tdaxp

Note: This is a selection from Quality, a tdaxp series.

I. Introduction

This post is headlined "Globalization is Water," but of those three words "is" is the most important. This work ties together my thoughts on Quality that I left of with "The Frictional Sea" to include analogy. Along the way many topics are touched on, the most important being the Magic Cloud.

Stylistically, Globalization is Water: The Magic Cloud resembles Dreaming 5th Generation War. But if Dreaming was an exposition, Magic is a rumination.

While long-winded, this work is not incoherent. It is full of what Dr. Kiera would call internal connections. My ramble might even be mapped:



Enjoy!

Note: This is a selection from Quality, a tdaxp series.

Continuing our epic discussion, which begun with my thoughts on neoconservatives and theoconservatives, continued with Mark's initial and detailed reaction, and ebbed into my thoughts on friction, Mr. Safranski takes issue with my statement that "Friction is not an attribute of a single enemy. It is a quality or a relationship between two entities." (My original version had a typo which, happily, didn't change the meaning too much.)

This however is not really the case, not even in physics and still less in the domain of politics. While we may have to major, diametrically opposed adversaries - say the NRA and Handgun Control, inc. - they do not conflict with each other in isolation but within the context of all parties able to participate in the political sphere, most of whom have only partial or no real intrinsic interest in the conflict, yet can and will bring their influence to bear to affect the outcome.

I yield to Dan's superior open source graphics capability in describing his model but the model itself is oversimplified to the point of error. Two variables in the political or geopolitical world is not enough. My crude powerpoint doesn't even encompass all of the significant variables in Dan's Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice example.

Frequently, the Darwinian effect of single-issue contests is the adversaries evolve over time into evenly matched ( at least enough of an equilibrium state to deny victory to one another) entities and third parties must be enlisted or opportunistically intervene to tip the scales, for reasons of their own.

And, except for the defaced diagram....

Note: This is a selection from Quality, a tdaxp series.

After a short review of my neoconservative-theoconservative post, Mark writes

And this is the fly in the ointment because in any forward strategy, like the one outlined very well by Dan, it isn't simply your momentum that is the main variable but also your friction. You don't get any higher in terms of friction than Richard " The Prince of Darkness" Perle...unless of course you are Pat Robertson. And this axis, to the extent that it is perceived to exist as a powerful juggernaut, combines both.

Mark is adding "friction" to "direction" and "speed" as factors that determine whether a movement is winning or losing. Now, if we make a four-by-four square that looks at direction and speed, we get...