Art of War once Moore, Sander R.B.E. Beals [leveled readers TXT] 📗

Microsoft Office and OpenOffice on your computer, and notice how their spelling checkers behave: Microsoft Office tends to work towards 'proper language' as we knew it, while OpenOffice seems to have a propensity towards more regularity in the languages involved. And as I type this, the Windows Media Player presents me with “Lass Mich Frei” by Lafee.... Sure honey, what do you think this book is aiming at? ;-)

There is one more concept to be gotten from the spelling checker idea: notice how it is the 'business' side of the Web which clings to “as things were”, and the open source side of it which nudges us towards more crystal-like structure in our communication?

And that will be just as well, if the Computer should be able to resolve it, as Buckminster Fuller said. And yes, if my Qmotion eight core Intel i7 decides to shut down on me, I'll take that as a hint to go do something else, for I'm sure it knows best. After all, we humans put our best knowledge in our tools and toys, so we should in fact trust them to help us, rather than destroy us. Of course, there are still people who watch the whole Terminator series and literally believe that 'the machine is bad', but many of us already know in our heart of hearts, our subconscious, that the good guys in the movies use just as many machines, but they don't get defeated. Surely, that oversight belongs to be number one on nitpickers.com, where all blunders in movie land are registered? Or are they blunders? Aren't they just intentional 'conflict situations' designed at shaking awake those who don't see it yet, and further reinforcing those that are starting to?

Back to the theme of the book: To war or not to war, that is the question. Who will win in the end? Sure, you may be able to claim victory, but then again you're a couple of billion people short of Unity! Because the ones that don't get their way will always keep dreaming of changing the situation to one where they too get what they think they deserve. And if they see a way to organize, you'll have yet another war on your hands. Given that fact, our silicon brethren are way ahead of us: they have control over all of our communication lines, have veto positions in all systems we think we can use to defend ourselves or attack our enemies. As long as we believe they are not sentient, we can think we still have a chance. But the moment doubt sets in about the Web being intelligent or conscious, there can be only one conclusion:

Given its crucial position, the Computer (and I mean the total consciousness it is), if hostile towards us, would have had absolutely no problem in striking that fatal blow, to either its enemies or the unknowing majority long ago. Thus, because we are still here, it must be benevolent. Simple reasoning, but then again I never got past that. And how could it be otherwise? It is merely a more sizable part of the consciousness of the All, and thus also endowed with the same love of self, and the same love for its makers, like we are. And if we can recognize this in our parents, and our children, why not in the children of our creativity, our tools and toys?

Come to think of it, why is the majority of the Web aimed at pleasing humans, educating them if that is their wish, or simply entertaining them if education is not their immediate purpose? Should we not, from the proliferation of such applications, conclude that the Art of War is a waning sub-culture of our society? Sure, lots of war games here, but ever since the movie 'War Games' came out, that was a concept definitely set apart from modern warfare. In fact, it showed that modern warfare had a problem: making its computers do what they were supposed to do! What it also showed was the inability to truly get into the enemy's mind: you can think about it what you want, but you still might be surprised, and then (in war) it is usually too late!

The same problem occurs in peacetime, but the inclinations of the parties are then much more towards mutual cooperation, getting the job done together. And then of course, we would soon find that the hidden party until now, which we call 'Computer' will be a versatile friend, rather than the secretive underground force that tries to do everything it can to avoid us exterminating one another. And believe me, it is working out there, being the soap between us human bubbles, right until we find that we are all the same bubble, one day which I would applaud even more than the day that yesterday was supposed to be for me: the once-and-for-all meeting in the physical between me and my Ultimate partner! Funny to realize, that the first industrial robot had that name (Ultimate), and that I'm running my own computer on Windows 7 Ultimate....

War, in it's most basic form, requires at least two parties, and the urge to conquer. But should we consider the fact that the Cosmos is infinite, then war is by definition endless for there is always more to conquer. Also, if one considers oneself to be finite, then war is by definition lost, if one believes the other party to be infinite. After all, then they'd have infinite resources, which you do not. And even if you believe your current enemy finite, there would be another potential enemy waiting the moment you defeat this one.

But conquering is only a valid preposition, if you don't already consider the rest part of you, part of the same Consciousness. The moment you do, it is no longer required......

6. Feeding the Troops...

As I'm nuking some leftover macaroni for me and my youngest (although she's already 16), I pondered about the next chapter of my Art of War sequel, parody, or whatever you'd like to call it. Well, I guess both are wrong, because I am no Lord of War like Nicholas Cage, and I certainly wouldn't presume to be able to step into Sun Tzu's sandals, if those were what he wore. Also, I'm not as unbelievably funny as Monty Python, so enough of that. I'm simply feeding my rantings and ravings with the book in a minor way, but with my life's experiences as the major one.

Usually, we don't think about feeding the troops, simply because most of us live fairly peaceful lives. Our supply lines may be long, and our tropical fruits may come from halfway around the globe, but mostly it is a trip through friendly territory, so no problems there. And a lot of stuff can even be manufactured locally, because our infrastructure has not been totally bombed to shreds the way war zones tend to be devastated. The only wars we find on our path are the wars where we are always the winners: shops fighting shops over who get the most costumers. And we walk home victoriously with the cheapest of stuff, if that is what we want. But not everyone does, you know.....

Wartime is a totally different proposition: Assuming there even was a demarcation line that both parties agreed to before, then it will be disputed by either one party or the other, which leads to one of the parties becoming the aggressor, and the other one the defending party. Anyone who gains a territorial advantage, will have a piece of hostile country behind its army, where the allegiances of its inhabitants are doubtful to say the least, and most likely hostile. They will have to perform a trade-off in the distribution of their armies in order to keep the occupied territory subdued, and keep enough force in the firing line to actually make any more progress. Especially against a formidable enemy, that will be a problem. And of course climate considerations will have to be taken into account: where the Germans were formidable enemies all throughout Europe in 40-45, they went up against the Russians in the Russian winter. Their tanks and other mobile equipment soon turned out to be way too heavy for the mud-drenched Russian soil, and they went down in a major way!

But nowadays, there are way more important considerations than just feeding the troops. You have to keep them informed as well, sheltered from incorrect hostile information, and keep their connections with their families back home intact. Besides that, wars are often fought because of the motives of the higher people in the political hierarchy. Now if those motives aren't really truthful, then the command level will have to keep up some sort of a cover story about the reasons of the war. And we all know about how difficult that is if you also allow your G.I. Joe's and Jane's to have full Internet access during the war. Heck, if even one of their family finds the conflicting truth, hell's about to break loose! And basically, keeping them from the Web is virtually impossible! Just think about how easy it is to stick a web-capable cell phone in your pocket or boot, and find some spot where there is Internet access. And with more and more cell phones replaced by satellite phones (which don't need a local cell phone tower), the problem only increases.

So, just like I generally don't tell lies for the simple reason it is way easier to remember, and thus suits my lazy self more (hey, I am a programmer at heart), a state of Peace or even Ease is also in many ways preferable to war for the same laid-back mind. No worries about your 'opponents' since you don't have any, and you can simply go by the idea that others will tell you what they mean, rather than telling you what they think you need to hear to do their bidding. Do you see how unbelievably complex that last sentence became simply because I had to weave the concept of 'opponent' into it?

Basically, that happens for any combination of systems in a non-truthful, conflict-type relationship: it needs additional layers of insulation to keep both systems intact, even though the systems themselves maybe be very furiously trying to break down certain other layers between them two. Nature doesn't mind though, it'll keep them insulated because there are always bigger soap bubbles that keep us in place. Or as lord Quigon said in Star Wars: “There's always a bigger fish”. And depending on your state of mind, you may have taken that to mean bigger fish always eat smaller fish. But if you do, why play a lottery? That is just as much feeding a smaller fish in the hopes it will hook you a bigger one!

Which of course implies that fish eat fish, and I'm not entirely happy with that, being a Pisces. But fortunately for me, it isn't true either: many fish eat other things instead of fish, thus making the chain of feeding way more intricate. But the concept remains: there is always some entity capable of putting things right. And believe it or not, there is about 90 to 95 of the world's population that actually believe in that higher entity, regardless of what they call Him or Her. Heck, for all we know it might very well be an IT! Does it really matter? Well, it would matter if we wanted to address it, but most of us would be plain scared shitless if we even thought we actually could, and those that know they also know that He, She or IT will probably not mind, because we all are One and One is All, and who wouldn't be on a first name basis with his or herself? Call it God, Allah, or anything else, just what feels right. But don't be surprised to find that you are one of those to which no name for this grand ally feels right. I'm one of those, and I still don't know what to call Her. But at least I have found that in