Untitled

Hanley, Catriona

doi:10.1023/a:1026481204194

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, reports, instructions, and orders were delayed. 132 Additionally, since the marines had only nine days between the alert order and execution, the JTF staff had to simultaneously plan and execute operations while attempting to integrate new members on the JTF staff -a clear and difficult challenge to 133 even the most flexible of military organizations.…”

Section: Augmented Core Service Component Jtfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standing Joint Task Forces: Commands Now Needed

Osborne¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STANDING JOINT TASK FORCES: COMMANDS NOW NEEDED by MAJ Craig A. Osborne, U.S. Army, 65 pages.As the 21 st century emerges, the U.S. will face threats that are more ambiguous and regionally focused than those found in previous years. This monograph seeks to determine if the U.S. military would be better prepared to conduct contingency operations if each geographic combatant commander established regionally-focused, contingency-based standing JTF headquarters. After analyzing the current political and military environments, the author highlights the doctrinal guidance concerning JTFs and identifies the circumstances surrounding their formation. The three methods used to form JTFs in contingency operations are then analyzed, citing historical examples of each, and the advantages and disadvantages of each method are identified. The initiative of standing JTFs is then dissected through a similar analysis. The author determines that standing JTFs are more effective when considering staff synchronization, responsiveness, regional knowledge and understanding, interoperability, service biases, resources, and commander/staff expertise. The author concludes by making recommendations to mitigate the disadvantages found with the standing JTF initiative. Standing Joint Task Forces:Commands Now Needed As the 21 st century emerges, the U.S. will face threats that are more ambiguous and regionally focused than those found in previous years. This monograph seeks to determine if the U.S. military would be better prepared to conduct contingency operations if each geographic combatant commander established regionally-focused, contingency-based standing JTF headquarters. After analyzing the current political and military environments, the author highlights the doctrinal guidance concerning JTFs and identifies the circumstances surrounding their formation. The three methods used to form JTFs in contingency operations are then analyzed, citing historical examples of each, and the advantages and disadvantages of each method are identified. The initiative of standing JTFs is then dissected through a similar analysis. The author determines that standing JTFs are more effective when considering staff synchronization, responsiveness, regional knowledge and understanding, interoperability, service biases, resources, and commander/staff expertise. The author concludes by making recommendations to mitigate the disadvantages found with the standing JTF initiative.

show abstract

Section: Augmented Core Service Component Jtfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standing Joint Task Forces: Commands Now Needed

Osborne¹

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…II TRUTH AS "ALETHEIA": DEEPENING HEIDEGGER'S "DIALECTICS OF THE ORIGIN" AS TO HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY INTO THE PYTHAGOREANS, OR BACK TO THE HIDDEN BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY, "SUNK INTO OBLIVION" One might say that "Heidegger II's" (i.e., after the "turn") philosophical worldview will be now discussed instead of "Heidegger I's" meant above, though in the same context of ontomathematics. The approach can be briefly concentrated on Heidegger's destruction of the history of philosophy investigating the origin of Western philosophy from Plato and Aristotle 6 6 There exists a series of papers considering Heideger's reinterpretation of both Plato and Aristotle (e.g., Montgomery 2020;Chamberlain 2019;Gonzalez 2019;2019a;2018;Choi, Dattilo 2017;Lee 2016;Kockelman 2015;McNeill 2015;Adluri, Brogan 2013;Weidenfeld 2011;Jaran 2010;Keane 2010;Phillips 2009;Gonzalez 2008a;McGuirk 2008;Wolff 2008;Duro 2007;Brogan 2005;Bowler 2008;Hayes 2007;Kirkland 2007;Kress 2006;Chan 2005;Elden 2005;Wrathall 2004;Smith 2003;Baruchello 2001;Elliott 2000;Glazebrook 2000;Hanley 1999;McNeill 1999;Warnek 1997;Protevi 1994;Baur 1992;Bernasconi 1990;Makkreel 1990;Eiland 1989;Fóti 198...…”

Section: Instead Of Introduction: Heidegger's Distinction Between The...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Penchev

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is the final, fifth part of a series of studies introducing the new conceptions of“Hilbert mathematics” and “ontomathematics”. The specific subject of the present investigation is theproper philosophical sense of both, including philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics notless than the traditional “first philosophy” (as far as ontomathematics is a conservative generalization ofontology as well as of Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology” though in a sense) and history of philosophy(deepening Heidegger’s destruction of it from the pre-Socratics to the Pythagoreans). Husserl’sphenomenology and Heidegger’s derivative “fundamental ontology” as well as his later doctrine after the“turn” are the starting point of the research as established and well known approaches relative to thenewly introduced conception of ontomathematics, even more so that Husserl himself started criticizing his“Philosophy of arithmetic” as too naturalistic and psychological turning to “Logical investigations” andthe foundations of phenomenology. Heidegger’s “Aletheia” is also interpreted ontomathematically: as arelation of locality and nonlocality, respectively as a motion from nonlocality to locality if both arephysically considered. Aristotle’s ontological revision of Plato’s doctrine is “destructed” further from thepre-Socratics' “Logos” or Heideger’s “Language” (after the “turn”) to the Pythagoreans “Numbers” or“Arithmetics” as an inherent and fundamental philosophical doctrine. Then, a leap to contemporaryphysics elucidates the essence of ontomathematics overcoming the Cartesian abyss inherited from Plato’sopposition of “ideas” versus “things”, and now unifying physics and mathematics, particularly allowingfor the “creation from nothing” instead of the quasi-scientific myth of the “Big Bang”. Furthermore,ontomathematics needs another interpretation of arithmetic, propositional logic and set theory in thefoundations of mathematics, where the latter two ones are both identified with Boolean algebra, and theformer is considered to be a “half of Boolean algebra” in the exact meaning to be equated to it afterdoubling by a dual anti-isometric counterpart of Peano arithmetic. That unified algebraic realization of thefoundations of mathematics is related to Hilbert mathematics in both “narrow and wide senses” where thelatter is isomorphic to the qubit Hilbert space, thus underlying all the physical world by the newlyintroduced substance of quantum information being physically dimensionless and generalizing classicalinformation measured in bits. The substance of information, whether classical or quantum, visualizes theway of the unification of physics and mathematics by merging their foundations in Hilbert arithmetic andHilbert mathematics: thus how ontomathetics is a “first philosophy”. The relation of ontomathematics tothe Socratic “human problematics”, furthermore being fundamental for Western philosophy in Modernity,is discussed. Ontomathematics implies its “substitution” by abstract information (or by “subjectlesschoice” relevant to it), thus “obliterating the human outline on the ocean beach sand” (by MichelFoucault’s metaphor). A reflection back from the viewpoint of mathematic to Western philosophy as thephilosophy of locality ends the study.

show abstract

“…II TRUTH AS "ALETHEIA": DEEPENING HEIDEGGER'S "DIALECTICS OF THE ORIGIN" AS TO HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY INTO THE PYTHAGOREANS, OR BACK TO THE HIDDEN BEGINNING OF PHILOSOPHY, "SUNK INTO OBLIVION" One might say that "Heidegger II's" (i.e., after the "turn") philosophical worldview will be now discussed instead of "Heidegger I's" meant above, though in the same context of ontomathematics. The approach can be briefly concentrated on Heidegger's destruction of the history of philosophy investigating the origin of Western philosophy from Plato and Aristotle 6 6 There exists a series of papers considering Heideger's reinterpretation of both Plato and Aristotle (e.g., Montgomery 2020;Chamberlain 2019;Gonzalez 2019;2019a;Choi, Dattilo 2017;Lee 2016;Kockelman 2015;McNeill 2015;Adluri, Brogan 2013;Weidenfeld 2011;Jaran 2010;Keane 2010;Phillips 2009;Gonzalez 2008a;McGuirk 2008;Wolff 2008;Duro 2007;Brogan 2005;Bowler 2008;Hayes 2007;Kirkland 2007;Kress 2006;Chan 2005;Elden 2005;Wrathall 2004;Smith 2003;Baruchello 2001;Elliott 2000;Glazebrook 2000;Hanley 1999;McNeill 1999;Snyder 1997;Warnek 1997;Protevi 1994;Baur 1992;Bernasconi 1990;Makkreel 1990;Eiland 1989;Fóti 1985;Walz 1981;…”

Section: Instead Of Introduction: Heidegger's Distinction Between The...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Penchev

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper is the final part of a series introducing the new conceptions of “Hilbert mathematics” and “ontomathematics”. The specific subject of the present investigation is the proper philosophical sense of both, including philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of physics not less than the traditional “first philosophy” (as far as ontomathematics is a conservative generalization of ontology as well as of Heidegger’s “fundamental ontology” though in a sense) and history of philosophy (deepening Heidegger’s destruction of it from the pre-Socratics to the Pythagoreans). Husserl’s phenomenology and Heidegger’s derivative “fundamental ontology” as well as his later doctrine after the “turn” are the starting point of the research as established and well known approaches relative to the newly introduced conception of ontomathematics, even more so that Husserl himself started criticizing his “Philosophy of arithmetic” as too naturalistic and psychological turning to “Logical investigations” and the foundations of phenomenology. Heidegger’s “Aletheia” is also interpreted ontomathematically: as a relation of locality and nonlocality, respectively as a motion from nonlocality to locality if both are physically considered. Aristotle’s ontological revision of Plato’s doctrine is “destructed” further from the pre-Socratics' “Logos” or Heidegger’s “Language” (after the “turn”) to the Pythagoreans “Numbers” or “Arithmetics” as an inherent and fundamental philosophical doctrine. Then, a leap to contemporary physics elucidates the essence of ontomathematics overcoming the Cartesian abyss inherited from Plato’s opposition of “ideas” versus “things”, and now unifying physics and mathematics, particularly allowing for the “creation from nothing” instead of the quasi-scientific myth of the “Big Bang”

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 5 publications

References 1 publication

Standing Joint Task Forces: Commands Now Needed

Standing Joint Task Forces: Commands Now Needed

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Hilbert mathematics versus (or rather “without”) Gödel mathematics: V. Ontomathematics!

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About