Think: Ar/mr/xr spatial computing

The document defines theory in several nuanced ways, emphasizing its role as a conceptual tool for bridging gaps between paradigms, critiquing established systems, and guiding practice. Specifically:

1. Critique and Transformation: Theory is described as a means to critique institutional structures and “fixed and heavy conceptual foundations,” enabling the articulation of gaps between existing paradigms and desired outcomes. It is seen as crucial for questioning and transforming the military’s organizational and operational logic .

2. Connecting Disparate Ideas: Theory helps make sense of seemingly disconnected events, serving as a framework to organize and interpret complex or emergent phenomena across different fields of knowledge .

3. Operational Utility: The military views theory as both practical and discursive. Practically, it provides new frameworks for urban combat (e.g., “walking through walls” and rethinking spatial syntax). Discursively, it enables the military to communicate its sophistication and justify its strategies .

4. Disruptive Capacity: Theory is valued for its “disruptive” or “nihilist” potential, which allows it to challenge and reorganize existing orders—social, cultural, or military. This focus on its disruptive aspect enables the military to extract methodological value from theory while divorcing it from its original ethical or sociopolitical goals .

5. Language for Redefinition: Theory is framed as a “smart weapon” that redefines both practice and discourse, offering new ways for the military to speak to itself, the public, and its adversaries .

Thus, theory is not tied to its ethical origins but is instead utilized as a flexible tool for analysis, organization, and the justification of practices in various domains.