Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Let's Talk Peace XX

http://cenocracy.org


Let's face it, humanity has a lousy definition, accompanying practice, and analysis of peace.


On page 17 we did a cursory introduction of the "fast and slow" thinking thesis of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, and deliberately left ourselves open to refutation by some readers who... we might assume are acting as greedy Capitalist-inclined economists, plunge into an intellectual opportunity that they think will be profitable to their overall conceptualizations about thinking; and will be able to fortify their position by acquiring the intellectual arms and ammunition of another for their own uses. Yep, like so many who are vulnerable to being sucked into the action of a herd mentality, there is a crowd of fans having joined in the chorus due to the "Thinking, fast and slow" idea that is reminiscent of a side show selling its snake oil salve to be used in a presumed behaviorist approach that will help to yield a pecuniary profit. Yet, all that is being shown is that educated people can act like small town hicks whose main education has been culled from hearsay and the family bible.


Because of Kahneman's living and working exposure to a culture suffused with a prominent religious orientation... even if he were to claim being an atheist; it is necessary to examine the fast/slow thesis from the old religious bad/good or evil/good association. The two-system represents humans as using a two-patterned scaffolding from which is built an over-riding two-divisioned architecture as if there were a two-patterned blue-print. This is ridiculous!, especially given the fact that our anatomy and biology having developed as an adaptive form of evolution on a decaying planet is particularly three-patterned based, as cited on page 3 in this series, ... and is being used to describe human behavior in a bad/good or impulsive, reflexive, instinctive versus methodical, reflective, intelligent; yet the pattern-of-three presence is being brushed aside or simply not known. So many idiot Economists and Psychologists are not even aware of Tripartite Ideology except for perhaps in some childish reference to theology, children's literature, Dumezilian advocacy, numerology, or as someone's favorite number.


The "Thinking, Fast and Slow" thesis uses the old good/evil theme by flip-flopping the arrangement to read as "evil/good" in the form of "fast/slow" defined with terms which appeal to those who see themselves in a smart/dumb, rich/poor, right/wrong, professional/non-professional, etc... world. No doubt many of them view the dichotomy of peace/war (conflict) as if it were an irrefutable axiom... all because they see the world in a predominant two-patterned fashion. They have not taken the time to exam the presence of how many and diverse patterns-of-three are. Their logic is two-based whereas logic contains a dichotomy from which an emerging trichotomy is evident, such as seen in the following examples:


  • Hegel logic syllogism: [{Thesis/Anti-thesis}- Synthesis]
  • General logic syllogism (14th century?) [{Major Premise/Minor Premise} Conclusion]
  • [{Red/Green}- Yellow] street lights
  • [{Hot/Cold}- Warm]

("Figure") in logic, (is) the classification of syllogisms according to the arrangement of the middle term, namely, the term (subject or predicate of a proposition) that occurs in both premises but not in the conclusion. There are four figures:


Figure 1Figure 2Figure 3Figure 4
M—PP—MM—PP—M
S—MS—MM—SM—S
∴S—P∴S—P∴S—P∴S—P;

In the first figure the middle term is the subject of the major premise and the predicate of the minor premise; in the second figure the middle term is the predicate of both premises; in the third figure the middle term is the subject of both premises; in the fourth figure the middle term is the predicate of the major premise and the subject of the minor premise. All standard syllogisms may be described by designating their figure and mood:




In logic, ("mood" is) the classification of categorical syllogisms according to the quantity (universal or particular) and quality (affirmative or negative) of their constituent propositions. There are four forms of propositions: A (universal affirmative), E (universal negative), I (particular affirmative), and O (particular negative). Because each syllogism has three propositions and each proposition may take four different forms, there are 64 different patterns (moods) of syllogisms. Twenty-four of the 64 possible moods are valid, though only 19 were traditionally accepted as valid. Various mnemonic terms are employed to label these moods. The vowels of these terms represent the forms of propositions in the syllogism. For example, “Felapton” is the mnemonic term to signify the mood in which the major premise (the premise containing the predicate of the conclusion) of the syllogism is an E proposition, the minor premise (the premise containing the subject of the conclusion) is an A, and the conclusion is an O.


Sources: "Figure."/"Mood." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

(Please note the "64" value and correlate it with the "64" in amino acid distribution, the I-ching and let us add the colloquialism: "That's the 64 dollar question"... all of which exhibit the same pattern which can be broken down into simpler patterns... but that in identifying such patterns, some readers may be inclined to think in terms of some "Universality" when what is actually being expressed is a conservation effect produced by human physiology under incrementally deteriorating environmental conditions.)



And though many readers are well aware of this pattern-of-three but are inclined to see the world in a monocular form of bifurcation. It's like looking through a telescope connected to a set of binoculars instead of through the binoculars into a telescope with variable lens magnifications like a stereoscopic microscope. Whereas with a microscope one can change lens magnifications and filters, the "pattern-of-two" becomes a fixed magnification and filtering mechanism whereby we have institutions such economics, religion, governments, Nobel Peace Prize committee, United Nations, etc., that act like different role models but they are teaching the same underlying two-patterned lesson.


With respect to the "64", it too may be found in the number of squares on a Chess board, but it is not on the presented Chinese Chess board, despite the wide-spread presence of the "64" idea in the Chinese I-Ching philosophy.


chessboard (27K) Chinese Chess (30K)

Because playing chess is thought to exhibit some fundamental type(s) of thinking, it has a history of being applied to the development of computer programming. A short history review might be helpful to some readers:


Master search heuristics




Heuristic definitions:
  • A common sense rule (or set of rules) intended to increase the probability of solving some problem. (Wordweb definition #2))

  • Involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and esp. trial-and-error methods ‹~ techniques› ‹a ~ assumption› ; also: of or relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques that utilize self-educating techniques (as the evaluation of feedback) to improve performance ‹a ~ computer program› (Heuristic origin 1821?, Merriam-Webster definition)



(Heuristics is) The ability of a machine to play chess well has taken on symbolic meaning since the first pre-computer devices more than a century ago. In 1890 a Spanish scientist, Leonardo Torres y Quevado, introduced an electromagnetic device—composed of wire, switch, and circuit—that was capable of check-mating a human opponent in a simple endgame, king and rook versus king. The machine did not always play the best moves and sometimes took 50 moves to perform a task that an average human player could complete in fewer than 20. But it could recognize illegal moves and always delivered eventual checkmate. Torres y Quevado acknowledged that the apparatus had no practical purpose. As a scientific toy, however, it gained attention for his belief in the capability of machines to be programmed to follow certain rules.


No significant progress in this area was made until the development of the electronic digital machine after World War II. About 1947 Alan Turing of the University of Manchester, Eng., developed the first simple program capable of analyzing one ply (one side's move) ahead. Four years later a Manchester colleague, D.G. Prinz, wrote a program capable of solving mate-in-two-move problems but not actually playing chess.


A breakthrough came in 1948, when the research scientist Claude Shannon of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., U.S., presented a paper that influenced all future programmers. Shannon, like Torres y Quevada and Turing, stressed that progress in developing a chess-playing program would have a wider application and could lead, he said, to machines that could translate from language to language or make strategic military decisions.


Shannon appreciated that a computer conducting an entire game would have to make decisions using incomplete information because it could not examine all the positions leading to checkmate, which might lie 40 or 50 moves ahead. Therefore, it would have to select moves that were good, not merely legal, by evaluating future positions that were not checkmates. Shannon's paper set down criteria for evaluating each position a program would consider.


This evaluation function is crucial because even a rudimentary program would have to determine the relative differences between thousands of different positions. In a typical position White may have 30 legal moves, and to each of those moves Black may have 30 possible replies. This means that a machine considering White's best move may have to examine 30 × 30, or 900, positions resulting from Black's reply, a two-ply search. A three-ply search—an initial move by White, a Black reply, and a White response to that—would mean 30 × 30 × 30, or 27,000, different final positions to be considered. (It has been estimated that humans examine only about 50 positions before choosing a move.)


Turing's evaluation function was dominated by determining which side had more pieces in various future positions. But Shannon suggested that each position could be weighed using positional criteria, including the condition of pawns and their control of the centre squares, the mobility of the other pieces, and specific cases of well-placed pieces, such as a rook on an open (pawnless) file or on the seventh rank. Other criteria were used by later programmers to refine and improve the evaluation function. All criteria had to be quantified. For example, a human master can quickly evaluate the mobility of bishops or the relative safety of the king. Early programs performed the same evaluation by counting the number of legal bishop moves or the squares under control around a player's king.


Andrew E. Soltis: Columnist, Chess Life. Chess columnist and reporter, New York Post. Author of Pawn Structure Chess and many others.

Source: "Chess." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

A point that should be stressed for the current Peace/War discussion is that in the above excerpt there was the reference to an application towards Military strategy, just like the Chinese 9 X 9 chess game is explicit in its illustration thereof. One must wonder if a comment about an application to Peace initiatives would have piqued as much follow-up interest or had gotten the influx of money that military-minded people offered for various studies and experimentation. In other words, if a topic is related to having a possible application to military strategy instead of peace, researchers and experimenters have a better chance of getting funding. If Americans instead had a "Pentagon of peace initiatives" instead of a "Pentagon of War initiatives", and all other Nations were similarly focused with the same determination to exhibit a larger non-military "peace force", funding to enhance humanity through research and experimentation that is otherwise pushed aside— might prove to be of a greater asset.


Computing and thus systems of logic within the constraints of mechanical apparatus during a mostly pre-electronic age in the context of military applications were used for the development of communications equipment called code or cipher machines, of which the "Enigma" model is famous for because it produced code that was considered to be unbreakable... and it was, that is until the allies got hold of one and engaged in an exercise of reverse engineering. (The enigma was powered by a battery to run a motor to move the wheels and turn light bulbs on.)


The German mentality, under the auspices of a "Third" Reich had scientists thinking quite differently than others; and in fact many of whom are said to have become employed by the U.S. government's rocket development efforts... one of which was the space program. One must wonder if there was an over-riding inclination to think in patterns-of-three (whether anyone was aware of it or not), as opposed to the Allie's from two-to-three playing catch up orientation... and is an orientation which has gotten humanity bogged down in its current systems of political idiocy advocating various two-patterned strategies because the grasp of logic lacks a comprehensive and comprehension of a cognitive conservation law due to human physiology cast into the presence of an incrementally deteriorating planetary environment?


3 roller Enigma code machine in World War II was typical, but 4 and 5 wheel varieties were used (Thus presenting us with a three-patterned {Pythagorean} 3 + 4 + 5)... though later Naval uses included three more with 6, 7, and 8 wheel versions.


Enigma 3-rotor (28K) Enigma 4-rotor (61K) 3 wheel enigma (103K)

Three wheels (rollers) were selected from a set of five in the case of the Army and Air Force machines and from a set of eight in the case of the Naval machines. The daily [or other periodic] instructions would also specify the reflector [Umkehrwalze] and, in the case of the Kriegmarine's M4, the selection of the fourth, 'Greek' wheel and its 'thin' reflector.


By itself, a rotor performs only a very simple type of encryption—a simple substitution cipher. For example, the pin corresponding to the letter E might be wired to the contact for letter T on the opposite face, and so on. Enigma's security came from using several rotors in series (usually three or four) and the regular stepping movement of the rotors, thus implementing a polyalphabetic substitution cipher.


When placed in an Enigma, each rotor can be set to one of 26 possible positions. When inserted, it can be turned by hand using the grooved finger-wheel, which protrudes from the internal Enigma cover when closed. So that the operator can know the rotor's position, each had an alphabet tyre (or letter ring) attached to the outside of the rotor disk, with 26 characters (typically letters); one of these could be seen through the window, thus indicating the rotational position of the rotor. In early models, the alphabet ring was fixed to the rotor disk. A later improvement was the ability to adjust the alphabet ring relative to the rotor disk. The position of the ring was known as the Ringstellung ("ring setting"), and was a part of the initial setting prior to an operating session. In modern terms it was a part of the initialization vector.


Each rotor contained a notch (or more than one) that controlled rotor stepping. In the military variants, the notches are located on the alphabet ring.


The Army and Air Force Enigmas were used with several rotors, initially three. On 15 December 1938, this changed to five, from which three were chosen for a given session. Rotors were marked with Roman numerals to distinguish them: I, II, III, IV and V, all with single notches located at different points on the alphabet ring. This variation was probably intended as a security measure, but ultimately allowed the Polish Clock Method and British Banburismus attacks.


The Naval version of the Wehrmacht Enigma had always been issued with more rotors than the other services: at first six, then seven, and finally eight. The additional rotors were marked VI, VII and VIII, all with different wiring, and had two notches, resulting in more frequent turnover. The four-rotor Naval Enigma (M4) machine accommodated an extra rotor in the same space as the three-rotor version. This was accomplished by replacing the original reflector with a thinner one and by adding a thin fourth rotor. That fourth rotor was one of two types, Beta or Gamma, and never stepped, but could be manually set to any of 26 positions. One of the 26 made the machine perform identically to the three-rotor machine.


Source: Wikipedia article: Enigma Machine

In contrast to the inability of the Allies to crack the German Enigma Codes without assistance, the Japanese code machines were easy enough due to differences in development as illustrated in the following Britannica excerpt:


In 1930 the Japanese Foreign Office put into service its first rotor machine, which was code-named Red by U.S. cryptanalysts. In 1935–36 the U.S. Army Signal Intelligence Service (SIS) team of cryptanalysts, led by William F. Friedman, succeeded in cryptanalyzing Red ciphers, drawing heavily on its previous experience in cryptanalyzing the machine ciphers produced by the Hebern rotor machines. In 1939 the Japanese introduced a new cipher machine, code-named Purple by U.S. cryptanalysts, in which rotors were replaced by telephone stepping switches. Because the replacement of Red machines by Purple machines was gradual, providing an enormous number of cribs between the systems to aid cryptanalysts, and because the Japanese had taken a shortcut to avoid the key distribution problem by generating keys systematically, U.S. cryptanalysts were able not only to cryptanalyze the Purple ciphers but also eventually to anticipate keys several days in advance. Functionally equivalent analogs to the Purple cipher machines were constructed by Friedman and his SIS associates and used throughout the war to decrypt Japanese ciphers. Apparently no Purple machine survived the war. Another Japanese cipher machine, code-named Jade, was essentially the same as the Purple. It differed from the latter chiefly in that it typed Japanese kana characters directly.


Gustavus J. Simmons: Former Senior Fellow, National Security Studies, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Manager, Applied Mathematics Department, 1971–87. Researcher in command and control of nuclear weapons. Author of numerous articles on cryptology and authentication.

Source: "Cryptology." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

3 suggestions of who broke the German Enigma code:


  1. Poles (Poland)
  2. Brits (Britain)
  3. Others (German code defector, etc...)

3-wheel Enigma with reflector and six plug connections generated the following 39 three-patterned number of coding positions:


3 283 883 513 796 974 198 700 882 069 882 752 878
379 955 261 095 623 685 444 055 315 226 006 433 616
627 409 666 933 182 371 154 802 769 920 000 000 000

Enigma information sources:
--- Enigma ---
http://webhome.idirect.com/~jproc/crypto/enigma.html

--- Enigma ---
http://www.eclipse.net/~dhamer/Enigma1.htm

--- Enigma ---
http://www.myke.com/enigma.htm

3 representations are provided at the end of the motion picture U-571 which was dedicated to the bravery of Allied sailors and officers who risked their lives capturing enigma materials from U-boats during the battle of the Atlantic:


  1. May 9, 1941- Enigma machine and coding documents were captured from U-110 by HMS Bulldog and HMS Aubretta of the 3rd escort group.

  2. Oct. 9, 1942- Short weather cipher captured from U-559 by HMS Petard.

  3. June 4, 1944- Enigma machine and coding documents captured from U-505 by U.S. Navy task force 22.3.



The point to be made with the above historical example of the Enigma is to point out that the number of rotors incorporated into machines was limited because human mentality is limited... is conserved... and that the Peace/War (conflict) dichotomy is a variation of thought akin to a scratched record playing a small segment over and over again; or that with the above example in mind, like a repeating message because one or more of the wheels is stuck, and no one is recognizing the discrepancy in operation because they are not opening the hood of the vehicle since most humans are of the "turn the key and go" or "put gas in and go" variety of thinkers.






— End of page 20 —



Date of Origination: Tuesday, 27-Dec-2016... 02:23 AM
Date of initial posting: Monday, 02-Jan-2017... 10:37 AM