1. The Polygon
Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide
Napoleon Bonaparte
1. People of action of our times
1.1. The Actors of Action of our times, The Value Creators
1.2. Challenged by: Theoreticians/Academia/Press
1.3. Challenged by: Legal culture
1.4. Challenged by: Speculatnts
1.5. Book provides the "logical artillery" the men and women of action need
2. Planning to Execution
2.1. Execution is not a reality-printout of the plan, but continuation of the plan as to complete a reality-sentence,
beginning (plan) to an end (execution)
2.2. Execution to planning, as tip of the iceberg is to the iceberg as a whole
2.3. Therefore: planning cannot be considered a list of instructions execution must (literally) satisfy; but rather a
process by which the multitude of instructions and aims together with their intrinsic tensions are being
integrated, weaved and extended throughout the fabric of reality as to create a successful enterprise, a victory
2.4. In this we revive an old lesson, lost on the hubris of modern times that alluded us into believing we could
command reality to (literary) comply with our demands; instead we must advocate a picture of us partnering
with reality as if we are engaged in a joint venture
2.5. Success stands on its own, just like victory; when presented with victory we mind ourselves less with the extent to
which it complies with its prior planning, but rather with the extent in which the planning served the execution
right
2.6. Planning first and foremost has its start in the presence of a problem that calls for resolution and not with a list of
requirements that need to be satisfied. The planner is both a detective deciphering the inner logic of a plot in
progress and an artist who simultaneously creates as well as discloses the figure statue laid as it were hidden for
him or her in the marble stone
3. The Standard
3.1. Instructions, rules, commands, instruments' readings, measures and etc are all in essence Standards
3.2. Examples: pointer showing go forward, the standard of one meter, rules of engagements in war, protocols and
manuals, values, descriptive words in language, flight instruments
3.3. Is the Logical structure of a standard that of a well defined answer or a well phrased question, e.g. when your
watch reads 1PM is it an answer or a question?
3.4. Answer: contrary to what we may think, the (reading of the) standard is a well phrased question!
3.5. This comes clear when standards contradict or collide as it were in midair, e.g. flight instruments' readings that
are at odd with each other; flight instrument's reading that contradicts flight control command; or the mundane
scenario when your mechanical watch and your cellular show different times
3.6. The reason is that our standards are synchronized with and against a frame of reference, shifting grounds that
determine the changing reference of standards and instructions, e.g. the shifting reference of a simple "go
forward" command; or location coordinates as they are registered say on a moving arctic glacier, as in the story
told in the "red tent", the story of the 1928 rescue of the crew of crushed Zeppelin "Italia" in the north pole
4. The Polygon
4.1. You measure risk with or against risk, our environment is saturated with risks, there is no toll free in risks, we
therefore must wisely engage with risks as to advance and protect against the bigger, uncontrolled, risks of the
future , this is where the polygon comes to play
4.2. The measuring apparatus and the measured entity share the same space, you can measure the value of Euro
currency against a Dollar currency, but not Dollar against a Dollar, and therefore you measure risk with risk;
setting one segment of the polygon against another, tradeoff between the segments is the risk transaction that
calls for resolution, e.g. do we prefer to secure the quality of milk by setting a deadline for its consumption which
is near or further in time, tradeoff of price and availability of milk to poor segments of society, will demand
resolution
4.3. The planner translates the planning problem to a polygon in which the segments represent dimensions of the
problem that stand in tradeoffs relationship to each other
4.4. The purpose of execution is to successfully capture reality within the polygon; setting "higher standards", as these
are represented by the segments of the polygon, mean higher securities taken with respect to the relevant
dimension/segment, e.g. setting a near deadline rather a later one for the milk quality. This in turn may create
more pressure of reality emanating from center of the polygon aiming to break through one of the polygon's
segments, searching for the weakest link/segment
4.5. The global, dynamic optimization needed, one that works hand in hand with the emanating pressure of reality, is
threatened by local optimization of the players that are in command of the different segments, e.g. the quality
assurance guy in the milk factory secures his or her position by insisting on the near deadline for the milk product
irrespectively of the implications this has on other segments of the polygon. When this failed logic reiterates itself
- all in the name of the best of values and "higher standards" - outcome of collapse is unavoidable

2. 4.6. In this scenario of collapse, "higher standards" do not any more function as genuine securities taken to advance
and protect before an emanating global risk, but rather function as personal insurance of individuals against
possible failure; the logic is that of success or failure for the joint project, I make sure I am personally insured
4.7. These hidden "personal insurances" we label "internal spares" - like subsides in socialist economy or goods traded
in "black market" - they accumulate unnoticeable until reaching an un maintainable threshold that would force a
collapse of the polygon
4.8. "Adam Smith was wrong", from "Beautiful Mind". "Adam Smith said the best outcome for the group comes from
everyone trying to do what's best for himself"; "Yes, Nash, it’s the basis of all modern economy theory"; 'The best
for himself' translates in our polygon logic to personal insurance forcing in due time collapse of the joint project;
and therefore conclusion from the film: '"He [Adam Smith] was wrong. The best outcome comes from everyone
trying to do what's best for himself and the group"
4.9. Dynamic optimization requires transparency of resources shared by the group in order to combat future risk that
would threaten a successful execution; in direct analogy to a field-marshal in the battlefield timing the launching
of his reserve forces into the heat of battle to maximize impact to win the day. Securing the segments of a
polygon in advance, each segment with its own secured standard/resources amounts to the folly of a field-
marshal distributing all his reserve forces in advance thus making dynamic managing of the battle impossibility
4.10. The transparent pool of resources that must be dynamically optimized throughout the polygon's segments does
not mean an exclusive single decision mechanism/maker; but a true collaborative process and delegation of
optimization decisions involving all players of the polygon; again in analogy to the battlefield, Napoleon's famous
dictum: every (French) soldier carries a marshal's baton in his knapsack
4.11. The mission itself is both the polygon as a whole and a segment of the polygon representing the mission
definition; therefore "a dialogue with the mission" is also thereby issued since it is measured on occasions against
other segments, e.g. an unacceptable measure of casualties against a mission definition too narrowly and literally
defined
4.12. "Who Dares win", or, "Dare, always dare", mean according to Liddell Hart, the taking of calculated, in advance
wise risks to combat an un controllable future risk that would force a failure; advocating therefore friction: a
(calculated) search for encounters with risk rather than avoiding it, i.e. practicing global, dynamic optimization of
the polygon. No wonder these are the guiding slogans of elite units such as the SAS and the "Unit" of the IDF
5. Decisions
5.1. Decisions and Time, right decision is the one taken in the right time
5.2. The polygon tradeoffs dilemmas translate into decisions on the time line
5.3. The "buffer" of polygon constrains is being loaded in time until a threshold moment, not too early, not too late,
that calls for a resolution/decision
5.4. The singular decision moment: last moment for deliberation, first for action; again Napoleon's: "Take time to
deliberate, but when the time for action has arrived, stop thinking, and go in"
5.5. The Singularity of the decision dilemma, e.g. the Tennis player and the singular decision point in time
5.6. Too early, we force a solution on reality not yet ripe, e.g. a backhand decision response to a tennis ball before
circumstances of the ball's trajectory invite a resolution
5.7. Too late, reality is over ripe, we know what we should have done, but reality is no longer there for us to channel
its power along the right path, e.g. we should have been hitting the tennis ball in this fashion, running the play
back makes clear what we should have done, but there is no play back in real life..
5.8. Historical military stories, too early in "a bridge too far", too late in Waterloo, and many more
6. Simulation
6.1. What is an Exercise? A ‘repeat’ against cartoon figures
6.2. An exercise/simulation rests on the inherent gap between circumstances of the exercise and the real
circumstances that are being exercised for, e.g. cartoon figures do not shoot back at you..
6.3. The Inherent gap allows us to train in safe environment, and to "repeat" against multitude proxies of the future
reality, e.g. live ammunition against cartoon figures, war games with no live ammunition against fellow
colleagues. Each such "repeat" trains toward the same thing, e.g. warfare, but each time with a different
emphasis according to the exercise setup
6.4. The danger: falling into the fallacy of 1:1 in simulation – the ultimate "repeat" as it were, both in the practice of
training and in planning; think of the folly of navigating with a 1:1 topographic map..
6.5. The danger is two folds: treating the training/simulation stage (too rigidly/seriously) as if it were real; treating the
real challenges as if they belong to the practice of schooling, offering rigid text book solutions to real life dynamic
challenges
7. Moment of Truth
7.1. Crossing the border - from simulation to real, no "repeat",
7.2. No gap between two types of circumstances, that of the exercise and that which is being exercised for; one
challenging circumstances, no second chance to correct, Eminem's: one shot, one opportunity
7.3. FDR: "There are many ways to move forward but only one was to stand still", the "many ways" are forced,
borrowed solutions from lessons of past as shaped in the schooling phase – as these are urged say by president's
advisors; the "one way" is the singular stand still resolution that the moment of truth demands of the president
7.4. Moment of Truth requires all the schooling and training as well as the light, free touch of the artist, think "Man on
Wire", no gap between the decision maker and his reality, between him and his God as it were, no escape, and
therefore also sense of freedom, he is the sole decision maker, all protocols, school's lessons and simulations of
the past are at his service; no longer their slave, he is the sole master of the moment
7.5. The moment of truth of the physician in the operation room: (would he be tempted to be) protected by the
protocol or truly responsible before reality?!

3. 8. Failure
8.1. The logic of Failure
8.2. Mistake is repetition: trying to ignite your car with your apartment's keys
8.3. Repeated success is a failure: fighting the war of yesterday, Israel's wars of from 67 and 73
8.4. After failure: strategy of a responsible “containing” vs. “cleaning”
8.5. Who is in a position to judge? In failure, "context of the action" must ground any retroactive judgment
8.6. We must extend with courage in action but be light in our retroactive judgment
9. 20th
century philosophy and question of action
9.1. The logical underpinning of the legal model of action, from Gödel and Wittgenstein to current legal culture and its
threat to a true culture of action
9.2. The quest for perfectionism and its limits: what to the greatest logician of the 20th
century (Kurt Gödel) and
Special Ops?
9.3. Standards and rules: what to the greatest philosopher of 20th
century (Ludwig Wittgenstein) and Special Ops?
9.4. What to the length of the standard meter in Paris and the standard of action in Special Ops?
9.5. What to Wittgenstein’s “axiom of silence” and the education of paratroopers in the IDF?
9.6. The call for judgment and the ethical fallacy in the attempt to tie the combat soldier and commander to a
preliminary binding system of rigid rules
9.7. What is discipline then? Why then we should obey commands?! The principle of translation in following rules
10. Strategy, Logic and Ethics
10.1. The Danish Quantum Physicist, Niels Bohr, on the logical puzzle hidden in the classical Hollywood Western films
featuring a duel between the Good and the Bad
10.2. Why Ethics and Esthetics are one and what this has to do with the economy of risks
10.3. Culture of War, the ultimate test of war, ethics of worriers, hidden understandings, the intimate verdict/the test
of the eye's of soldiers; retroactive judgment
10.4. The spirit is of joint problem solving
10.5. Emanuel Kant’s Do what’s right and leave the consequences to God – and the challenge of the moving target
11. The meaning of success
11.1. Know thyself
11.2. "Maximize" on who you are: you are the optimal singular solution of that that you are as a singular problem
11.3. As if you were a singular work of art; think of you as a success and not of the success of a false-you
11.4. The Picture of Dorian Gray, maximizing on a false self image of yourself would mean that gap between you and
your false self image widens and must be thus 'financed" by resources supplemented by your surroundings and
society at large; this would last up to an un maintainable threshold that would force collapse; the search for
success is therefore also the search for identity; your true self
11.5. The analogy here to the logic of the Polygon is immediate. A false polygon would be 'financed' up to un-
maintainable threshold moment of collapse. A true polygon, the starting point for true process of dynamic
optimization leading to a success is a human project that found its true calling/identity
11.6. True of individuals, societies, states and commercial companies alike; the case of Toyota, returning back to its
true calling following a managerial and company identity crisis, "We have turned from a company that produces
cars to a company that produces money"
12. Eternity
12.1. Think of tomorrow, we are a link
12.2. The arrogance of the victorious
12.3. The Overwhelming power of resources and consequently the induced illusion of control
12.4. The fallacy of Quantifying and measuring Ethics
12.5. Zooming in and loosing the big picture; we must simultaneously work and operate within the picture as a whole
12.6. Sidney Morgenbesser’s Cogito: I think therefore you are wrong
12.7. Conclusion: modesty and respect to matter; reality would always rebel against the tyrant planner with dire
consequences to us all, e.g. 2008 crisis
12.8. We on the other hand - as we teach in Logic in Action - invite reality to partner with us in planning and shaping
the future