Here’s a simple way of crystallizing the politics of “anthropomorphics”: there is a vertical axis and a horizontal axis; on the vertical axis, we start with the minimal model of an issuer of imperatives that include the presumption of obedience (as opposed to imperatives—like those of the petitioner—that include no such presumption) and what one wants is that those imperatives be fulfilled, which means they are “well formed” and situationally “actionable,” are transmitted in a way included in the command, and received by those taking the intention implicit in the command as their own. Anything that gets in the way of this process of issuance, transmission and reception is what one is against. Because what’s the point of putting people in charge of things if they’re not in charge of things? The horizontal axis involves the acquisition, collection, assessment, preservation, filtering and communication—ultimately to those who need it and as they need it on the command chain—of data, information, intelligence; here, we want data, information, intelligence produced in the most directly and comprehensible usable form: we want data, information, intelligence such that if you were to assign teams of auditors to check and verify it all the only defects they would find would be due to the time constraints of having the material available when needed (if the decision could have been put off until tomorrow, the intelligence could have been better, but the best available evidence suggested that the decision could not be put off and the checking and verifying could not offer a better reading of the intelligence then available). Anything and anyone mucking around with this process should be opposed and subsequently suspected with the greatest possible prejudice (but this is not necessarily an obvious determination insofar as, to take one example, public falsehoods may be disseminated as part of a broader intelligence operation—part of knowing is knowing who knows).
Some Political Reflections
Some Political Reflections
Some Political Reflections
Here’s a simple way of crystallizing the politics of “anthropomorphics”: there is a vertical axis and a horizontal axis; on the vertical axis, we start with the minimal model of an issuer of imperatives that include the presumption of obedience (as opposed to imperatives—like those of the petitioner—that include no such presumption) and what one wants is that those imperatives be fulfilled, which means they are “well formed” and situationally “actionable,” are transmitted in a way included in the command, and received by those taking the intention implicit in the command as their own. Anything that gets in the way of this process of issuance, transmission and reception is what one is against. Because what’s the point of putting people in charge of things if they’re not in charge of things? The horizontal axis involves the acquisition, collection, assessment, preservation, filtering and communication—ultimately to those who need it and as they need it on the command chain—of data, information, intelligence; here, we want data, information, intelligence produced in the most directly and comprehensible usable form: we want data, information, intelligence such that if you were to assign teams of auditors to check and verify it all the only defects they would find would be due to the time constraints of having the material available when needed (if the decision could have been put off until tomorrow, the intelligence could have been better, but the best available evidence suggested that the decision could not be put off and the checking and verifying could not offer a better reading of the intelligence then available). Anything and anyone mucking around with this process should be opposed and subsequently suspected with the greatest possible prejudice (but this is not necessarily an obvious determination insofar as, to take one example, public falsehoods may be disseminated as part of a broader intelligence operation—part of knowing is knowing who knows).