Acknowledgment And Encouragement

As many theorists have argued both before and since 9/11, political violence is unarguably a form of sociopathology. On some level, as anything political, it is a quest for attention. Notwithstanding attention, the requisite recognition of what an issue, a dilemma, entails, cannot attain the transparency necessary to its resolution. Moreover, barring objectivity, resolution is probably also all but improbable.

Objectivity is complex. It usually manifests itself as a function of a political process. One would not generally consider political violence to be part of such a process. In fact, it would render itself as utterly antithetical to it. On some level, such is probably what we're currently witnessing in Iraq where the reconstruction has been forced to compete with a perhaps unexpecetedly potent insurgency.

Generally speaking, objectivity normally arises as a function of a democratic process. What democracy assumes is that any issue is bistable, that it must be comprised of two sides presumed to be antithetical, but not absolutely. Democracy is a form of the scientific method in which a hypothesis, a kind of opinion based on some form of what one might refer to as " associative observation " is forced to compete with an experiment that will either confirm or deny its veritability, at which time a compromise might be necessitated where the hypothesis must be either revised, or confirmed and more universally applied.

Resolution under such conditions may result from compromise or it might result from a realization of a residual, underlying commonality which will serve to compete with those diametric opposites. In other words, because an issue is comprised of a diverse set of characteristics, the realization of what is common on both sides is fundamental to resolution and must outweigh what differences exist.

So obejectivity is, unto itself, a process. Democracy, any notion of democracy, does not necessarily presume it to exist. That idea is where opponents of democracy are usually the subjects of misinterpretation. It is also where Christianity enters the picture. The most fundamental tenet of Christianity is not a characteristic shared by every religion. That tenet is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule is neither simple nor straightforward. Nor does it consider the impulse toward retaliation that has long permeated the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Is that impulse even escapable ? Is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost deterministic to the point of engendering an element of predictability ? To what extent is such a crisis a function of the human mind, of human nature, of imagery, of self-perception in the form of what psychologists refer to as " identification." To what extent is identity a function of society, of culture ? And what about right and wrong ? Can a culture become so pathologically distorted that even such things as suicide bombing can be conceived as necessary and therefore not necessarily wrong ? If such were to be the case, the phenomenon would be a kind of rationalization reflective of nurture - the manner in which nurture might appeal to certain aspects of human nature.

Maybe

I think violence should have a narrative to be understood;
or maybe it always does;
or never.

Wax

Space gives way to time and so must have come before it;

is there space in rhyme, in meter, in reconciliation ?

like an igloo comes before the dark and fire that sustains;

or violin hums through the rains,

while a man,

close by,

sings about his sums and gains or may never even stop to ask why,

or to say goodbye;

but he never stays for too long;

just until his coffee gets cold - and strong;

he drinks it anyway, from a chalice that he stole from the church and so when the priests

approach he covers it quickly with his jacket, so as not to blasphemize or reproach;

but he's careful not to crack it or let it bend too long in the wind,

from its stem,

or to say that he's sinned;

they might be listening;

and he seems to never get old;

or give way to the echoes that first fathom, then reverberate, then seem to enrapture, as if they

wished to enclose or capture;

satisfy, and then violate;

emaciate, emancipate, proclaim like death's storm what hath been wrought within us;

take torch to such rot;

be not -- conciliatory -- either;

or say you forgot;

or linger too long in dismay, wearied by it all;

that is evolution in a sense: there can be beauty in turbulence, in whistling eddies and then gin to

smooth how you played the game and it tore you apart inside, and there was space there, too,

but of a different variety and not altogether synonymous with piety;

are the minds that govern, rule, influence, institutions as dangerous as the uranium that fills a

vacuum tube ?

or encounter;

enclose or encounter;

and there is a trumpet too and a sax,

and even a woman who mops floors,

and a man with an axe,

over there,

before there can be trees that lay in waiting for someone to hear them fall so that they might

sustain the fire and peace amidst it all.

I. Introduction

This blog is directed toward a Domino Theoretic analysis of Political Violence or, more specifically, an abstract conceptualization regarding the symbol-target duality represented by the Iranian Natanz Reactor given its psychological-behavioral dualistic counterparts and given a relevant, prevailing historical antecedent in the form of 9/11.

It's fundamental aim is to explicate certain of the complexity of the Natanz conundrum as UN Security Council negotiations regarding the Iranian nuclear program remain in process, in a politically tense post-9/11 world, utilizing tools consistent with engineering system dynamics (note - Eisenhower) and which remain consistent with fundamental applications of the broader " scientific method " as it regards a historical challenge such as that of the prospect of nuclear war, of not unequally enormous complexity and proportion.

First, what does the Natanz symbolize, in general, yet also in particular, in a " post-9/11 " world ? How might a behavior-perception duality interact fundamentally with it's symbolically dualistic counterpart ? Are these systems, as they might be called, interacting, or " coupled oscillators " of some variety, the kinds of conceptualizations commonly utilized for the purposes of analysis in the physical sciences ?

II.

The notion of " post-9/11 " world is a condition, a political condition, in which, generally speaking, political violence, in some form, exists, persists, unfolds, and both deterministically, with some sense of historical inevitability, perhaps even fatalistically, and willfully, cognitively, self-reflectively, or conscientiously, proceeds in either escalating fashion in a direction of remission. Violence is merely an expression of that condition, however virulent, tragic, morbid. Yet, considering its implications, or prevailing motivations, might violence give rise to political structure, or form, such as that of democracy; might structure or form, or some form of " nurture, " give rise to violence ? What sort of structure is it, primarily, that's been, historically, or being, nurtured ? ( History Channel Osama/ Washington Times ) Is violence a by-product of instability ? Whether or not political violence should or can be characterized as " deterministic " or motivated by some form of " free will, " which would necessarily entail some measure of self-reflection consistent with conscience, or the absence thereof, has long been a complicated line of inquiry. Is violence that's political, sociopathic ? Is political violence, strategic ? Does it intend to elicit a response ? Is that response healthy, productive ? Can it be self-destructive ? Can it be deterministically, inevitably, self-destructive ? What combination of variables renders such an idea as that of inevitability ? Can democracy be a redeeming mitigator of sorts ? What role does the media play in a democracy or, more broadly, in terms of its formation, the formation of a civil society in general ? ( conditions - media - states of mind ) Is Iraq the analog of an industrial accident ? Is it an encapsulated version of Heurich ? How did conditions and states of mind, the fundamental building blocks upon which any Domino Theory, sociopsychological or otherwise, interact in which a way that an invasion was rendered ? Or was Iraq really an unfulfilled, yet not unself-fulfilling prophecy ? How is it possible for expectations to result in conditions that justify the states of mind that underlie behaviors, perhaps those of states, perhaps interventionist ? How do the ends justify the means ? Is there a conceptual framework within which such an inquiry might be addressed ? Are expectations, suggestive ? Do they suggest some form of historical antecedent which might imply an element of determinism ? Is expectation a necessary condition for preemption, and if so, what role do conditions, or their variations therupon, play, in such an analysis ?

What " Domino Theory," first made famous by H.W. Heinrich, in his intensive scientific study of approximately 30,000 industrial accidents, holds, is as thus: conditions, lead to states of mind, which result in behaviors, which lead to incidents, accidents, or catastrophes. Domino Theory is consistent with its broader counterpart formally recognized as the " scientific method, " and similarly shares an analogy with the chemical kinetic concept of " chain reaction," which naturally begs the logical inquiry: can a sociological Domino Theory derived in behavioral psychology, particularly that of leaders and states, prevent a chain reaction in the form of nuclear war ? Would it be fair to assume nuclear war as a possible consequence of current conditions as they dictate relations among leaders and states ? Is terror a catalyst for such a chain reaction ?

As a theory of behavioral psychology, Domino Theory can likewise be stated as thus: stimuli result in perceptions, which result in tactics, which lead to historical events. Domino Theory is also a system dynamic, or dynamical system theory, involving feedback - a feedback control system, which can be expressed mathematically:

c = conditions
s = states of mind
t = tactics ( strategy is oppositional tactical integration )
e = events


1) dc/dt = k1*( t - e ): interplay of tactics and events
2) ds/dt = k2*(p - c );
3) dt1/dt = - t1+ k3* ( c - t1 ): choice of behavior regards how states of mind are affected by conditions
4) dt2/dt =- t2 + k4*( s - e): deterministic
5) dt3/dt = - t3 + k5*(c - e ): free will
6) dt4/dt = - t4+ k6*( c - s ): pathological-predatory(1)/conscientious
7) de1/dt = k7*( e2 - e1 ) + k8*( c - t ): every event contains an historical antecedent, or association;
8) de2/dt = k9*( e1- e2 ) - k10* ( c- t ):
9) t = t1+t2 + t3 +.....tn



II. Tactical-Strategic Behavior and The Economic Long Wave


III: Target-Symbol-Tactic-Association: A Deterministic System ?

IV: A System Dynamic Expectation-Pre-emption Sociopsychological Theory

Mathematical Statement:

-- Association With Historical Antecedent
-- Condition as Form of Government
-- Geopolitical, spatiotemporal, contiguity: primal dominos

conditions: fundamendalism, nuclear weapons, dictatorship

1) dc1/dt = c2
2) dc2/dt = - c1
3) symbol
4) target
5) d (exp)/dt = c2 - som1
6) d(som1)/dt = som2
7) d(som2)/dt =- som1 + exp
8) event: strategic/tactical


Objective: Peace; Convergence of Conditions
Means: Intervention

Question: Is revolution inherently democratic ? Can it result in dictatorship ?

1) c1
2) c2
3) c3
4) c4




V: Simulations

VI: A Modicum-Strategem For Negotiations: Intervention and Control Theory







1) Strategic Behavior seeks to alter what affects tactics, rather than tactics themselves, and may even, under certain conditions, be characterized as pathological, at least where its intent may be predatory
2) In a model
3) What kind of strategy takes into account conditions, states of mind and tactics in either series or parallel, and in what forms to achieve its end ?