Religious Missions framing Strategic use of Missiles

Recognizing a systemic configuration of enabling qualifications of mission

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Introduction

With the dranatic use of "missiles" in this period, their fatal consequences -- and the potential triggers they are variously held to represent for World War III -- there is a case for exploring the "missions" with which they are so intimately related, if only etymologically. The current use of missiles is only too evidently a direct consequence of the millennial struggle between the Abrahamic religions which their theologians have proven to be incompetent to resolve, or even to address in the pursuit of their missionary agendas.

The approach taken in what follows is necessarily speculative, given that conventional methods are proving ever more evidently "unfit for purpose". The only justification for such inadequacy is typically framed as being the fault of others who disagree with a particular approach to "salvation" -- whether religious or secular. The quest for global consensus has acquired the characteristics of a quest for the Holy Grail, with its problematic dynamics eluding prevailing modes of understanding (The Consensus Delusion: Mysterious attractor undermining global civilization as currently imagined, 2011)

As a challenge to gobal discourse, an earlier study explored the role of prefixes typically framing such dscourse and on which international policy-making is now so dependent (New Paradigms via a Renewed Set of Prefixes, 2003). The method was further elaborated with respect to confidence in sustainability (Exploration of Prefixes of Global Discourse: implications for sustainable confidelity, 2011). Specific attention was then given to the polarity in use of "pro" and "con" (Prefix "Re-cognition" as Prelude to Fixing Sustainability -- "Pro" vs "Con" ? 2017). This invited a satirical framing of the current mode of discourse (Primary Global Reserve Currency: the Con? 2011).

The following exploration focuses on the set of conventional qualifications of "mission" through a 12-fold array of prefixes understood as enabling missions themselves, as supported by "missives", and potentially taking the form of "missiles" -- whether ballistic or metaphorical. However there is a case for recognizing a subtle cognitive prelude to such tangible forms, usefully indicated by a trinity of etymologically related modalities. These are suggested by: "amiss" (recognition of problems), "remiss" (regret at inadequacy of response), and "promise" (of remedial action) -- all of which are fundamental to strategic development and support for it. The subtlety of this trinity can be most fruitfully understood as intimately entangled cognitively through Borromean ring connectivity -- as most elegantly noted in a study of Dante's mystical encounter with "three rings" (Arielle Saiber and Aba Mbirika, The Three Giri of Paradiso XXXIII, Dante Studies, 131, 2013, pp. 237-272). The entanglement of those rings in 3D appropriately features as the logo of the International Mathematical Union.

Whilst the relevance of missions to missiles notably implies the ballistic variety, the argument is of potential relevance to both ideological indoctrination and injection -- especially given the role of needles in the latter case, as argued more generally in the light of the pandemic-related health missions (Missiles, Needles, Missions, Rifles, Projects, Bullets, 2020; Spike-endowed Global Civilization as COVID-19: humanity "bristles" as the world "burns", 2020; Cognitive Engagement with Spike Dynamics of a Polyhedral Coronavirus, 2020).

The understanding of "mission" in what follows is assumed to be fundamentaly experiential rather than simply a conventional category -- with a focus implied as much by firmly held belief as by any conceptual framing.

As with previous exercises, the experimental engagement with one or more AIs in what follows continues to evoke questions in a period in which AI is perceived as a threat to academics, to governance, and to employment more generally -- if not to the very existence of humanity. Relevant considerations and reservation have been previously discussed -- notably the question of the increasingly artificial nature of human intelligence as a consequence of "dumbing down" (How Artificial is Human Intelligence -- and Humanity? 2023).

Although this experimental exploration has been variously enabled by AI, many of the responses of AI have been framed as grayed areas. Given the length of the document to which the exchanges gave rise, the form of presentation has itself been treated as an experiment -- in anticipation of the future implication of AI into research documents. Many responses may be irrelevant to interest in the outcome rather than the process, and can therefore be readily ignored.

With the focus on the 3D mapping visualizations generated, only the "questions" to AI are therefore rendered immediately visible -- with the response by AI hidden unless specifically requested by the reader (a facility not operational in PDF variants of the page, in contrast with the original). Readers are of course free to amend the questions asked, or to frame other related questions -- whether with the same AI, with others, or with those that become available in the future. In endeavouring to elicit insight from the world's resources via AI, the dependence on "leading questions" calls for critical comment in contrast with more traditional methods for doing so.

[Parts: Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]