The TRICE Lecture on Systematic Political
by Dallas F. Bell, Jr.
(The audio version of this lecture was aired by radio
to China, Japan, South Korea and North Korea in
I would like to begin this presentation by recounting an incident
that occurred some years ago. As young political science students,
a friend and I cast our absentee ballots in an election. On the way
back to campus, we discovered, to our dismay, that we had voted
for different candidates. This fact clearly surprised my friend and
later made me wonder why he had supported a politician who, after
winning the election, enacted government policies that killed
scores more babies than King Herod did in 5 B. C. Admittedly, the
candidate I had supported was imperfect, but at least he hadn't
The profound differences between my friend and me were again
highlighted some time later when we were discussing the merits of
legalizing recreational drugs and gambling. He was for legalization,
I was opposed. We had read the same books and heard the same
statistics from the same professors in class. They generally stated
that for every dollar the government received in taxes for those vices
it cost the community around ten dollars. Why did my friend persist
in supporting things that were clearly harmful to society?
That question haunted me. On another occasion, not long
before college graduation, another friend and I observed on the
television news a skirmish taking place between peasants and the
military forces of their Middle Eastern country. Off the top of my
head, I commented that the government leadership would be wise to
leave quickly. "Why?" my friend asked. He reasoned that a few
unarmed peasants were surely no match against armed and trained
soldiers. I pointed out that each of those soldiers had either parents,
brothers, sisters, wives, children, or friends who were being
oppressed by the government. I proposed, "At some point in the
immediate future, they will win the soldiers' loyalty."
Within a few weeks, my friend rushed into my dorm room and
told me that my prediction had been correct. The soldiers had
withdrawn support for the unpopular government, and its leaders had
fled for their lives. He concluded that I must have learned a great
deal from my political science classes. I had to reply that I hadn't
learned my analytical technique from any course that I had taken. It
was only common sense for me to think of governments as
collections of individuals acting on their needs. That lack of
connectivity in political science also haunted me.
I left the U. S. military after a few years to try to make sense of
two questions. First, if individuals generally have the same
knowledge and experience, why do they reach vastly different
conclusions, political and otherwise? Second, how can specific
individual behavior be tied to specific societal behavior?
I will try to answer those questions and others in the next twenty-
five minutes or so. If you find that you want to learn more,
you can visit my Web site at www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org.
I had studied political systems and individual needs and realized
that the something that affected behavior was rationality.
Rationality explains why we choose what is good or evil. That
epistemological pursuit, or study of knowledge, led me to
theology, or the study of God.
After reading a book that my father had given me on systematic
theology, I could finally connect the dots and see political science
systematically. A short explanation of systematic political science
can be understood by using the acronym TRICE T, R,
E, TRICE. T is theology, which creates R which is rational
epistemology, which creates I, or individual behavior, which
creates C, or collective societal behavior, based on E, or
eschatology, which is a view of the future based on chosen
theology. That's TRICE T, R, I,
C, E; theology T, rationality R,
individual behavior I, collective behavior C, and eschatology
Before going further, I must cover three basic ideas. First, the
Law of Noncontradiction says that something can't be both true
and false at the same time. Second, our universe is entrophic,
meaning that it is moving from a state of order and higher
energy to a state of disorder and less energy. Third, the field of
game theory seeks realistically to narrow one's options for rational
behavior, when exposed to a stimuli, into predictable probabilities.
For example, a student is sitting in a classroom and the bell
rings, signaling the end of the period. What will a rational student
likely do under normal conditions? The options are either
immediately to get out of the chair to leave the room or not
immediately to get out of the chair to leave the room. The positive
probability of getting out of the chair immediately is 80 percent, and
the probability of getting up in moments is 10 percent. The
negative probability of getting up in minutes is 9 percent, and the
probability of getting up in hours is 1 percent. Unique differences
depend on individual needs, such as the decision to remain seated
to meet the need of studying for a test to be given in
a nearby classroom the next period.
As we return to the acronym of systematic political science,
TRICE, I recommend logging onto my Web site at
www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org for clarification. Most
people require hearing and reading this material a couple of times.
To review TRICE, T is theology or the study of God; R is
rational epistemology, or the study of knowledge; I is individual
behavior, or maslowvian psychology of needs; C is collective
societal behavior, or sociology and political systems; and E is
eschatology, or a belief about the future based on a chosen
theology. To simplify it, we can logically state that T equals
equals I equals C equals E. In actuality, due to entrophic
abilities, T equals minus R, which equals minus I, which
equals minus C, which is less than E from an ideal of
To see why this is so, we must begin by looking at T, or
theology. We know that there are many beliefs in deities.
However, as we saw in the game theory example of a student in a
classroom hearing the bell, our options to choose a god are limited.
Belief in a deity can be narrowed to three entrophic categories or
tracks of possibilities. Track 1 theology leads to Track 1
rationality, Track 1 individual behavior, Track 1 collective
behavior, and Track 1 eschatology. Track 2 theology leads to
Track 2 rationality, etc., and Track 3 theology leads to Track 3
rationality, and so on.
Now, Track 1 theology is an active, individual choice of faith
to believe in a balanced God of love and justice--to whom one can
relate only by God's extended grace. Whereas Track 2 theology,
on the other hand, is an active or de facto individual choice to
reject the infinite God for a faith to believe in an unbalanced
god of love, or justice, or a force--to which one can relate only
by human effort. Finally, Track 3 theology is an active or de facto
choice to reject the infinite God for a faith to believe in an
unbalanced god of objects, animals, other humans/societal
institutions, or oneself, or beings of evil--to which one can
relate only by human effort.
Track 1 theology leads to Track 1 rational epistemology, which
is a rational individual's seeking and complying with natural laws
in submission to his or her immutable and inerrant designer for
mankind's good--the infinite God. There are three subcategories
of possibilities of compliance. The rational plus possibility is
perfect compliance with natural laws, which requires infinite
understanding. A rational medium possibility is finite compliance
with natural laws, which requires extrahuman understanding.
Last, rational minus possibility is the highest consistently
achievable human category of compliance because of finite
understanding and the option to choose to disobey known natural
Track 2 theology leads to Track 2 irrational epistemology,
which is an irrational rejection of some natural laws to comply
with an errant designer of good--a finite god. The three
subcategories begin with irrational plus possibilities or
compliance with most known natural laws. The irrational medium
category is compliance with many known natural laws. Irrational
minus is less compliance with many known natural laws.
Track 3 theology leads to Track 3 irrational epistemology.
This is an individual rejection of natural laws to comply with
a situational perception of the source of good--finite gods.
The first of the three subcategories of possibilities is the
irrational plus possibility of rejecting many known natural laws.
Second is the irrational medium possibility of rejecting most
known natural laws. The last possibility of irrational minus is the
lowest humanly survivable rejection of natural laws.
Track 1 rational epistemology leads to Track 1 individual
behavior as the person pursues the five basic human needs. In
ascending order, those needs are survival, economic security, love
and affection, status and self-esteem, and self-actualization. Based
on the T one standard and authority for behavior, the first need
level, survival, is met by serving others and trusting God for
provisions. The need of economic security is satisfied by helping
others achieve their needs and resting in the security of God. The
next level of love and affection is met by loving others as God
loves. Status and self-esteem are achieved by seeking to reflect
godly attributes to glorify God. Finally, self-actualization is
reached by experiencing the overflowing joy in knowing and
Track 2 irrational epistemology leads to Track 2 individual
behavior based on the T two standard and authority for the first
need level, survival. It is met by using deceit and violence if
necessary. The need of economic security is satisfied by
hoarding assets greedily. The next level of love and affection is
met by lusting. Status and self-esteem are achieved by using
power to control others. And self-actualization is reached by
Track 3 irrational epistemology leads to track 3 individual
behavior based on a T three standard and authority for the
first level of needs, survival. It is met by deceit and murder if
necessary. The need of economic security is satisfied by stealing
assets. The next level of love and affection is met by raping.
Status and self-esteem are achieved by enslaving others. And
self-actualization is reached by suffering death.
Track 1 individual behavior leads to Track 1 collective
societal behavior as the same five hierarchical levels of human
needs are pursued within the four human institutions: family,
church, business, and government. Based on a T one standard
and authority for domestic and foreign relations behavior,
the first level of survival is characterized by building families and
churches. The next level of economic security is accomplished by
building education facilities, businesses, and infrastructure. Love
and affection witness a paradigm shift from a T one standard
to a T two majority, which uses the government to tax the earnings
of others. The level of status and self-esteem is achieved by using
the government to force T two beliefs onto others. Finally, for the
self-actualization level, society reacts based on a T three standard
for the majority, where they suffer death from homicide,
suicide, infanticide, disease, and addictions, ending this First
Track 2 individual behavior leads to Track 2 collective
societal behavior. Based on the T two standard and authority for
domestic and foreign relations behavior, the first level of survival
is characterized by using government deceit and violence to
achieve. The next level of economic security experiences a
paradigm shift to a T three majority in which the government is
used to enslave others. Neither this level nor the remaining three
levels of individual needs is met collectively because of
inefficiency, thereby ending this Second World cycle.
Track 3 individual behavior leads to Track 3 collective
societal behavior. Based on the T three standard and authority
for domestic and foreign relations behavior, the level of survival
is characterized by deceit, murder, and slavery. Neither this level
nor the other four levels of individual needs is collectively possible,
thereby ending this Third World cycle.
The First World cycle of collective societal behavior was based
on a Track 1 eschatology of the future from a T one balanced
God of love and justice with an eternal future of life in heaven
with God for those who have been forgiven for violating God's
laws and eternal separation in hell for those who rejected God's
The Second World cycle of collective societal behavior was
based on a Track 2 eschatology of the future from a T two
unbalanced god of either love, whereby an eternal future eventually
awaits everyone in heaven regardless of violating God's laws, or
justice with an eternal future in heaven for the few who have
complied with God's laws and eternal separation in hell for all
others, or of force, where eternal existence is in a higher or lower
form, depending on one's compliance with God's laws now.
The Third World cycle of collective societal behavior was based
on a Track 3 eschatology of the future from a T three worship
of either objects, animals, or other humans/societal institutions,
where an eternal future is uncertain and requires little compliance
with God's laws; worship of oneself, where an eternal future is
not a concern and laws are what one desires them to be; or
worship beings of evil, where an eternal future does not
necessarily exist and present existence is made more heavenly
by complying with the impulses of evil spirits or more
hellish by resisting the control of evil spirits.
Now that we have seen that our theology is used to set the
standard of rationality for individual behavior and subsequent
collective societal behavior based on our theological eschatology--
or T, R, I, C, E, TRICE--I hope that I have answered many
questions. For example, the college friend whom I mentioned at the
beginning, the one who supported legalizing recreational drugs,
gambling, and infanticide, can be induced to have had a Track 3
theology. Conversely, if someone claims to have a Track 3
theology, one can deduce that such a person would also support the
same destructive Third World behavior that my friend supported.
Furthermore, systematic political science directly correlates the
five individual human needs to the potential five collective societal
levels of behavior and their three possible systems.
The revolution in the Middle Eastern nation-state to which I
alluded earlier and in which another college friend and I had
observed the collapsing government after it lost the support of its
soldiers can also be understood. The survival needs of the soldiers'
families and friends were threatened by the leaders of the inefficient
Third World government that had a Track 3 theology and was
Those initial questions were answered, but others arise. For
example, what does an expanded model of First, Second, and Third
World systems look like? How do variables such as immigration,
productivity, intelligence, crises, history, and geography affect these
political cycles? I address all of these concerns on my Web site at
www.SystematicPoliticalScience.org. You can e-mail your
comments or suggestions to me from my Web site.
In conclusion, I would be remiss if I failed to call attention
to the obvious reality of systematic political science,
only one individual ever lived and was witnessed to have had a
perfect rational plus epistemology and Track 1 individual behavior
reflecting a perfect Track 1 theology--Jesus the Christ chronicled
in the Bible. He was surely both God and man as He claimed.
As prophesied, He gave His life as a ransom for many. He said
that if we repent and believe in Him alone, we will join Him in
heaven for eternity.
Such a belief also leads to the creation and support of efficient
First World political systems here on earth. As the American
General and first U. S. President, George Washington, wisely
observed in the late 1700s, America's system of government can
exist only with a citizenry that is Christian.
Thank you for your time, and I encourage you to seek truth
humbly, embrace truth tenaciously, and proclaim truth solitarily with
the restful confidence that history will ultimately vindicate you.
For Further Reference:
--ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (2004) Dallas F. Bell, Jr.--