Many of my latest posts have caused contention or else, it would seem, some head-scratching.  One blogreader in particular has suffered both; but other frequent readers have excused themselves from joining in the conversation.  I have to assume their abstention is a result of either my own opaque manner of approaching the subject of ‘social networks’ — in which case, these posts on that subject could be taken as a case-in-point of my theory — or else of politeness — refraining from using a cudgel on my metaphorical head (a tactic that aforementioned blogreader has no compunction about using!) — or perhaps of simple boredom with my circumlocutions.

I myself have suffered some ambivalence, since the notion of ‘social networks’ is rather simple on the surface and seems an apparent reality but, on the other hand, seems far too simple, probably a result of illusion.  I.e., mapping ‘influence’ has always been something of an avocation of mine (since young childhood), but I have also always found difficulties in mapping it — perhaps, an internal resistance to such metaphorical chains of influence or control.

Consequently, some of my posts on the subject or related subjects may seem to take the existence of ‘social networks’ for granted while elsewhere I strenuously deny the existence of such a phenomenon.

Here, then, is the conundrum and corresponding resolution, in a nutshell.

First, a Review

Having been introduced to Boyd’s concept of the OODA loop, I have been better able to clarify my own conflicting thoughts concerning ‘social networks.’   In many ways, this conflict is nothing more than the old conflict between the individual and society; having been introduced to the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson long before I knew about the OODA of Boyd, I had this groundwork laid before contemplating the OODA loop:

There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better for worse as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till….

Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.  Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater.  The virtue in most request is conformity.  Self-reliance is its aversion.  It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.

Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.  He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.  Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world.  I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church.  On my saying, “What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within?” my friend suggested, —“But these impulses may be from below, not from above.”  I replied, “They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.”

[from RWE’s ‘Self-Reliance’]

Boyd’s loop actually conforms to this idea, roughly speaking, since each person may have a unique loop.  When RWE said, He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness. Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind, he could have been discussing the integrity of one’s own OODA loop, one’s ability to:

1. observe the world,
2. analyze the world,
3. make decisions based upon that analysis, and
4. act upon what one has determined.

One might even say that the ‘name of goodness’ could as easily be a lie as a truth, and only an integral OODA loop can determine which it is.  Because we each have an integral OODA loop, from which we cannot escape but through which we must determine the nature of ‘goodness’, the discernment of lies and truths is our very own to make; each of us is fully capable of believing a lie or believing a truth.  Society does not force us to believe one way or another except insofar as our evaluation of the pressures of society supersedes our evaluation of the subject at hand.   I.e., when we believe society’s evaluation of that subject without bothering to explore that subject ourselves — without putting society’s evaluation to the question — we transfer our evaluation of society’s pressure to that subject.  We say, “Society’s evaluation not only exists but is strongly expressed; therefore, whatever it says about this subject is also strong, hardly to be denied.  It is correct.”  By such a process, we are inspired to focus on a set of observations which does not equate to the full body of evidence pertaining to the subject, nor even approach a full body of evidence.  From such an observation, we may quickly decide the integrity of society’s word on the matter.

Thus, generalization becomes a shortcut to understanding.  What general society may seem to assert may also seem generally correct via our habit of evaluating generalizations.  We observe a broad set of proofs, ascertain their similarities and ‘interconnectedness’, and thereby judge the ‘truth’ of the generalization.  At the same time, our inability to be all places at all times inspires an awareness of our inability to observe all things, and this awareness in turn promotes faith in generalizations:  if a million people say it is so, from a million directions and thus a million perspectives, the composite opinion must surely be more correct than what little ol’ I could weave, right?  And yet, these million people may all be making the same assessment:  an abdication of the personal OODA loop in favor of what may be called a public OODA loop resulting in uniform action (speech, writings, activities.)

The personal generalization may work between those cracks:  “I have been where no others have been, have seen a body of evidence no other single person has seen, and my generalizations therefore have an integrity no other may judge.”

Both approaches may be related via the Social OODA loop:




Shared evaluations would arise when shared observations occur; we may agree where the colors in the World overlap in this diagram.  Each person, however, has a set of observations which is unique, represented here by each color.  When an individual takes society’s evaluation at face value, he may be accepting an evaluation of things he has not personally witnessed.  For instance, the colors orange, green and yellow overlap in places where red does not; but Mr. Red may accept what Mr.’s Orange, Green, and Yellow have to say on a topic simply because he realizes they have been places, seen things, he has not — and to openly deny what they agree is true may inspire conflict and contention beyond a level desired by Mr. Red.  Similarly, Mr. Red may have an evaluation none of those other three share, because he has been places and seen things they have not.

Generalization quite often involves holistic evaluation of all past and present observations, however.  We may be seeing the same things right now, but our past experiences may differ substantially, on the whole, and we may evaluate our shared present observations differently.  Generalization occurs as an abstract process and thus requires an understanding of these abstract processes.




The larger rounded squares in this diagram represent the Concrete Orient phase of the Revised OODA loop.  They are blown-up to allow a visual of the abstract processes.  Each individual person forms a set of mental constructs wholly dependent on his personal set of concrete observations throughout a lifetime; each color for ‘Mental Construct’ represents each person’s set of mental constructs.  As wholes, they are quite distinct.  However, because we may together witness the same or very similar things throughout a lifetime, some particular elements of our individual mental constructs may be quite like those of others:




It is important to note that although this particular diagram blends colors for shading each individual’s mental constructs — to show how common mental constructs might form — each individual nonetheless forms these from a personal set of observations (as shown in the diagram immediately before this diagram.)  When we form generalizations, we only form them from information stored through personal observation.  In fact, a generalization concerning a particular subject might even be shown as a smaller pentagon within these pentagons of Mental Constructs, since generalizations are formed from multiple observations which appear to overlap within a given domain.  Most importantly:  notice how the general, shared gaps in observation — white space in “The World” —



— are not also shown within each individual’s Mental Constructs —



Not only does the full body of Mental Constructs form as a result of observations, but generalizations also may be formed only from what one has witnessed.  In fact, generalization is the process of ‘filling in gaps’ in observation:  From the World which we only observe partially, we develop whole theories in which there are no gaps.

Implications, Then, in Shreds and Patches

So what are the implications for the notion of ‘social networks’?

Embedded within the theory of social networks is the assumption that real gaps are traversed concretely.  You stand where you stand, I stand where I stand, but information of one sort or another — or of many sorts — passes between us.  A generalized social network theory may assume that the only necessary proof of the existence of social networks is simply this:

1. You operate within the world and change the world via your acts,
2. I operate within the world and change the world via my acts, and
3. each of us observes that world, including the changes wrought by our miscellaneous activities.

This simplistic relationship could be expressed simply in a diagram:




In this diagram, not only are arrows drawn from the World to each person who observes that World individually, but also arrows are drawn from Act back to the World to display the fact that each person acts upon that World.

But we have already seen that each person may observe things within the World, over a lifetime, not observed by others.  In fact, each person may operate in a different sphere, changing the World at quite some distance from some other individual.  To assume that this sort of concept of general social networking exists between all persons — we are all ‘connected’ via the World — is to assume the existence of a World without gaps.  It is to assume that the actual World and our Mental Constructs resulting from partial observation of the World are alike in having no internal gaps.

In the second place, [Plato] has not a system. The dearest defenders and disciples are at fault. He attempted a theory of the universe, and his theory is not complete or self-evident. One man thinks he means this, and another that; he has said one thing in one place, and the reverse of it in another place. He is charged with having failed to make the transition from ideas to matter. Here is the world, sound as a nut, perfect, not the smallest piece of chaos left, never a stitch nor an end, not a mark of haste, or botching, or second thought; but the theory of the world is a thing of shreds and patches.

[RWE, “Plato, or the Philosopher”]

Emerson always found…gaps in the theories, acts, and perspectives of his heroes, including Plato.  It is as if Emerson believed he himself had no gaps in his theories; he could assert definitively the weaknesses of others.  Emerson is one of my heroes, and, alas, I have seen gaps in his own approach.

The phrase ‘shreds and patches’ was not his originally; years ago I looked for an antecedent.  Shakespeare used the phrase in Hamlet — “A king of shreds and patches”.  In the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, published 1898, E. Cobham Brewer defines such a king this way:

In the old mysteries Vice used to be dressed as a mimic king in a parti-coloured suit. (Shakespeare: Hamlet, iii. 4.) The phrase is metaphorically applied to certain literary operatives who compile books for publishers, but supply no originality of thought or matter.

Gilbert and Sullivan also used the phrase, although this use came after Emerson’s:

A wandering minstrel I —
A thing of shreds and patches,
Of ballads, songs and snatches,
And dreamy lullaby!

[Gilbert and Sullivan, The Mikado]

Nanki-Poo, the character in The Mikado who sings these lines, is the son and heir of the ruler of Japan, disguised as a minstrel to better woo his love interest, Yum-Yum.

Ambrose Bierce used the phrase to help define ‘editor’ in The Devil’s Dictionary, by supplying a poem by “J.H. Bumbleshook” —

O, the Lord of Law on the Throne of Thought,
        A gilded impostor is he.
    Of shreds and patches his robes are wrought,
                His crown is brass,
                Himself an ass,
        And his power is fiddle-dee-dee.
    Prankily, crankily prating of naught,
    Silly old quilly old Monarch of Thought.
        Public opinion's camp-follower he,
        Thundering, blundering, plundering free.
                    Affected,
                        Ungracious,
                    Suspected,
                        Mendacious,
    Respected contemporaree!

Made of ‘shreds and patches’,  each of these characters attempted to present a whole impression or a whole by subterfuge.  Similarly, we might look at Emerson’s use of the phrase in “Plato, or the Philosopher” as an argument against the assumption that our limited Mental Construct of the world, made of shreds and patches — or, partial observations of The World — is a complete representation of that World.  At least, this is an argument used against Plato and, especially, his disciples.

However, the phrase from ‘J.H. Bumbleshook’ to describe the ‘Lord of Law on the Throne of Thought’, Public opinion’s camp-follower he…, matches in tone Emerson’s opinion of judging public theories via self-reliance, since Emerson certainly believed that the individual could come to a better grasp of The World via self-reliance than by adopting popular opinion.  Here is the world, sound as a nut, perfect, not the smallest piece of chaos left, never a stitch nor an end — That is an assumption, and Emerson implied by that an ability to recognize such perfect wholeness if only we would transcend our limitations, our theories made up of shreds and patches or according to public opinion.  He believed that, ideally, a person’s individual set of Mental Constructs could quite possibly be a unity without gaps to match the gap-less World — which is to say, merely, that it’s better to have faith in



than to have faith in someone else’s or a conglomerate of others’, in order to not become utterly confused by



in its various guises.

In any case, the paths by which one person may affect another — via operation upon/within the World and observation of that World — are unclear, multifarious, non-linear.  Connection is by shreds and patches, multi-hued.  If I slap you, our connection is concrete and easily defined, but if I donate to a charity, and you benefit from the operations of that charity, we might be hard-pressed to track the flow of cash between us.  In a generalized sense, we might say the ‘network’ runs thus: Curtis — Charity — You.  In truth, the little bit of cash I’ve given to that charity may have disappeared into the pockets of one of the actors within that charity, and whatever help you have received from that charity was actually funded by cash someone else donated; in which case, we might say the ‘network’ was thus: Curtis — Embezzler.  Even if no Embezzler existed, we still do not know if my bit of cash actually went to help you, since it could have gone somewhere else, or it could have been spent on some activity which did not have much effect on you whatsoever.

Establishing Network

The messy business of establishing ‘network’ is often circumscribed by definition according to generalization.   Just as we are ‘connected by the World,’ we can be ‘connected by the Charity.’  If we both happen to read ‘the same’ article in a magazine, we might even say we are ‘connected by Newsweek.’  This is the sort of ‘connectivity’ by which many theorists propose to establish laws governing our relations and even our individual actions.  Security apparatuses are devised with such ‘connectivity’ in mind, from the belief that a broadly dispersed security force will eliminate gaps and bring multifarious activities into uniformity or at least alignment or complementarity.  In place of The World, a smaller non-gapped whole is devised — say, a Policing Force — and because each person must act in relation to it, one might safely claim we are all ‘connected’ via that smaller whole.

If, indeed, no individual is immune to a broadly cast Policing Force — every person observes its presence and operation upon the World; a big if — then we might even draw the inference that individual OODA loops will be similarly affected by that Force, leading to commonly held Mental Constructs.  Unfortunately, this theory again is a thing of shreds and patches, since so much else is observed within the World.  I.e., no matter the size of the Policing Force, other observations, of other activities upon the World and of the World, are going to be observed as well and will play their roles in shaping mental constructs.  Plus, that Policing Force might not have a uniform action upon the World, on all places and in all directions.  One might review the many totalitarian regimes which have existed along with the formation of sub-cultures, within those societies, that developed in response and opposition to those regimes.

Or, one might witness the effects of capitalism.  Capitalist idealists may promote the theory that a ‘free market’ gives everyone a chance to excel, but such a construction assumes a non-gapped wholeness for capitalism similar to others mentioned.  The dream may ‘connect’ those who share the dream, they may see everyone ‘connected’ by that dream, but imbalances occur in the operation.  In the first place, no such thing as a ‘free market’ exists; tariffs, subsidies, taxation, and various rules and regulations limit the operation of the market.  So there are gaps in the so-called ‘free’ of free markets.  In the second place, accrual of capital over time gives advantages to some — and, to their heirs, or to their nations — which not everyone may experience.  There are gaps in the ‘market’ of free markets.  Finally, many things exist which are either not marketable or for which no formal currency exists for establishing their place within a society, such as: religion, love, and many non-human forces like hurricanes, disease, and the ‘natural’ environment.  (Capitalism has tried to answer these or find a place for these, at best leading to an uneasy alliance — i.e., to many gaps.)  Some would trade all fortune for the establishment of religion or love or clean air.

Democracy is another generalization which, it is assumed, can ‘connect’ all people.  But there are gaps, to be sure.  At the moment, only one single person operating within the U.S. federal government was voted there by yours truly; and yet, one hundred senators, a president, some hundreds of congressmen, and of course every Supreme Court justice, all of whom I did not help to put in positions of power, are making decisions in my name or at least for me.  I am lucky to have one congressmen of my choice whose vote can be overridden or nullified at any time by so many others in opposition.  I cannot even assume that such imbalances are ultimately balanced when these limited collectives-of-power affect all of us equally or our society on a broad scale, because smaller collectives within the larger collectives, such as parties and the PACs who influence parties, upset the balance of power being directed at each of us by focusing it narrowly.  We dream that because we can all act in a common way — i.e., by casting a vote — that this somehow ‘connects’ us; but my action upon government may have absolutely no effect on how that government treats you. (Again, think of money going to a charity.)  Some are even dreaming that democracy in other nations will ‘connect’ us to the peoples of those nations — and ironically, some of those same dreamers will decry the activities of elected officials in those nations.

Worse, some contemporary social network theorists hope to solve the world’s ills by doing more than establishing security apparatuses. They also want to disrupt ‘terrorist networks’ or ‘criminal networks.’  These unfriendly ‘networks’ are defined in much the same way I defined the hypothetical charity network above: by generalization.  To be sure, some terrorists and criminals utilize definite ‘hubs’ for transferring funds and for communicating; but what we have seen thus far suggests that no definite ‘network’ is necessary.  Whenever one node is destroyed, another appears to spring up as terrorists modify their activity to compensate for the disruption.  This may be because multiple potential paths exist; in which case, I imagine that network theorists will claim networks do exist but are merely ‘dynamic.’  I would say, as I have recently said, that whatever networks exist are likely to be small in scope and temporary — by which, I meant to suggest that forming procedures and plans based on a theory of any given network structure would prove futile, ultimately.  Vis-a-vis terrorists, we would have to formulate a plan to destroy all connectivity if we wanted to plan a successful network-defined response to terrorism:  destroy the Internet, destroy all media outlets, destroy all trade relations, destroy most modes of transportation, and the like.   The equivalent would be shutting down the World Wide Web in order to destroy the effects of all computer viruses for all time.

Another difficulty arising from a network theory of terrorist activity is related to the Social OODA outline I gave above:



A person living in China without access to the Internet, television and radio, international travel, etc., and a person living in the U.S. without access to these things (though a less likely case), may still form very common or similar mental constructs simply because what they observe in their local environments is similar.   Xian Jing may murder his wife out of jealousy, but so may Bubba Jones, even if they have not been able to ‘network’ with one another.  The same can be said of terrorists, who may decide to operate as terrorists without having to network with one another.  This consideration approaches a theory of emergence which does not require networking between the actors involved in similar but disjunct cases of emergence.  In the case of the wife-murderers, no doubt even similar genetic information (biology) may have played a role — the murderers might have been ‘prone’ to acts of violence, may have both been heterosexuals and men — and in the case of terrorists, similar intrinsic influences might exist.  If gaps exist in Capitalism and Democracy, and thus in the mollifying effects assumed to come from these things, then two people living in capitalist democracies may decide to act violently against a local government or local populace without having to network with one another:  The U.S. had the Unibomber, after all, and those who would attack abortion clinics.

Theodore John “Ted” Kaczynski (born May 22, 1942) is an American mathematician and academic turned hermit who became infamous as a mail bomber, sending bombs to several universities and airlines from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, killing three people and wounding 29. In Industrial Society and Its Future (the “Unabomber Manifesto”) he argued that his actions were necessary in order to fight against the subjugation caused and facilitated by technological progress. He was the target of the most expensive manhunt in the FBI’s history.

[from Wikipedia]

I’ve put in bold where Kaczynski’s argument appears to overlap the generalized theory some have used to explain Islamist opposition to globalization.  No doubt, other reasons for the existence of al Qaeda could be given, in combination with this or at variance with this.  (For instance, the dream of a caliphate; but not all Muslims dream of such a thing, and those who do may not need to ‘connect’ in any specific way in order to develop such a dream.)  Some environmentalist terrorists might also give reasons similar to Kaczynski’s argument, without ever having to have ‘connected’ with the Unibomber.

So this segue into Kaczynski is given as a simplified example of the way that ‘terrorist networks’ might not even exist although members of the Policing Force continue to attempt to fight those ‘networks’ by trying to discern them.

The problem of a social-network approach to fighting terrorism is only exacerbated by the fact that the Internet and media outlets in general function as a part of the generalized World. A network theorist might spin a web of ‘connectivity’ to explain copy-cat terrorists — or at least what appear to be copy-cat terrorists — when no such definite network exists.  Or else, a network theorist might pat himself on the back for determining that the New York Times or Al Jazeera has served to ‘connect’ the terrorists he is studying; but what can he do with this information and such generalized ‘connectivity’, if not himself attempt to destroy that generalized World and all forms of generalized ‘connectivity’ in an effort to disrupt terrorists?

Unto the — Nth Power

By outlining the thoughts I’ve outlined above, I’ve been attempting to approach an explanation of my distrust of social network theory as an explanation for society.  In a previous post, I gave two distinct and somewhat opposed models for describing social interaction, which I’ll repost here.

One can suppose that each individual human has a very specific character formed of many parts (or, of ‘observations’) and that human societies are merely collections of individual humans acting toward and reacting to other individual humans; from this, certain patterns appear to emerge when the humans are considered in toto.  Or else, one can suppose that very specific types of relation exist and will continue to exist regardless of the humans who form those networks; i.e., different characters will naturally be inspired — consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously — to find a place within those relationships, perhaps joining different networks according to character, and the networks themselves will be largely maintained by the infusion of new blood, so to speak.

The difference between these models is very important.

I hold to the first, because it seems to me the most realistic and, moreover, does not require some magical mechanism to explain emerging dynamics in social relationships.  It is the explanation of the mechanism.  While true that individual humans may collectively form established relationships, the introduction of any new human to that system will alter those relationships, subtly or in some pronounced way, simply because no two identical identities (or characters) exist.  Because of the increase in so-called ‘connectivity’ — or, because of the ‘shrinking world’ dynamic — such alterations are not only much more likely to occur now than ever before but also occur more frequently….

Even the second model may have some substance, if we consider the fact that humans in general are much alike: not only genetically, but also in what we may observe, since the concrete World operates according to fairly uniform laws of physics affecting a limited set of types of substance.  One thing I have not done in my diagrams of the individual or social OODA loops is diagram a detailed operation within the pentagon which represents The World; I might have done, after all, since this pentagon is not only where humans interact but also where non-human forces interact with each other beyond the direct influence of human activity.  To say, then, that “very specific types of relation exist and will continue to exist regardless of the humans who form those networks,” is to attempt a generalized explanation of these very limited (in number) laws of physics and types of substance interacting.  But note here that the generalized World is a consequence of the particulars which it comprises rather than the reverse.  Remove, say, the electron and the proton from all corners of the Universe where they now exist, and I think you would be safe in assuming that those “very specific types of relation” would alter substantially.¹

Human society is a result of the individuals it comprises, and the set of individuals composing society changes dynamically because of our mortality.  For any existing set of persons, many thousands of potential activities exist, and each of these activities will have particular effects upon the World which will be viewed in particular — and, multifarious — ways by the others within that system.  In addition to human activity, non-human forces such as the weather, climate, and geologic changes will also shape the World in unexpected ways.  Such dynamism has proven quite difficult to predict far in advance, although ‘death and taxes’ may often be predicted in a general way as sure to occur ‘some time, eventually’ the way that earthquakes and rain are predicted to come eventually.

From a network perspective, the set of networks is constantly altering, because each of these other alterations changes the pathways by which information — whether discourse or physical, concrete information — travels.  One might take a generalized approach to defining networks and say “the Internet” has connected us, or “the World,” but by disregarding the particular pathways, we cannot easily isolate networks out of the slew of temporary networks which form, alter, and even collapse on a regular basis.  Sometimes, the physical artifacts are used to define social ‘networks’ since buildings like banks and constructions like roads persist even though the set of persons using these things changes; we might then isolate a network of non-human things which humans sometimes utilize to ‘network’ with one another, but these things are not human society but the tools of human society.  Or, one might adopt the methods of a Vogon and destroy the Earth entirely to clear way for an unchanging and easily understood pathway, by destroying the miscellany that results from dynamism.  (This, incidentally, is a favorite method of bureaucrats.  It also appears to be the method being attempted by certain types of terrorist:  essentially, a vertical establishment of simplified relations or ‘network.’)

If we rule out utter destruction of all existing pathways (to clear way for idealized and unconfusing pathways) because we are either unwilling to do so or incapable of doing so, we must admit that the dynamism in human society is a result of an ever-shifting and indefinite development of multifarious networks over which we will have only limited and generalized control, if any.  Precise control depends in part on precise observation, and we may be incapable of detecting the points of creation, alteration, and destruction of connectivity, because so many points and direction of influence exist —



We may actually have a little more control over our local effects on the World than on broader effects, because we can always decided personal action upon the world; but imagining the final effects of our personal action will become increasingly difficult as direct influence diminishes.  I.e., other forces will be at work, whether human or non-human, modifying the results of our individual influence.

Rather than say we are ‘connected’ by Newsweek — those of us who have read a particular article published in that magazine — say rather that each of us has viewed a similar concrete reality (the print in the magazine; that article) and that each of our distinct and individual Mental Constructs of the World may have been altered in similar ways by that similar observation.

Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From my post on Social OODA loops:

• Networks may be a “map” of common activities inspired by rule sets held in common by a group of people…[or]
• representations of people “connected” by common ideologies.
  

In truth, the people in either type of network are not actually connected, in any concrete [ed. — or, particular] way.  Rather, we are making our own abstractions of activities or ideologies that are common, and the actual persons seem to be connected, simply because in our minds we associate them with each other on the basis of whatever they have or do in common.

We may believe that Newsweek or banks ‘connect’ us; and I suppose if we each have a hand on a single copy of Newsweek or are physically within the same bank or touching the same bank, they might; but what we typically mean by  ‘connection’ is generally a description of how our Mental Constructs have been similarly shaped by similar types of observation in the past and how these similarities provoke or lead to similar activities.  If I need a loan, I might go to a particular bank; someone else who needs a loan may go to the same bank; money a third person has previously deposited within that bank may be used to provide the loans to us; but are we really ‘connected’ in a concrete way at any given moment, if I and the other two individuals are not in that bank at the same time?  No, but we have each formalized a concept of personal relation to that bank, on the basis of previous observations that our finances are dependent, in part, on that perceived relationship.

Otherwise, we might need to admit that each of our personal bank accounts connects us financially to terrorists who also utilize banks somewhere else in the World to transfer monies; and, we might need to forgo utilization of banks altogether to sever any possibility of such connection.  Thankfully, however, we may safely assume we are not so perpetually connected to terrorists, because our concept of personal relation to our own bank does not mesh with our concept of a terrorist’s relation to other banks or to those who do utilize banks.

It is better to say less frequently, “We are connected” and more often:

• “We think alike.” 
• “We have the same vision for the future.”
• “We act in similar ways.”

Then, we can focus on the real business of ‘connecting’ people; i.e., of shaping a common vision, however generalized it might be.  Our work will focus on affecting the individuals, not on affecting ephemeral and ethereal ‘networks.’ 



¹ A general metaphor; perhaps these particles would reform; so imagine some smaller particle — or even a force — being entirely removed. — I am not a physicist!  ;)

---

Section permalinks:
• “First, a Review”
• “Implications, Then, in Shreds and Patches”
• “Establishing Network”
•  “Unto the — Nth Power”

---

Filling the Gap
• Part One: Water, Tao, and Jesus


• Part Two: Some Words on Determining Social ‘Network’

---

See also:
• There Are Times, Admittedly
• Rethinking the OODA
• Social OODA Loops / Networks
• Rule Sets and the Revised OODA

---

Update: added section permalinks