What of these other fours?
 Post appears BELOW Table of Contents.
 This blog focuses on similarities between others' four-folds, tetrads, tetrachotomies, and mine, and includes links to online information on others’ fours in their own terms. It results from overgrowth of an old post at The Tetrast "What of these other fours?".
Table of Contents

Fours that I've
adopted or adapted:
Fours with a striking
likeness to mine:
Fours involving some
likeness to mine: 		More-or-less different fours:
Unless otherwise stated within the post, first posted on Friday, December 5, 2008. Post times here are just a device to control the order of appearance. Most of the posts are based on entries in an older post "What of These Other Fours?" at The Tetrast.
John Boyd's OODA loop
Correlations, not flat equations.
Boyd's
OODA:
1. Observation (data intake).
2. Orientation.
3. Decision.
4. Action.
Tetrastic modes
of the psyche:
3. Affectivity.
4. Cognition.
1. Will, conation.
2. Dealing, ability.
Tetrastic stages in
a generalized loop.
1. Adopt.
 
 
2. Apply.
 
∞
3. Take in.
 
 
4. Digest.
John Boyd's OODA loop — Observation, orientation, decision, action. There seems not too bad a correlation, except for a few things. In my non-reordered, "default" version the loop would begin with decision -- DAOO. There my short answer is that a reordering can be perfectly "okay, philosophically" as long as it is regular, relationship-preservative. The biggest difference seems instead to be that in my version, "observation" (the intake of data) would have, at its core, affective evaluation -- i.e., one is confronted by good or by bad or by an irresistable challenge -- etc. In battle, of course, it's important to keep cool under fire, and meanwhile Boyd emphasizes the intake of data via the senses. Next, Boyd portrays orientation as a cognitively digestive stage, yet "orientation" remains the right word for that which he's discussing, cognition with pertinence to one's immediate situation.

But why would I want to order even the generalized loop differently? If I think that Boyd's ordering is just fine, then why don't I make it the standard for more general orderings? Where the action is a kind of means, the decision to it is a beginning, an undertaking. From one's ensuing action springs a result, an effect or lack thereof, which one observes (or tries to observe, anyway) and evaluates, especially for its likeness or unlikeness to one's intent, and one considers it carefully, checking it against various things including one's experience and expectations. Beginning -- middle/means -- end -- check. Thence one may loop back to the decision stage again, as indeed one may have already done in getting into the current go-round. (Discussion of beginnings, means, ends, and checks.) - posted by The Tetrast @ 10:23 PM [top of post] [top of page] Copyright © BenjaminðA.ðUde11.
Post a Comment


.
.
* *
Remember.
* *
.
.