Marc,
I appreciate your response, you are smart and easy to deal with.
I would like to clarify that that the first part about Jominian and Clausewitzian war theory was just an extrapolation of two of history's most important guides, it was simplistic and narrow to clarify a cultural tendency, rather than complete and absolute explanations. But enough of that.
The probing of your brain is going to advance on two lines. Please continue to make on the spot corrections.
My argument in constructing systems of this kind is, as hinted and partly mentioned before, that it will necessarily deal with many of the same missions, have many of the same tools and live with the legacy of previous doctrines being accepted because they work in certain types of situations, according to experience. This means that the entire logic is not likely to change. Any new theory should validate previous success and failure, while of course taking into account chance, 'friction', incomplete knowledge, etc. But I would argue that most people do not consciously deal with the world by fitting it into a complete theoretical construct of logic, and for good reason. Here enters differences in how we view the world and correspondingly deal with it. More importantly, this is where it becomes so important to understand how people learn and apply. Like you said, containers of symbols... and principles, outlooks, and so on.
It seems to me that there are two threads relevant here in regards to systems. One, our understanding of the world. Second, how we decide to deal with it. Both influence each other.
The fundamental nature of the world has not changed. Look at it from a personal perspective. Show the world by explaining how people have adapted and needs combine to work as catalysts for creating value systems, administration, military forces, etc. You have history and personal experiences that prove you right. Now explain why doctrine in the past has worked and what their usage was, examplify. Now note the tasks that are likely to be faced in the future, and motivate why they are likely (should be evident from the understanding you created and the circumstances you show), and point out possible circumstances. But seeing and willing to change is not enough, we must know how we can have an effect on the world. Explain how systemic understanding is created and write, perhaps, guiding principles and, if necessary, what to focus on for the task at hand, etc. Compare the validity and difference of both old and new doctrine. Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Training to implement.
Organizational change is different in how you implement it. I think that what it boils down to is motivating those with the relevant power to order necessary changes and training to take place as fits the organizational structure, which may need to be altered. Punish those who refuse to train for the new tasks. Or destroy and create anew. There are other ways, and possibly better. Have to take leadership, power, and a bunch of other things into consideration, including money.
This was just an example. The points are: 1. Change understanding of world. 2. Identify needs, motivation, etc, for change. 3. Change. And you do all three at once, with various emphasis. OODA. Of course, there are other models for guiding this.
Then again, it is not that simple, because in teaching the understanding and training for dealing with it, you have to work with people who has to 1. accept, 2. adapt. And how you express it all depends on who you are writing for.
Do you agree or not? How would you change you personal understanding and life philosophy?
The second thread of the probing is a follow-on to how theoretical constructs are used. What is your understanding of the nature of metaphors, clichés and catch phrases as regards their effects?
Not if you get them to write it themselves and receive authority by the opinions of flexible and experienced minds in good standing in the communities.Originally Posted by marct
If everyone rejects it, maybe it was not the best way? If people continue to see the message and adopt it, you may sooner or later succeed where the methodology and understanding you have prescribed fits. There is always a generational shift going on.
People and organizations have changed in the past. What is needed is an understanding, goals, then it is all about how to get it implemented.
Martin
What you are suggesting is a major undertaking and I do have to make a living so that I can support my cats (and my wife) in the style to which they have become accustomed since I finished my last dissertation.
).
Bookmarks