infrastructure grounded in
distantiation between the actors’ creation and the audience’s mirror
participation. Furthermore, to produce and perform a play requires policy
definition; the rules of engagement, the form of interactions and the potential
consequences. A number of theatrical elements go into the makeup of this policy
definition. The dramatis personae
constitute, at the most basic, a listing of the characters in a play. The mise en scene specifies the stage
setting and environment within which action occurs. The script of the play defines the dialogue among the characters;
essentially the interactions within the play, including the appropriate stimuli
or motivation of the various actors during the various interactions. Finally, a
play typically has a director; the
person responsible for determining the details of a specific performance. As we
have discussed in some detail, these elements are all found within the trust
and policy infrastructures of social ecosystems of the world enlightened by
theatre performance.
Metaphorical
constructs of theatre are projected onto the physical or other social
ecosystems, and match their characteristics. A central feature of a trust
infrastructure is the registry of identities of entities that are known within
the infrastructure. By known we mean that the identities found within the
registry can be asserted and that assertion or identity can be subsequently
proven to some level of accuracy through an authentication protocol, a process
singularly exemplified by the use of masks and other guise and disguise. The
environment of interaction must be defined, also an important aspect of setting
the stage, which encompasses the specification of the boundaries of
interactions. This specification will typically take the form of identification
of the entities to be involved and the processes that these entities will use
in the conduct of the play. Finally, we come to the script itself. Through the
course of the three phases that we want to consider, it is the form, content
and placement of the script that will undergo the greatest change. This will
range from an application being the purveyor of the script to having the script
be dynamically established through negotiation among the participating parties
to the interaction.
The plot is the storyline of a play. It is,
in fact, the raison d’être for the
play. It is the extraction of metaphorical understanding from the action of the
play. It is largely the presence, allusion to or ambiguity of a plot that
carries us through the three phases of evolutionary progression that we’ll
consider below. As we progress through those phases, we’ll note that the plots
become more complex and the sub-plots more numerous. With complexity come more
interaction types, and therefore increased risk from threats. Hence, we will
see more twists within the plots and sub-plots as we seek to ameliorate the
threats. As we consider the three phases, we’ll consider in more detail the
plots relevant to each.
But first, we
need to return to the observation that with increasing capabilities to answer
and create threats comes more distance between the competence of participants
to interaction and their performance as afforded by previous experience.
Consider in the previous chapter where we suggested prayer as a model for
interactions involving both trust and policy infrastructures. Note that prayer
considers the limits of the policy infrastructure, what happens when we want to
change the rules during a transaction? Before examining how theater provides a
model of such climb towards ultimate change, let’s consider shortly how
computers themselves have built their competence over time, perhaps helping
understand better in return our very human capabilities.
In earlier
secure cores, the central machinery of the system, that which defines its
competence, its operating system, was contained in read-only memory. It is a
form of electronic circuitry that is imprinted only once with the operating
system, and never changeable thereafter. In other words,
|