Examining
the Elasticity of Conflict Resolution Planes in Negotiations
Between Inter-
and Intra-Theological Groups Using the Tessellations
of a Moral
Abacus and Cellular Automata
by
Dallas F. Bell, Jr.
1. The Elasticity
of Conflict Resolution Planes
Antoine A. Cournot (1801-1877)
is often credited with informally introducing the idea of elasticity.
Elasticity can be explained as the ratio of proportional change in one
variable to proportional change in another variable. The elasticity
of conflict ranges from a T1 choice of complying with all Natural Laws
of Freewill (NLF) to a T3 choice of not complying with NLF. Conflicts
should generally be few for the T1 and the theological monads of forgiveness
and mercy implemented as Alexis de Tocqueville commented on regarding
the United States in the 1800's. On the other hand, T2 has more
conflicts and less forgiveness and mercy. T3 would have the most
potential conflicts with the least forgiveness and mercy applications.
This behavioral range of conflict produces a elastic plane of resolution
possibilities. The highest resolution potential for rapprochement
(French meaning to bring together) is the T1 variable with the variable
of fewest conflicts and most forgiveness and mercy ratio. The
lowest resolution potential is the T3 variable with the variable of
the most conflicts and least forgiveness and mercy ratio.
Thomas C. Schelling, recipient
of the 2005 Nobel Prize for economics, published a book in 1960 titled
The Strategy of Conflict. Schelling described the game theory
concept of a focal point (the Schelling point). This is the point
of each person's expectation of what they believe they are expected
to do. For example, two people are prevented from communicating
with each other are each given a group A, consisting of five pennies
and one nickel, and a group B, consisting of five nickels and one penny.
Each is told that they will receive a prize if they move the same type
of coin from group A to group B and move the same type of coin from
group B to group A. It is most likely that each will move the
one nickel from group A to group B and move the one penny from group
B to group A.
Schelling followed up on that
human tendency to see groups and prefer order (see Gestalt laws of perceptions which can be exploited).
He wrote an article in 1971 called Dynamic Models of Segregation.
It used a checkerboard model to demonstrate his observations.
Pennies and nickels were placed on the checkerboard in different patterns
and moved until it was perceived that the pennies and nickels had reached
a state of happiness. That meant the pennies metaphorically preferred
to form one group of proximity and the nickels another. Once that
cycle of separation was begun, it had a self-sustaining momentum as
witnessed in human group behavior. Given the recent historical
genocidal behavior of Nazis murdering Jews, Hutus murdering Tutsis and
Muslims murdering non-Muslims, separation momentum would entail more
than increased passive migration of T1 groups, but also include increases
in aggressive and violent options of T2 and T3 groups.
At the time of Schelling's
writings, U.S. T3 lawmakers were already attempting to interfere with
that natural process and force unnatural desegregation on its citizens
in schools, businesses and government based on race. They created
an enormous amount of conflict. Those same T3 lawmakers did not
desegregate themselves. Whenever U.S. citizens had the freedom to choose
their own associations they immediately deconstructed the artificial
grouping and desegregated into peaceful like groupings. Thus,
interfering with Physical Natural Laws (NLP) will create conflict and
accepting NLP will be more peaceful. That further demonstrates
the range of conflict resolution planes.
2. Negotiations
Between Inter- and Intra-Theological Groups
Conflict resolution results
in an end to a conflict and conflict management results in an agreement
for less conflict. The most heavily studied approach to conflict
resolution is negotiation. Negotiation is to bring about an arrangement
of agreement between opposing parties. Conflict management uses
the common business model of attempting to make compromise with the
behavioral elements of competition, accommodation, collaboration and
avoidance. That model is largely adapted from Kenneth W. Thomas'
1976 book titled Conflict and Conflict Management: In the Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Robert Axelrod's
1984 book, The Evolution of Cooperation, presents the interaction
of humans as largely having potentially opposing incentives for decision
making into the context of dynamic and repeated interaction where cooperation
may result.
Axelrod implied that cooperation
should not be very likely but oddly opposing forces often use a "tit-for-tat"
strategy introduced by Анато́лий Бори́сович Рапопо́рт
(Anatol Rapoport). This strategy is to be nice, forgiving, retaliatory
toward defection, and having clearly stated intentions. He inadvertently
reflected the NL strategy of T1 groups: to be nice by not paying back
good with evil (Prov. 17:13) and seeking peace (Prov. 15:1; Ps. 34:14;
II Tim. 2:22; I Peter 3:8-13); to be forgiving of repentant trespassers
(Matt. 18:21-22; Luke 17:3-4 [see examples list in endnotes]); to be
retaliatory as Solomon said that there is a time to kill and heal (Eccl.
3:3); to be clear and let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no'
be 'no', as Jesus taught (Matt. 5:37). T1 groups are not perfectly
compliant with all NLF--sinless. Because they do what they would
not (sin) and do not what they would do. This is a witness for
the existence of NLF and the sinful nature that wars against the mind
(Rom. 7). Conflict is then inevitable (James 4:1-3). Moses
was taught how to negotiate disputes by teaching NL so people know what
to do (Ex. 18:13-26).
Negotiating inter-theological
conflicts are between theological groups which are either (T1, T2),
(T1, T3) or (T2, T3) with the intellectual levels of abilities of gifted
(gi), average (av) and lower (lo) which are (gi, av), (gi, lo) or (av,
lo). Negotiating intra-theological conflicts are between the same
theological groups which are either (T1, T1), (T2, T2) or (T3, T3) with
the intellectual levels of (gi, gi), (av, av) or (lo, lo). The
intra-theological negotiations would have the most common abilities
and value proximities which are conducive to the resolution process.
Conflict between individuals
is different than it is for governments. Behavior between individuals
is to be kind (I Sam. 26:18-21), not involve cursing (Job 31:29-30),
nourishing (Rom. 12:20), loving (Luke 6:27, 35), forgiving (Matt. 6:12-15),
and prayerful (Luke 23:34). Compromise is necessary between T1
believers (Prov. 6:1-5; Matt. 5:24-25; Gal. 2:7-9). T1 believers
are forbidden to make agreements with error (I John 4:1-6) and nonbelievers
(Ex. 34:12-16; I Cor. 10:21). T1 governments are forbidden to
make compromises with the ungodly (Ps. 1:1), evil (Rom. 12:9), unbelievers
(II Cor. 6:14-18), false teachers (Gal. 1:8-10; II John 7-11), and spiritual
darkness (Eph. 5:11). Some examples are Lot (Gen. 13:12-13; 19:1-29),
Samson (Judg. 16:1-21), Solomon (I Kings 11:1-14), Asa (II Chr. 16:1-9;
18:1-3), and Jehoshaphat (IIChr. 19:1-2; 20:35-37). When the head
of Israel stabbed the oppressive enemy king to death, the Israelites
had peace for eighty years (Judg. 3:12-30). In an earlier time, Israel
did not justly use the sword (Rom. 13:3-4) but wrongly negotiated with
evil by first enacting toleration, then assimilation, next imitation
and lastly consolidation (Judg. 1-2). Hugh Latimer (1485-1555) was burned to death for
not compromising with evil. John Milton (1608-1674) spoke for
the NL of free presses in Areopagitica. Milton cited that Adam had
reason and so had freedom to choose--reason is but choosing.
Conflict is sometimes used
as a tool of God to induce His desired behavior (e.g. Esau chased Jacob
away and Jacob, named Israel, then created his family and the twelve
tribes that became the Israeli nation. Later Israeli spies in
Jericho were sought by enemy soldiers causing Rahab to intercede for
them in exchange for sparing her life and from her linage came King
David and Jesus [Josh. 2:1-24; 6:17-25].) Ultimately, when a man's
ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with
him (Prov. 16:7).
It is often difficult to know
whether theological and eschatological beliefs are given due consideration
in negotiation strategies within nation-states. (That sentiment
was expressed by Thomas Schelling in a brief email exchange with Dallas
F. Bell Jr. in April, 2008.) Contemporary examples of glaring
compromisers with evil are Neville Chamberlain, Jimmy Carter and Ariel
Sharon where evil triumphed. Contemporary examples where evil
was not compromised with are Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and Benjamin
Netanyahu and evil was defeated.
3. Tessellations
of a Moral Abacus and Cellular Automata
3.1. Tessellations
A tessellation (Latin, tessera
means square tablet) is a collection of shapes that cover a plane with
no gaps or overlaps. A regular polygon has three or more sides
and angles that are equal. A regular tessellation is made up of
congruent (having the same size and shape) regular polygons. If
there is a regular polygon tessellate made up of 4 squares that cover
the plane, we may count from its vertex (where all the squares touch
in the center) all 4 sides of the 4 polygons. Its name would then
be 4.4.4.4.
A semi-regular tessellation
is formed by regular polygons and the vertex point is arranged identically.
An example would be 2 triangles and 2 squares called 3.3.4.4.
Such a visualization tool for negotiations could be used to indicate
3 sides or offences of perceived violations of NLF-8 (not stealing)
and 3 sides or offenses of the perceived violations of NLF-10 (not coveting)
by the 2 triangles, and 4 sides or offenses for the perceived violations
of NLF-6 (not murdering) and 4 sides or offenses of the NLF-9 (not lying).
Those 4 polygons of NLF shapes would cover the negotiation plane.
An abacus would indicate a count in the 8th and 10th
rows of 3 each, and in the 6th and 9th rows of
4 each.
3.2. Moral Abacus
A moral abacus would have 10
rows (one for each NLF) with 5 buttons, each with a '0' side and
a '1' side. The first binary button could equal 1. The
second could equal 2. The third button could equal 4. The
fourth could equal 8. The fifth button could equal 16. A
maximum number of offences would be 11111 (or 31) beyond which tallying
additional violations would not be constructive until the first offenses
were adequately addressed. Using the example
at the end of the previous section of this paper, rows 8 and 10 would
reflect the button arrangement of 00011 (or 3) and rows 6 and 9 would
be 00100 (or 4). Forgiveness, mercy (I Sam. 24:10-17), and grace
(I Peter 4:10) could be allowed to negate the shown abacus math or logic
of that example's sum.
In act 1, scene 1 of William
Shakespeare's Much Ado About
Nothing
(c. 1600), Benedick's shifting loyalties causes Beatrice to say that,
"He wears his faith but as the fashion of a hat; it changes with the
next block." The moral abacus value of loyalty would show a
deficit for Benedick since the appropriate loyalty is to God and His
immutable laws (NL). King David often reflected that value correctly
(II Sam. 1:13-16; 4:4-12). People with less beliefs may act as
a friend after having their lives saved until they have, in their perception,
repaid the act at which time they are free to become an enemy if they
so choose. The 2004 book, The Chinese Machiavelli: 3,000
Years of Statecraft, describes how loyalty or chung is derived
from the theologies of Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Those
T beliefs create a 'this-for-that' self-loyal abacus void of the
morals of forgiveness and mercy etc. That paradox causes a dilemma
because there is a reality of truth to divide the choice of possibilities.
3.3. Cellular Automata
Cellular automata (plural of
automaton) consist of a lattice of cells, each in one of a finite number
of states. The type of agent at a position
is updated according to the fixed rule that depends on both the present
value and the corresponding immediate neighbors. The cellular
automata approach has been used for Schelling's dynamic model of segregation.
The rule for our purposes would
be to meet the needs of those involved by seeking efficient like T believers.
The tessellation plane would be like the squares on a checkerboard or
environment of cells where T1, T2 and T3 believers interact and segregate.
That state, common to all healthy organisms, would attempt to heal itself
by the T1 criminal prosecution of T2 and T3 violations of NLF until
the T2 and T3 sufficiently harms the T1 before their defense is implemented
through segregation.
4. Conclusion
Conflict resolution can be
seen as an attempt at self-healing a group by aligning its individuals
to NL for the health of the larger organism. In the case of individuals
committing extreme criminal behavior, the individual (or diseased cell)
should be removed from the society (or organism) by imprisonment or
death. Some hopelessly dysfunctional cells (e.g. the noncriminal
homeless) may just be bypassed.
There is only one group of
different individuals that can be unnaturally joined. That is
the organism united by salvation (John 3:16) and having the goal of
compliance with all NLF called the church. Only the Creator of
the first cause of all effects--God--can voluntarily bind differing
individuals and groups. Their self-healing works much like a body
of cells to repair breaks in its skin or surface for the good health
of the whole human system. Knowing this makes the use of the tessellation
tools of a moral abacus and cellular automata obviously important for
understanding the elasticity of conflict resolution planes in negotiations
between inter- and intra-theological individuals and groups.
Endnotes
List of forgiveness examples:
-Esau and Jacob (Gen 33:4-15)
-Joseph (Gen. 45:8-15)
-Moses (Num. 12:1-13)
-David (II Sam. 19:18-23)
-Solomon (I Kings 1:53)
-Jesus (Luke 23:34)
-Stephen (Acts 7:60)
-Paul (II Tim. 4:16)
------------ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED © 2008 Dallas F. Bell, Jr.------------
