The Rise of Chaos, the Rise of Counter-chaos
Daniel Deudney of Johns Hopkins discusses "omniviolence" in the post-9/11 world at Blogging Heads TV. Academia discovers the Three Conjectures and many of the themes that have been discussed on this site independently. Of course the Three Conjectures itself is hardly original, but it's useful as a starting point for discussing why 9/11 showed we were potentially headed for an unstable situation and why it was important to get a grip on it. In my view the War on Terror was necessary if only because a solution to the instability had to be found, even by trial and error. That was better than not trying at all. Dr. Deudney makes the same point about instability via a slightly different route. I think that's good news because it makes thinking about these issues legitimate and may attract first-class minds to focus on the problem in much the same way that Herman Kahn and Tom Schelling focused on the nuclear deterrence problem. It's astounding now to realize that for a long time after Hiroshima nobody knew how to rigorously think about the nuclear age until people like Kahn and Schelling articulated a framework in which nukes could be understood. Six years after 9/11 people are finally beginning to think scientifically about emergent forces in the 21st century world. Finally there's a chance for Presidential candidates to get advice that isn't rooted in the 20th century.
However, I think Deudney, in suggesting that more regulation and world government are necessary to contain chaos, misses the critical importance of counter-mobilizing other emergent trends to combat the subnational forces which he correctly sees as inheriting large parts of the post-Cold War world. While there is certainly room for government action and a new international framework to replace the creaky institutions founded after the Second World War, I will argue that big, institutional solutions are not enough. You might argue that Petraeus key insight in Iraq was to understand that MNF-I had to become viral in order to attain victory. Big institutional solutions were not enough in Iraq and they will not be enough on a global scale. The very same forces -- technology, self-organizations, memetic evolution, etc -- at the metabolic root of terrorism are also at the basis of creative, civilizing forces which can be glimpsed over the Internet. That's good news because it means that the very trends which fuel al-Qaeda also fuel its nemesis. And harnessing those forces, I think, is the part of the solution, which insofar as I can see on Blogging Heads TV, Daniel Deudney fails to emphasize.
Nothing follows.
posted by wretchardthecat at 7/31/2007 04:34:00 PM
25 Comments:
Civilizing counter-chaos sounds as if it has a lot in common with classical liberalism.
tamquam,
Why not? Every societal phase-change goes through a "Frontier" period, when things are wide open. The people of Britain today, who aren't even allowed to defend themselves against armed burglars are descended from men who sailed seas, cutlass between their teeth, both on occasions of commerce and piracy; slaving and two-fisted missionary endeavor. You didn't call the police back then and sob out your tale. All the hash got settled on the spot.
So I don't think it will be at all unusual if the networked insurgency finds their toughest opponent to be the networked counter-insurgency any more than the outlaws of yesteryear feared the armed settler, the posse and the necktie party.
Who's gonna pay for new big international governing bodies?
Why does this sound like another plan for Yurp and/or the UN to dip into the American taxpayers' pockets to enrich themselves? AND, I'll bet this new international governing body will want to take over authority for America's military (and all its toys) too .... right?
I'm not going to read the article you referenced just because I'm so leery of any "international" proposals any more.
And I don't want to hear any arguments along the lines of "if we don't go for this proposal, the terrorists will have won", either.
The reason you didn't see the discussion of networked counter-insurgency Wretchard is that the man is a fool.
A fool who can't recognize the obvious: the time of the elites, whether kings and counts and dukes and lords and such not, or Prime Ministers, Dear Comrades, Il Duces, or Fuehrers is done. Finis.
The prospect of a new League of Nations, invigorated United Nations, or the Holy Roman Empire under an unelected aristocracy is as dead as Napoleon.
The problem of World Government loonies is that while it has immense appeal to elites it has none at all to the people who find in popular sovereignty and nationalism their protection from kings who as Lincoln said "had to ride the people" for their own good. They didn't want to do it but were forced to it. The people will resist giving up their nations since it's the only protection they have against kings and their modern day liberal descendants.
I think we have a lot of folderol about what the real conflict is: a simple war of the peoples.
Muslims cannot, will not, and to remain who they are must not allow the West to exist because individualism, freedom to marry who you want, no polygamy, no cousin marriage, freedom for women, and the ability of the average person to have his own family generally free of clan and tribe rules presents a complete and total destruction of Muslim society.
This would not have mattered if the world of 1800 or even 1900 still existed, but it's not. Globalization and global trade puts the two systems in direct contact and therefore eternal conflict.
All the viral counter-force and networked counter-insurgency won't get to the heart of the problem: the inability of Muslims to coexist with Western norms of family. Hence one MUST destroy the other or some form of total separation via complete collapse of global trade be accomplished.
Far more terrifying is the application of reason and logic and science to the root of the conflict: over two incompatible models of family organization and formation. With inevitably the realization that the war between the peoples will continue until one side destroys the other. Since if it's a war between the peoples, any "hawk" can restart hostilities by huge provocations, along the lines of nukes going off in four or five cities of one of the peoples.
In such a conflict I don't see a global government (which being comprised of elites would not care a whit about the people like all kings and dukes and princes) or much of a networked counter-insurgency. Rather a few nations focusing the whole of the national energy in a war of survival ala the Pacific circa 1941-45. Or as I've said before, that "Silverado" moment. The one where Kevin Kline's character realizes that Brian Dennehy's character won't pose a threat if he's dead.
I understand the hope Wretchard of a networked counter-insurgency "containing" things but sadly that was never in the cards with a war between peoples over something as fundamental as family formation.
"Silverado"
A fabulous, vastly under-appreciated movie.
Loved it. Many times.
Wretchard -
Deudney's prime error is the use of the phrase "Control Regime." It may be possible that a Control Regime may effectively control the spread of nuclear weapons (the necessary radioactive materials are just too hard to produce and too hard to hide), but no control regime can combat bioweapon attacks or "kinetic-on-infrastructure" warfare (such as hijacking a plane, or bombing a large dam, or what have you, wherever you use a "non-nuke" amount of force to produce a disproportionate amount of damage).
A "Global International Regulatory Capacity" which recognizes the danger of networked insurgencies, however, and intelligent relies on the strengths and weaknesses of local actors (like 2nd Lt.s in Iraq) and centralized intelligence sharing (like Wikipedia) would be very helpful, however. Far better to have an aware and imperfect international capacity than one which is totally unaware of the dangers and effects (through ignorance) policies counter-productive to world safety.
We also need to develop a regime which effectively sanctions local regimes who cannot (Pakistan) or will not (Iran, North Korea) effectively support hyper-local civilizing forces. Sufficiently organized and internally cohesive un-civilizing forces which control large geographies (such as the Iranian regime) are largely immune to bloggers. Just ask the average North Korean "citizen."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Whiskey_199:
"The prospect of a new League of Nations, invigorated United Nations, or the Holy Roman Empire under an unelected aristocracy is as dead as Napoleon."
In the sense of top down _control_, yes. But organizing forces allow networks to act efficiently. You and I can communicate this way because of standards such as TCP/IP and HTML. We can pool our knowledge on Wikipedia (a centralized database). We can organize flash mobs using cell phones, over a common carrier GSM network. We can also be stymied in these efforts by a well meaning government who makes stupid regulations and uses the police power to enforce them. Centralizing some things is not all bad. It can be very empowering - if done right. A Napolean who, instead of commanding, informs and organizes (like Paul Revere) would be very useful.
"A networked counter-insurgency 'containing' things ... was never in the cards with a war between peoples over something as fundamental as family formation."
I'm going to disagree on the premise that this is more a war within Islam than between Islam and the West. The Islamic society you describe is real, but its benefits flow primarily to the elites at the top who can afford multiple wives, control the oil wealth, influence the politics of the tribe, and dictate religious truth. Those elites will be worse off in some senses (better a Governor in Persia than a citizen in Athens, I suppose), but the vast majority of Muslims will be better off (every last woman plus the men who aren't a mullah, sheik or royal cousin) in a more Westernized society (one conducive to networked, civilizing forces). Muslim society will have to be rebuilt on a liberal-ish foundation, but we can count on plenty of Muslims to aid us in this cause. Networked civilizing forces which empower women and the common man is Arab nations will see great success.
Two points:
1. Democracy is not a pre-condition to civilizing forces (although it helps):
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4622
2. Blogger needs an "edit post" feature, instead of just "delete"
Brock -- I think there is no way at all to control the spread of nuclear technology.
If Libya can hold Bulgarian nurses hostage with trumped up death penalty charges and get the EU/France to give them nuclear technology, and North Korea, China, Pakistan, and Iran can get and trade technology the idea that anyone can hold back nuclear proliferation is not serious.
Moreover all the things you mention, including the Internet, flash mobs, etc. depend on a government keeping something akin to Somalia or Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots at bay. We take it for granted and like fish don't see the water, but it doesn't make it any less wet.
I profoundly disagree that Muslims would be "better off" including the "average Muslim." Most women would be better off in a polygamous marriage (a fraction of the wealth and power of a powerful man is better than all the wealth and attention of an average man) which explains why Muslim women genuinely like their social arrangements and spend a lot of time defending it. Besides it's not just polygamy. It's cousin marriage, family/clan ties, suppression of women's freedom, female genital mutilation, all that which makes Muslims completely alien to us and profoundly different.
Are Muslims human beings? Of course. But they are not like us, don't want the same things, and find "freedom" profoundly threatening: clan/family is the only proven means to protect their lives, offspring, and identity both genetic and cultural.
This means marrying your cousin, after a huge bride-price. It means she's genitally mutilated so she won't enjoy sex. It means you have a huge tribe/clan to back you against rival tribes and you are obligated in turn to back your cousins against the same. It means polygamy if you have even a modicum of wealth (about 15-20% of Saudi marriages are polygamous, around 30% in West Africa).
Doctors on fire yelling "Allah Akbar" in Glasgow pretty much give the lie to the notion that Muslims want any part of the West other than technology and wealth. So too do Muslims marching in London, Paris, NYC, and elsewhere with signs saying "Islam will DOMINATE" and "Get Ready for the REAL Holocaust" or "Freedom go to Hell."
If anything as more and more contact between Islam and the West has happened through global trade and globalization we've seen more and more attacks by Muslims against the West as they are threatened by freedom and individuality.
GWB's biggest mistake was in thinking that Iraqis being Muslims "yearned to be free." They don't. They prefer their tribe, cousin marriage, suppression of women, every bit of culture and family formation that has proven itself to them for millenia.
And they will kill enough of us until we surrender to preserve that way of life. Unless we in turn end up killing enough of their men so that they simply can't fight any more. That was Grant's solution.
whiskey 199:
I think your revolution may very well become stillborn.
Rupert Murdoch's acquisition of the Wall Street Journal may not appear to be a big deal for conservatism or grassroots populism, but it is a very big deal.
Not only does the Murdoch empire gain major influence over business reporting, but it gains leverage over the conservative spectrum of American politics. This is the Weekly Standard plus Fox News plus the New York Post plus the Wall Street Journal. This would leave the National Review and the American Conservative as the only prominent conservative political journals out of Murdoch's hands.
And please tell me how al-Waleed bin Talal's 6-7% stake in News Corporation isn't ominous, especially if he quietly builds his stake to eventually take control. The Wall Street Journal's opinion page has frequently made sarcastic remarks about "Our Saudi Friends" -- how will it sound when leftists gleefully point out the Wall Street Journal's Saudi ownership?
By pointing at Rupert Murdoch, the Left will be able to focus grassroots anger against a corporate monolith of pro-business conservatism. Instead of one "mainstream" to oppose, American voters are being faced with two mainstreams. America is becoming in media terms a "land of two rivers" -- the mainstream media and the murdochstream media. The larger media risk becoming an echo chamber for the online feud between rightist and leftist blogs, especially that particularly noxious feud found with the Deuling Blogs of San Francisco.
Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are more interested in provoking a new civil war than either is in defeating al-Qaeda. Whatever the feelings of ordinary Americans, we risk getting drowned out by the sheer volume and fury of the polarization industry. And I can assure you, a professional sound system can drown out your voice no matter how loud you try to yell.
Whiskey_199: I find your comments about tribalism interesting.
The Islamic elites exercise their power via the tribal network, a network of relationships, favors, debts, and obligations that go back many generations.
What profoundly threatens them is the idea that a young man can get himself an education, get a job via his own merits, and declare himself independent of the power of his tribal elders. That their most capable young tribal members increasingly choose to live their own lives, marry whom they please, and refuse to kneel to the old system.
There's more to the polygamy problem than women's rights. It necessarily generates a huge surplus population of frustrated young men, ideal for cannon fodder in any handy war or jihad you have lying about. They want their own, but mainly want to make it into the elite layers that have lots of money, camels (or SUVs), and wives. The best way to do that is to kill off lotsa enemies and competitors (fellow Muslims), and to conduct female-collection raids on other clans/cultures. Hello, Eurabia!
The new Vikings are here to collect, and then move in as your neighbors and landlords.
Whiskey:
Whiskey:
I agree on the incompatibility of Western and Islamic civilzation, but I think Islamic civilization is the one under greater long term threat in the war of ideas. Both Sunni and Shiite radicals perceive a successful US project in Iraq as a mortal threat to their belief system, and for this reason have declared it the "epicenter of jihad." The importance attached to Iraq in their rhetoric is no accident.
The greatest philosophers of Islam thought reason would destroy Islam and demanded blind faith and obedience instead. The intellectual virus they feared, and that the modern jihadi intellectuals also fear, has now been planted in the land between the two rivers.
Talk about your counter-mobilization ...
A fool who can't recognize the obvious: the time of the elites, whether kings and counts and dukes and lords and such not, or Prime Ministers, Dear Comrades, Il Duces, or Fuehrers is done. Finis.
.................
Actually this is the heart of the discussion today in international circles. It comes in different names of course. For the Russians the new unproductive unaccountable and totally rapacious aristocracy was the nomanclatura. they lost it with the end of the cold war. but they are trying to rebuild it. in china the unproductive unaccountable elites are the communist party and their children.
only in the usa do we have a system that does not officially support a caste system.
Western Europe is actually the battle ground again for this old caste system through the eu. Their elites are all in favor of implimenting it
what everyone notices in the USA these days is that our elites identify less with the american people and more with foreign elites. and through them the pharonic systems which they employ.
You might argue that Petraeus key insight in Iraq was to understand that MNF-I had to become viral in order to attain victory.
Please consider that Petraeus's organic approach is contained and dependent upon the institutional envelope of the US Military and Government. Without the unifying force of a central authority at the very top, a viral approach would have been uncoordinated, uneven, and ineffective. Take a look at this list of key properties of complex systems that should be taken into account in the type of viral, network centric warfare you describe:
1. NONLINEAR INTERACTION: this can give rise to surprising and non-intuitive behaviour, on the basis of simple local coevolution.
2. DECENTRALISED CONTROL: the natural systems we have considered, such as the coevolution of an ecosystem or the movement of a fluid front through a crystalline structure, are not controlled centrally. The emergent behaviour is generated through local coevolution.
3. SELF-ORGANISATION: we have seen how such natural systems can evolve over time to an attractor corresponding to a special state of the system, without the need for guidance from outside the system.
4. NONEQUILIBRIUM ORDER: the order (for example, the space and time correlations) inherent in an open, dissipative system far from equilibrium.
5. ADAPTATION: we have seen how such systems are constantly adapting–clusters or avalanches of local interaction are constantly being created and dissolved across the system. These correspond to correlation effects in space and time, rather a top-down imposition of large-scale coincidences in space and time.
6. COLLECTIVIST DYNAMICS: the ability of elements to locally influence each other, and for these effects to ripple through the system, allows continual feedback between the evolving states of the elements of the system.
And this:
Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety...which emerged from the theoretical consideration of general systems as part of Cybernetics, indicates that to properly control such a system, the variety of the controller (the number of accessible states which it can occupy) must match the variety of the combat system itself. The control system itself, in other words, has to be complex. Some previous attempts at representing C2 in combat models have taken the view that this must inevitably lead to extremely complex models. However, recent developments in Complexity Theory...indicate another way forward. The essential idea is that a number of interacting units, behaving under small numbers of simple rules or algorithms, can generate extremely complex behaviour, corresponding to an extremely large number of accessible states, or a high variety configuration, in Cybernetic terms.
All of this fleshes out what you wrote, but consider that there must be an enabling entity at the top that is a unity, not a mish-mash of competing, uncoordinated agents. The purpose of this unity is to create the rules that, when put into practice (are iterated over time), enable the requisite degree of variation on the ground:
It follows, from what we have just said, that the representation of the C2 process must reflect two different mechanisms. The first is the lower-level interaction of simple rules or algorithms, which generate the required system variety. The second is the need to damp these by a top-down C2 process focused on campaign objectives. Each of these has to be capable of being represented using the same Generic HQ/Command Agent object architecture. We have chosen to do this by following the general psychological structure of Rasmussen's Ladder, as a schema for the decisionmaking process. At the lower levels of command (below about Corps, and equivalent in other environments), this will consist of a stimulus/response mechanism. In cybernetic terms, this is feedback control. At the higher level, a broader (cognitive-based) review of the options available to change the current campaign plan (if necessary) will be carried out.
Also note that the raison d'etre of the Federalist Papers was to advocate a C2 structure -- i.e. a centralized authority,the Union -- strong enough to withstand and alleviate the internal and external pressures of disharmony. These arguments remain valid:
A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages. (F.6, Hamilton)
Or this:
Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments--what armies could they raise and pay--what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? (F. 5, Jay)
Without a central authority with requisite power, one gets undirected local co-evolution -- i.e. unpredictable, chaotic outcomes. It seems to me that Dr. Deudney's recommendation should be given a second look (it happens to be my opinion as well, arrived at after a purely scientific/abstract journey).
To summarize, a higher "unity" is needed to enable your viral approach on the ground. That unity may self-organize, but for that to happen the entire planet will have to be moved into criticality -- i.e. the Twilight of your Golden Hour. The other alternative is find a quorum and do it with eyes wide open:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. (F.2, Jay)
You do see the need for this, yes? The only question, it seems to me, is how to we do it intelligently, holding as a first principle that government is a necessary evil -- emphasizing evil.
Also note: J.G. Miller's Systems Theory, which posits a central "decider" function as the fundamental prerequisite of a viable living system -- whether it be a cell, a tribe, or a supernational organization.
Does this make sense? And believe me, I am very well aware of how anathema this is to most Americans. The only way around it, though, is if for some reason the rules that govern complex living systems, from cell to society, simply don't scale to the superorganism Planet Earth. That is the only way out.
One last thing:
Each level of living systems is path dependent -- only after particular parts, with particular constitutions and interacting in particular ways, are extant can a successful next level emerge. Perhaps we're not there yet.
But again: if that is the case, only system wide criticality (that doesn't result in extinction) will get us there.
I think it is clear: the Golden Hour should be used to unify the world under a minimum set of enforceable parameters. Otherwise...
Farewell, and adieu, to you fare Spanish ladies;
Farewell, and adieu, you ladies of Spain...
Wretchard --
It is absolutely a joy to have at one's fingertips the gift of the breadth and depth of your understanding of the world we live in and also of the worlds we came from.
It's not that one agrees with everything here. It's that the discussion is so much richer and that one is rewarded with an education.
The quality of the commentary is also several notches above other hi-caliber blogs (not that there's anything of the same species as BC, of course).
Thanks so much.
-AZM
Aristides said...
Your comments went on to long for me to follow. I believe the old saw goes something like this: "The government that governs best is the one that governs least."
What this hides is that for a government to govern... little... its people need to prefer to live in the presence of their Maker rather than the presence of a pharaoh.
What this hides is that for a government to govern... little... its people need to prefer to live in the presence of their Maker rather than the presence of a pharaoh.
////////////////
ie people need to be self governing.
its only been a slow dawning realization among conservatives in the last decade or so that the great liberal program to normalize all manner of perversion--and perverse speach while abnormalizing (if there is such a word) all manner of hate speach....-- the consequence of this has been to throw family affairs into the courts.
This stuff is costly on every level you can think of.
Inversely the great genius of faggots in high places is blame shifting.
all sins are paid for in God's economy.
The question is who does the paying.
A civilization rots when the wrong people do the paying.
Why?
Because God is just as well as merciful. And He will not be mocked.
To summarize, a higher "unity" is needed to enable your viral approach on the ground. That unity may self-organize, but for that to happen the entire planet will have to be moved into criticality -- i.e. the Twilight of your Golden Hour. The other alternative is find a quorum and do it with eyes wide open:
You do see the need for this, yes?
///////////////
Why is world government needed.
It is true the super rich have become stateless vagabonds. But when you make the world borderless moslems fly into the world trade center.
open borders died on 9/11. since then more americans have been murdered by illegals than have been killed in iraq. while the soldiers in iraq who died in battle get some honor...may the Lord have mercy on the poor soul of the american who is murdered by an illegal.
the only thing the nau bimbos would accomplish is to give away the family jewels and saddle the USA with unlimited liabilities in exchange for nothing.
but hey that's ok with the stateless superrich vagabonds. their money is mobile. as are their lawyers and guns.
The chaos is coming from the highest reaches of society. likely the dept of silly walks.
British MPs Call on Government to Remove Restrictions on "Savior Siblings"
LifeNews.com ^ | August 1, 2007 | Steven Ertelt
London, England (LifeNews.com) -- British MPs told their colleagues in Parliament on Wednesday that the European nation should remove its barriers on scientists creating so-called "savior siblings." The siblings are human embryos researchers want to create for the sole purpose of killing them for parts for unborn children with disabilities.
Using a process called human leukocyte antigen (HLA) screening, scientists can identify unborn children who could be matched with tissues from created embryos.
The current Human Tissue and Embryos Bill only allows the creation of the designer babies in cases when an unborn child has a "life-threatening" condition. Also, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) must approve each case.
In one example, the HFEA allowed HLA screening to select a donor sibling for Zain Hashmi who had beta thalassaemia and needed blood transfusions to stay alive.
The MPs want to reduce the limits to allow the creation and destruction of human life for body parts when a baby has only a "serious" condition.
If the change is adopted, pro-life advocates fear it will lead to the wholesale marketing of human beings created and destroyed for spare body parts for other humans who don't measure up to perfect standards.
After a hearing on the proposed change, a joint committee of Lords and MPs endorse it and suggested the law should be changed to allow more "savior siblings."
"We recognize this is a delicate area," it said, according to a report in the London Independent newspaper.
"However, given the Government's apparent acceptance of the principle of selecting for 'savior siblings' we do not understand why the practice is limited to 'life-threatening' conditions capable of treatment using umbilical cord blood stem cells," it added.
Health Minister Dawn Primarolo responded to the new report for the government and said, "We are grateful for the report by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which we will study with interest, and respond to in due course."
The Globalists' Plan To Give Away U.S. Patents
In order to understand the problem above its helpful to know that the number of patents being issued worldwide is going up at about a 30 degree angle annually. But much of the work especially from Japan Korea and China is deriviative. Many small patents that link back to american patents. They link the small patents together to make "synthetic patents" that push out the original work of US patents--so there is no compensation for american inventors.
To get around this problem many american inventors have have filed their patent applications and then left them in limbo in patent pending while their products went to market.
In this way they could get their products to market and enjoy patent protection because having filed the patent they would have prior consent to any subsequent filings to the same thing.
At the same time their patent details would not be available to overseas competitors--who these days have the luxury of perusing American patents from the comfort of home over the internet.
The reform linked to above would strip american inventors of this advantage.
so why invent?
A world superstructure is inevitable. What it's like will depend to a high degree on the ordering and magnitude of coming events.
When faced with an inevitable cost -- i.e. ceding natural rights and freedoms (Federalist 2) -- it's reasonable to focus on optimizing the transaction. If we wait until events give momentum to this inevitability, we will have less control over what kind of superstructure emerges. That could be really bad, for all of us: the chances of a long-term success precipitating out of unreflective chaos are very low.
I have no answers beyond this point, only intuitions and educated guesses. But we all need to take that first step, and recognize that sooner or later a superstructure must emerge. If we can approach this inevitability dialogically -- sharing our knowledge, wisdom and wishes with each other in reflective conversation -- we might be able to win for our posterity the greatest of returns on our investment.
"Better an imperfect plan implemented in time, than a perfect plan implemented too late."
Dunno who said that.
Kalroy
Post a Comment
<< Home