...as we know, there are known knowns -
there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know,
But there are also unknown unknowns,
the ones we don't know we don't know.

-- Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002
Department of Defense news briefing

 

To me, this remark is one of greatest examples of philosophical clarity uttered by the American military administration. Even though it may not contain the best choice of words, it not only exhibits an internal logic, it also reveals an understanding of the very deep Taoist strategic principles from Sun Tzu's "Art of War", and the "Tao Te Ching" of Lao Tzu.

If we apply Triplex Unity Theory to this quote, firstly we can see there are three elements that he is bringing to our attention;

If we build a linear scale and place at one end "Known", and the opposite end "Unknown", we thus have a scale that shows the degree of increasing "unknown-ness".

The scale represents the range of our knowledge about a given situation, lets say for example, our knowledge of the enemy for a military operation. At one end of the scale, "the Known", is intelligence that is confirmed, known to be accurate. It may consist of any aspect of the enemy's forces that we know to be fact, eg. numbers of vehicles, types of weapons, capabilities of machinery and technology etc. It also consists of what we know about our own force.

Next, our intelligence may also consist of information which is partially complete. For example, we may know what types of weapons our opponent has in their arsenal, but not the exact quantities. The unknown element is the quantity. However, by knowing what types of weapons our enemy has, we can at least be sure of their limitations, as far as threat of devastation etc. We can make estimations of these unknown quantities, and can set reasonable or logical limits on these quantities, based upon other data. These estimations are then taken into account when formulating our war plans.

There is also the possiblity however, that our enemy may have a type of weapon that we had no idea they possessed, for example, a nuclear warhead. Or they may have a new type of technology, or operate under a more advanced military strategy than we had first thought. If we go to battle with a plan based on knowns and estimates, we can at least prepare for certain and probable eventualities. However, if when engaging in battle, our opponent pulls out an unknown weapon, ie. a more superior weapon to what we believed them to have possessed, we are not only caught by surprise, but are potentially put into disadvantage. This type of unknown we have not made any estimations for, because how can you plan for something when you do not know it is part of the equation. It is an unforseen occurence of something we had not even planned for.

These three scenarios discussed above can be thus put on our scale of degree of "known-ness", to look something like this:

Putting this in more general terms, we can reduce the situation to appear like this:

From our knowledge of Triplex Unity Theory, we can see that this situation can be represented by the Linear Progressive Geometry, as it depicts a process that develops in a sequential manner from one extreme to the other, in a linear fashion. Therefore, we can depict the logical sequence behind the three elements of Rumsfeld's "Unknown unknowns" quote quite clearly, using the Geometry below:

We may not exactly know what is meant by "unknown unknowns" at first, but when we compare it against the other two polarities of this simplified three-fold system where they may be a bit more obvious to us, by a process of elimination, we can at least see what the phrase "unknown unknowns" does not mean.

If we then related this Triplicity to another of identical Geometry, for example, a linear scale showing the increase in the degree of temperature, one where we understood each of the three elements of that Triplicity, by equating the unknown polarity of the former Triplicity with the known polarity of the latter, we can begin to get an understanding of what "unknown unknowns" was intended to mean. The meaning is "inferred" by both following the logical progression of meaning within the scale of the system under scrutiny, and matching its polarities with those of an analogous system.

So, from the above analysis, we can see that Rumsfeld knew of three types of information which bears influence on their battle plans...information they know to be factual, information they have a pretty good estimation for, and information which they do not know, as it is as yet totally unforseen.

What I find interesting is that from a military point of view, this is a pretty accurate and all-emcompassing assessment of a tough situation...and though the language Rumsfeld used to define it may appear a bit cumbersome, it betrays a deep understanding of strategy held by the military adminstration.

Taking the analysis one step further, can we see any other possible logical combinations of known and unknown-ness in this scenario? Actually there is a 4th polarity "the Unknown knowns". What are unknown knowns? That would be information that you don't know you know, or know but don't realise it yet. Its information that you know, or should know, or do have available to you at hand, but you have either forgotten it, not taken it into account for some reason, or have completely overlooked it.

How would that fit in our Triplicity?

It appears that it violates our Triplicty, because it is a 4th element in our well establshed system that should only contain 3 elements. But does it really violate the Triplicity?

If we take the other three, we see that they apply to the idea of battlefield intelligence quite naturally...there are three types of information coming into play when forming battle plans. Knowledge that you don't know you know could only happen if you were quite stupid, or were negligent in your duties. As a battle commander, this 4th polarity should not exist, otherwise you would be called a fool, an incompetent, and lose your posting.

Therefore, we should keep this 4th polarity, the Unknown knowns, separate from the other three when analysing a situation and forming plans. We keep it separate by not allowing it to exist - which means you MUST examine all that you know in relation to the situation, and take it into account.

So if we leave the 4th polarity "The Unknown knowns" in the Geometry, but separate, or unconnected to the other three, the Geometry still accurately and effectively represents all logical real-world possibilities of situational awareness in this framework of information.

Once again, the beauty of Triplex Unity Theory becomes apparent when dealing with complicated abstract ideas..

---

[1] Foot In Mouth Award. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3254852.stm

HOME