Dear Doug,

You gave an excellent general rule as an observation which I think has a great deal of merit. You wrote:

In general terms, when there is a strong disagreement between two parties, they can interact at a number of different levels. The interaction can continue at a given level semi-stably for an indefinite period. But if one side escalates, the other is liable to escalate as well until some new balance of interaction is reached.

The resort to local violence in a situation where the attacker has overwhelming force may seem tempting, as it will almost certainly result increased local advantage. But that destabilizes the much larger situation such that it is not reasonable to assume that the there will be no wider effect.

I believe it is a doctrine of military thinking to always attack with overwhelming force, or at least with more force and more weaponry than the defense has. But the danger of the defense escalating beyond the offense’s capabilities is clearly a good statement of the general rule you offered.

Can we put those kinds of thoughts into FOL to satisfy the logicists cravings, so that we all pull together in this thread? If you could offer this rule and fact set as axioms and –uctions, there might be some progress in this direction.

In particular, can we model the alternatives open to each side as both IDEF0 statements somewhat more detailed than just the English version you offered, and then relate the structure of the IDEF0 model so represented in terms of axioms and –uctions that use the terminal symbols of IDEF0 to represent your concept, i.e., ICOMs, activities, contexts and decompositions?

That could be a very useful example to build upon.

Thanks,

-Rich

Sincerely,

Rich Cooper

EnglishLogicKernel.com

Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com

9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of doug foxvog
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 8:41 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology: Emotions in animals

On Wed, January 4, 2012 10:29, John F. Sowa said:

> On 1/4/2012 12:40 AM, doug foxvog wrote:

>> The attackers of Ft. Sumter must have perceived the attack to be

>> in their short-term self interest.

> It most definitely was in their self interest.

I referred to the attack on Ft. Sumter, not to secession. Secession was

in the self interest of the Southern power brokers, to maintain control

of the institution of slavery (which was not under immediate threat)

and economic benefits therefrom (which were somewhat threatened) -- as

you point out below.

The majority of the Southern states had already seceded before the attack

on Ft. Sumter. No war had started. If this situation could be maintained,

it would definitely have been in the interest of the Southern elite. A

lack of war would have been in the interest of almost everyone in the

South.

The attack on Ft. Sumpter changed the situation between a disagreement

between two governments (a long established one and one that claimed to

have seceded) to a military conflict. This was definitely NOT in the long

term interest of the side that did not have a large manufacturing base

that could produce weapons of war nor relations with other nations that

could support it.

At the time of the attack, the US had withdrawn some of its forts and

troops from the southern states (including one of the two harbor forts in

Charleston). The people of Charleston had blocked supplies to Ft. Sumter

by land, hoping that that the troops would also be withdrawn from that

fort. But the US was sending a ship to reprovision the fort (presumably

including ammunition and possibly additional cannon).

The successful attack on the small fort before it was resupplied

eliminated a local irritant, but set in motion much larger events to

the great detriment of the cause which the attackers supported.

In general terms, when there is a strong disagreement between two parties,

they can interact at a number of different levels. The interaction can

continue at a given level semi-stably for an indefinite period. But if

one side escalates, the other is liable to escalate as well until some

new balance of interaction is reached.

The resort to local violence in a situation where the attacker has

overwhelming force may seem tempting, as it will almost certainly

result increased local advantage. But that destabilizes the much

larger situation such that it is not reasonable to assume that the

there will be no wider effect.

There was a similar situation in the early 1990s, in which the three

small Baltic republics seceded from the USSR, although several Soviet

military bases remained in the republics. Estonia demanded that the

USSR remove its troops & base, but the USSR refused. Some people in

Estonia were pushing the new government to attack the small bases,

capture the Soviet troops, and send them home. I saw this as very

similar to the situation at Ft. Sumter -- secession had happened,

there was tension between the parties, and there was local opposition

to the maintenance of a military base of the country from which the

new country had seceded. I contacted the new governments in each of

the three republics, and compared their situations to that of the CSA

and Ft. Sumter. I tried to convince them that it would not be in their

self-interest to try to remove the military bases that they considered

foreign by force. I don't know if my letters had any effect, but the

three countries let the military bases be, there was no war, and the

countries' secession was eventually accepted by the former ruling

government.

> The monetary value

> of all the slaves in the South was greater than the assets of all

> the banks and other financial institutions in the entire nation.

-- doug f

> ...

> To keep this thread close to ontological issues, I suggest that

> we adopt that question as the guiding principle: Cui bono?

>

> That principle can be used to detect unconscious motives, even

> in plants and animals that don't have conscious rationalizations.

> I recommend a recent PBS documentary based on the book "Botany

> of Desire. A plants-eye view of the world":

>

> http://www.pbs.org/thebotanyofdesire/

>

> It starts with the old observation that bees and flowers co-evolved

> to serve their own self interests over a period of about 160 million

> years. It then goes on to discuss how plants and people have been

> manipulating each other to serve their self interests. It focuses

> on four species: apples, tulips, cannabis, and potatoes.

>

> John

=============================================================

doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great

initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

=============================================================

_________________________________________________________________

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/

Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/

Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/

Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/

To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J