No worries, mate
I don't really make that assumption, but it is the easiest one to use to communicate. One of the things I learned early on was that words, as symbols, have multiple meanings that shift over time and this is something I try to take into account. For example, for about the past 500 years or so in the West, "war" has some specific connotations about organization, state level organization, formailized "rules", formalized settings, and formalized technologies. Many of our discussions about small wars, regardless of how they are named, are really attempts to create a formalized template or symbol system to understand and predict.
True, but that is a special case. The goal of all social action by individuals and individuals acting in groups is to cause changes in some part of the environment (be that the social, cultural, economic or physical environment). The annihilation of a competator is only one strategy, there are many others and its not always successfull by any stretch of the imagination - ask King Pyrrhus.
Again, that is quite true, but also, again, it is a special case. I can't think of a single culture that has organized this way because any that did could only exist as long as there were external enemies. When we do find cultures that have held this type of organization, it has reached its limits pretty quickly and had to transform itself or collapse.
Yup, and that organization changes the people involved in it. Organizations and institutions act as "containers" of symbol systems which, in turn, are the "filters" which allow people to make sense of "reality". As organizations change, so do these symbol systems. However, when you are dealing with an institutional "understanding" of a segment of reality, you have to use the appropriate symbols.
Yup. And, just as a side note, my own research into the change process shows that it appears to take about 3 months to "rewire" neuro-symbolic connections (i.e. myelinated neuronal connections between specific brain areas; it appears to take 3 months, on average, to de-myelinate a connection, build new neuronal pathways and then start to re-myelinate them). Neuronal plasticity is a real advantage for humans (and other primates), but there are some limits to it. Not only that, but which connections are evoked seem to depend on a sensory context - think of the old idea of "which hat do you want me to answer with" .
On the whole, I would far prefer to through out the entire Clauswitzian model since it is a model based at the theoretical sophistication of Neutonian physics and we can do a lot better right now. The problem with throwing it out is that it is also the analogic equivalent of scripture - it has come to be part of the core symbology of institutional warfare. Because it is a core symbol (actually a symbol set), it can't be thrown out and replaced easily with a better system; too many people have too much invested in the symbol set. Let me give you an analogy - we "know" that certain parts of the Bible are wrong (I'm thinking specifically about the ratio value of the circumference of a circle listed as 3 when it is pi), so should we throw out everything in the entire symbol system? And, even if we wanted to, how many people would reject all changes, regardless of how well they may be warranted?
Let me get back to one specific question you asked -
Is CoG the "best one applicable"? Nope. It is based on a hopelessly outdated model of physics and social interaction from the early 19th century. Given our advances in physics, mathematics, social theory and cosmology (including the "consciousness debates" of Dennet) we would be far better to consider using Chaos Theory, quantum mechanics and the concept of Strange Attractors. It would probably take a good multi/inter-dsicplinary team about a year to develop a truly smokin' model that would blow CoG out of the water. And then what? Then we would have to sell that model to people who had no idea what we were talking about, who perceived it as a model put together by a bunch of Ivory Tower parlour pinks who had never been in combat, and who would say "Damn, Westmoreland's ghost is alive and well - freakin' computers!".
Back to you question - is CoG the "best"? Not from a modeling point, but from a sales point, the answer is "yes". It is a familiar concept, it has mutated enough from the original physics analogy so that multiple CoGs are recognized on a shifting scale (which led in physics to a recognition of strange attractors and catastrophe points) and, finally, it is symbolically supported inside the institution - it isn't "threatening".
That would be a rather long paper .
In general, I view any symbolic construct as an interface to give people a "handle" on a segment of "reality". Back when I was working on my PhD dissertation, I ended up putting together a 200+ page theoretical model of how these interactions worked - really complex, and now somewhat out of date as a result of advances in neuroscience. While some of the specifics are now out of date, the general model still seems to work pretty well. And, no, I'm not going to put the entire thing up - too many people would kill me (lolol).
No worries.
Marc
Bookmarks