There are other posts that I should be writing, the sticking point is that I’m struggling with a ‘whats the point – this is just about Command-and-Control creating false statistics’. I think that there has been a focus upon information and processes/rules, but the Context or framework containing the information-process has been lost. Mainly due to the assumption that the context is credible, actually I’m talking subjectively I don’t know what anyone else thinks about it. The Context is a relatively new aspect for me, maybe its that awareness that the residing credibility or legitimacy (within the context) is lost, gone, or dubious.

Reflection; Context Of Assange

There I was pondering whether anyone else was considering Context and up pops the Assange event. Its taken a little time to realise that there is a definite Contextual awareness amongst the general population, but it is clearly discernible. A case for First-Order cybernetics, and the affects by way of Second-Order Cybernetics. The Observer, and the knowingly Observed.

What I was looking for, as a curio for satisfying abductive reasoning primarily, was the ‘debate’ which for some reason Tories seem to think they are really good at whilst failing to make a rational argument. The irony is that the shortened version [below] makes no points, no argument, just Ad Hominem. As an additional piece of insanity, its billed on the Conservatives Twitter account as ‘calmly dismantling Dianne’s dodgy defence’. The next layer of Bonkers has a David Buik commenting “good, concise uncompromising comments…”. Ugh.. PR consultant and committed to the City of London, apparently.

More to the point, Javid in the Sun version [first video] mentions that he won’t debate the reasons due to the non interference with legal proceedings. What I want to do, is draw out an overview of the comments before looking at the Context. The comments or arguments being discussed are:

• The failure to attend a Court
• Sex offence charges in Sweden, which may be restarted.
• Leaking of Official Secrets
• Leaks defining war crimes, but also casualties due to those leaks.
• Illegal War, no WMD.

The context is about Government manipulation. Which is also known as Oppression. Its not historically the worst form, somewhere on a sliding scale, but as a second-order awareness and well presented. To use a mathematical analogy, the awareness of Government manipulation is the Determinant of conversations, perspectives, arguments and malaise.

🗣 @SajidJavid calmly dismantles Diane Abbott's dodgy defence of Julian Assange 👇 pic.twitter.com/qV1LoZtTjG

— Conservatives (@Conservatives) April 11, 2019

Definitions of Context

Definitions will be needed, although what I am conscious of is always having used one definition, whilst having a new ‘working’ awareness of another. Really, the difference is just a change of cross-section: Horizontal, vertical and line-of-sight. A couple of these I want to elaborate, which was as clear as day a few days ago, I’m not so sure now, but thats the outline.

Using the above case, the first definition is a horizontal cross-section of events, say the WMD thing. There were chemical weapons used on the Kurds in the North, possibly some on the Iraqi populace in the South, and I seem to recollect Iran going to the UN Security Council to Complain of Chemical Weapon use on their citizenry. Also, I seem to recollect that a French firm in particular was supplying plant of such limited use as to imply chemical weapons being made. It wasn’t the only company involved. The details of this expand the events leading to the WMD assumption, and as an example of expanding the boundary of events equates to Context. This would be my definition, usually, and I suspect most other peoples definition.

Ordinarily I’d be happy enough with that, but there must be at least two others, from Deutero-learning diagrams. The first as a vertical cross-section, from these diagrams. Also, there must be from information – an emitting process AND a contextual nucleus. Which suggests a line-of-sight version looking in. Anyway, standard definitions or other perspectives:

A system context can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such as the systems it works directly with and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of reductionism and holism is applied. This balance sits at the heart of a systems approach. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance, and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence, of systems engineering (SE) as well…”

sebokbikihttps://www.sebokwiki.org/wiki/What_is_Systems_Thinking%3F

“…A holistic view of, say, a bicycle means to see the bicycle as a functional whole and to understand the interdependence of its parts accordingly. An ecological view of the bicycle includes that but it adds to it the perceptions of how the bicycle is embedded in it natural and social environment –  where the raw materials that went into it came from, how it was manufactured, how it use affects the natural environment and the community by which it is used and so on.” (7)…”

Fritjof Capra via Laurie Hurson

“…As problems become more complex and ill-structured, they are defined by intertwining technical and contextual elements. We cast technical elements as the specific objects, tools, knowledge, and processes employed to transform inputs (e.g., problems and resources) to outputs (e.g., solutions and consequences). This broad view of the technical elements of problems encompasses both modern constructions of technologies as scientific or engineering devices and theoretical conceptualizations of technologies. The latter, borrowed from the field of organization studies, is more inclusive, considering both system and task-level transformational processes (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). In contrast, contextual elements refer to the environment in which these technical elements are embedded, including social, cultural, political, legal, ecological, and economic features (Forester, 1984).

Assessing systems thinking: A tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems.
Ref:Science Direct
Author links open overlay panelJacob R.Grohs^a
Gary R.Kirk^aMichelle M.Soledad^abDavid B.Knight^a

The definitions are a bit harder to come by than I imagined, and seem to mostly replicate my original singular meaning. No diverse interpretations so all good.

Oh.. and from the Context looking out.