Moral resilience operates on multiple levels. First, at the level of an organization as a result or product of what Colonel Boyd described as:

“A grand ideal, overarching theme, or noble philosophy that represents a coherent paradigm within which individuals as well as societies can shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances—yet offers a way to expose flaws of competing or adversary systems. Such a unifying vision should be so compelling that it acts as a catalyst or beacon around which to evolve those qualities that permit a collective entity or organic whole to improve its stature in the scheme of things.”

Secondly, as the membership internalize the values of the “unifying vision” and acquire moral resilience which in turn produces psychological resilience in the form of the individual’s behavioral response to stress or threat.

Thirdly, moral resilience is itself an attractive meme, a “beacon” that draws support in the form of new members ( a “catalyst”) or the admiration of uncommitted observers. Or perhaps, repeated demonstrations of moral resilience may have a daunting effect or undermine the morale of adversaries and competitors.


[“On Moral and Psychological Resilience,” ZenPundit, 20 May 2006.]

I have said many times: the hardest thing to track is a meme.  But I have never given an explanation for why this is so.  Here it is:  memes do not travel.  They are not transmitted.  They emerge.  Within individuals.  This is OODA.  Network theorists might postulate a series of concrete effects, or causes, leading to such emergence, and collectively call each set of effects ‘meme’ for explaining how quite similar memes emerge in diverse locations; and they’re welcome to do so, because that itself is a useful meme.

[” ‘Global Guerrillas’ as 5GW Warriors,”  CGW,  19 October 2006.]

What causes new linking though between blogs with no prior connection ? I would suggest that memes play a central role in “attracting” and later sustaining such connections. Sociability is certainly an important variable but I don’t think that is critical in making initial decisions to make contact in the first place. The blogosphere is a very detached place; after all, if we really wanted to be “social”, we’d get off the computer and go speak to a live human being ! Many of us are online (or are online addicts) because we are craving intellectual stimulation that may be lacking in our professional or personal relationships.

[“Bar-Yam’s Shifting Hub:  But Are Memes a Critical Factor in New Links in the Blogosphere?” ZenPundit, 01 January 2007.]

Network theorists may believe definitive ‘networks’ exist connecting these individuals, but in so doing they often make the mistake of believing that what they have discerned to be stable routes and routings — i.e., networks — can be understood to exist regardless of the individuals using those paths.  I.e., to define a network is to believe that such interaction between individuals is prefigured by the available routes of data transmission….

These network theorists may finally be realizing that so-called networks do not lead to the emergence of activity so much as that activity leads to the emergence of networks — and that these actual connections are transitory, ephemeral, constantly changing.  Any established ‘network’ may in fact be merely a fossilized account of activity rather than an ongoing account of real activity. We must not equate the architecture with the activity, because they are separate things.  Most importantly, in a world of static, and particularly in a future world in which larger numbers of sources exist (many of them more empowered through the effects of globalization and the fluidity of the architecture they are using) — i.e., in a world with increasing levels of static — the imposition of a definitive network architecture onto the world for the express purpose of channeling activities will become increasingly difficult.

”Interlude:  Static Visualized, Conceptualized,” CGW, 2 January 2007.

But these eccentrics were eccentrics.

ec·cen·tric  adj. 2. Not having a common center; not concentric; “eccentric circles”.

[see eccentric on Webster’s Online Dictionary]

I.e., they’re likely to follow their own paths. A sphere is not a circle, after all; and Emerson’s ‘ephemerals’ in the poem he used to open his essay on “Circles” are all individuals.  They are individual in that they follow their own paths, uniquely; but nonetheless, these multifarious path-treaders on the surface of the sphere rarely seem to grasp the fact that they are attached to surface conditions, and that all their unique movements have a common center.  They do not see the sphere; if they did, “A new genesis were here.”

[“Emersonian Circles,” CGW, 8 March 2007.]

Increasingly rapid advancement of technology and increasing levels and varieties of interaction in a globalizing world will make vertical establishment of a particular order relatively impossible — relative to the efficacy of similar methods used in the past — and thus chaos which would be resolved into a beneficial and desirable order will necessarily be resolved at the root level, i.e., at the level of the individual.  Guide the most individuals, and you will have the most influence in shaping the system — if, that is, you guide them well….

If future empires are to manifest, they will manifest when a sufficiently large number of people join an ‘empire of mind.’  A manner of thinking produces a corresponding manner of doing.

[“Empires of the Mind,” CGW, 21 March 2007.]

According to the Jamestown Foundation, a Syrian member of Al-Qaeda, Abu Mus’ab al-Suri, has formulated a new operational strategy growing in popularity among global jihadists.  The plan’s primary feature is radical decentralization.  In al-Suri’s opinion, the biggest mistake that the jihadi movement made was to grow dependent on fixed camps, like the ones Bin Laden maintained in Sudan and Afghanistan.  Although useful in training recruits, fixed locations trapped Al-Qaeda units where Western forces could eventually invade and destroy them.  Similarly, al-Suri also sees the traditional hierarchal model of a terrorist or insurgent group as a weakness.  If authorities capture one member, the organization as a whole is put at risk.

Instead, al-Suri proposes a “jihad of  individual terrorism,” with self-contained autonomous cells employing an easily available (most likely on the internet) terror “template” to start their own jihad.  The glue holding these autonomous jihadis together would simply be a common cause, with leadership offering little more than ideological guidance.  There would be no organizational links between cells.


[“Future War: The War on Terror After Iraq,” Adam Elkus, Jihad Monitor, 26 March 2007 (pdf) .]

---

(I once commented at the Bar-Yam link to ZenPundit, above, “I can’t help thinking that what are called ‘memes’ are hubs, of a sort … but not in the typical, stable-network sense of the term….Heh, I’ll probably have to explicate in a future post.”)


More to come……