Staffed
Organizations
People and
groups – including staffed organizations need to learn to get their
stories straight amongst themselves. So that they can negotiate stable, mutually beneficial
agreements. The NYT Missile Defense
thread was largely an effort to show how that could be done --
"This
thread is an attempt at something new -- a format for workable, traceable,
checkable communication and negotiation between staffed organizations, with openness,
and more effective memory and accomodation of complexity that was possible
before.
With web-hyperlinks, the technology for "collecting the dots" and "connecting the dots" is now far more advanced than it was before the internet – and much of the logic people need to "agree to disagree" stably is coming into focus, too. Even on issues so complicated and problematic that it takes staffs to master and deal with them.
In MD1910 manjumicha2001
4/30/02 5:35pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1910.htm
there were these kind lines http://www.mrshowalter.net/LINKS_to_Manjumicha_NYT_MD_.htm
"
On another and brighter subject, I have noticed for some time that you are
experimenting with a unique way of public discourse, made possible by the
web-hyperlinks. Such methodology is extremely effective and powerful in
tackling complex issues which are often impossible to be properly discussed due
to various oratorical smoke screens and "purposful clouding" of
issues that often goes on in typical mass medium of public discourse today
(i.e. print or audio-visual media). I also have noted, however, your methods do
demand devoted attention of the fellow participants and good faith attempt to
follow your "thoughts"... and being lazy as we all are (and some even
acting not in good faith), you can be pretty lonely at times, I think.
Hopefully,
you can find some formal "structure' (i.e. NYT or some other web-based
media outlet's sponsorship), or platform from which you can pursue your
discourses....
The new pattern is unique and extremely effective – but commands a great deal of effort. It is not entertainment. It is intended to be used as a way of attacking problems that merit the work involved – and can be supported. . For a long time, the NYT MD board coordinated large scale efforts on an informal basis http://www.mrshowalter.net/MDSum_SolvngIntractableProblems.htm . Such efforts need more formal and stable support if they are to be sustained.
A technical fact is that we have to communicate enough so that we have enough common ground and common knowledge so that we can learn to agree - or agree to disagree - safely and stably. And only fight when we actually "have to." A Communication Model http://www.worldtrans.org/TP/TP1/TP1-17.HTML
If staffed organizations use these techniques - there can be new progress in areas which have been intractable before.
The following excerpts and links print out to about 12 pages.
a_md4000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4532.htm
MD4624 rshowalter 6/8/01 3:42pm ..... MD4532 rshowalter 6/6/01 1:48pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4617.htm
" . . . . -- this thread is an attempt at something new -- a format for workable, traceable, checkable communication and negotiation between staffed organizations, with openness, and more effective memory and accomodation of complexity that was possible before.
" There are many horrors. But there is some common ground, and there are some common goods. The good things that Putin hopes for, and the good things that Bush hopes for, even with all the differences, have much common ground, as well. And those good things, in the complex world that permits so much more than the over-simple models we have in our heads - ought to be, and logically can be compatible and not contradictory -- with careful accomodation - and some toughness and honesty sensibly applied by the many capable people, capable of honor, who are involved."
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4686.htm
a_md5000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5256.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5332.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5364.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5519.htm
rshowalter
- 12:11pm Jun 23, 2001 EST (#5892
This board is hard to read -- only a
few people have read it in its entirety. And it is not an entertainment medium
-- which makes it different from most boards. But it is showing how
communication between staffed organizations can occur -- and I hope staffs use
it. I have some hope that some are.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5893.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5914.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5963.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md5000s/md5970.htm
a_md6000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6760.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6838.htm
I've done extensive summaries of this thread, with links in the Guardian Talk thread Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror , starting at #151 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/160
Summaries of this thread after July 14 (#207) http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/218 that reads in part:
"This thread is the single most important TALK thread for discussions of military balances and peace, and I deeply appreciate the chance I've been given to post here. .
" Since Missile Defense 4433 rshowalter 6/6/01 1:48pm there have been 906 postings.
" The NYT forums have now reinstalled a search function, after a long time -- and it seems to be the same one the Guardian uses, with search page lengths the same as in these TALK threads.
" The NYT Missile Defense thread is being extensively used, and discussion and controversy are continuing. Main contributers are:
" almarst_2001, previously almarstel2001 who, since March 5 has acted as a "Putin stand-in" in the Missile Defense forum , and shows extensive connections to literature, and to Russian government ways of thought.
" gisterme , who since May 2nd has acted as a "Senior Bush administration advisor stand in" who shows some plausible connections to the Bush administration.
" Posters ( beckq , cookies ) who, according to the dialog, are the same poster, who I'd interpret as "stand-ins" for former President Clinton since August 2000
"Me, and Dawn Riley, who have been arguing for improved communication, and as much nuclear disarmament as possible within the imperatives of military balances, since September 25, 2000
"Counting search pages, for characters, gives some sense of the participation. Here are the number of search pages for these posters (as of today )
Putin stand-in, Almarst --- 66 search pages.
Bush Advisor stand-in, gisterme ----- 59 search pages
Clinton stand-in, beckq, or cookies2 ----- 7 search pages
Dawn Riley - - - - 115 search pages
Robert Showalter - - - - 166 search pages (saturated)
I've contributed the most words to the MD thread, and Dawn the most citations and the most connection to the news.
But the involvement of the "stand-ins" has been very extensive, too, represents an enormous work committment on thier part, and their postings are, I think, very impressive. The involvement of these "stand-ins" continues. I believe that their work has assisted in the focusing of problems where neither the US nor the Russians were clear about how to make contact with each other before.
This Missile Defense thread is an ongoing attempt to show that internet usages can be a format for negotiation and communication, between staffed organizations, capable of handling more complexity, with more clarity and more complete memory, than could happen otherwise.
I believe that is something relatively new, in need of development, and
clearly needed. I feel that progress is being made, and that impasses that were
intractable before may be more tractable now.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6839.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6965.htm
a_md7000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md7000s/md7217.htm
a_md8000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8062.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8258.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8303.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8673.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8820.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md8000s/md8975.htm
a_md9000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9024.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9052.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9440.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9804.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9839.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9847.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md9000s/md9969.htm
a_md10000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md10000s/md10066new3a.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md10000s/md10775.htm
messages)
rshow55
- 06:37am Jan 15, 2002 EST (#10775
of 10779) 
gisterme quotes me:
"... For a lot of reasons. One, I feel a lot safer, as far as nuclear risks go, than I did January of last year..."
and says:
" Your subsequent words belie that statement.
No, they don't. On January of last year, my guess was that the odds of nuclear destruction of the world were running about 10%/year -- the "insurance" equivalent of 35 WTC disasters per hour. Now, in part, I believe, because of this thread, and hard work of gisterme , almarst and associated staffed organizations, I think the risks less.
My guess is that the risk is cut by half, anyway -- maybe cut as low as the equivalent of 3-4 WTC death equivalent per hour. I find that "comfort," but also a good reason to continue work. The risk can be cut much more. I think we're on the way to doing it.
There is still plenty of reason for concern. And good reasons, I think, for staffed organizations, all over the world, to pay attention to this thread - which is not too big for them, with the use of search tools. Rather, it is roughly the right size.
It seems to me that this thread is doing some good, and sometimes, it occurs to me, from responses, that staffed organizations may be giving it some attention now.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md10000s/md10793.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md10000s/md10806.htm
a_md11000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_000s/md11084.htm
rshow55
- 01:52pm Jan 27, 2002 EST (#11084
of 11101) 
MD10801 rshow55 1/16/02 8:47am
This Missile Defense thread is extensive, and represents an effort to set down, using techniques the internet makes possible, an open corpus, with many crosslinks, adapted to assist in the focusing of a complex, difficult issue toward closure. It is set up as a prototype - illustrating patterns that may be useful for communication between staffed organizations.
A fairly compact ongoing summary of this thread from September 25, 2000 to
date, which is too large for easy reading, but not for sampling, is set out
with many links in Psychwar, Casablanca, and Terror -- from #151 on. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/159
lchic - 02:39pm Jan 27, 2002 EST (#11085 of 11101)
< noted Casablanca's surfaced in the Enron discussion thread | must be significant to US culture >
rshow55
- 02:59pm Jan 27, 2002 EST (#11086
of 11101)
Casablanca is common ground, something culturally literate Americans know -- and that people the whole world over understant, at the level of sympathy, and intellectually, too. I used the movie as a point of departure in PSYCHWAR, CASABLANCA, AND TERROR , which tells a key story about the Cold War, interesting to American, Russians, and others. http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/0
Especially the core story part, from posting 13 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/12 to posting 23 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/22 re is a comment in #26 that I feel some may find interesting, as well.
This core part is about 7 pages.
If people were agreed on some key FACTS about what happened during the Cold War (not how they feel about these facts, but the facts themselves) we'd all be safer, and some current impasses would resolve.
These are facts that need to be CHECKED -- and crossreferenced. The Enron
matter is showing something about how important checking is - - and how
expensive deception can be, and how dangerous.
rshow55
- 03:04pm Jan 27, 2002 EST (#11087
of 11101)
Another body of key facts involves a technical dream - - that Americans, Russians, and others feel differently about.
Some Americans like the dream. Russians, Chinese, and most europeans do not.
But the dream, like all dreams that people work for, can only be made to work, whether you are for the dream or against it, if it is consistent with the facts.
. The dream is the idea that American military forces, and the United States as a nation, can be made immune to missiles, long range or short range, carrying nuclear weapons or other destructive means, and that the United States, at the same time, can have decisive weapons, including missiles, and "space based" weapons, that will permit it to dominate all other nations with impunity.
That "dream" -- whether you are for it or against it, depends, for its practicality, on technical facts.
One cannot, as a matter of logic, rule out the dream "in general." But one CAN rule out specific means proposed to implement it. One can rule these implementations out (barring miracles that can be specified) using information in the open literature.
Some of that information has been set out on this thread. It can be checked.
Facts are safer than scenarios based on fictions. It is in the interest of virtually all Americans, and in the interest of the rest of the world, to evaluate this "missile defense" dream.
.
.
If there was diplomatic interest in getting this done, from a number of countries, the checking would follow in due course. It would, in gisterme's phrase, "save American taxpayers a lot of money."
And we'd all be safer, worldwide.
rshow55
- 03:20pm Jan 27, 2002 EST (#11088
of 11101)
As Minister Ivanov pointed, out, we need international cooperation to control weapons that we have every reason to fear. MD11057 rshow55 1/26/02 10:45am
Which means we have to be reasonable and law abiding outselves.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_000s/md11652.htm
a_new_0100s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_0100s/md068n.htm
rshow55
- 07:56am Mar 2, 2002 EST (#74
of 79)
The world is changing - - and making progress -- and I think that the MD thread, as a whole, has broken some new ground - showing new, more effective ways to present material complex enough that it requires the attention of staffed organizations.
But problems with exposition remain - - we have to find ways to present issues of logic more clearly. Some of the best examples I've seen are on the "Science Times" pages -- where smart writers are struggling with exposition issues, and making headway.
Lies are becoming less stable than they used to be -- but there's more to
do. It is a hopeful time.
a_new_1000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1652.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1935.htm
a_new_2000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2213.htm
"But though the nuclear arms reductions are a critical milestone in cleaning up the legacy of the cold war, the treaty that President Bush and Vladimir V. Putin will sign in Moscow marks the beginning of an even larger enterprise, a long-term and difficult program of integrating Russia into the West."
Those difficulties are quite real, but partly American-made.
MD1663 rshow55 4/22/02 3:45pm ... MD1664 rshow55 4/22/02 3:46pm
In MD1910 manjumicha2001 4/30/02 5:35pm http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1910.htm there were these kind lines about the work lchic and I have been doing, setting out patterns of discourse that can be used for communication between staffed organizations:
" On another and brighter subject, I have noticed for some time that you are experimenting with a unique way of public discourse, made possible by the web-hyperlinks. Such methodology is extremely effective and powerful in tackling complex issues which are often impossible to be properly discussed due to various oratorical smoke screens and "purposful clouding" of issues that often goes on in typical mass medium of public discourse today (i.e. print or audio-visual media). I also have noted, however,your methods do demand devoted attention of the fellow participants and good faith attempt to follow your "thoughts"...
If staffed organizations use these techniques - there can be new progress in areas which have been intractable before. http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_1000s/1666.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2228.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2233.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2246.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2250.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_2000s/2868.htm
a_new_3000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3734.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_3000s/3902.htm
a_new_4000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4425.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4425_26interim.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4426.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4426_27interim.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4486.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4680.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_4000s/4978.htm
a_new_5000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5042.htm
A problem we have now - that is direct and practical, is how to understand and deal with other actions - other agonies - where the consequences are a bit more scattered - - a bit less direct - - but in the aggregate involve much more damage and agony than that particular (heinous) administrative action-crime.
(Here's a "very indirect" action that we don't much condemn - the tobacco industry spends 10 billion/year promoting smoking - - and kills millinos - but indirectly - in ways that involve much complicity - and (for a long time) without direct names - and consequences made vivid.)
The arts are essential - to touch minds and hearts - in populations, and across cultures, all over the world.
In the current coupled crises - there is much more, much more widely distributed discussion than there has been in past crises - and that gives us some reason to hope.
This board is part of that - and I hope that some staffed organizations are aware of it.
So that we can touch hearts and minds, in practical ways - when situations are complicated - - and when things have to be balanced.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5045.htm
On mechanics - and new possibilities:
2246 rshow55 5/16/02 3:34pm includes this:
lchic 5/16/02 2:55pm -- the model surely needs to be connected to capabilities that permit communication and decision making that needs to be done. Interactions with staffed organizations are a part of that. To "cover the bases" on what is done is complicated - but if we do it clearly - and sort out problems -- we may be able to get closure on problems that have been intractable before.
.
.
Human interactions ARE very complicated (the ones we take for granted, living our lives, would be very difficult to describe) and logically it may be "easier" to "not listen" -- "not notice the hanging details" and "not get to closure." I'd have some comments about what Mark outlined above -- but he isn't making any false difficulties than I can see - nor false distinctions.
Does that mean that complex cooperation is hopeless when there are difficulties?
It means nothing of the sort. It means that sorting things out takes work
- - including intellectual work -- and that the job of illustrating,
discussing, focusing, agreeing - is a complicated job that only human beings
can do.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5046.htm
a great deal is possible. The internet - and related tools have greatly expanded our ability to define facts - and find common ground - given staffs, and some hard effort.
Just because of the limitations on human minds, and the differences between cultures, it used to be technically impossible to have very different people or peoples come to workable agreements on complicated matters.
Now those agreements can be brought to focus, and worked out. It is difficult, but only as difficult (and expensive) as it is.
Carnage and muddle are expensive, too. . . .
Global Village Idiocy by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/opinion/12FRIE.html was summarized by the TIMES as follows:
"Thanks to the Internet and satellite TV, the world is being wired together technologically, but not socially, politically or culturally."
We have to learn to "wire together" the world, socially, politically, and culturally, in the ways that make sense for human welfare -- that is make sense to the people involved.
The internet and other communications media are making that more necessary than before, but also more possible.
Above a certain level of complexity, staffed organizations have to be involved, and there have to be ways, that make sense in context, to check what matters enough.
Most things that people do don't matter enough -- specification is hard enough, and expensive enough - that there will be plenty of private function - well removed from the prying eyes of the "global village."
But some things do matter enough to specify. These things can be clarified so that complex cooperation is possible. To avoid fights, or for active cooperation. The communication involved is difficult and expensive (and this should be no surprise -- an enormous fraction of the effort and attention people put out is devoted to communication - and has been for thousands if not millions of years.) But anything that can be clearly stated - in words, pictures, multiple views - whatever the complexity - can be clearly set out on the internet - if it can be presented to human minds at all. . . .
Because, as Friedman says in Global Village Idiocy http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/opinion/12FRIE.html , "the world is being wired together technologically" there are new technical possibilties that can permit us to connect more humanely and efficiently, socially, politically, and culturally, when it matters enough to the people involved. . . .
We have to get some reasonable
balances - sometimes including brute force - but often including negotiation
and communication - - and the arts are very important.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5049.htm
"On October 3, there was a sequence of postings on the NYT Missile Defense forum - and all the NYT forums were closed down thereafter for four days. I was cut off sometime less than an hour after I posted this . . . http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/364
"Sometime on October 15th, a posting I made on July 25, 2001 on Psychwar, Casablanca . . and terror and Paradigm Shift. . whose getting there? was deleted by someone else. It was deleted, I believe, to alter the record of the work lchic and I have been doing on the NYT Missile Defense board . . for more than two years. The deleted link described, with many citations, a detailed briefing that I'd given almarst - - the MD board's "Putin stand-in" in March of 2001. ... http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@116.j47Aa1Pz1m8.4@.ee7b085/383
If staffed organizations started asking some questions - we might live in a considerably safer world.
Perhaps, to some degree, it is happening. It needs to.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5072.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5144.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5144new.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5304.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5358.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5956.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_5000s/5967.htm
a_new_6000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6283.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6289.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6292.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6378.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_6000s/6716.htm
a_new_8000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_7000s/8352.htm
a_new_10000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_10000s/10527.htm
a_new_12000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12300.htm
If the staffed organizations of nation states were to read these summaries of my work on this thread from its beginning, with a "willing suspension of disbelief" about my involvement with Eisenhower they might give the postings more weight - though the arguments wouldn't change all. And the extent of the work, by lchic , the NYT, and other posters would not change at all.
9002 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9001.htm
9004 - 9005 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9004.htm
9006 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9006.htm
9007-8 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9007.htm
set out summaries of work done here prior to March, 2001.
I'd like a chance to brief someone in Vladimir Putin's government - on the record, face to face - and respond to specific questions related in the "briefing" below. I should be able to do so, and do similar things, without violating any reasonable security laws at all. The "briefing" below might serve as a sample of my work product, and the subjects I'd like to discuss.
9009-10 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9009.htm
9011 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9011.htm
9012 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_9000s/9012.htm
I set out to do jobs where my own power would be limited - in some ways, nonexistent. But the assumption was that I would be able to communicate effectively with power.
And I was encouraged to do things. I was assigned projects. Every single thing I was assigned to do required some essential support from a nation state in two ways.
First of all, they all involved such complex cooperation that they were fragile - they could be stopped with "a few well placed phone calls."
Secondly, they all involved such complex cooperation that occasionally, the idea that the government wanted the work done had to be conveyed.
I have been working very hard to present technical proposals to the US
government - so that I can hope to get the essential support described above.
I've been rebuffed. It is reasonable - submitting to censorship on issues that
are reasonably classified - for me to ask for assistance from firms with
connections with other nation states - including Germany and France. I need to
be able to work. The nation owes me that, at least.
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12394.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12742.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12745.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_12000s/12791.htm
a_new_13000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13050.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_13000s/13399.htm
a_new_14000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_14000s/14250.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_14000s/14251.htm
a_new_15000s\
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15225.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15228.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15315.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15319.htm
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_new_15000s/15976.htm