Curtis Gale Weeks

"crazy, silly," 1905, probably from Fr. gaga "senile, foolish." - Phatic Communion

2010-03-05T23:04:03Z

--that's it.

Lady Gaga has seemed to spring from nowhere, shooting right to the top. OTOH, I may be behind the times. She must be the love child of Madonna and Marylin Manson.

I really like this one though. Awesomely creative video.

5GW Means... - Musing 5GW

2010-03-04T00:45:50Z

TRANSCRIBING THE STREAM

This came about as a consequence of reading, once again, Clausewitz's famous words, "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means" -- via the pseudonymous Joseph Fouche -- and wondering how the idea might need updating for 5GW. The phrase and consideration have come up previously within the context of the theory of 5GW, mostly used as a riposte for anyone who asks the rhetorical question, how can 5GW possibly be considered warfare? Such use of Clausewitz's statement seems inadequate. Using the idea in this defensive manner, one equivocates: "politics" and "war" are made to seem synonymous, or as good as, and the conversation usually devolves to something like, "It's all conflict, anyway!" But if we view 5GW as a strategy and collection of tactics for shaping the context within which all other activities occur, we might be able to say that 5GW preempts both warfare and politics. Warfare and politics continue to be waged, sure -- they may be necessary after all -- but 5GW has already beat them to the field. Incidentally, this reminds me of the X v X (re: BOOM) diagram:

--but that is beyond the scope of this stream.

How does one go about "updating" Clausewitz's description of politics/war? Besides the fact that a decision to transmute his so-called dictum may be presumptuous and idle or useless navel-gazing, actually doing so is not as easy as it might seem. Finding the adequate relationships between the nouns to describe 5GW requires a rethink of 5GW: war, continuation, politics, means. And then come the prepositions. In any case, my final paragraph in my latest look at Death Note, came back to me -- it was a forced paragraph, in the sense that a) I've had this nagging conflict with the theory of 5GW for some time and b) wanted to insert at least a beginning to the resolution of that conflict and c) Death Note as allegory provides ample examples of this conflict, itself.

--i.e., much can be said about tactics of 5GW in theory; but in application, this may not be so. To say that proxies/pawns may be manipulated, or that markets and militaries and governments may be manipulated; to say that many very small changes ("boiling the frog") may be made before anyone is the wiser; to say that black swans may be created; and so on, is to describe very generally the effects of actions (even if these effects are meant to cause other effects) without describing the actions themselves. While these are useful descriptions of the general aims of a 5GW operation, or give a broad shape to various types of 5GW campaign, they do not leap the hurdle Light Yagami could not leap in Death Note: namely, that his own actions were very direct or else the actions of his proxies were very directly tied to him since he had to keep them under his thumb. (This closeness is described as a mistake, in that previous blog post. It leads to detection.) How does one set out to influence actors and systems, anyway, without direct action of some sort? --and, remain hidden while doing so?

Within the anime, the actual Death Note is a magical device that allows Light Yagami to kill directly, at a very great distance, while remaining hidden. Most 5GW theory assumes wide-reaching effects but without considering the means any 5GWer will need to use in order to insure those effects happen.

Again, the descriptions of 5GW tactics have thus far been descriptions of broad effects or vague models. "Styles of 5GW" are like the stylings one might find on a magic knife or magic book or magic wishbone. We may "know" that many unwitting "hands in the field" would benefit a 5GW campaign; but how does the 5GWer go about collecting, or influencing, or manipulating those hands? We may say that memetic warfare will be useful when dealing with hands in the field; but how are those memes created, how does the ball start rolling? What does the 5GWer do?

Reading Mil Theory blogs is enlightening: not only is there a general suspicion of "5GW theory", but what theory one finds seems (to the 5GW theorist) like so much moving of the furniture. Not saying that the Titanic is going down...but current Mil Theory involves a relatively small set of givens (borrowed from historical mil theorists or new rising stars or buddies in the field or some admixture) fused onto relatively small chessboards which just happen to differ somewhat from chessboard to chessboard.

I think this is pretty much how 5GW theory began. Current conflicts seemed to require responses not yet imagined. This may not seem much different than the way standard mil theory operates, unless a difference is acknowledge to exist between the mil theorist's chessboard and the 5GW chessboard. Scope. Standard military theory sees combat soldiers engaged in relatively direct confrontation, and this requires a fairly small chessboard; but 5GW theory sees the context in which this combat occurs. The 5GW context sees domestic politics, domestic media, domestic economics, foreign politics, foreign media, foreign economics, and, well, so much else affecting the outcome of conflicts. However, 5GW theory did begin by looking also at "historical mil theorists or new rising stars", and did borrow much from others; but the scope of the chessboard required more tweaks to those precedents than standard mil theory seems willing to make.

Yes, it's decent enough for 140 characters or less.

Yes. I have resisted this idea for a very long time. But will not explain my resistence now.

Yes. 5GW in essence -- well, it has been around for a very long time, latent or nascent or, at times dormant. Many of "the means" suggested throughout the 5 years of development of 5GW theory are means used by thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people throughout history. This is one of the recurring arguments that anti-5GW theorists (some of whom are standard mil theorists) use: what is done, in theory, in 5GW has always been done. Unfortunately for them, the world is not what it has always been, scales are different and technology is different and even general world views are different (or going to be), and "the means" of 5GW will take on realities, in combination, that individual means used in the past never could. I would suggest that the failure to adequately name 5GW is related to this phenomenon.

I'm referring to this piece by Umair Haque. I have wanted to blog about his vision of 5GW, but time has flown. Among my not-so-tight-knit crowd of 5GW theorists, Haque's ideas caused some consternation; but I liked the piece. It is limited, but it is limited in the way any limited conceptualization of 5GW, borne of intitutional, educational, or careerist myopia, might be limited. In other words, within different fields, the nascent/latent 5GW meme may lead to particularized cases of 5GW theory which are not exactly total rubbish but may be skewed due to narrowness of vision -- and should not be called 5GW-Capital 5. They are correct visions within that field, may be useful, may even play a function within a larger 5GW campaign, however. Another example would be John Robb's version of "5GW." But there are others as well.

In other words, the failure of longer-time 5GW theorists to adequately delineate the means of 5GW may lead to this compensation: others, who have a firm grasp of some means which may be useful within a potential 5GW campaign, may make the leap of delineating 5GW from other methods of conflict resolution on the basis of those means they know best.

END TRANSMISSION

Whole Lotta Voice - Phatic Communion

2010-03-01T12:48:44Z

No matter what else you might think or think you think about Adam Lambert, there should be no question that his is the greatest voice to come out of American Idol. Occasionally he is "off" vocally; but not here:

UPDATED: Found better video.

Intimations of 5GW: Death Note, The Hunt is Over - Musing 5GW

2010-03-01T02:05:38Z

Spoiler Alert: spoilers galore; do not read if you want to experience the anime to the fullest.

(This post is the third in a planned series of posts looking at Death Note through a 5GW lens. The previous two entries were:

I was living for a dream,
loving for a moment
Taking on the world,
that was just my style
Now I look into your eyes,
I can see forever
The search is over,
you were with me all the while

(from The Search is Over, Survivor)

TOWN OF THE SOUND OF A TWIG BREAKING

Their faces I thought were knives.
The way they pointed them at me.
And waited.
A hunter is someone who listens.
So hard to his prey it pulls the weapon.
Out of his hand and impales.
Itself.

( Anne Carson, from The Life of Towns in The Best of the Best American Poetry)

In studying Death Note for clues into how 5GW might be waged, it will prove helpful to give at least as much weight to the particular errors committed by the players who are conducting or combating 5GW as to their particular characters and the broad powers and requirements of 5GW. In fact, each of these ultimately intertwine and correct or corrupt the operations; the battlespace consists not only of dreams, but also of realities, and it is in the combat between dreams and realities where mistakes may be born.

Jujitsu & at Least One Riposte

Light Yagami

Intelligence and will are not enough; the actor must have or conspire to gain access to a "choke point" from which he can, in jujitsu fashion, leverage the connectivity of a complex system against itself.

(ZenPundit, "Who Would Declare War on the World: The Nature of Super Empowered Individuals", July 27, 2007)

In ZenPundit's examination of the nature of the superempowered individual, he failed to focus on the full range of superempowerment, merely focusing on the bogey man bent on destruction. Nonetheless, I find parallels between his picture of the psychology of superempowered individuals and my recent picture of the players of Death Note:

Kaczynski demonstrated four characteristics that are likely to be shared with superempowered individuals:
a) “Lone Wolf” actor
b) Superior Intelligence
c) Opportunity for leveraging Complex Systems
d) Profound alienation, isolation or societal disconnection

In many ways, "d" in our primary players, along with "b", leads to each becoming an "a". Being lone wolves leads Light Yagami, L., and N., to contemplate how best they may do "c", or leverage complex systems, because no direct and open confrontation with their respective opponents allows them to successfully attack while remaining alive. In other words, each alone is rather weak, but utilization of the powers of others -- including, using their opponent's powers against them -- in order to attack an opponent permits both attack and defense.

Within Death Note, a more limited analogy, insufficient to the larger allegory but interesting nonetheless, would see Light Yagami in his earliest stages operating very much like Dr.Theodore John Kaczynski: the Unabomber's use of a complex system, the USPS, to directly attack and kill his victims resembles Light Yagami's use of the media (news reports) to attack and kill his victims (criminals all displayed, with full names, on television or in newspapers.)

However, for the larger allegory, this represents Light Yagami's first major mistake: Light had recently acquired the Death Note; without fully understanding it or the potential repercussions, he set out to attack directly the victims he chose in order to accomplish the larger vision he had just conceived (ending crime). Even given the fact that no mortal could instantly see how he was doing this -- so it was indirect -- nonetheless many mortals could see it happening after enough criminals within a short period of time suffered heart attacks and died while within custody. The new-found power (re: megalomania) and limited vision/targeting (monomania) had conspired to give Light a false sense of immunity. If I may interpolate now vis-a-vis the larger issue of real 5GW: this kind of nascent and clumsy 5GW will likely occur many times before any fully-developed 5GW occurs; also, even given a fully-developed and fully-conceived 5GW in process, others within the battlespace may be making many clumsy attempts.

The sense of immunity begins to crumble for Light Yagami, although in truth this process of crumbling spans the entire 37 episodes of Death Note -- after so many jujitsu maneuvers and ripostes, the sense of immunity returns only to depart again, repeatedly -- when L. is introduced into his equations. Light's first mistake leads Interpol to hire L., who is widely known as the best detective on the planet with a perfect record of apprehending criminals. At first, L.'s introduction seems a momentary blip on Light's radar; but L. performs a combo jujitsu maneuver and riposte that greatly shakes Light's sense of immunity. L.'s first action is to use a convicted criminal, in his guise, to announce his own arrival on the stage via broadcast television. This blip seems like nothing to Light, who promptly kills the impostor while the broadcast is in progress. L.'s jujitsu is to use Light's power of causing distant deaths against him: The impostor was broadcast only within one area of Japan, so now L. has narrowed down Light's location. The riposte after this defensive maneuver strikes at Light's sense of immunity: The real L. broadcasts what he has just done, and why he did it, behind a symbol for "L" on the television screen. Suddenly, Light knows he has a formidable but hidden opponent, whose name and image -- necessary for using the Death Note -- are not known.

L. contacts the local authorities in that area of Japan and joins forces, albeit imperiously. (They will become his proxies rather than he theirs.) Light just happens to be the son of the police chief, able to hack into his father's computer to keep track on their investigation of "Kira" (Light.) This is his second major mistake. Still unsure of all the potential uses of the Death Note (beyond merely killing directly), and with an unbroken although shaken sense of immunity, Light's vision and megalomania prevent him from realizing the repercussions of spying on his father and the police unit. L. ultimately determines that someone, of over one hundred or so people with knowledge of the investigation, must be Kira. This could be a member of the task force or someone close to the task force.

Light's third mistake results similarly. After L. informs the leaders of the task force about the leak/nearness of Kira, the FBI is ultimately either a) pulled in by higher-ups to investigate everyone on the task force, or b) sent by officials in the USA for their own investigation now focusing on the task force. (Bear in mind, this is an anime, and I am using it as an allegory, so overlook the inclusion of the FBI for an investigation within Japan of a Japanese police unit!) Light discovers the fact that he is being followed, which leads to him conducting the most intricate killing he has yet devised. He first uses the Death Note's powers to cause a wanted criminal to hijack a bus on which he and his follower are riding, ultimately tricking the FBI agent to reveal his identity as such during the take-down of the criminal. Then, later he uses that FBI agent to kill all the other FBI agents in Japan, by coercing him to write their names down -- happenstance is, Light's given the FBI agent a page from the Death Note, so that agent ends up killing his cohorts while writing the list. Finally, Light kills his pawn. Only problem is, that agent had only investigated two people in Japan so far, one of whom was Light; so, after studying all the evidence of these FBI deaths, L.narrows down to two potential Kiras. As with his other mistakes, Light's third mistake is to directly kill those directly pursuing him.

Once Light realizes he has moved into the spotlight, however, his game changes as he shifts into a more developed 5GW. This shift results not only from a realization of his past mistakes and his precarious position but also due to a fortuitous turn of events: another Kira appears on the stage. This Kira, Misa Amane, also has possession of a Death Note. Her appearance, before Light can co-opt her, reveals to him a greater potential for his operations, since L.'s investigation is thrown for a loop. Hitherto, Light was the primary suspect; suddenly, deaths beyond his modus operandi, or not fitting the prevailing profile of Kira, begin to occur. Light realizes that he must find this other Kira if he is to protect himself -- else, her Death Note and knowledge of it could fall into the hands of L., severely crippling Light's efforts -- but he discovers rather quickly that she has something he does not have: Shinigami eyes. Unlike Light, who would never do so, Misa has made a deal with her Shinigami to halve her remaining years of life in exchange for being able to see a person's true name and natural lifespan by merely looking at him. Light decides to co-opt her (and is easily able to do so, because she wants to be co-opted) and use her to discover L.'s true name.

Thus begins Light's shift to co-option and the use of proxies and pawns for his 5GW effort. His most significant errors for the remaining of the series will be related to this new style of fighting, even if the old error of doing things too directly is not altogether eliminated from his operations. Unfortunately for him, however, and particularly important for our study of 5GW via Death Note: His initial errors are almost too much for him to overcome. While it might have been possible for him to overcome these initial, clumsy errors, and he does succeed in killing L., the fact that he committed his early errors and allowed L.'s investigation to narrow down to him will come back to bite him ultimately.

During his initial transition to the use of proxies/pawns, he realizes something any 5GWer might come to realize. Within the anime, once L. appears Light occasionally expresses frustration at the fact that he must spend so much energy and time maintaining secrecy. He decides early in his cat-and-mouse with L. that he must focus on L. and kill L. if he is going to be able to focus on completing his vision for the world, and he hates the fact that this is necessary. Even though he will attempt to utilize Misa and another superempowered proxy to kill his main opponents -- L. and N. -- he ultimately uses these proxies mostly for keeping his initial activities going: i.e., killing criminals in huge numbers. He himself remains almost entirely focused, for the rest of the series, on a) maintaining his secrecy and his proxies' secrecy, and b) killing those investigating him, while he sets his superempowered proxies upon the world of criminals.

However great his initial errors were (and remain), his later errors are as grave. Light's megalomania causes him to misjudge his superempowered proxies and even his close normally-powered pawns. They do not always do what they should do according to his calculations.

The only great error he commits w/ co-opting Misa, in his transition to co-option, is related to his initial errors. Because she is in love with him, he must keep her close to keep her co-opted. Unfortunately, her own initial actions were clumsy: she had mailed out video tapes of messages to the world from "Kira", to be played on television stations; but she had failed to take into account DNA evidence left on the tape to seal the packages. Light actually asks her, when he first meets/co-opts her, whether she had been careful, and she replies that she was. He chose to believe her. Because he must keep her close, L.'s discovery of the identity of the "second Kira" in the DNA, plus his ongoing suspicion that Light might be Kira, serve to corner Light. (Light takes the challenge of the corner and turns the tables, or uses jujitsu to infiltrate L.'s investigative team.)

Once Light is the "new L" and has the investigation team under his thumb -- they are still investigating "Kira" and he, Kira, is their leader -- he trusts his father to shoot and kill a very close and powerful associate of N. when the opportunity arises; but his father can not bring himself to do so. This incidentally might be considered the greatest mistake in the whole series, because it is that person (Mello, presumably "M.", who went to school with both L. and N. in the cabal-orphanage for raising genius detectives) who causes the final chain of events that leads to Light's downfall.

Late in the series, Light carefully selects his final superempowered proxy -- a devout zealot of Kira named Teru Mikami, who becomes the "fourth Kira" -- a genius and fanatic who would be a perfect proxy in every way if not for the fact that he is also religiously punctual. He does everything he does on a strict repetitious schedule. If not for the abilities of N., this would have been perfectly fine. In fact, Teru Mikami's regularity serves to mask his activities from N. and allow Light and Teru to pull off a jujitsu maneuver against N. -- using N.'s powers of observation against him -- but the previous mistake already mentioned, Mello's survival at the hands of Light's father, leads to a deviation from that strict schedule when Mello throws a little chaos into the battlespace. Light would never have guessed that Teru would deviate the slightest from his normal routine, but Teru's concern for Light's plan leads him to take matters into his own hands when he should not. The observant N. obviously notices the deviation, Light does not even suspect the possibility of a deviation -- and the results of this error are too great for Light to overcome.

L.

L. enters the fray at a distinct disadvantage. While his powers of observation are great, and his obsession for experimentation unmatched within the anime, he simply does not know about the existence of the Death Note. Most fans of the anime would say that L., one of the "two greatest minds in the world", is THE greatest mind; but I do not think he is more intelligent than Light. Although Light commits errors, great errors, in his combat with L., L. commits the greatest error of all: not respecting his own ignorance. Conversely, Light is not only extremely aware of his own ignorance -- does not know L.'s face or true name -- but also knows about the Death Note and knows L. does not know about the Death Note.

L.'s ignorance of the very existence of the Death Note, at the beginning of their combat, ultimately leads L. into a cul-de-sac. He has been able to narrow down his suspects to two, and he suspects from his very first experiment that Kira must have the face and name of a victim in order to kill the victim, but beyond this his efforts can lead him no closer to Kira. If a jujitsu maneuver can safely protect him while injuring his opponent, nonetheless he can not use an opponent's strength against him if he does not know that strength (the Death Note.) L.'s conundrum forces him to make his greatest mistake, from which he will never recover. He introduces himself to Light Yagami -- who may or may not be Kira -- by leaning over to him at a university commencement event and saying, "Hi, I'm L."

L.'s reasoning is simple, it would seem: if he can get no nearer Kira than he has already, then he might try to draw Kira closer to him (if, that is, Light Yagami, one of two suspects, is the Kira.) In this regard, he is successful. But once Light has his foot in the door, L. is lost.

L.'s monomania and megalomania combine to kill him. The experiment is ALL, to him; and, he is an obsessive observer. Even from before his self-introduction to Light, and until his death, L. is still wanting to see, wanting to make sure, that Light is Kira. Light uses L.'s powers of observation and desire for experimentation against him, time and time again. One of the more interesting examples: as described in the previous post in this series, Light commits himself for observation by L., to "prove he's not Kira," as a step in his infiltration of L.'s investigative team. While within a holding cell, Light relinquishes his Death Note, to be delivered to a new proxy, and thus loses all memory of a) having been Kira and b) of the Death Note entirely. L.'s observations of Light, stretching out over more than 50 days, reveal no signs that Light could possibly have been Kira. In fact, "Kira" is still killing, albeit different targets than before -- not criminals, but corporate leaders. Eventually, L. lets Light out of the cell but -- again, just to be sure -- invites Light to join the investigative team but has himself handcuffed to Light. Together, they and their team hunt down this corporate Kira. They corner the Kira, get the Death Note -- the first time L. becomes aware of the Death Note -- and Light, upon touching the Death Note, gets all his memories back, as planned. Also as planned, there are two new fake "rules" written in the Death Note:

If the owner fails to consecutively write names of people to be killed within 13 days of each other, then the user will die.
If you make this note unusable by tearing it up or burning it, all those who have touched the note up until then will die.

According to the first fake rule, and given the fact that Light had been under constant observation for 50+ days in his holding cell, Light could not be Kira. L.'s general ignorance of the existence of the Death Note, until this time, leaves him little reason to doubt this logic. But still, he just wants to make sure....

Finally, L., pursuant to his nature, decides to test out that rule by using it on a convicted criminal. If the criminal dies after not writing in it for 13 days, he'll know that he can move from suspecting Light to be Kira. Unfortunately, this would also reveal Misa Amane as the Second Kira -- she had been in a holding cell next to Light for all those days, and had also relinquished her Death Note. When her former Shinigami hears this, his love for Misa (a very rare emotion for Shinigami) drives him to write L.'s name in his own Death Note, killing L. (Shinigami naturally have Shinigami eyes and can see the true names of any one they observe.) Of course, Light had planned it this way. The last thing L. sees is Light bending over his dying body with a self-satisfied smile: confirmation at last, and too late, that Light was indeed Kira.

In terms of the allegory, Light's 5GW had operated on auto pilot once he set it into motion (with very careful consideration of initial conditions; all other developments would flow from that.)

Light becomes "second L.", fully co-opting the old L.'s investigative team.

N.

Commits no errors. Captures Light.

At least, no irredeemable errors. And not "capture" insofar as Light stumbles away to die.

It might be said that Light captured himself; his own errors throughout his campaign had the cumulative effect of delivering him into the hands of N. N. is not as intelligent as L., but he joins the fray with advantages L. did not have; namely, all of L.'s previous efforts have changed the context of the entire battle before N. appears.

Light's inability to anticipate his proxy's deviation from obsessive patterns leads to N.'s discovery of the subterfuge Light and Teru Mikami are conducting. N. comes into possession of a real Death Note, Teru's, and Light does not know this. In other words, in the language of this allegory, N. becomes fully aware of the 5GW being conducted and also, it might be said, co-opts the 5GW, or uses jujitsu against Light. Furthermore, N.'s suspicion that "second L." is Kira is Light, has already led to some counter-co-option: Early in his battle with Light, he announces to Light and Light's investigative team that he believes Light is Kira, and this persuades two of Light's pawns on the investigative team to become double agents, in order to get to the truth. They tell N. everything that has gone on before, giving N. a much fuller awareness of the Death Note and Light than L. possessed at the beginning of his battle with Light. Most significantly, N. is made aware of the two rules of the Death Note, how they "exonerated" Light -- and, N. is able to do what L. could not: determine that the rules are fake.

In conclusion:

Broadly speaking, the megalomania and monomania of both Light and L. led to their respective defeats.

Light's errors fall into two broad categories: direct activity & too much dependence on misunderstood proxies. In many ways, the latter is also a result of too great a focus on direct effects, since his proxies failed him most when he had very specific tasks for them resembling his own prior direct activity.

We might say also that Light's vision was much too narrow. He began believing that merely killing criminals in vast numbers would lead to the creation of a crime-free world (of which he would be God, and that's not too unrealistic given his powers, reach, and effect). Most of his utilization of complexity and the ignorance others have for complexity he focused upon defending himself or maintaining his secrecy. Beyond killing criminals in great numbers, he had no coherent plan for shaping other systems (beyond media and the criminal population) for creating his New World, nor for using other systems in his combat w/ L. and N. (The fact that, by the end, many governments and police agencies had declared themselves on his side, did not much help him. N., as with L., was a superempowered individual, operating outside any states.)

L. broke the rule of secrecy when he presented himself as a target thinking to draw out his opponent.

L. could not use jujitsu, or a sufficiently developed 5GW (he never used 5GW in any case, but only some tactics in common w/ 5GW tactics), because he did not know his opponent's abilities or strengths or moves. He could not use jujitsu. What moves he could make resembled shadow boxing more than anything else.

However this may be, and however dead Light becomes, the 37 episodes end without a firm ending to the 5GW. Startling fact introduced by Light at the end, once he is cornered: All war had been eliminated and crime had been reduced 70% globally in the 6 years he had operated. N., and his pawnish investigative team(s), do not seem to care about the elimination of war and reduction of crime worldwide. N. ends up in possession of two Death Notes; but as of the end of that 37-episode run, we don't have any way of knowing what will become of the world, although ironically the final episode is called "New World."

As allegory, Death Note provides far more than can be included in any series of blog posts. One final point for now: The "Death Note" owned by and utilized by Light Yagami, along with all he does as a result of his possession/use of it, can be considered to stand in for "5GW" in the allegory, but this gets us no closer to understanding precisely how 5GW will be conducted. In other words, within the anime the Death Note is a kind of magical device. In the real world outside the real anime, the many methods for effecting complex changes within a complex environment will require exploration for anyone contemplating a 5GW campaign. Unfortunately, these methods are largely absent from consideration within the full body of 5GW theory development on the WWW. Outlines of characteristics of 5GW may be found in many places, but making the leap from dream to reality daunts too many 5GW theorists.

Two Poems While Musing on Joe Stack - Phatic Communion

2010-02-25T06:20:52Z

Recently, while in the midst of a swirl of thoughts arising from two blog posts (& their associated conversations) (& their inspiration, the act), I remembered two poems that somewhat aligned with my swirling thoughts and, as good poems will, deepened my consideration without offering any solid answers.

The two blog posts appeared on tdaxp:

In the first, Dan tdaxp asked,

If Mr. Stack thought the right bomb, in the right place, at the right time could change the policies of the Treasury Department, why didn’t he fly that bomb into Mr. Geithner’s office?

I thought the question was a little off, since J.S. explained his actions rather explicitly in his e-manifesto. He hoped the government/powers would react savagely, excessively, and thus inspire others to do what he had done, until, after enough of these reinforcing loops, the American people would rebel against the government. This at least was his stated intention.

Within the comments under that blog post, a debate arose concerning whether Joe Stack approved/disapproved of communism; I thought that, yes, the parallelism he used to close his e-manifesto --

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

--plus so much else within his last letter seemed to place both communism and capitalism into a negative category: that category used to describe systems within which wealth distribution occurs unfairly, accruing according to the wishes of the economically/politically powerful.

In the second of those posts, Dan once again attacks the Treasury Department, this time by more or less agreeing with Joe Stack's assessment of the so-called "capitalist creed":

In spite of the Treasury’s Department unjust actions here — actions so egregious they have provoked domestic terrorism — Tim Geithner has not called for the repeal of Section 1706, not said it will not be enforced — indeed, he has done nothing.

We need a Secretary of the Treasury who is tough on terrorism [and] tough on the causes of terrorism — not an enabler of terrorism, like Tim Geithner.

This is not to say that Dan attacks capitalism as broadly as J. Stack has attacked it within his e-manifesto; but it is to say that the general thrust of Joe Stack's e-manifesto, that the powerful control the system of wealth distribution by controlling how wealth accrues, might have inspired Dan to see particular instances of this dynamic with respect to the Treasury Department and Tim Geithner.

Naturally, at least pursuant to the prevailing nature of contemporary debates concerning terrorism, there arose within that thread the mystified question/accusation:

But if we repeal Section 1706, the terrorists win!

Why are you trying to appease the terrorists?!

(Jeffrey James)

Here, J.J seems to be reacting from a sensitivity to past arguments; he is not very serious in that comment. Before him, "Tim" had more or less asked the same question of Dan, i.e. whether there is a difference between Joe Stack and Islamist terrorists, inferring that Dan would say there is a difference through a rhetorical question asking if Dan saw no difference. (Dan does, and soon after said so.)

I joined the conversation (such as it was) after Tim posted for the Nth time within the blogosphere the prevailing ideological truism:

What I find fascinating (and depressing) is that some Americans view Joe Stack as an “American Patriot” or “hero”. Which is a straight-up endorsement of terrorism against the US Government, no different than endorsing the methods and madness of Islamic extremism.

(Tim)

This comment confused me a little bit, because it seemed to suggest that Tim believes no one can be a patriot while not supporting the US Government; also, that the US Government is equivalent to the targets that Islamist terrorists attack, such as mosques, other nations' governments, etc. Of course, I was confused only a little bit.

Tim then defined terrorism as using "extreme violence on innocents" to make a "political statement."

This raised even more questions for me. Ultimately I realized the distraction of those questions. The main point seems to be that nascent terrorists live among us: and, wagging our fingers at fellow Americans who might -- gasp! -- think Joe Stack is a hero simply is not going to accomplish very much. There may have been a time when the 4GWish effort to shame an opponent could work to great effect within America to maintain peace; but that time is gone for the foreseeable future. Superempowered Angry Men like Joe Stack are not going to listen to the finger-waggers -- might indeed see those finger-waggers as a part of the gullible who support the greedy powerful. Superempowered Angry Men, to the degree that they are already angry are not going to need the cheer leading of sympathizers who are the primary targets of finger-waggers. Furthermore, those sympathizers already have reasons (however ir/rational) for their sympathy, and finger-waggers using that 4GWish maneuver of delineating an us-them dichotomy will likely confirm to the sympathizers their belief that an exterior system which does not sympathize with them comfortably considers them to be outsiders, or outside the protections and support of that system. It may be possible that some mere sympathizers will ultimately begin to see the finger-waggers in the same way Superempowered Angry Men see them.

Yet, so many finger-waggers simply cannot comprehend why their targets feel something akin to jubilation when they see an outward expression of what previously hovered silent within.

And so....Musing upon these themes, I remembered these poems:

THE FEAST

Almost at the end of the century
this is the time of the pain of the bears
their agony goes on at this moment
for the amusement of the wedding guests
though the bears are harder to find by now
in the mountain forests of Pakistan
they cost more than they used to which makes it
all the more lavish and once they are caught
their teeth are pulled out and their claws pulled out
and among the entertainments after
the wedding one of them is hauled in now
and chained to a post and the dogs let loose
to hang on its nose so that the guests laugh
at the way it waves and dances and those
old enough to have watched this many times
compare it with other performances
saying they can tell from the way the bear
screams something about the children to be
born of the couple sitting there smiling
you may not believe it but the bear does

--W. S. Merwin

OUTSIDER ART

Most of it’s too dreary
or too cherry red.
If it’s a chair, it’s
covered with things
the savior said
or should have said—
dense admonishments
in nail polish
too small to be read.
If it’s a picture,
the frame is either
burnt matches glued together
or a regular frame painted over
to extend the picture. There never
seems to be a surface equal
to the needs of these people.
Their purpose wraps
around the backs of things
and under arms;
they gouge and hatch
and glue on charms
till likable materials—
apple crates and canning funnels—
lose their rural ease. We are not
pleased the way we thought
we would be pleased.

-- Kay Ryan

Intimations of 5GW: Death Note, the Rules of the Game - Musing 5GW

2010-02-22T00:05:10Z

(This post is the second in a planned series of posts looking at Death Note through a 5GW lens.)

Within the context of an allegory for how 5GW might be conducted, the Death Note itself metaphorically represents the operation of, and general operations of, 5GW.

This metaphorical representation consists of a few key, but broad, realities caused by the existence of the Death Note itself, whether as a direct cause resulting from the nature of the Death Note (read: 5GW effort) or from exterior realities which alter because of the existence of the Death Note (read: effects and N-order effects of 5GW being conducted.) In other words, the Death Note permits certain activities, or grants powers, which will affect how the holder of a Death Note operates, while restricting the application of those powers within certain limitations or channels prescribed by the Death Note; and, exterior to the Death Note itself, other forces operating within the world place further restrictions upon the user of the Death Note.

The Death Note contains over 60 rules which the user must follow or, in other cases, at least must be aware of, if he is to best utilize its power to effect changes over an extended period. These limitations, or channels/pathways of power expression, are inviolable and within the framework of a 5GW allegory may represent not only a closed-source aspect of 5GW, but also the difficulty inherent in any 5GW strategy: rather than being an anything-potentially-goes type of strategy, 5GW may in fact rely upon a strict focus through a limited set of channels/pathways.

Extended period: Necessarily, effecting physical changes within the world -- i.e., causing deaths -- will bring notice to the existence of such activity, even if the nature of that activity is not well understood by others within the battlespace.

Within the allegory of the anime, Light Yagami gradually learns the powers and limitations of the Death Note (5GW) while learning how to avoid capture by the various entities hunting him down within the battlespace. Similarly, his opponents gradually begin to learn some necessary features of the conflict as it ensues.

Secrecy

Without a doubt, this necessity takes preeminence over all others, for both Light and his opponents.

Light Yagami
- For his own protection. Given the restraints of his “power” (Death Note), he could not avoid the utter destruction of his plans should he be cornered/captured. That is, because he needs to see a face and know a person's true name, the Death Note would be more useless than a gun, etc., in a direct, face-to-face confrontation. He would be nothing more than a teenager surrounded by a horde of police.
- For hiding the operation/existence of the Death Note. If the Death Note is the metaphorical 5GW, revelation that there is a 5GW occurring, and also how it is occurring, or its features, might improve his opponents' chances of stopping him. If they also know the rules of the game, they can subvert his game.
- Light Yagami's Proxies. The appearance of a rogue proxy, along with the operation of chosen proxies, might threaten Light's discovery as well as the discovery of the Death Note(s). The discovery of the 5GW and how it is being conducted, through the capture of one of these proxies, defaults back to the preceding bullet point. Therefore, he must subdue and co-opt, or eliminate, any rogue proxies and choose his selected proxies with care.
Light's Opponents
- Light's opponents must remain hidden to remain effective. All Light needs is an awareness of their images (faces) and their true names in order to kill them at a distance by merely writing their names in the Death Note.
- Light's opponents also wish to keep their own methods hidden from Light, in order to cause his discovery, by tripping him up or drawing him into the open or otherwise collecting data outside of Light's awareness. If Light is aware of such data, he will take measures to eliminate or hide it -- the mysteriousness of Light's operation, combined with the fact that he has often so easily taken out anyone who remotely got close to him, encourages this desire for secrecy among his opponents.

Nth Order of Effects

One of the effects of the matrix of powers, limitations , and oppositions placed upon Light Yagami: He must become extremely creative in his operations. It often becomes necessary for Light to utilize proxies and pawns, or complex sets of activities keeping to the rules of the Death Note, in order to effect material changes without being caught.

For instance, according to the rules of the Death Note, he may describe the type of death his victim will experience as well as the time of death out into the future, which at one point he uses to cause certain criminals within the prison system to scrawl messages in blood upon the walls of the prison just before they die, which he uses to throw L., his opponent, a curve ball. (Sensing, I suppose, that the obsessively observant L. might suffer from analysis paralysis.)

At another point, Light relinquishes his Death Note in an elaborate plot to infiltrate L.'s organization, but ensures that the Death Note falls into the hands of a board member of a corrupt corporation. This new "Kira" works with the board of directors to designate, then kill, the leaders of other competitive corporations: a modus operandi that does not whatsoever fit the prevailing profile for "Kira," who had until that point primarily killed criminals. Intriguingly, one of the rules of the Death Note is that the owner of the Death Note will lose all knowledge of it, including knowledge of everything he has ever done with the Death Note, if he relinquishes the Death Note -- thus Light Yagami is able to hide his knowledge of being Kira as well as of the Death Note, for his infiltration attempt; but he had set up the circumstances of this plot so that eventually he would again touch the Death Note, become its owner once more, and regain all his memories as Kira.

Indeed, throughout the anime, Light Yagami finds ever more complex methods of avoiding detection while continuing his work toward accomplishing the vision he has for the world, and many of these methods include a dependence on effect of effects of effects: or, Nth order of effects.

Proxies and Pawns, Known and Unknown

As stated previously, the use of proxies and pawns often becomes necessary for Light's 5GW, in order for him to continue operating, either for continuing the killing of criminals (for the whole public to see) or for throwing off Light's pursuers, or both.

On Pawns: Except in the case of rogue proxies -- those who take up the work of "Kira" on their own -- little distinction can be made between who are Light's proxies and who are his pawns. In the first case, any of his co-opted proxies (e.g., Misa Amane) also become pawns for him to use; at least, once they are co-opted, the are usually well under his thumb. In the second, actual pawns -- for instance those he controls via the Death Note when he prescribes their manner of death -- act as proxies of his will in the moment of their acting before death. Similarly, those nearest to Light who remain unaware of his status as Kira are manipulated like pawns, but their status as unwitting proxies of his will coincides with their status as pawns.

As the effects of Light's 5GW grow in momentum, however, many unknown proxies come into being who cannot quite be called pawns. There are certainly more rogue proxies, albeit not owners of Death Notes; e.g., various "preachers" of newly forming churches or organizations, or television personalities begin claiming they are the official voice of Kira. Consequently, there are times when these rogue proxies must be eliminated, because they threaten the memetic war Light is waging by corrupting the message. Yet again, there grows within the general population a type of idol worship, or simply respect, for what Light is doing -- he is momentarily able to turn some of these into pawns when he creates a flash mob to attack N.'s base of operations in America. Finally however, near the end of the series, whole governments and police forces have begun to declare themselves on the side of Kira, although no direct action by them, besides declarations that Kira is not to be hunted down any longer, are shown in the anime. This last proxy-en-masse effect produces the ironic situation that, first L.'s investigative team, and later (and more dramatically) N.'s team are forced to operate outside the law as they hunt down Kira: i.e., the situation has been entirely reversed from what it was at the beginning of the anime, at least in reference to the society-at-large.

Some concluding notes:

Included in the above list should be: Manipulation of context. The idea has been glossed in the above, particularly the consideration of Nth orders of effect, and given the necessary secrecy of Light's campaign and the counter-campaigns of his opponents. But it is probably the overarching strategy used by both Light and L./N. in their conflict with one another, and even by Light in his general 5GW campaign. (By murdering criminals left and right, in great numbers, Light has changed the very context within which all upon the earth operate.) To give a full list of examples of this strategy used in the anime would require a great many more posts and would stretch the patience of anyone reading this. I would say, however, that even given Light's ability to manipulate the context of observations in a defensive stance -- e.g., his clever infiltration of L.'s organization, or his use of proxies to do his work at a distance -- still, both L. and N. are much better at using "manipulation of context" to attack Light's operations, or as an aggressive maneuver. (N., in particular, he-who-manipulates-toys-obsessively, seems to understand the tactic all too well.)

On the Shinigami: These are the "gods of death" who, through accident or on purpose, occasionally drop a Death Note into the human realm to be picked up by humans. Within the context of a 5GW allegory, they should be understood as the 5GW-Removed-From-5GWer. For instance, anyone the owner of a Death Note allows to touch his Death Note is able instantly to see the Shinigami who accompanies the owner/5GWer: this represents a total awareness of the 5GW, its rules and operations as well as the fact that it exists. Additionally, from time to time the Shinigami will create effects as well, on their own -- a particularly important death which occurs within the anime might stand as an example -- and this should be understood as the 5GW on auto-pilot; or, as an effect resulting ultimately from the 5GW which the holder of the Death Note has already set in motion. Shinigami do not necessarily do anything to help or hinder the holder of a Death Note, and in fact are largely autonomous, but may occasionally of their own free will (i.e. pursuant to the 5GW already set in motion) create effects. Another example would be when Light relinquishes his Death Note but instructs the Shinigami to deliver it to someone who will use it for his own personal gain -- i.e., this becomes the member of the corporation mentioned above, who then becomes the "Kira" killing off corporate competitors.

The existence of multiple Death Notes in the human realm (eventually, three) represents the existence of multiple 5GWs occurring. From this point of view, it becomes even easier to see why Light must eliminate or co-opt the holders of those other Death Notes.

Although it might be intriguing and useful to think of the Death Note as a type of Weapon of Mass Destruction - especially given the facts that, one, it operates almost solely through killing, and, two, it can kill at a great distance - the more useful analogy is what has been given above, namely that the Death Note represents 5GW in operation. Nonetheless, we might combine both views for a more limited consideration of what the role will be of WMD in the hands of 5GWers, provided this remains a side-consideration only, and of a limited scope within the scheme of the allegory.

Intimations of 5GW: Death Note, the Players - Musing 5GW

2010-02-21T03:20:39Z

(This post is the first in a planned series of posts looking at Death Note through a 5GW lens.)

It is curious that, of the characters used in the anime version of Death Note, the four principle characters in the series are amoral, megalomaniacal, monomaniacs. For an exploration of 5GW via the allegory of Death Note, this feature of the anime stands out, particularly when earlier permutations of this exploration have centered on issues such as Puppetmastery, Superempowerment of individuals, the use of unwitting proxies and unwitting pawns, and creating system-wide changes via perturbations or engineered "Black Swans", etc. These are themes repeatedly raised during discussions of 5GW, with the common presumption that either an individual or a very small group of individuals may manipulate whole systems (megalomania) via unaware proxy/pawn "hands in the field" and whatever perturbations are required toward one eventual and ultimate goal (amoral monomania.)

The four main players of Death Note

Light Yagami, pictured to the right standing and holding his Death Note(book), seems almost alone in anime, perhaps in all of literature, as the main protagonist of a story who happens to be utterly amoral, megalomaniacal, and monomaniacal. Other literary examples can be found of minor characters who share these qualities, certainly a great number of villains can be found -- in anime and B-movies, they are usually parodies--and the three other principle characters in Death Note share these qualities; but I do not recall any other main protagonist quite like Light Yagami. If we combined Hamlet and Macbeth, we would be on the right track, although certain features of those two would be annulled in the joining while other features would emerge, and I'm not sure we would not need to join another or several others to complete the mix. From Hamlet, Light would have a piercing (though flawed) introspection of himself and as piercing a vision of his society; from Macbeth, Light would have an unadulterated drive, or monomania, borne from an extremely active, usurping imagination that forces him down a path he has no chance (and no desire) of leaving. The Hamlet in Light ameliorates the violent tendencies he receives from Macbeth; his piercing vision moderates his murderous impulse--for the most part, although at times these two tendencies align in perfect harmony. The Macbeth in Light prevents eventual dissipation, at least as humanly possible.

Light Yagami is the only character in Death Note who conducts 5GW, or that is, could be said to be conducting 5GW if we are looking for lessons via this allegory. The other three principle characters are either pawn/proxy of Light's 5GW or opponents forced to operate from a somewhat 5GWish mode in order to stop him.

Light's boredom at the opening of Death Note somewhat resembles Hamlet's boredom. As the blurb for Death Note states, "A battle between the world's 2 greatest minds begins when Light Yagami finds the Death Note, a notebook with the power to kill, and decides to rid the world of criminals." Light is one of the two greatest minds; and his intelligence, as with Hamlet, has him out-of-place and very bored with all the world when the series begins. Unlike Hamlet, however, Light discovers the Death Note and consequently discovers that he has the ability to kill at a great distance. These discoveries give him a purpose, a positive focus for his intelligence that remains constant throughout the rest of the series. Also unlike Hamlet, an intelligence quite as great as Light's appears, and opposes his efforts. This power -- the Death Note, with its very specific "rules" -- and this opponent combine to force Light to invent "5GW" as he proceeds (as we might call it.)

Some will watch the series and take issue with my labeling of Light as amoral; after all, what he does -- his many murders of criminals but also, necessarily, of some innocents who might cause his discovery; his frequent lying; his manipulations of various, often unfortunate, proxies -- are immoral acts from our perspective. However, these are merely immoral acts as we see them; they result from the actions of a personality fundamentally amoral, Light's. The only guides for Light Yagami are amoral: his megalomania and his monomania, his vision of himself accomplishing his vision for the future and his vision of the future accomplished by himself. Yet others might say that his goal, the ridding of the world of criminals, might be a decision springing from a morality within Light. I think that the very first intimations of his own future may have sprung from such a dimly felt morality, but very quickly that source dries up as he begins to understand the scope of what he is able to accomplish. The goal, his vision, becomes so important to him, that all else fades utterly away. Other players and all bystanders become merely pawns to be moved or removed in his game of chess, and all actions he may take become judged solely on the basis of whether they will accomplish his goal.

L., the character crouching in the foreground in the picture above, is the second of the two greatest intelligences, and becomes Light Yagami's worst opponent. The final sentence in the preceding paragraph would serve to describe L. as well: "Other players and all bystanders become merely pawns to be moved or removed in his game of chess, and all actions he may take become judged solely on the basis of whether they will accomplish his goal." --except, L. seeks above all else to remove "Kira" and does not seek to remove "Kira" or anyone else through murder or death. ("Kira" is the name by which the world, and L., know Light Yagami or any other hidden holder of a Death Note; it is a transliteration of "killer" as it might be pronounced in Japan, the name given by the public to the hidden person who seems to be killing all the criminals.) L. is not beyond breaking all the laws created by man; he will "remove" players by having them abducted and held for months, for instance, under interrogation and observation and without trial. His primary reasoning against killing seems to be that he would desire to interrogate and observe far more, which killing would make impossible.

L. does not, however, rule out the killing of another as a possible effective action. L. arrives on the scene when a world body solicits his aid in catching "Kira", whose prolific killing of criminals has been noticed. L. is introduced as the best of the three best detectives/investigators in the world -- we find out later that the second best is also L., another of his identities -- whom various agencies and groups sometimes hire when all else fails. His first act is to broadcast a convicted criminal in his own guise who declares publicly that he will find and stop "Kira". Light Yagami, seeing this on the television, promptly writes that fake L.'s name into the Death Note and kills him while the broadcast is in process. (One of the major "rules" of the Death Note is that the user must 1. have the correct name of the victim and 2. have seen the victim's face, either in person or via photo/television.) This experiment, like many more to follow, helps L. to build a picture of who "Kira" might be and how "Kira" kills.

Indeed, if we continue to draw analogies with Shakespeare, the one character from that playwright L. most resembles might be Iago, at least in method if not in personality.   L.'s monomania is capturing "Kira" and solving the case; L's megalomania arises from the fact that he knows he's extremely intelligent and also that he has never failed to catch his prey; and his amorality stems from both of these other forces, similarly to Light Yagami's amorality. L. is an experimenter who will not fail to conduct any experiment whatsoever which might help him first to understand "Kira" and then to capture "Kira", whether that includes breaking the law or utilizing proxies and pawns for his own purposes. L.'s personality is shaped by these internal forces; but also, I think from Asperger's Syndrome, albeit a highly functional version. He has no friends, due to difficulty in interactions; he is remarkably focused upon his tasks, which include hours upon hours sitting alone in front of a computer monitor; he has excessive knowledge in several fields but sometimes is completely bewildered by others, particularly those dealing with human psychology; he snacks on food continuously as if it is a kind of private game he's playing while doing other things. I think his AS is part of what allows him to use pawns/proxies without much thought beyond what he will learn from doing so. Additionally, his AS may be one of the forces behind his profound skepticism, or his distrust of apparent realities, which leads him on to ever new experiments in his effort to discover the deeper realities of what is happening in his contest with "Kira."

L. seems certainly capable of conducting 5GW of some form; but he does not, for this reason: He has no sort of systemic vision, i.e., no vision of the future or ultimate goal he would see emerge from his activities. He just wants to catch "Kira." He may use tactics of 5GW, e.g., manipulation of context, use of deception, use of proxies and pawns, and so forth, and these are one reason he remains such a formidable opponent for Light; but they are not, themselves, 5GW.   Indeed, when comparing these two, one distinction seems most apparent: Where L. is receptive primarily (i.e., via his observation, and his experiments to multiply observations), Light Yagami is prospective (uses these tactics and other actions to create future realities.)   This feature of L. even appears in his image; he has very large eyes. To the degree that L. operates prospectively, it is merely to increase his reception, or observation of data, from his experimentation. However, this aspect of L. represents the most significant threat to Light Yagami, since the one thing Light cannot let happen is his discovery, which would undo everything. (Incidentally, Light Yagami's greatest weakness is that he is not very receptive himself, or greatly skeptical; he is a mover and a shaker rather than an observer, and when he observes, it is primarily internally, i.e., at his own experience and understanding, which he mines with a very acute intelligence.)

Misa Amane, the third in this pantheon of four,

is one of the more peculiar characters in anime I have seen. In many ways, she is represented like most women in Japanese anime: hyper-innocent, hyper-bubbly, hyper-blond, and hyper-brainless. From a literary standpoint, these features combine with her role and activities in this anime to create something new. She is a prolific murderess. Misa happens to come into contact with a second Death Note, which she begins using on her own, following the example of "Kira" whom she idolizes. By this point, the mythology surrounding Light Yagami has begun to take hold in the general public, and Misa sees herself as one of his disciples -- although she would never use that word to describe her relationship to him. No, he is a Great Person, doing what needs to be done in the world, whoever he is; and so she sets out to grab his attention, because 1. she believes in what he is doing and 2. she wants to meet him. Consequently, she becomes a rogue proxy, going about various killings and even a high publicity stunt (involving killings) hoping he will take notice.

She eventually does meet him, even sees him in person and learns his real name, all before he has a chance to know that she has. In other words, she could kill him at any moment with her Death Note. But she does not. Instead, discovering that he is a young and handsome man, her motivation changes. She continues to believe in his dream, ostensibly -- a world without crime -- but her motivation becomes love: She wants him to love her and be her lover. The dream of a crime-free world all but disappears with this new motivation. Light Yagami uses this fact to turn her from being a rogue proxy -- much too dangerous for his plan/vision -- to being a direct proxy/pawn that he will use throughout the series. (It being necessary, quite frequently, that someone else commit the murders from-a-distance with a Death Note.)

Her monomania: serving Light Yagami, in the hopes he will come to love her, but also as a means toward achieving his dream. Her megalomania: that she may become worthy of him and his purpose, i.e., that she is worthy of being worthy, because she serves him. Her amorality: she is certainly not above killing an innocent or several if they stand in the way of Light. What is odd about Misa is the fact that she remains innocent, bubbly, brain-dead, without being a totally empty personality or even totally stupid -- while she kills left and right according to the death lists he makes for her. She shows neither a smidgen of doubt or guilt about her killings, nor even anger toward those hunting Light or hurting his cause (but fears for Light instead.) At the same time, we know that her original motivation, the reason she followed in Light's footsteps at the beginning before ever meeting him, is rooted in a traumatic event involving a crime. She is a willing proxy/pawn, cognizant of the fact that she is, and accepts her role as, we might say, a "part of the process of 5GW," so that finally the distinction between love and that role as a motivation blurs. And despite her apparent (and to everyone else annoying) personality traits, she remains a dependable proxy (insofar as Light allows her to be.)

N., or Near, becomes Light's final opponent to emerge on the stage.

In many respects, I could copy-paste everything from above, on L., here. Even the eyes have it. As the name might suggest, N. comes from the same school -- literally, an orphanage -- that served as L.'s home in childhood. In fact, N. was raised as one potential successor to L. (The orphanage set-up somewhat resembles a secret society, or cabal, framework for creating highly intelligent and effective detectives/investigators/players.)

N. resembles L. in almost every way, but three important distinctions must be made. First, his Asperger's Syndrome is much more pronounced, as least insofar as N.'s obsessive private game play is actual game play -- with toys, and particularly with figurines/dolls that he uses to represent all the players in this 5GW conflict -- rather than play with food. Second, N. is simply not as intelligent as L. nor as proficient an experimenter, and he knows that he is not. Third, N. is more prospective than L., less receptive though still fundamentally a skeptic in operation.

N.'s game play, the toys, might actually represent this difference best, because he is always moving them about, using them for modeling his growing understanding of events. Where we might see in L.'s constant eating a metaphor for reception, we see in N.'s playing with his toys a metaphor for his ability to shape events externally in a more effective manner. He is literally "a mover and a shaker" with his toys -- much like Light Yagami, whose toys happen to be real people.

But as for monomania, megalomania, and amorality, N. is quite like L., albeit with a more subdued megalomania; his knowledge of L., who is superior to him, moderates his estimation of his own abilities. Nonetheless, he believes it is up to him, and him personally, to bring down "Kira", which should be seen as a form of megalomania, considering what "Kira" has accomplished to this point in the game.

Refuge, Meet Patriotism - Phatic Communion

2010-02-10T04:24:24Z

After stumbling across this tonight, Dissent is Patriotic, Mr. President, I eventually found my way to this:

It ought to be deeply impressed on the minds of all who have voices in this national deliberation, that no man can deserve a seat in parliament, who is not a patriot. No other man will protect our rights: no other man can merit our confidence.
A patriot is he whose publick conduct is regulated by one single motive, the love of his country; who, as an agent in parliament, has, for himself, neither hope nor fear, neither kindness nor resentment, but refers every thing to the common interest.
Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight.
Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country.
The greater, far the greater number of those who rave and rail, and inquire and accuse, neither suspect nor fear, nor care for the publick; but hope to force their way to riches, by virulence and invective, and are vehement and clamorous, only that they may be sooner hired to be silent.
A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion. The fallaciousness of this note of patriotism is particularly apparent, when the clamour continues after the evil is past.
Of the two, I'll pick Dr. Johnson.

The title of this post of course refers to another from the good doctor; I would include Boswell's account:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
April 7, 1775, p. 253
Boswell's full mention of this statement reads:

Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.

More on the Reinvention of the Wheel - Phatic Communion

2009-11-22T06:10:26Z

Looks like Akismet sucks about as bad as Captcha: once again, my comment didn't appear at The Committee of Public Safety; I am thought to be a spammer. So saving this here. Since this is a reply to a rather lengthy post at the Committee, and I'm not going to re-post or excerpt J.F.'s blog post, I recommend to anyone reading this the link above to see what it's all about.

But I did want to make the note on "The Reinvention of the Wheel", since the metaphor is decent for understanding how I view the generational/gradient aspect of xGW; i.e., that the theory is not an over-theory describing one singular evolutionary progression for the entirety of human history, nor that it is devoid of linearity or linear developments.

The comment is below. The previous entry on this blog is at http://phaticcommunion.com/2009/11/commenting-on.php.

_________________

If I could have gone back and edited the comment, I would have removed David's name -- everything after that first line referred only to you and Peter -- or would have introduced the comment in the way credits for movies sometimes make the distinction:

"Starring Joseph Fouche and Peter Hodge, with David Rondfeldt"

because I'd followed your link to see his paper's age. Nonetheless, on "reinventing the wheel", two points:

1. D Rondfeldt's entry to the 4GW debate, on Peter's blog, first struck me as being quite pertinent to the GMW-xGW framework, "the melee, massing, maneuver, and swarming" which, come on, if you've checked out the X vs. X table on the timeline you probably already know. When I included his name, it wasn't a reference to his old work so much as a reference to the fact that suddenly, yet once again, "the melee, massing, maneuver, and swarming" was being conjoined with GMW-xGW theory, although it was long ago joined with it.

2. "Reinventing the wheel" is a good metaphor for the type of a-historical yet generational framework of xGW, as I tend to see it, in that, whenever a similar need appears through history, a similar development may ensue. We talk as if the wheel was only invented once and then used forevermore with nary a break; whereas we might be more right to assume that it was reinvented several times, in several places, either within an existing population or by isolated and separate populations. Similarly, when a 2GW-type force was dominating, a 3GW force may have emerged to oppose it, based merely on necessity, several times in history, within particular geographical or cultural yet isolated areas or across areas.

Your example of “Bob is waging 0GW, 1GW, and 5GW..." shows a misunderstanding of xGW theory (at least xGW from my perspective) or else is a straw man you are using to build your point.

Perhaps you should better explain, for this naif, how you will achieve your universal-yet-understood-by-Joe-and-Jane theory of warfare that will be simpler than a model w/ 6 categories. Several times recently you have suggested that xGW should be disentangled from 4GW theory because some naifs isolated from Joe and Jane will forever be tying the two together and incapable of understanding xGW for that reason; whereas I'm fairly sure that Joe and Jane will not have that problem. So I'm confused by the populist-argument-from-elitist-armchair-theorist perspective. Yes, that's not a very clear description of the argument, but I suspect I don't need to be clear with you.

BTW, I did try to use the adverb "merely" a few times although I left off the "ly" accidentally once; I mean, and meant, "merely descriptive." One of the links I gave early shows, I believe, my acknowledgment that a very basic descriptive framework may be important for any theory of warfare. My problem is with theories that stop there, or are merely descriptive or, that is, have as their objective the placing of labels with the author's name signed at the bottom.

Commenting on the Reinvention of the Wheel - Phatic Communion

2009-11-22T02:14:09Z

Left a comment at The Committee of Public Safety which didn't appear after I hit submit, or otherwise notify me that it was being held for moderation, so have decided to repost it here as a reference for myself. (Had started a post for D5GW yesterday, which is incomplete, but which will include some of the below.)

----------------------------------------

You and Peter and David appear to be merely reinventing the wheel. For instance, in 2007, I had already written about the kinds of problems both you and Peter have been discussing, in "X vs X:Boom and the Generations in Conflict", specifically the question of linear progressions pigeon-holed to specific epics. Although there I also, like later contra-Arherring and some others, proposed, and still maintain, the worth in seeing these generations/grades/whathaveyou in relationship to each other:

"Viewing the generations in a linear representation, in relationship to the Boom as Arherring has done, may offer insights to different styles of fighting which need not emerge solely as a uni-directional development of warfare. We might in fact contemplate particular strategies which have been employed throughout the history of humanity (which generally runs along with the history of warfare) and place these strategies either to the left of the Boom or to the right; are they, then, also “generations” of warfare? The question may be moot, if we are only to consider strategic dynamics as they relate to the Boom, or to kinetics, in the way Arherring has done. However, to postulate a generational model is to suggest a general uni-directional development through which different strategies emerge as a consequence of previous strategies which have been employed. A singular generational model need not be applied to the entire history of warfare in order to box certain styles of fighting into specific epochs, and only those epochs, within the history of humanity; rather, a generational model only need show that a given style of fighting has resulted as a consequence of another — and this will usually occur within a specific epoch, or a small time frame, simply because some overlap of generations, or competitive conflict, must occur in order for one style to develop as a consequence of another."

In the later post, I made an argument against the sort of thing Peter has done with his "new framework" approach; such approaches, similar to Lind's -- and after all that seems to be his only model, ever -- are mere descriptive. This reduces such frameworks to near uselessness. To reduce his offering to absurdity, suppose I could do similarly by delineating the style of dress, uniform, or combat gear broken out for distinct periods of time. This could be done. It might actually describe epochs, at least vis-a-vis the apparel; or, it might actually describe certain niches or styles which have reappeared throughout history. But it's merely descriptive:

"In point of fact, Lind’s model has often caused dispute, particularly on the fourth tier, that is with regard to the prognostication of 4GW. Useful or not, the first three generations are descriptive of what has already occurred in our modern era and so are “pre-verified”. The fourth generation is a guess of what is to come, which has been partly verified by current conflicts but was left open enough to suggest all future conflicts. The fact that Lind’s GMW leaves “fourth generation warfare” open to becoming whatever happens in the future — the definition is vague and fluid enough — severely limits the usefulness of GMW. What are we to learn from GMW that will benefit us, whether as a state or as individuals engaged in conflict? By leaving no room for the development of a “fifth generation of warfare” that could defeat a “fourth generation warfare”, we are left no recourse in GMW except the ability to describe: Having described 1GW through 3GW, we come to “4GW” which we can use to tag all future events. What we are to do about those events doesn’t matter and is conspicuously absent from the GMW model. xGW, on the other hand, would seek to suggest a framework which would allow problem-solving. If we eject the word “generation” from the model and instead use something else, such as “grade” [2], and by so doing eject the most common connotations of “generation”, we can perhaps begin to postulate not merely the styles of conflict as they emerge exterior to us, one after another, but also the relationship of these styles to one another in a useful manner: i.e., we may postulate an interior activity, or a reflective and prospective activity which becomes problem-solving. One force sees its opponent’s activity, assesses itself, and seeks to develop a better method of fighting. For me, this is at heart the greatest strength of xGW."

And if I may backtrack (which these recent postulations, here and there, seem to be), I would reintroduce from that first link the very same idea, or nearly the same, given by a commenter at one of Peter's threads: that we may view these G's as they appear within a specific culture, area, etc., without trying to lump all of human history, the world over, into a singular unidirectional progression:

"For our xGW, we only need to understand the possessive pronoun. Criticisms of the xGW theory that is currently propounded usually take the extreme position of pointing out that Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar or some other historical figure or group also fought in an xGW manner or an x+1GW manner; and since the proponents of current xGW theory are assumed to be referring to the entire history of war when they discuss xGW, a theory which one assumes must fit a single uni-directional evolution of warfare spanning the entire history of humanity, those proponents are speaking gibberish. Well, some are; others concern themselves only with our xGW, limiting the theory to the period since the Peace of Westphalia or in some other way."

I.e., this effort to create a Descriptive Model (tm) that must be able to describe all that has happened in the history of warfare, the world over, may be moot or distracting. What we have to do now is understand our own time (which extends backward somewhat, even to before our particular births, but not back to the dawn of humanity) and try to come to some valuable understanding of our time which we might apply to current needs. If we do see a useful somewhat-generational -- taking several meanings of that word - development in our time, using what we see does not require that we also find a way to lump other efforts, from thousands of years ago or from vanished societies, into our vision of our own time.

Also, a final note: this hang-up on terminology seems to me to be pretty silly, even juvenile, and generally self-serving. Peter can only see so far into the definition of "generation" and so he had an apoplexy, like many others accustomed to stopping at "1." in the dictionary. "Grade" and "gradient" may serve to trip up others, for similar reasons. It is too bad, but suggesting a whole theory is trash merely because a word brings up one particular connotation for one particular person, or several persons, is useless.

UPDATE: Citizen Fouche has responded to this comment, after having a similar problem commenting at this site.

OST + EBOv2 + Engaging Emergence, Pt. 2 - Musing 5GW

2009-09-20T23:45:03Z

OST

In my last post, I explored the idea of EBOv2 after having introduced it as one of the key "principles" of 5GW. I suggested three interrelating limitations or "stumbling-blocks" to conducting the more expansive and inclusive form of EBO, summarizing these stumbling-blocks as issues relating to scope.

I also suggested Open Space Technology as a possible guide for handling these issues of scope as they relate to conducting 5GW. I have previously written about OST here (in 2007, when I first learned of it) and here (after learning of Peggy Holman's latest endeavor exploring the idea of "engaging emergence"), although I have not gone into much detail.]]> In trying to isolate the primary mechanism of OST, it will be important to distinguish between Open Space Technology and what has been called Open Source Technology -- although anyone familiar with both may find much overlap.

Where open source technology has as its primary mechanism the availability of information or, in the instances where the idea is used relating to warfare, to goods as well as information (information being a good, although including also innovative technology made available to all),
open space technology has as its primary mechanism the space in which co-operative endeavors may occur toward a common purpose.

I.e., with open source technology, technology (including information) is openly accessible and individuals may access it without ever directly communicating or interacting with one another, using that technology in their own disparate pursuits. The technology in the phrase open space technology is that very space, or the context in which individual pursuits and motivations may be explored freely, but ultimately complimentarily, in pursuit of a shared goal.

In "A brief guide to Open Space Technology," Doug Reeler of the Community Development Resource Association summarizes the general idea behind OST:

Open Space operates on the principle that to gain maximum contribution and commitment, people must be given the free space and time to deal with issues that they feel passionate about and with people who wish to be there with them.

In writing about Fifth Gradient Warfare, I have often stressed the idea, making it a key principle, that "hands in the field" will be necessary for conducting 5GW. Many reasons exist for this decision to label that principle as key. If 5GW is to remain "secret", a key aspect usually assumed to be necessary, then anyone conducting 5GW must not operate directly when shaping the context by which others orient in relation to, and act upon, their environments; indeed they, the hands, will be doing most of this work. If 5GW is to be broad-spectrum, shaping a whole system through many domains, a mere handful of individuals or organizations will not be able to do all the work, requiring mass co-option instead for accomplishing these things. Since others will be shaping the context themselves, or doing the work, we must assume that self-interest will remain a primary motivator -- this, also, will obscure the 5GW facilitators, because anyone forced to act in a certain way or against their own self-interest will not only become suspicious but will likely begin to operate against the 5GW plan.

In order to create this Open Space in which individuals may freely operate, OST utilizes 4 principles, 1 law (more of an uber-principle), and 2 key ideas relating to all 5. These are the general requirements for the possibility of self-organization, the overall mechanism behind the idea of OST.

Here are the 4 principles; but keep in mind what Doug Reeler succinctly and brilliantly stated in his essay as the purpose of these principles,

These are largely philosophical (and quite amusing for most), but are important to clear away preconceptions and any commitments to particular outcomes, apart from those inherently in the major theme. It focuses responsibility on the people attending for the process and the outcomes.

"Whenever it starts is the right time."

In other words, no strict deadlines or time lines -- which would set undue limitations on the actions and interactions of the participants as well as on the emergence of self-organization. As the Wikipedia article states it, this principle "clarifies the lack of any given schedule or structure and emphasizes creativity and innovation."

With reference to 5GW: The time scales involved for shaping large systems may be correspondingly large...or even small. For any given emergence in the system, i.e. an emergence occurring as a result of shifting contexts within any number of domains, no specific time line may be apparent beforehand. This allows the possibility of creative adaptation, not only within any given domain and for any given individual, but also for those who have initiated the 5GW. Additionally, the decision to act is not motivated by the pressures of an arbitrary time line, but is instead motivated by an individual's recognition of a matter of self-interest needing to be addressed.

"Whoever comes is the right people."

Although OST meetings have an overarching purpose or theme which might not have been set beforehand by all the participants, invitations are handed out before the meeting and only those who have some reason for going (whatever the reason) are the ones who show up. I.e., these are the people who have a stake in the proceedings. This means that everyone who shows up will be the right people -- because they have a) a motivation for being there, and b) are therefore likely to act upon the theme in any case with or without the meeting's occurrence. This principle, stated at the beginning of OST meetings, also acts as assurance that any given participant has value with respect to the proceedings -- additionally, that every participant is also responsible for the process and the outcome.

With reference to 5GW: Since 5GW will be focused on whole systems, anyone within those systems will be the right people. I.e., anyone with a stake in the outcome will be working toward an outcome, whether that is the outcome the initiators of 5GW desire or not. This requires the acknowledgment by those initiating 5GW of these stakes and an acceptance of the "hands in the field" who are likely to affect the system (whether within a particular domain or from without; i.e. the whole system.) Stating the principle at the initiation will not be so important, because anyone with a stake in the outcome will self-select anyway, per their own self-interests and to the degree that they see themselves in relation to any given system or domain.

"Whatever happens is the only thing that could have."

Per Wikipedia: "this tells the attendees to pay attention to events of the moment, instead of worrying about what could possibly happen." I would add, "or what could have happened in an alternate universe or past." In other words, this principle forces an acknowledgment of the chaotic process of self-organization. Given the fact that only those with a stake in the proceedings are acting upon the proceedings, and that these are individuals who would have been working upon the theme with or without the meeting in any case, then whatever happens during the course of the meeting would likely have happened anyway in one form or another. This forces the participants to acknowledge diversity of opinions and diversity of motivations and "diversity of innovations" borne of the individuality and unique perspectives of the participants.

With reference to 5GW: For the 5GW initiators, this principle would serve as a forward-progressing motivator. Whatever events occur through the process of emergence, as domains and systems -- contexts -- shift, are a natural result of what has gone before; thus, instead of worrying about what might have been, the 5GW initiators have an opportunity for creative adaptation to the unfolding events. For the multitude of hands-in-the-field, this will primarily be an issue of education: or, an awareness of the intricacies of inter-domain causes and effects. While secrecy has been stressed as a requirement for the 5GW initiators, all occurrences within the field of battle will need to be made clear. I.e., people do not act upon their environments, as a consequence of context, unless they see that context. The degree to which they need to see the reality of the situation will not be as important as their ability to develop an understanding and acknowledgment of the context for themselves. This will prevent the kind of nihilistic, wanton uber-destruction promoted in Global Guerrilla theory, or Joker theory, and keep hands in the field moving forward to accomplish their own self interests and definite goals.

"When it’s over it’s over."

Wikipedia: "encourages the participants not to waste time, but to move on to something else when the fruitful discussion ends." Whenever a stumbling-block occurs, which limits forward movement, or else when a participant has gained everything he can gain from a present interaction, he's encouraged to move on to something else. OST meetings, after their initiation, involve multiple parallel discussions around various topics or issues relating to the primary theme or goal. Personal responsibility and personal motivation, in order to be fully addressed, require the freedom to move on to a different topic or discussion. No one can be locked into an unfruitful discussion.

With reference to 5GW: For the initiator of 5GW, this principle would encourage a broad-spectrum view of the system. When some domains, although altered, reach a state of stability or inertia, other domains nonetheless exist in which the initiator of 5GW may operate. In other words, 5GW is not a "one-track pony." (Sorry, couldn't resist.) For the hands in the field, this principle will involve issues of mobility, which is one reason I am so enthusiastic about Thomas P. M. Barnett's writings, since nearly everything he writes involves a consideration about how mobility must be improved -- and indeed, is being improved -- for people around the world. However, regardless of that ideal, most hands in the field already have other opportunities for mobility, at the level of social groups, friendship groups, scholastic groups, or internet groups already. Self-interest will dictate needs for mobility which most people will recognize as available, even if on a small scale; in a 5GW operation, perturbations of one sort or another (from global to quite local) will bring to the fore this need to expand reach or increase the availability of sources for inspiration or potential areas of improvement. The central point of this principle, from a 5GW approach, is to avoid creating quicksand or stumbling-blocks for hands in the field and to encourage an awareness of opportunities for forward movement.

The one "Law" of OST is "The Law of Two Feet":

If at any time during our time together you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet. Go to some other place where you may learn and contribute. (Wikipedia)

This relates directly to the 4 principles already outlined. It is a "law" insofar as it sets the primary requirement for any self-organizing social system:

Without this mobility and freedom to follow self-interest, hierarchical controls set in and would have an undue effect on shaping an outcome toward, if not a single predetermined outcome, then a multitude of disparate, non-complementary outcomes which might in fact continue to work at cross-purposes and produce ongoing, never-ending conflict. I.e., limitations on initial conditions in the form of command and control will produce limited outcomes, or a type of atrophy, unable to address the full system.

It is assumed, then, that a self-organizing social system will find long term stability ultimately as a result of having these minor conflicts occur as a part of the process of organization; as these conflicts are worked out in a non-rigid, open space, they are more likely to produce a system which addresses the individual self-interests of the participants. (Indeed, Peggy Holman, referenced earlier, has said that conflict is necessary for a successful OST meeting.)

This law of OST then presupposes the existence of two types of actor, The Bumblebee and The Butterfly, for those who use the Law of Two Feet to withdraw from a present interaction.

The Bumblebee is a cross-fertilizer, moving from one group to another as individual interactions in groups become unproductive.

The Butterfly may not stay in any group for long but flits about the groups not a part of them, perhaps going to an outer hall or to a coffee table, where other Butterflies might chance to go, and spontaneous conversations concerning the main theme may occur, producing innovations or breakthroughs which are ultimately taken back to a group.

From a 5GW perspective, Bumblebees are likely to be prominent hands-in-the-field who operate in multiple domains -- or else, quite possibly also 5GW initiators who are able to cross-pollinate in a manner which will keep groups on-track toward accomplishing the primary 5GW goal. (It is likely that subtle pollination may occur in relative secrecy if these Initiator Bumblebees do not stay for long in any given group, or perhaps if they are not seen as Bumblebees because members of groups do not see them interacting with other groups.)

5GW Butterflies are likely to be a bit of a problem for 5GW planners, because much of what they do will remain beyond the bounds of primary activities. There exists the possibility of a corruption of memes, for instance, or a development of unforeseen memes, in a memetic style of 5GW operation, between these chance meetings of Butterflies. Nonetheless, following the principle of "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have," 5GW initiators should be able to adapt creatively. It may also be that the 5GW planners will themselves be Butterflies, as they meet to discuss what they have discovered or observed from the various "meetings" occurring within the battlespace.

Conclusion:

There will be other considerations arising from a consideration of Open Space Technology & 5GW, perhaps useful and perhaps not useful, depending upon what aspects of OST are studied. For instance, Doug Reeler, in his concluding thoughts to his essay, mentions this:

Tobin Quereau, in an email to me, has suggested that Open Space is a process that is "open to what emerges from the group rather than attempting to shape the group effort into an outcome that is predetermined...that validates the notion of a systemic "field" of knowledge, energy, and insight which can be accessed when the conditions are appropriate." These "conditions" are, I would argue, contained in a participative culture that is created in the design and the early unfolding of Open Space. I say early unfolding because responsibility for the process is handed over by the facilitator usually within the first hour of Open Space after which s/he has a very small role to play until the final symbolic convening.

Because it is a process of unfolding rather than a top-down process of guiding, how can any singular "5GW Plan" be operationalized via an OST approach? Nonetheless, the distinction between Open Space Technology and Open Source Technology, as described above, does point at how OST may be used to create an order rather than let chaos reign supreme (as "open source war" proponents often predict.) I.e., taken on the whole, everyone is already a member of a system, the global system, which, as it "shrinks" or becomes interconnected, already suggests on overriding Theme: How do we all get along?

We can already see intimations of OST in the interconnections present in the world. The most obvious case would be the World Wide Web: from forum sites to blogs to the central nodes of major corporations and news sites on the WWW, we can see people being Bumblebees or Butterflies, and there is great movement between sites, or cross-pollination. If I don't like one community, I can move to another for a time or I can create my own. If I need to find more productive inspiration, I can go to Wikipedia or some other site with more information than any I am now exploring. Behind the very ideas of Democracy, Free Trade, and Capitalism rests this idea of Open Space; even if some would limit these, nonetheless many of the conversations about how we should limit these are occurring on the more open WWW.

Much of the freedom to innovate and freedom to act and explore presupposed by Open Space comes from the very anonymity possible on the Web -- however, the concurrent requirement of OST is that individuals should be made aware that they are responsible for outcomes.

What should become clear: The scope of the battlespace is increasing daily, and the scope of operations must also increase. In face of this complexity, we should recognize the fact that self-organization is already occurring. The question for those who would conduct 5GW is simply, What can be done to promote the most positive outcome?

OST + EBOv2 + Engaging Emergence - Musing 5GW

2009-09-13T21:15:54Z

EBOv2

Previously in writing about EBOv2 (or, "Evolved EBO" as I quickly labeled it then), I noted that effects-based operations should be expanded to include two areas of observation when determining operations:

In general “effects-based” has two components:

“It is thus about producing desired futures.” I.e., operations should be focused on pre-determined ultimate effects. Our activities are therefore determined by those effects, or based upon those effects we are seeking.
“[T]hose engaging in effects-based operations must continuously adapt plans, rules, and assumptions to existing reality.” In other words, whatever effects actually occur within the world — as opposed to the pre-determined effects we have chosen — will shape our activities; our future activities will be based upon those effects.

One might summarize to say that, for successful adaptive operations, we must not only have a willingness to observe all that is occurring within our sphere of activity, but we must also have a clear primary goal. In fact, we might go so far as to include a consideration of the OODA loop and say that the process of adaptation in EBOv2 is a conscious re-Orientation -- as opposed to an unconscious or subconscious re-Orientation. Unconscious or subconscious re-Orientation occurs when either a) sight of the primary goal has been lost, b) the primary goal is, for whatever reasons, in the process of being altered (or is fluid), and/or c) the primary goal itself is unconscious or subconscious and not understood or apparent to the actor. Of these, "c" may lead to a positive outcome with respect to the goal for any given action; but for ongoing and extended operations, "c" is more likely to devolve to either "a" or "b" over time than remain a useful guide.

The great stumbling-block for those who would conduct EBOv2 (and for that matter, those who have attempted plain old EBO) results from three different but interrelated conditions:

The setting of sights too low, with limited reach, when deciding a primary goal.
The inability to define, and thus observe and successfully act upon, an accurate sphere of activity.
The existence of others acting within the world who are themselves observing the world at large and setting their own sights on desired futures.

These conditions occur together. A limited concept of the accurate sphere of activity reduces one's sights to accomplishing merely immediate objectives, never mind the fact that others operating in that limited sphere may be looking outside that sphere of activity for materiel and/or political/ideological support.

Furthermore, those others affecting the battlefield may not actually be within that limited sphere, at least not in a way that will be greatly affected by the limited application of EBO. Exterior allies of the interior target may affect anything from the supplying of that target (in the case of materiel) to the global marketplace (economic or ideological) upon which the practitioner of EBO depends. The application of a limited EBO, in an attempt to accomplish a limited goal, may begin to resemble, for lack of a better description, "pissing into the wind."

Finally, the practitioner of limited EBO, through a lack of foresight, may ignore others outside that sphere who could help accomplish even those limited objectives in a lasting manner by helping to achieve more significant objectives not within the limited EBO. Thomas Barnett points at an example of this when he laments that "The Leviathan is screwed." In that case, the Leviathan -- the military arm -- attempted to also be the SysAdmin -- or, nation-builder, ignoring the level of support from without, some of it coming within also, that would be required. (This, incidentally, may be an example of "b" above, or of a shifting, fluid primary objective, since the great effort at SysAdmin was not a part of the major planning for the initial operations.) Another example, or at least allegory: short-term gains led our marketplace into the thickets of recession, with the only apparent solution as viewed by those in command being the expansion of the sphere of activity of governments around the world, whether through stimulus packages or bail-outs or broader regulation, often acting in unison. (Regardless of efficacy or wisdom for any of these responses, these show the sudden realization that an expansion of the sphere of activity would be required.)

To sum: Without a primary objective that is broad enough, and which takes into account all the domains or battlespaces and actors who may affect that objective, EBO becomes too limited to be of much use and in fact may become counterproductive.

The stumbling-block, in short, is an issue of scope -- with the attending issue of complexity. In my next post, I'll look at the idea of Open Space Technology as a guide for how we may approach and overcome that stumbling-block.

War is Sausage - Phatic Communion

2009-09-01T23:25:54Z

Word History: The chaos of war is reflected in the semantic history of the word war. War can be traced back to the Indo-European root *wers-, "to confuse, mix up." In the Germanic family of the Indo-European languages, this root gave rise to several words having to do with confusion or mixture of various kinds. One was the noun *werza-, "confusion," which in a later form *werra- was borrowed into Old French, probably from Frankish, a largely unrecorded Germanic language that contributed about 200 words to the vocabulary of Old French. From the Germanic stem came both the form werre in Old North French, the form borrowed into English in the 12th century, and guerre (the source of guerrilla) in the rest of the Old French-speaking area. Both forms meant "war." Meanwhile another form derived from the same Indo-European root had developed into a word denoting a more benign kind of mixture, Old High German wurst, meaning "sausage." Modern German Wurst was borrowed into English in the 19th century, first by itself (recorded in 1855) and then as part of the word liverwurst (1869), the liver being a translation of German Leber in Leberwurst.

[The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]

--Or else, it's all about confusion:

Late O.E. (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from O.N.Fr. werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frank. *werra, from P.Gmc. *werso (cf. O.S. werran, O.H.G. werran, Ger. verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion." There was no common Gmc. word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. O.E. had many poetic words for "war" (guð, heaðo, hild, wig, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate L. bellum was gewin "struggle, strife" (related to win). Sp., Port., It. guerra are from the same source; Romanic peoples turned to Gmc. for a word to avoid L. bellum because its form tended to merge with bello- "beautiful." The verb meaning "to make war on" is recorded from 1154. First record of war time is 1387. Warpath (1775) is from N.Amer. Ind., as are war-whoop (1761), war-paint (1826), war-path (1775), and war-dance (1757). War crime first attested 1906. War chest is attested from 1901; now usually fig. War games translates Ger. Kriegspiel (see kriegspiel).

"Romanic peoples turned to Gmc. for a word to avoid L. bellum because its form tended to merge with bello- 'beautiful.' " Well, isn't that interesting!

Heroism and Fortune - Phatic Communion

2009-08-29T21:29:45Z

Our culture, therefore, must not omit the arming of the man. Let him hear in season, that he is born into the state of war, and that the commonwealth and his own well-being require that he should not go dancing in the weeds of peace, but warned, self-collected, and neither defying nor dreading the thunder, let him take both reputation and life in his hand, and, with perfect urbanity, dare the gibbet and the mob by the absolute truth of his speech, and the rectitude of his behaviour.

Towards all this external evil, the man within the breast assumes a warlike attitude, and affirms his ability to cope single-handed with the infinite army of enemies. To this military attitude of the soul we give the name of Heroism. Its rudest form is the contempt for safety and ease, which makes the attractiveness of war. It is a self-trust which slights the restraints of prudence, in the plenitude of its energy and power to repair the harms it may suffer...

Heroism works in contradiction to the voice of mankind, and in contradiction, for a time, to the voice of the great and good. Heroism is an obedience to a secret impulse of an individual's character. Now to no other man can its wisdom appear as it does to him, for every man must be supposed to see a little farther on his own proper path than any one else. Therefore, just and wise men take umbrage at his act, until after some little time be past: then they see it to be in unison with their acts. All prudent men see that the action is clean contrary to a sensual prosperity; for every heroic act measures itself by its contempt of some external good. But it finds its own success at last, and then the prudent also extol.

Self-trust is the essence of heroism.

[Ralph Waldo Emerson, Heroism]

As for military enterprises, everyone sees how large a part Fortune has in them. Even in our counsels and our deliberations there must certainly be some chance and good luck mixed in; for all that our wisdom can do is not much; the sharper and livelier it is, the more weakness it finds in itself and the more it mistrusts itself. I am of Sulla's opinion; when I scrutinize closely the most glorious exploits of war, I see, it seems to me, that those who conduct them make use of deliberation and counsel only for form; they abandon the better part of the enterprise to Fortune, and, in the confidence they have in her help, go beyond the limits of all reason at every turn.

[Michel de Montaigne, Various Outcomes of the Same Plan]

--Remembered these after reading Stephen Pampinella's "Back to the Classics." In quoting R.B.J. Walker on Machiavelli:

[T]he virtu of a prince is understood in terms of a capacity to respond to fortuna, to the capricious bitch goddess who is ‘the arbiter of one half of our actions’.

All of this leads me back (although I never left it) to the best defense against 5GW:

--in other words, taking from Peggy Holman, when confronting complexity and chaos, or engaging emergence, initial conditions are very important. Your initial condition is yourself. Emerson, Montaigne, and countless others have counseled self-trust which is not merely a feel-good, happy-go-lucky approach toward Fortune, but a recognition that, come whatever may, one may adapt to the situation. But with that idea also comes the advice to prepare oneself, through a study of virtue, before engaging in battle; and then, holding to the course, or trusting in your own ability to observe, orient, decide, and act when Fortune strikes. Success is not guaranteed -- but then, it never is in such complex, chaotic events.

However, as this relates to defense against 5GW, I would place concurrent with a study of virtue the results Montaigne mentions: "for all that our wisdom can do is not much; the sharper and livelier it is, the more weakness it finds in itself and the more it mistrusts itself." As far as acting goes, if initial conditions -- your own person and mind -- have been prepared, then trust yourself to act and adapt as needed; but keep in mind a healthy skepticism in what you observe. Without a healthy skepticism, there is no room for adaptation, no possibility of adaptation in that equation.

The Problem w/ Obama - Musing 5GW

2009-08-29T08:33:02Z

Much could be said of this old post: it's an exhibit of my tendency to go on and on, connecting diverse and probably hermetical ideas & references in some tapestry of dreaming and remembering; it's not to the point; it approaches the idea of 5GW from the philosophical, abstract point of view (and thus might not help very well the casual reader or combat soldier!); etc.

I remember this post from its first reference to Obama, before he became president, with a suggestion that perhaps he operates from a 5GW or at least a 5GW-leaning stance.

Still, to this day, I keep this thought in mind when I study what he is doing. I'm undecided. However, two other ideas color my general impression of Obama as it relates to 5GW:

From my post on understanding 4GW better, and the ideas I developed in that post (which still inform much of my perception re: 4GW and 5GW), I take the idea that younger politicians may in fact move toward a 5GW approach merely as an undigested and little-understood response to the prevailing 4GW mindset that has informed politics in America for so long now. So yes, it could be generational, reactionary; and, Obama may be one of these.
Building on what I wrote in "Emersonian Circles", and through witnessing what is now occurring w/ Obama, my growing impression is that, yes, he has always wanted to be, and probably sees himself as, a "Great Facilitator" who could bring diverse people together to accomplish great things.

Add to these thoughts: a) the latest thoughts I have had that 5GW is more about facilitation than puppet-mastery, and b) indeed my most recent post on Engaging Emergence in which I highlight a video of Peggy Holman discussing that topic w/ a host who promotes a process of organization which utilizes "dynamic facilitators", and my impression of Obama's attempt at a 5GW-style leadership takes on new dimensions.

Unfortunately, he's under the impression he can do what he does openly--not to mention the fact that the "larger circle" he would draw seems to be fracturing with every passing week. Of course, there could be some 5GW feinting, some jujitsu occurring that I simply have not -- cannot? -- see.

]]> Emersonian Circles.)