Early Returns
It has the uniqueness of both being able to touch off debate, but still offer a framework with which to talk about the future of warfare (or more appropriately, decision making) – in other words, it demonstrates exactly how to approach Boyd.
The point, made in a side-discussion between myself and the editor, is that this is yet another way in which TT 2.0 works, and perhaps is an indication that the transition to a 2.0 model is well underway:
- Virtual discussion (Time? Distance? Ha!)
- Serious discussants (So much for online not being ‘legit’ or ‘real’)
- Digital delivery (for the digerati)
- Dead-tree format (for those who like it like that)
Tanji is correct. One objective here was to bridge the gap between symposium, blog and book. One set of ideas, many modalities.
UPDATE:
As a book about a book it should also be noted that this not much different than the literary critique found in most academic journals. The bonus is that it isn’t nearly as dry. The article penned by Chet Richards discussing “The origins of John Boyd’s A discourse on winning and loosing” is the kind of in depth research that is hard to find. I am fascinated by his discussion of how the specific philosophies were brought into alignment and filled in the gaps of Boyd’s theories.
I have always been interested in how like some Greek philosopher John Boyd effectively portrayed his ideas and communicated them so diligently and never wrote a book. This is antithetical to today’s world where you write the book then get to convey your ideas if the book sells well. Lexington Green in “Why didn’t Boyd write a book?” discusses the interactive nearing on Socratic method Boyd used with audiences. The points conveyed provide a true insight into what may be the instantiation of John Boyd’s true genius. The reason Boyd likely didn’t write a book may be so that people could continue to discuss and adapt his ideas into the future. A point Lexington Green discusses and points out eloquently.
Lex’s essay is one of my favorite parts of the book too.
CONTRIBUTOR’S POSTS:
TDAXP and TDAXP II HG’s World DNI
September 24th, 2008 at 2:46 am
Selil and Pundita both point toward questions. Putting aside Boyd’s ideas, or looking past them while keeping them in the foreground, what kind of teacher and trainer and even prophet or maybe even spiritual director was John Boyd? Can the ideas be abstracted and taken farther without the sensei to convey them? How replicable is the Boyd analytic technique, bureaucratic guerilla technique, the whole thing, and how much was unique and irreplaceable personality? Do we need to think more about making Boydian people than about studying and using Boydian ideas?
Just thinking out loud.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Cognitively speaking, I think the analytic technique is highly replicable and totally independent of Boyd’s persona except as a model or example of "how to" – anyone following it is inevitably going to have to become an independent thinker due to the adaptiveness and what we might call a "darwinian intellectual ratchet".