MountainRunner: Against xGW, For William Lind?

Attaching a point on a historical timeline to the invention of each specific ‘Generation’ of warfare is too easily borne out by the historical record. At best you can say that the generations of XGW were continuously re-discovered in response to the equivalent lower generational doctrine of an opponent.

To me this in no way invalidates the whole framework. I wish that the term ‘generation’ had not become so attached to the theory but it seems we are stuck with it.

If we were first conceptualizing xGW today, the word to be used would be something like: “modes”, “category”, or “cat”.

Agreed.

Though the confusion of theory with theology (Lind said it so it has to be true…) probably goes deeper than any specific term used.

“order” and “class” may also fit. or “derivative”, if you don’t mind the math reference.

Would it be possible to change the terminology at this point?

If not, how could we re-define the xGW theory and framework to specifically exclude the sequential constraint of ‘generation’ without removing the term ‘generation’?

On the other hand, whether the generations sequence or not may depend on the timeframe used.

http://stephenpampinella.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/history-and-xgw/#comment-6

Agreed, obviously. Since 4GW was developed with some degree of historical experience in mind (decline of the state/non-trin warfare), the sequencing might not have to be disregarded all together.

4GW is at least two thousand years old. [1]

Be sequencing, I’m thinking on the millions to ten-thousand year scale.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/03/30/jesusism-paulism-introduction-the-revolution-of-early-christ.html

With a couple of cognitive skips, let’s see where this goes:

* retain “generation” terminology, but emphasize its definition as the act — not the result, e.g. the act of power generation vis next-generation power

* under that definition, xGW reconfigures as warfare generation, as in wave generation — waves may be a useful frame for xGW, notably acoustical waves and the harmonic/overtone phenomena

* ILO “later” generations, prefer meta/”higher” harmonics of base/”lower” frequencies

0GW - base/fundamental frequency - first harmonic
1GW - first overtone - second harmonic
etc.

For me personally, arguing this is so old-hat. But I also think that, if we look deep enough, we’ll find schisms on D5GW!

Following up on that comment (previous here and the older posted comment linked above)….it has occurred to me that we still may discern biological generations — children born within the same time frame, whether broadly within a society (boomers, genXers) or within a single family — even though children have always been born throughout human history.

I.e., we don’t say, “We are foolish to refer to generations of family members, since children have always been around.”

The generational framework describes the relationships between the modes, orders, classes, groups — yes — but also, some linearity exists. (Previous generations, and especially immediately previous generations, have significant influence over the generation of the new class, order, mode.)

Curtis, I’m a new reader of you D5GW folks, so I appreciate your revisitation of old-hat. Though in the finest spirit of a gentlemanly jab, after a once-through of the links you gave, I cannot but notice the irony of how in referring us to your argument against clean-break sequencing w.r.t. xGW you old-hatted (clean-break sequenced) the discussion thereof. What is this kind of friendly discussion other than 1GW conversation-al warfare anyway? ;-\

Your (and Dan’s) arguments compel me. I see it’s not just the generation-al vernacular that’s troublesome, but even attributing cardinality to these harmonics of warfare unduly risks conceptual lock-in. I’m still ruminating on the acoustic metaphor. Additional inputs (via increasing politico-military interconnectivity) at the right frequencies (Gates’ business/war at the speed of thought) result in the revelation of “higher” harmonics. Hearing an overtone is kind of magical the first time it happens, which perhaps parallels the so-called “emergence” of the “next” xGW?

Dan, re: ancient instances of Chinese 4GW, would you say that Sun Tzu Art of War Ch. 3 (“subdue enemy w/o fighting”) is in the ballpark of 4GW/5GW?

clean-break sequencing w.r.t. xGW you old-hatted (clean-break sequenced) the discussion thereof.

Not at all; but I’m not prone to speak in the language of harmonics (if such exists beyond the independent stylistic flourish, say.)

Much overlap exists between the generations of warfare, in which some things are carried forward even as new things are added. The old may be reconfigured, the new configured, and the old and new combined in new ways.

Emergence is not a simple adding of elements to create a whole, but the development of something which could not quite have been predicted from an examination of the parts beforehand. That, at least, is the technical definition of emergence. We see Dick and Jane marry, but we cannot predict the product of their coupling (other than to say it will be another human — perhaps — if only we knew what that word meant.) This of course introduces a conundrum for those who now predict a future emergence within the generational warfare model, although calling the emergence as it happens may be less paradoxical.

Whether within the generational model of warfare or the generational model of a family or society, “clean breaks” occur when each generation is viewed as a distinct whole or individual within the model — a unique emergence — but this does not mean that individual generations must be entirely distinct, or conceptually “separated” — conceptually “cleanly broken”. That is, just as genes continue forward in the human family and cultural elements continue forward in a society, elements of warfare may continue to exist and play a role in succeeding generations of warfare within the model.

I only suggested harmonics of warfare casually, on the long odds that it might hook into another’s casting about. I concur it misses on the intrinsic randomness property, even though the inputs leading to a harmonic may *seem* to be unpredictable to the lay. (The “magic” factor.)

I may be stuck on a narrow(er) definition of emergence, which in Schelling’s terms is: macro behavior from micro motives. Randomness is explicitly present in models employing such emergence.

And to the extent I grok them, I do embrace your clean-break distinctions. I may need clarification on your perception of a conundrum though. I make a distinction between the ability to predict that something new will emerge w/i xGW, and the (in)ability to predict what that something will be. So I have missed the paradox you impute to xGW.

* retain “generation” terminology, but emphasize its definition as the act — not the result, e.g. the act of power generation vis next-generation power

Unimaginably brilliant. I’ve been thinking about that every day since it was posted. Very deep.

You should credit Arherring, who solicited the re-definition of ‘generation’ in the 03 January comment. Asking the right questions can be more important than any answers. ;-\