BASIC STRUCTURE OF BINARY AGREEMENT THEORY

Can there be a single, generic model of problem-solving that can be developed as the basis to solve any and every specific problem presented, regardless what the problem is?

YES.

Take humanity, as an example, since most of us have some knowledge in that area.

It seems to me that we just keep doing the same thing in different ways, and none of them end up working. Heroes like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Terry Fox, and the kid that just gave his allowance to the Red Cross are always going to co-exist with bigotry, hatred and violence.

So, all I'm suggesting is that we add a new 'level' to our existence, without affecting anything we have now. C'mon, be realistic. At our simplest state, we're all idealists. That's what the word 'ideal' means, after all. The opposers of anyone's existence will always oppose, no matter what side, what issue, what belief. So accept it. Get over it.

I had originally intended to illustrate how I arrived at this model with some significant detail, but I've changed minds.

Here, then, is the basic template for the Binary Agreement Theory, as it applies to humanity. I have also spent a great deal of time seeing if the same fundamental pattern also fits 'non-human' applications, and, strange as it might sound, it holds up!

It's a simple, four-tiered hierarchy, with one vertical 'slice' through all tiers. It also requires one pre-requisite assumption. (The non-human template is less-complicated!)

ASSUME:
.... that you know nothing and never did and never will; no one else does, or ever has, or ever will. Also, assume nothing exists or ever has or ever will. Wipe the board of totality in all possible infinite dimensions completely clean. Now....

THE BASE LEVEL(0):

Place the first all-encompassing base in place. This is the critical piece, since it is the only level of the hierarchy which is comprised of a single concept, specifically TOLERANCE. Of course, that doesn't exclude NOT-TOLERANCE. The mere identification of anything automatically implies the possibility of its absence. The Theory simply demands a single concept exist at this level. (In non-human applications, this would be the equivalent of a 'seed').

(Note: The only reason I chose TOLERANCE for this level is because I believe it is the single condition for GLOBAL-PEACE. If your goals are different, then you would just 'stand' on the NOT-TOLERANCE side of my line).

PRINCIPLE LEVEL(1):

This level consists of the characteristics with which we tend to define ourselves most closely. For lack of better words in English, let me refer to them as issues of the soul. These are the characteristics which are most strongly defended if challenged; concepts like ETHICS, PRINCIPLE, CONSCIENCE, MORALS. These are the ones we tend to 'superglue' to our personal definitions. Once we've drawn our line in the sand (remember the vertical slice through the model?), we stand firm. It's just we all stand in different places on this level. (In non-human applications, each 'seed' contains the ability to define, or initiate itself).

(Note: Wherever I make a reference that sounds like it is a single person, it can easily be generalized to any kind of grouping; i.e. race, organization, etc.)

BELIEF LEVEL (2):

These are the characteristics that are less-intransigent, but still personally significant. They could be summarized, perhaps, as matters of the mind. Perhaps a comparable metaphor to the 'superglue' one is that these ones are velcro-attached; concepts like EMOTION, FAITH, OPINION, POLITIC, PREJUDICE. We still draw very clear lines, some more so than others, obviously. (In non-human applications, this represents 'default' development or growth).

SOCIAL LEVEL (3):

These are the descriptors that you present outwardly, such as STYLE, MEMBERSHIP, MOOD, ATTITUDE, ASPIRATION. (In non-human applications, this represents change from 'outside', or unexpected, influence).

Obviously, these lists are each infinitely long, and equally obvious, open for heated debate. That is exactly where the 'AGREEMENT' part of the theory would enter the picture. That component is established by what I referred to earlier as the 'vertical slice'.

That bi-modal split, perhaps even more so than having TOLERANCE as the basic building block (chosen because I'm personally biased to survival of the species), is the true key to the entire theory.
___________________________________

And there you have it! As I said at the outset, this blogging format doesn't lend itself to include the details of the theory's evolution, not so much because of the length, but because of the 'sequential' restriction of writing.

I'll simply terminate here by saying that it has evolved from a number of metaphorical concepts including, but certainly not limited to, 'mirroring', 'encapsulation', 'holographic reconstruction' and 'time alteration'.

Just to titillate your curiosity button, I also include further concepts, such as:

1)the devolution of the problem to a binary state, which is comprised of
a) the option considered,
b) other option(s), and
c) choice (which always defaults to ASSUMED-RIGHTNESS, unless otherwise overridden).
2)the co-existence of a binary and non-binary state.
3) the simultaneous (as opposed to alternating) interaction of selected entities.
4) the infinite continuum of all entities.
5) the 'pureness' of opposites, which always exactly define each other.
6) the choice, whether default or otherwise, will always be the correct one.
7) the threshold that needs to be met before interactions are noticed or affected.
8) the capability of an entity to exist in some form and in all dimensions.

Sounds too complex to be considered? Not really. After all, I'm not proposing anything new here. It's simply a structured way of analyzing it, and then perhaps applying it once understood. Actually, I think most people already 'get it', we just don't all 'do it'.

Imagine if John Lennon had a blog of his own.

I guess that would pretty much say it all.

PEACE.

Posted by Evydense on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 2:25 p.m. | Permalink