer,
(peer's public key locks the data; peer's private key unlocks the data)

4.) Recieving messages as Adressee:
f. Receive encrypted message locked with one's public key;
(Must ensure that the peer is trust-worthy! by association?)
h. Decrypt private messages with private key.

There is more to it . . must consider deeply how association and trust works in these systems . . all kinds of questions, like Addressing encrypted data unlockable by multiple parties . . lots of questions, which have been answered before by cryptographers who have left instructions and tools.

But this is the basic idea. The browser disallows doing anything with private keys . . shared between browser contexts, because another site could just steal your identity. Now, I can't think of a reason that Brave has not backed this into their browser!!!! That is the optimal place, and I am sure they have thought about it deeply, not sure who is stopping them. Because it has been years, and nobody has implemented this, I think I see a rudimentary yet effective solution: provide secure context on device exposed as API like IPFS does.

I would like to call a meeting or simply to append this question as an agenda item.

I would like your feedback about this idea, which I have introduced to each of you as Hiya! —BYOID. See: it's cute, and this can resonate. I have thought of a way to make it resonate more powerfully . .

If the tool does not provide a visceral service, that serves an obvious purpose, then most people just won't use it period —only tech enthusiasts will get around to using it, and we all know that what keeps us stuck on social platforms is the community. I don't think BYOID will catch on by itself,
if it is only a daemon service running in the background. It needs to be included as part of a very useful system, and I would love for us to plan to envision that together . .

My first thought was IAM, which is exactly what Amazon calls their centralized identity service.

Realizing that the cryptography element is essential if we want this encyclogenetic process of the IndraNet to ultimately have a say in deciding the affairs of our world, to reinvent the meaning of what it means to "vote" and better to say to holarchically present one's case.

We must have the ability to sign our documents, as Gien and Gyuri have been saying . . we must have the record of provenance, of the history of our thought as ideas evolve through the holonic spheres or relationship, if we are to transcend the Powers the Shouldn't Be by imagining the Powers that Will Be

Hi Yarrow, Public and Private keys have always been a problem in my salience landscape. Big salience mismatch here. If you could have a kindergarten lesson with me on this, I would appreciate it. Once I pass that hurdle, I'm sure I could then grasp the salience.

Gyuri has always felt signing on to anything is what holds people back. Having to get password and sign on to each site adds friction for participation.

Modernity is characterized by anonymous systems - systems that enable transaction between strangers. Modernity has created a world of transactional strangers where there is no need for community. This is the main context of modernity. It allows strangers to interact, but exacts a high price. However, humans need community. Perhaps if we frame and reference everything from this very human condition, it will be easier to explain the technical concepts.

I would be happy to during/after our up-coming meeting . . to be honest I am just getting up to speed on cryptography as well!

I suggested to Parmjit that: perhaps we begin our meeting with Robert and Ward, who have agreed to a 15 to 20 minute demo, followed by a discussion . . then so as not it interfere with their weekly scheduled collaboration (if can read the room and simply comminicate about it), in order to explore our own relationship/ideas more deeply, that we may adjourn and regroup in our own room, where we can follow Parmjit's desire to explore our vision of what the doors that the technology can potentially open for us may have in store. And as well, we can definitely have a talk (even after our group meeting) about cryptography 101.

Since I've been posting a few related posts on Linked In critiquing capitalism, inequality and the military industrial complex, I've been thinking of colleague Nathaniel Whitestone's terminology of toxic power and healthy power. Our world is inverted, upside down. We've cocreated a system in which billions of individuals have been enslaved by toxic power. Huge sums of money are invested in developing technologies that kill. Why do we need and indirectly support the existence of tens of thousands of nuclear warheads sitting in silos ready to launch and destroy life on earth in a matter of hours? One of the roles of the great militaries of the world is to protect the fossil fuel energy assets so that this dysfunctional society can continue ticking. The same system it supports continues to externalize pollution - an act of concentrating wealth for a few whilst destroying the environment for all. The flipped web is just flipping one part of the dysfunctional system.

Very few people want the world we now live in. And yet, the wicked problem we have created means we keep feeding the system in indirect ways to keep it alive.

DIrect citizen action needs to take place at scale to do a major cultural evolutionary pivot.

I think I am beginning to rise to the level of awareness that Gyuri has been expressing. I have just been determined (like an architect) to ensure practical results, functionality, starting at the foundation and working our way up to the stained glass

No pressure. If there is a combination of space and emotion, it drives the need to articulate and express present emotions.

I hope eventually to help you see from my vantage point why I can no longer accept the misnomer of "citizen" as a viable descriptor for self-identification. I have been red-pilled too hard, and I have seen behind the veil of the way government is currently operating --I hope that it is different in South Africa than under the USG. One day we will have time for me to explain where I am coming from, and what is this Assembly movement about and why are masses of people seeking to revoke their agreement as "citizens". For me my trust in the current form of government has been shattered . . and to the point that I have accidentally pushed people away who should be natural allies, because I was too blunt with expressing my point of view about this. When the Prosecuting Attorney admitted to me that all their codes are governed under the UCC (as in the govt no longer recognizes flesh-and-blood living beings but only points on a graph in the corporate financial matrix) I felt that that vindicated me . . peering behind the veil, I could finally give up much of my anger and surrender to the acceptance that there are higher forms of law, and there are escape routes. But this knowledge is buried under history books in political treatises and international treaties.

The praxis of Law for me is about rising above all disgraceful agreements and allegiances so to clear the way for natural living and for natural affinities into trustworthy associations of ones peers within every holonic sphere of relationship and responsibility.

The government which was established on this land (which was itself the result of atrocities) has since been occupied by an international cabal masterminded by the banking cartel by shadowy organizations, which some identify as the Khazarian mafia, but then, they would know better than me. I don't know who or what is behind the global deception. All that I know is that I can see right through it.

Thanks for setting up this group Yarrow. I feel we are a small but potent mix. Some of the themes I'm picking up here are: 1. The need for the techies to provide a salience landscape for the non-techies. I feel this is important outside of this group too because it will help funds coming in. At the moment Yarrow is running on (almost) empty whilst millions of $ are being channelled into emotive issues which cannot change the source of the problem. 2. The need for emotion is there as a driving force but equally if we spill everything indiscriminately, it's messy and it drives people away. There is a need to inform and educate but it has to be done with grace and sensitivity, in ways that cultivate the space between us and respect where each individual is at. 3. The most important thing is to cultivate the space between us in every interaction we have. Kindness powers our unique humanness like nothing else. WINfinity addresses that in a unique and structured way that magnetises the space so that we let in more of the the 'knowing field' that can guide our journey. 4. A truism whether it is to do with securing our private keys or empowering ourselves to shake off our conditioning may not land straight away. Sometimes it takes time for the new paradigm to percolate through the layers of the old - and that's OK too.

Though when I give it more thought, I must admit that there is a blatant shadow in this archetype of the angry rebel, and many folks in the movement seem to approach the idea of "sovereignty" with too much confidence and too little curiosity. There is a stubborn unwillingness to feel across the divides that are separating people, which we really need. This does not imply the surrender of liberty, just the opposite: it is a higher-order expression of liberty to make the choice to engage in an evolutionary process that is uncertain and open-ended.

I should also reflect that being against "citizenship" is reactionary (an autoimmune system reaction): wanting to escape from identification with something that feels disgraceful and unhealthy. The word "citizen" has been made to imply a certain kind of contract, a membership into a way of governing (and being governed) that betrays its essential spirit. An honest and thorough reading of The Law of Nations and The Social Contract spell out that (when we drop the trappings) the essence of citizenship is the natural relationship that an individual has to the collective whole, which is referred to as the corporeal "body" of the nation, of a people --citizenship is essentially what we call the responsibilities and corresponding rights that every individual has in relationship to every other. The essential meaning of the word, before it was hijacked and corrupted, is an expression of Natural Law that is inescapable by virtue of us all being here together, taking care of one another, and being taken care of in return, or at least being respected in our right to be independent.

It's actually the surrender of personal responsibility and the corresponding acceptance of certain "benefits" which are unnatural to people and causing social disease. Being admitted into a "nation" is now synonymous literally with becoming an employee of a corporation and agreeing to be governed not by the Common Law but according to the caprice of corporate bylaws. Many of us feel that not disclaiming "citizenship" implies willingly "coming under the yoke of" the artificial matrix of power, and that's the contract that we want to rescind.

It seems that part of your self-assigned mission is to recover the spirit of citizenship, and I applaud you for that.

It feels as though the very meaning of the words that make up our language has been usurped and legally corrupted. The law appears to have betrayed its very nature, except that when one reads in the Maxims of Law that agreement makes the law. Anything that is not disputed is acceptance, even bondage, slavery, debt. It's all a choice, according to my reading of the Maxims. We get to choose whether or not we agree to the contract, although there is so much deception and coercion that it often doesn't feel that way.

The search for and articulation of meaning is the root of the contest, and from a legal perspective it is always a contest whenever there are adversarial differences of perspective that will have a lasting impact on the shape of the world and the quality of our lives.

So I just wanted to say that, because I should probably get out of the way and be in support of the individuals who are approaching "citizenship" in the spirit of citizenship, which demonstrates that the contest for the meaning of our words is still very much in play.

When people differentiate the de jure "by the people" government from the so-called de facto, I hope that's what they mean. And I pray that we all may practice your level of sincerity and responsibility as we reawaken the original intent and spirit of the law.

We need to take the Purple Pill

I think your second observation accurately reflects my interpretation of the word citizen. It's been influenced by the book I'm currently annotating called, guess what, Citizens - by Jon Alexander and Arian Conrad:

https://www.jonalexander.net/

Jon worked in marketing for a decade before he saw that the "customer story" is artificial and is what is driving all the pathology today. So he wrote the book in an effort to educate that the customer story, which was preceded by the subject story (as in the monarchs subjugated the people) is a constructed one that can be deconstructed if we reclaim the word "citizen" in it original spirit - not as a member of some nation state, but as you said, an individual belonging to a coherent collective.

Yes. Failing to be open to consideration . . that appears to be the going trend all across the political and apolitical spectrum, which I want to admit: I have been at fault for!

I can already feel how my exposure to your way of thinking and communicating as well as Parmjit's will have a lasting evolutionary impact on my style and approach to . . communication!

The nature of the individual/collective gestalt ....
when I meet each of you, I meet all your influences...your mother, father, siblings, friends, mentors, enemies, etc... we synthesize them into our temporary form as we greet the world each moment

I will put everything in the channel into an appropriate daily document so that we can comment and initiate conversation on the margins in the context of what we are reading, so that these conversations can be visible and engageable by any one on the shared same page!

💥 It's the one's who have cracked that the light shines through: that is what we are talking about! 🔥

Is that from Phenomenology
(collective gestalt)? . . I thought of myself as a self-styled phenomenologist many years ago, but I never got around to reading Husserl. I was just studying the phenomenon, and I had most certainly cracked.

another image of the same:
Being spiritually pierced through the Heart ❤️‍🔥 . . there is a something there. I believe what Ananda Bosman is referring to when he talks about the "hadronic collapse" within the Heart of Hydrogen . . is another way of saying that the Great Spirit is omnipresent, does shine throughout all eternity, or is the source of the shining: the Power of Powers that powers the Son/Sun and every son. And when we are pierced . . when our Hearts spiritually break open there is another form of identity . what we normally call "identity" reveals itself as the game of charades, of hide-and-seek that it is . . and we can relax and trust, having faith, shedding tears for the mystery, for the nightmare, for the glory

Whenever I say man/son, I intend this irrespective of gender, which is such a rudimentary concept for spiritual beings that we are temporarily incarnated, housed in these bodies of ours for a lifetime. When people get hung up on the basest sense, most literally interpretation of the words in this way, they have preconceptually shut down to the deeper meaning flowing into their experience . . this kind of appreciation for subtlety, for nuance of expression, that is the alchemical Art I would like to refine and preserve for the coming generations as a time-binder, as a guild "master" . . the Art of the Sword (of the intellect), as a smith at the forge and as a warrior, wielding the Power of the Mind, allowing Spirit to move through us . . with such profound honor, love and respect as a protector for all the sons and daughters . . profound acknowledgement of the significance of language: we want to awaken this.