An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship
Code Cracking and
(Why is Reality Cracking Important?)
by Curious George
(11 February 1997)
Courtesy of Fravia's page
of reverse engineering
Well, this essay is maybe, a little too theorethical: the
question about what is reality brings us stright into a never ending
philosophical discussion. I think that exactly as we understand the
code cracking it, we will, in due time, understand better the reality cracking it.
That's the reason
I believe that any reality cracking essay should cut some
real mustard, that is, I believe that any essay in this section
should try to tackle one of the (many) EXAMPLES of reality concealing
(mostly for commercial reasons) that surround us.
I decided to publish George's theoretical essay nevertheless, because some theory IS
because there are
many interesting starting points, because I love the phrase "The crackers
are the heroes" and, last but not least, because I hope
that curious George will send either a complement to this
essay (cracking 'real' reality examples, if you will excuse this pun :-) and/or
other, more targeted and "useful" essays.
Besides, I agree TOTALLY with the thoughts expressed by
George accompanyng his essay:
...More than that, "Reality Cracking" can be accomplished
by anyone with a critical mind. You don't need hours
of undisturbed time in front of the computer. You can
practice your reality cracking skills all day long,
everyday of your life! And you should, lest you be taken
advantage of unknowingly...
...Having read all of the Reality Cracking section, and
a decent amount of the rest, and being fascinated by the
+ORC enigma, I felt compelled to write an essay that
covers two topics. First, I discuss reality as a
whole. Second, I tried to get into +ORC's mind (funny,
me of all people, probably one who knows least about
him...) and find an overall motive... hope you enjoy!
All about Reality ~ Appropriate for all readers ~ No difficulty level
Why is Reality Cracking Important?
An Essay Attempting to Justify the Relationship
Between Code Cracking and Reality Cracking
written by Curious George
Our view of the world is our own. The particular set of
events that we experience over our lifetimes shapes what
we see in the world. There are commonalities however.
They are large reality models that whole nations
subscribe to. There are different models. Some conflict
with each other. All are subsets of the true Reality.
We must crack reality.
¿What is Reality Anyway?
Lets start from the very beginning. We talk of Reality
Cracking, but we don't really know what reality is, do we?
I believe (with lots of other people too, like Plato,
and Orwell to name two) that it is whatever you think it is.
More specifically, there are the models ("Paradigms") that
define reality for those who subscribe to them. These
Paradigms have two properties:
their strength grows directly with the number of people
subscribing to them, and they
are self reinforcing.
For example, there is the "western culture" paradigm
that the once was centered in
Europe, but now (unfortunately?) has re-centred to the
USA is, and other nations follow
to a greater or lesser extent. The Media (with a
capital "M") both creates/ preaches/
and echoes this reality and the TV-zombies suck it in
and live it. Western Culture and
the Media are just two Paradigms. There are others...
Some Paradigms to be Aware of
Christianity (esp. fundamentalism)
#'s 2, 3, and 5 all are aspects of 1. I list these as
separate, because for some people
they are strong enough to become the principle model of
reality with the others simply
being general cultural factors. i.e. a MD has the
strongest affinity for 3, and 1 contains
2 and 5 for him. A reporter on the other hand has the
strongest affinity for 2, and 1
contains for him 3 and 5.
On That Elitist Group Who Declare to be Truth Seekers
What is "news?"
Most of it is FICTION believe it or not. You know all
of those "scientific" discoveries
/polls/etc. that They cite? Most of them are
observations (correlational) rather than
experimental (cause/effect) and they haven't been
confirmed yet (and probably never
will be). Also, the reporters are forced (through no
fault of their own) to pick and
choose what they report, which is determined by what
they are interested in, and what they
are interested in is what they believe, and they
believe the news that they hear...so the
set of what the Media reports is a biased sample of the
true set of what is actually
happening. Then we get to the problem of humans'
inability to write objectively, as well as
the dominant "view of the self," (60's American
political liberalism mixed in with resurgent
Puritan values stripped of religious significance and a
healthy dose of materialism) an
aspect of the Western Paradigm.
Other reasons why news is fiction? Well, forgetting the
objectivity part, reporters
PURPOSELY misrepresent the 'facts'. Yes that's true. I
can't count the number of "moles"
within the Media who've openly admitted this to me. One
particular person related how by
peer pressure the editors select bad photos of some
people and good photos of others,
sometimes completely out of context. They constantly
manipulate the words, images, etc. to
be artificial creations representing their own
opinions, so much that when They are done,
the result is far from what "really" happened...But
many of them don't realize this (but
the especially cynical ones do and continue doing
it...) because they live within the reality
model that They help create and reinforce. They think
that They are being professionals
objectively stating "the Truth". And of course we
started this whole thing asking "what
is reality?" For the people who share the "Western"
paradigm, THE NEWS IS REALITY.
(if you didn't see it on TV, it didn't happen. This
isn't on TV. This isn't happening. You
are dreaming. When I say "asparagus" you will wake and
not remember anything that has happened
to you in the last five minutes...)
Science is formed on some basic assumptions, and even
scientists can point these assumptions out, they don't
live them. We all know that there
are things in the world that science can't explain
(yet?). Some scientists are so involved
in their model that they, from within the model, claim
that nothing else exists! Well we
know that's absurd. Almost everybody can point to an
unusual experience and say that it
happened, but they are afraid to because it isn't
"normal" and therefore it is wrong.
Religious miracles are one way of interpreting
happenings unexplainable in scientific
terms in an accepted Paradigm. We all know that there
are other things in the Universe
that we haven't begun to understand (at least in a
scientific sense). A "miracle" may be
a freak occurrence; statistically possible, but not
probable...it may be a mistake in one's
perception...such as experiencing REM sleep while
awake..."miracles" can be explained many
ways, one way being in a religious context...even the
most tenacious scientist will admit
that there are things that his theories can't explain
(satisfactorily at least) and that
describing these things with religion is valid at least
until he can "disprove" that
interpretation with scientific findings...take
evolution for example.
Some people used to believe that every type of animal
was created simultaneously by God...
now we believe in evolution. Evolution disproved a
literal interpretation of the Bible for
that particular section. (Unless you are a
fundamentalist, in which case you would argue
that science is just a way of viewing the world, and if
it conflicts with what the Bible
says, science is wrong.) Until the theory of evolution
came along, the previous notion was
perfectly valid because they had no evidence to the
Don't misunderstand me, science is a powerful tool. The
problem is that (at least so far) it
can not describe everything in our world, and people
are so intoxicated with its success thus
far that they begin to think that they indeed have
succeeded in describing everything...
We must remember that much of what we have are
THEORIES. Even though we have stuff that works
and is based off of the theories, the fact that the
stuff works doesn't necessarily mean that
the theory is a correct representation of an aspect of
Have you ever stopped to marvel at the fact that your
computer actually works? When you consider
all the issues as a whole, it seems that it must be a
ridiculous mistake. Microprocessors:
the "wires" are so close together and so thin that the
travel of electrons can actually make
the wires start to move...electrons can
jump...transistors don't have nice distinct spikes...
it is more like a curve...when the voltage is reduced,
this problem gets worse. Then we have
fluctuations in the power source...what about hard
drives? The data is packed so closely on the
platter that it merges together...to bastardize the
problem, a 01110 could end up looking like
1 to the head...the computer must essentially puzzle
out what is really stored there...if you
look at it directly it would look like white
noise...the new HDs will have their very own Pentiums
to deal with this problem...
So, if you ask a physicist, he will say that our
computers shouldn't work. But somehow, we've
tricked the Universe into letting us make them...But I
am on a tangent.
An Appeal to Authority
I mentioned Plato and Orwell above. Let me support
Remember Plato's cave? Suppose there is a person who is
sitting inside a cave and watching
shadows dance on the wall of the cave. This is the only
thing that he can perceive. For that
person, because the shadows form the whole of his
perception, that is Reality. But because
his perception is false and limited, he fails to
realize that just above and behind him there
are other people dancing around a fire which casts
shadows onto the wall below that he is
looking at. This is not a direct support of what I'm
saying, but it is pretty damn close.
Basically he is talking about the Realization that
humans can have that what we see is a
product of what we think we know.
In 1984 Orwell explicitly mentioned the Paradigm
concept. In the novel, he constructed a
"giant conspiracy" in which the elite imposed their own
Paradigm on the world. People who
live outside the accepted Paradigms are in powerful
positions...and consequently they have
enemies...anyway, the story takes place a long time
since the conspiracy was implemented.
Basically the story is about the conspiracy's
self-regulation method kicking into effect.
There will always be humans who question, and in this
situation they were betrayed and crushed.
But the "big bad guy" (name?) tells the hero the truth
about the conspiracy right before he is
crushed. The hero learns that life wasn't always like
it is now, and that the whole situation
was constructed to keep the world in stasis. He learns
that occasionally people like him begin
to question Reality, but they are easily discovered by
the Betrayer and his ilk.
Anyway, the ideas I present here aren't mine. I've
gleaned them from other writers, etc.
Possibly make take on the issue is new. There are all
sorts of philosophers who are basically
restating the same thing in different ways...
Below I attempt to unearth an underlying motive for why
+ORC is so interested in Reality
Cracking. Why did he wait for so long before bringing
this topic up? Why mention it at all
(as opposed to sticking with "pure" cracking)?
Shall I be vague and fictionalesque for a moment?
So, there's this website that I've found that's really
wonderful. There are some people who
think like me and they're also computer experts. They
"crack" things...but the cracking thing
isn't the truly special part. Cracking is an awesome
skill, and doing the exercises will
certainly help become a better Reality Cracker in
general, but I've never been one for doing
exercises...so why is this site so great?
Well there's this "entity" who is a master. His amount
of skill demands that he hide himself
thoroughly. He wants to share his knowledge with
others (lonely to be alone?) so he gets some
students. They are his most advanced and he only talks
to them occasionally and sporadically.
They don't know who he is. So anyway this entity writes
some tutorials for his students. They
learn and become really good. They create a whole
"virtual" (ack! Media word. :) academy where
they discuss and feed off each other. He is happy with
this but it is taking a life of its own.
What he really wants to do is get people to think like
How do I know this? Well he is writing/began to write
letters to his (principal?) students (who
published some of it) where he is talking about the
same stuff. The cracking thing was just a
way to get there. (a necessary way? I don't know.)
Why did the master choose cracking? Well computers/
Internet can be viewed as a metaphor for
Reality. Say that what exists on the internet (the set
of Omega) is the true reality. Say that
what we see in the Western Paradigm is what is given to
us through Yahoo, CNN, Micro$oft, and
Pointcast (especially. The whole idea of push
technology is especially revolting). Say that
when one cracks one is performing the act of seeking
For example, this web site teaches how to search the
web well, more specifically, it shows the
reader that there are other methods besides www search
engines to do it. It doesn't actually
TEACH you how to search. (that seems to be changing,
however.) Why? Because the author is
struggling with the question of how obvious he should
make his material. He seems to have
settled on the idea of a "brain activity pre-requisite"
but that level isn't defined and thus
it fluctuates depending on what you read.
Anyway, the results you get from each different way of
searching the web are like different
Paradigms. They all overlap somewhat and to find
interesting results you perform "set
operations" on the results. The only way this works is
to be outside any particular Paradigm so
that you know that the others that don't overlap with
yours exist at all.
Now lets look at cracking more specifically. There are
the creators of the program, there are
the crackers, there are the programs themselves, there
are the protection schemes, and there
are the cracks.
Going back to the Orwell example, the programmers are
the conspirators. Their program is the
Paradigm. Their protection method is the
self-regulation scheme (thought police). The crackers
are the heroes. The cracks are what Orwell didn't have;
the heroes were destroyed in his book.
In his world, the heroes started off at a lower level
than the crackers of the academy. The
heroes had to first recognize that there was a Paradigm
at all, then they had to crack it. But
in this situation Orwell created the "uncrackable
protection scheme" and the heroes were crushed
before they began the actual crack.
Now back to cracking as a metaphor. Every exercise that
is published, every essay written, and
every strainer is a metaphorical exercise for cracking
a Paradigm. You have to search through
the various programs until you find a new protection
method. Then you use the skills and intuition
that you've developed thus far to crack this new
method. The mentality required to solve these
types of problems is EASILY mapable onto the real
IMHO this is why the master chose cracking as the way.
(besides the fact that he is damn good at
it and it is especially appropriate for our
On Those Who Seek the Truth
There are people out there who've completely quit the
mainstream reality model and are living on
the outside. (+ORC being one of them). They actively
try to keep as open as possible, that way
hoping the be in a receptive enough state to get a
glimpse at the "Truth."
There are various established Ways to seek the truth
that one may use. Many of the religions
that have become Paradigms in themselves once were
effective ways. Some still can be, but when
the religion is part of the larger paradigm, it is
pretty hopeless. Some methods include first
breaking from the Paradigm before seeking the truth
(like Zen monastaries), and others such as
cracking + reality cracking only concern themselves
with breaking away from that Paradigm.
Is it built into our natures to be limited so we can't
see it and only catch glimpses and shadows,
or can we actually get the truth? (There are people in
the past who've gotten as far as we can
get, say Buddha, Jesus, the Zen masters...you know, the
founders of the great religions).
The true question that (I think) the master is leading
them toward is to tackle the question,
"Is it possible for humans to know the Truth?"
So, before beginning on this question, he must first
get his students to remove the gauze
from their eyes that humanity puts on itself, so that
they may see with the maximum ability
that humans can see with. It is like when a Zen student
goes to the monastery and the brothers
let him stay and mediate...that is us now, and when the
brothers grant him fellowship, that is
breaking from the paradigm...and when the brother
reaches Zen that is the ultimate goal...for
as we have seen before, all the philosophies and
religions that humans come up with are just
different approaches spawned from that culture/time
which are ways of attempting to reach the
(c) 1998 Curious George All rights reversed
You are deep inside Fravia's page of reverse engineering,
choose your way out:
Back to Reality cracking
Is reverse engineering legal?