Cryptography-Digest Digest #53, Volume #9 Mon, 8 Feb 99 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes
Re: What cipher is used by iomega in ZIP products ? ("ROberto and JOni")
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** ("PAC")
GPL'ed RNG
Re: GPL'ed RNG (Paul Rubin)
Re: GPL'ed RNG (Paul Rubin)
Re: Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** (Seisei Yamaguchi)
Re: Rational points on a curve (Nigel Smart)
Re: GPL'ed RNG ("Wm. Toldt")
Re: Threat Models: When You Can't Use a One-Time Pad (R. Knauer)
IDEA Rounds (Dirk Mahoney)
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** (R. Knauer)
Re: GPL'ed RNG ("Wm. Toldt")
help wanted please ("Despontin M.")
Transforming RC4 into a one-way hash function (Michael Kjorling)
Re: IDEA Rounds (Cuykens Anthony)
Re: hardRandNumbGen (Herman Rubin)
Re: Intel's description of the Pentium III serial number (Chris Fischer)
Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? *** ("james d. hunter")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes
Date: 8 Feb 99 04:03:28 GMT
wtshaw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: It would be better to use a higher base than two, to make the scheme
: practical. The next higher being base three, consider a couple of old
: ciphers that are relative to your question:
That's only true if you're using pencil and paper. In general, the smaller
the size of the base, the more secure this cipher will be, because the
patterns will be better concealed.
John Savard
------------------------------
From: "ROberto and JOni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.iomega.zip.jaz,alt.iomega.zip.jazz
Subject: Re: What cipher is used by iomega in ZIP products ?
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:05:55 -0600
Reply-To: "ROberto and JOni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
ROberto and Joni . . .
. . refusing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
>>> The data is not encrypted. The passwords are quite easy to
defeat.
>>
>>... using an everyday household object, in fact ;-)
>
>
>Paper clip?
>
Refrigerator magnet?
------------------------------
From: "PAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:31:05 -0800
james d. hunter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>PAC wrote:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>> "Never a complete system even when dealing with simple infinity, but
>> whatever answers that come to math will still be mathematical and
resolved
>> by itself and nothing beyond that. Otherwise leaving the ends open I
>> suppose can imply that even the simplest variable can be non-mathematical
>> being that it's never determined and the equations vary with the
variables.
>> It has internal relations that will always resolve things mathematically.
>> But this does imply that math=universe being that the universe would
be
>> considered complete and math not, but this is obvious since math is not
the
>> all of reality, yet the most approachable // to the universe that we
have.
>> Absolute completeness would never be a part of math unless it encompassed
>> all of reality."
>
>
> Oh, I don't know. Half the universe seems to be syntax, the
> other half semantics.
>
You mean we're all words? Maybe, but I'd also put in pragmatic viewer
frame perspective (now that I looked this up not really wanting to get into
a linguistic argument) to join both objects then laws and relationships.
But still being just a symbolic human representation of reality whereby
you could say that the single letter "all" encompassed everything in the
universe to its entirety and skip all the rest of the stuff. It'd save a
lot of time.
But luckily the fact that human symbolics // and symbolize the real
world means that the separation prevents the symbols from being the reality.
Not to mention the hidden realties that would never be apparent to human
divining and heavy-handed usages of symbolic flights of fancy.
But more to the point that since symbolics symbolize, they separate
themselves from all of reality due to the nature of a symbolic object
representing another object as symbolic and thereby separating that symbol
for codified use from the real object. That separation would prevent
symbolics from being everything. But since the totality of the universe
also contains symbolics as an element within its all-inclusive set, then one
could say that the grand total cosmos is all, but not that the word "all" is
everything in reality.
That's "all" folks,
Phil C.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: GPL'ed RNG
Date: 8 Feb 1999 04:53:54 GMT
Is there a GPL or LGPL random number generator that produces "good"
random numbers? rand() just isn't cutting it :P
Joseph
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: GPL'ed RNG
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 05:19:08 GMT
In article <79lql2$1i3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there a GPL or LGPL random number generator that produces "good"
>random numbers? rand() just isn't cutting it :P
There is a free RNG (not GPL'd) that is pretty serious. See
www.counterpane.com and look for "yarrow".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Rubin)
Subject: Re: GPL'ed RNG
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 06:01:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wm. Toldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Is there a GPL or LGPL random number generator that produces "good"
>> random numbers? rand() just isn't cutting it :P
>>
>> Joseph
>
>Do the letters GPL stand for some words in the English Language?
General Public License; it refers to a particular software licensing
scheme ("copyleft") of the Free Software Foundation. It doesn't
specifically relate to cryptography. The GNU C compiler and most
other GNU programs, and the Linux kernel, are examples of GPL'd
software. See www.gnu.org for more info.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Simple newbie challenge -- variable length codes
Date: 8 Feb 99 04:01:54 GMT
DonGraft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: How might such a code be cracked?
Let's take a case that is *easier* to crack.
4 7 8 0 3 1 9 2 5 6
-------------------
A T O N E S I R
8 V C J B Q M W . L K
9 H / X U G Y D Z F P
A simple straddling checkerboard with a random alphabet. Here, digit
frequencies can help the cryptanalyst, and bigraphic digit frequencies
will help even more.
But with a binary Huffman code, the frequency of 0 and 1 isn't very
useful! The problem of cracking this kind of code isn't a simple one -
although it is simple compared to, say, cracking DES.
You will need to exploit the small amount of remaining redundancy in text
compressed by this method to solve for the unknown alphabet. What
redundancy is not eliminated?
a) The characters, being made up of whole bits, may imperfectly fit the
frequency characteristics of the alphabet.
b) Each letter is more likely to follow some letters than others. But
we're looking at a code for individual letters.
Looking for long repeated sequences of bits is indeed one important step.
Another might be to do a frequency count on the combinations of bits that
*begin* a message. If you have enough messages to do such a count, that
1010 and 1011 have exactly the same frequency might indicate that 101 is
the code for a single letter: probably T, or E.
Doing a frequency count on sequences of bits is not useless, because some
sequences of several bits, by being inside the codes for single letters or
common digraphs, will still have a higher frequency, despite the large
amount of random counts caused by straddling characters. You just need
more ciphertext to start work.
John Savard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Seisei Yamaguchi)
Crossposted-To: sci.skeptic,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: 8 Feb 1999 06:07:45 GMT
In article <79elv9$iuh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Seisei Yamaguchi wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, this is Seisei.
>> >
>> > Ron Cecchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >The first step is to try to *define* "true randomness"!
>> >
>> > That's right.
>> > Randomness and unforeseeableness are not identical.
>> > And, I think it's non existent randomness.
>> >
>>
>> Howdy Seisei,
>>
>> I agree with you. Everything is signal, it's just that
>> we don't always know where the signal came from or how
>> it got to where we could "see" it. The purpose for
>> crypto is merely to create something which no one
>> can know, no matter what their resources. That would
>> be my definition of "true random".
>>
>> Patience, persistence, truth,
>> Dr. mike
>>
>
>Th question is, given some data, eg:
>
>gdmvkzcexmgzczt
>
>How do you tell whether it is compleely random or
>merely encrypted in some way unknown to you ?
It is related to patterns.
Some of them are {
disposition of {
* Your fingers.
* The keys.
}
} if you didn't use special input-device.
Your (our) fingers are related to DNA pattern.
ps.
Howdy mike. :\)
--
Seisei Yamaguchi (name( first( $B@D@1(B ), last( $B;38}(B ) ))
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA010205/
Today is first day of rest of the life.
J( $B:#F|$O;D$j$N?M@8$N:G=i$NF|(B ) ---from BH90210 (J)
I want your indication. J( $B7/$N0U8+$r$-$3$&(B. $B%,%D%s$H8@$C$F$/$l(B )
I want workplace we can sing and dance if the job isn't bear on music.
J( $B$_$s$J$G2N$C$FMY$l$k;E;v>l(B ($B2;3Z$H4X78$J$/$F$b(B)
$B$,$"$C$?$i$$$$$J(B )
My message is copylefted (see GPL) .
68 lovers capable.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Smart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rational points on a curve
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 07:57:56 +0000
Jayant Shukla wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Is there an easy way to find integer points on
> the curve y^2 = a x^2 + b x + c? i.e. both x and y
> are integers. The constants a, b, and c are integers
> as well.
>
> regards,
> Jayant
I assume a, b and c are fixed. In that case the number
of integer solutions is finite by a very old result. In the
early nineties there was a flurry of papers on algorithms to
determine all the integer solutions to such an equations
(usually called integral points). See papers by
Tzanakis, Stroeker, Pethoe, Zimmer, Gebel and Smart (me).
In my book,
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/scripts/webbook.asp?isbn=0521646332
I give three methods to solve the above equation. The last of
which is given a whole chapter (the method of elliptic logarithms).
It really is quite an easy problem now.
Nigel
--
Nigel P. Smart | mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories | talk: +44 (0) 117 922 9338
Filton Road, Stoke Gifford | fax: +44 (0) 117 922 9285
Bristol BS34 8QZ, U.K.
------------------------------
From: "Wm. Toldt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL'ed RNG
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:20:25 -1000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is there a GPL or LGPL random number generator that produces "good"
> random numbers? rand() just isn't cutting it :P
>
> Joseph
Do the letters GPL stand for some words in the English Language?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Subject: Re: Threat Models: When You Can't Use a One-Time Pad
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 12:07:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 23:54:10 GMT, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Nope. The truth exists in Reality, not any given interpretation of it.
>That's not my understanding of the meaning of the term "truth".
>Reality just is, but an assertion about it can be true or false
>(or sometimes neither).
Truth is found in Reality. Falsity is a lack of Truth.
Bob Knauer
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns,
we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise
they will win and the decent people will loose."
--James Earl Jones
------------------------------
From: Dirk Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IDEA Rounds
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:17:44 +1000
Hi everyone,
Are there any known problems (security-wise) of arbitrarily increasing
the number of rounds used when encrypting plaintext with the IDEA
algorithm? The default is 8 rounds, but if I were to be a little on the
paranoid side, would there be any harm in increasing this to 12 for
example?
Thanks in advance,
- Dirk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Knauer)
Crossposted-To: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 12:15:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999 20:31:05 -0800, "PAC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Half the universe seems to be syntax, the
>> other half semantics.
> You mean we're all words?
Nope. We're all numbers.
But then, words are numbers, aren't they.
Bob Knauer
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns,
we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise
they will win and the decent people will loose."
--James Earl Jones
------------------------------
From: "Wm. Toldt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL'ed RNG
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:31:23 -1000
Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wm. Toldt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there a GPL or LGPL random number generator that produces "good"
> >> random numbers? rand() just isn't cutting it :P
> >>
> >> Joseph
> >
> >Do the letters GPL stand for some words in the English Language?
>
> General Public License; it refers to a particular software licensing
> scheme ("copyleft") of the Free Software Foundation. It doesn't
> specifically relate to cryptography. The GNU C compiler and most
> other GNU programs, and the Linux kernel, are examples of GPL'd
> software. See www.gnu.org for more info.
I went to the GNU website looking for a definition of GNU, but could find
none.
Do the letters GNU stand for some words?
------------------------------
From: "Despontin M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: help wanted please
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:41:44 +0100
Hi,
I am currently preparing a paper concerning cryptography used for electronic
banking. Does anybody know of a general survey that could help me out.
Thanks,
Nele
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Kjorling)
Subject: Transforming RC4 into a one-way hash function
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 14:01:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
If I encrypt a string with RC4 and a random key (both length and content),
then XOR the output bytes together so I get a string of, let's say, 16 bytes
out of the ciphertext, and then stores this value; will it be secure? I plan
to use this for an online service requiring the user to provide their e-mail
address, but wants to store it securely using a cookie. It is then looked up
in a database on the server, which is - of course - protected with the proper
methods. Thus, "f0ea62c3b1a7e3abb9e5ace0c73ae38d" stored in the cookie would,
perhaps, map to my email address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Would this work? Is it secure against attacks? I simply wants it to be
computionally infeasible to derive the e-mail address from the nonsense stored
in the cookie, so we can skip the server database part for now.
I would really appriciate any comments on this scheme, good or bad.
Thanks in advance,
//Michael
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
Comment: PGP 6.0.2i executables: coming soon to a server near you
iQA/AwUBNr35eyqje/2KcOM+EQLWrwCfXLmrKMym+1UNKL9F1h0+21mtH7sAoM2E
1cZlxHOsYqm3aZTa3AaLgFgN
=LJiP
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
_________________________________________
Mann mu� nicht Gro� sein, um Gro� zu sein
=========================================
Remove "no" in e-mail address to reply.
=========================================
PGP Key ID : 0x8A70E33E
Fingerprint: 95F1 074D 336D F8F0 F297
6A5B 2AA3 7BFD 8A70 E33E
http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8A70E33E
------------------------------
From: Cuykens Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDEA Rounds
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 13:33:01 +0100
I am not an expert but I could say this to you: adding some more round
will probably not increase your security because:
- This will not enhance the length of you key;
- 8 round must be quite enough (otherwise the constructor would have
put 16 or more).
On the other hand, here are the problems that I see:
- your new version will no more be compatible;
- you will have to develop the new program that will be tested only
by you so you will not have many people finding the bugs as for the popular
implementation of IDEA;
- this will make your encryption algo slower.
After having said that you may expect that I am not for an augmentation
of the number of rounds.
Dirk Mahoney wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Are there any known problems (security-wise) of arbitrarily increasing
> the number of rounds used when encrypting plaintext with the IDEA
> algorithm? The default is 8 rounds, but if I were to be a little on the
> paranoid side, would there be any harm in increasing this to 12 for
> example?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> - Dirk
--
Anthony Cuykens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: hardRandNumbGen
Date: 8 Feb 1999 09:13:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R. Knauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7 Feb 1999 09:35:58 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin)
>wrote:
>>So a 10 megabyte file could be easily tested in such a way
>>that one could be fairly sure that the deviation from randomness
>>was at most 1%, and have good chance of acceptance if it was .1%.
>I am still having a problem relating this "deviation from randomness"
>you are testing for and the indeterminancy inherent in a TRNG. You are
>claiming that a property for infinite numbers applies to finite
>numbers, albeit with less than probability one.
There is a language problem, and it does cause confusion. ANY
physical device producing bits is a TRNG, in the sense that there
is a joint probability distribution of all the bits produced. It
does not follow from this that the probability that any k of the
bits form any particular k-element sequence is exactly 1/2^k.
Your generator, or any other physical generator, produces random
bits. The question remains as to whether they have the particular
properties needed to use these bits as if they had the ideal
properties. It is THIS which is being tested.
>The thing that really bothers me is that "good chance" part in your
>statement above. If your tests are probabilistic with only a "good
>chance" of being correct, then how can they be relied on?
One cannot possibly do better. It is not possible to get certainty,
and one can only do so much to balance the probabilities of the
various kinds of error. This balancing of risks is what theoretical
statisticians study, so that one can decide what can be done and how
well it can be done.
>For each test you require a RNG to pass, the builder of the RNG can
>fake the numbers to pass your tests. Or do you know of a set of tests
>that can *with absolute certainty* distinguish a faked RNG from a
>TRNG?
This is harder than one thinks. There are arguments for PRNGs, among
them being the fact that transmitting them involves much smaller band
width. For cryptography, the criterion is vulnerability of the
transmitted message. For simulation, the criterion is the accuracy
of the calculated results. In neither of these case is the source
of the "random numbers" important, unless it causes the criterion
not to be met. For some simulation problems, quasi random numbers,
which fail independence tests very badly, are known to give better
results than random numbers. We know (in principle) the probability
distribution of the results using perfect random numbers; we do not
usually know it for the alternatives.
>Let me expand on that. It all starts when you come to me and tell me
>you want a TRNG that will pass your tests. I ask to see your tests so
>I can test my design for myself before turning the system over to you.
>Also, I want to see if the tests are reasonable, so I do not waste my
>time playing amateur games with twit tests.
>But unbeknownst to you I am really a purveyor of Snake Oil Generators
>(SOGs). I take your tests and program an algorithm to generate numbers
>that will pass your tests, and put that algorithm in a black box so
>you cannot see it. Even if I dude the black box up with lots of bells
>ans whistles, I embed the algorithm in the silicon away from your
>watchful eye. I tell you that the algorithm is used to "diagnose" the
>SOG so it behaves as certified all the time.
As I stated before, this is much harder to do than one would think.
There is a major effort being made to come up with PRNGs which can
meet the "reasonable" tests which have been promulgated. In addition,
these PRNGs are being tried in problems for which some answers can
be computed; a particular generator was found to fail in a simulation
of a physical situation.
Simulations in statistics and physics are using terabytes of PRNGs
now, and will be using thousands or millions of them in the future.
.................
>You made the most fundamental mistake when you assumed that
>statistical testing could certify a TRNG to within any arbitrary level
>of precision. You cannot use deterministic algoritmic tests to certify
>if numbers are being generated by an indeterministic process. You can
>only use such tests to certify that the process is not deterministic.
>Therefore you can not certify that you have a TRNG or a SOG. But that
>determination is crucial to producing ciphers that are proveably
>secure.
What you say is correct. But the type of TRNG you think you have does
not exist, only approximations of it can exist. And it is necessary
to test if the approximations are good enough. A statistical test can
only be algorithmic.
Let us say that my criterion for physical random bits to be good enough
is that the probability of a bit being 1 is .5 within an error of 10^{-10},
given all previous bits. Now how can I test this directly? The answer
is that it cannot be done; if I wanted to test it for all possibilities
of the preceding 100 bits, we already have more than 10^30 cases. It
cannot be done, and so we have to work around it.
Your physical process is not going to be that constant. This is why it
is necessary to make lots of assumptions and test intelligently to hope
to achieve this.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
------------------------------
From: Chris Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Intel's description of the Pentium III serial number
Date: 8 Feb 1999 14:34:40 GMT
Nogami wrote:
>
> On 7 Feb 1999 19:42:59 +0100, Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> 3. Website typically asks user permission to access personal
> >> information, including processor serial number
> >
> >Emphasis on the word 'typically'?
>
> I'm not terribly concerned about being able to disable the serial
> number, or prevent it from being read...
>
> What I AM concerned about is websites (and software authors) that just
> block all access unless you enable it, thus forcing your hand.
>
> N.
Wouldn't it be fun to change the undefined opcode handler to emulate
this, and pollute the net with fake serial numbers?
--
Chris Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Coda Software, Limited
------------------------------
From: "james d. hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: *** Where Does The Randomness Come From ?!? ***
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 09:44:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PAC wrote:
>
> james d. hunter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >PAC wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> "Never a complete system even when dealing with simple
infinity, but
> >> whatever answers that come to math will still be mathematical and
> resolved
> >> by itself and nothing beyond that. Otherwise leaving the ends
open I
> >> suppose can imply that even the simplest variable can be
non-mathematical
> >> being that it's never determined and the equations vary with the
> variables.
> >> It has internal relations that will always resolve things
mathematically.
> >> But this does imply that math=universe being that the universe
would
> be
> >> considered complete and math not, but this is obvious since math
is not
> the
> >> all of reality, yet the most approachable // to the universe that
we
> have.
> >> Absolute completeness would never be a part of math unless it
encompassed
> >> all of reality."
> >
> >
> > Oh, I don't know. Half the universe seems to be syntax, the
> > other half semantics.
> >
>
> You mean we're all words? Maybe, but I'd also put in pragmatic
viewer
> frame perspective (now that I looked this up not really wanting to
get into
> a linguistic argument) to join both objects then laws and
relationships.
> But still being just a symbolic human representation of reality
whereby
> you could say that the single letter "all" encompassed everything in
the
> universe to its entirety and skip all the rest of the stuff. It'd
save a
> lot of time.
> But luckily the fact that human symbolics // and symbolize the
real
> world means that the separation prevents the symbols from being the
reality.
> Not to mention the hidden realties that would never be apparent to
human
> divining and heavy-handed usages of symbolic flights of fancy.
> But more to the point that since symbolics symbolize, they
separate
> themselves from all of reality due to the nature of a symbolic object
> representing another object as symbolic and thereby separating that
symbol
> for codified use from the real object. That separation would prevent
> symbolics from being everything. But since the totality of the
universe
> also contains symbolics as an element within its all-inclusive set,
then one
> could say that the grand total cosmos is all, but not that the word
"all" is
> everything in reality.
>
> That's "all" folks,
Well, the way I look at your different categories in holistic,
heuristic, hermeneutic existence is:
Religion, politics, and philosophy consist of
99% symbolic gestures. So, when you trim the
fat, what do you got left?
The way I see it is that a few Iggy Pop tunes
and math probably explain everything.
---
Jim
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and sci.crypt) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
End of Cryptography-Digest Digest
******************************
