Simple topos-based analysis shows why the White House insists on public's trust in General Kelly's judgement. As Sarah H-S. put it, "If you want to get into a debate with a four-star Marine general, I think that is something highly inappropriate."
Let's see how we can lay out the logical structure of the situation.
- First, consider the initial data.
While defending his boss in an earlier brieflng, General Kelly described Wilson's action and mapped it to the truth table Ω as unacceptable. To summarize, he provided two elements for the topos diagram: object "an action" and arrow "is unacceptable."
- Second, consider the change in the data.
It turns out that his public description of the action was incorrect. Sarah H-S insists that there exists another private description of the action and that we should continue using Kelly's arrow "is unacceptable." As long as we continue doing it, the diagram commutes.
On the other hand, if we say that Kelly's job is to provide evidence only and it's the public's function to make the judgement, the diagram doesn't commute because a new object "an action" is simply missing.
- Third, consider strategies for saving Kelly's face, i.e. keeping the diagram intact.
Saving Kelly's face requires blind public trust in the general's judgement whether something said about dead servicemen "is unacceptable." Most likely, this is how they perceive it in the White House. Nevertheless, the public doesn't have to follow the White House rules. In short, the diagram commutes in the White House because Covfefe trusts Kelly; it doesn't commute outside the White House because the public requires evidence, not his judgement "is unacceptable."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
