RE: NOTES ON A QUALITATIVE RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT

Dear Dr. Utsumi,

I apologize for delay in getting this down, this being the first expression, amid an already busy schedule, but I am honored by your request for more information on the ideas in my little paragraph describing some of my current study.

As you know, I am very much an independent researcher, though with respect for many institutions and intelligent people around the world who all work with good intentions.

At the Naval War College, over the past few years, I have had the unexpected honor to be involved in some discussions with many military and non-military persons, not I think, because I am expert on such but because my affiliation might bring new ideas to the table.

Thus, as part of my personal readings, I began to study Clausewitz’s On War. The Naval War College itself, it must be said, in addition to war strategies forwards a great and enlightened interest in peace—to which I agree because therein can be found victory for everyone. Peace, however, I have not ever been able to define simply as “no war.” It must be accompanied by human rights, or as you said in your earlier communication, there must be moral wisdom and knowledge.

So, I have also been following with interest your work with Global University System (GUS) from Columbia College and work of the many colleagues sharing interest and ideas in the Globally Collaborative Environmental Peace Gaming (GCEPG) on the concept of “Peace Games.” I have also been involved in discussion with friends working at the UN University of Peace and I have been studying materials of others who have contributed literature on the subject, including American philosopher L. Ron Hubbard, which is my own area of expertise.

I have written here as notes just to get some of the observations to you and for some review. Such views would have to be more studiously footnoted before any broad circulation, clarifications and elaborations made, if there is interest, but the description here and application is my unique view of the matter so far as I know, although Hubbard’s works, or my understanding of them measured against the other bodies of material, I must acknowledge, have provided me to have my own insight.

To begin discussion of War, I refer to excerpts from Clausewitz defining war and describing escalation of war:

We therefore repeat our proposition, that War is an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds; as one side dictates the law to the other, there arises a sort of reciprocal action, which logically must lead to an extreme. This is the first reciprocal action and the first extreme with which we meet (first reciprocal action).

***

Now War is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making War; therefore, what we have just said as to the aim of action in War applies to both parties. Here then is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, he may defeat me; then I shall be no longer my own master; he will dictate the law to me as I did to him. This is the second reciprocal action, and leads to a second extreme (second reciprocal action).

***

But the adversary does the same; therefore, there is a new mutual enhancement, which, in pure conception, must create a fresh effort towards an extreme. This is the third case of reciprocal action, and a third extreme with which we meet (third reciprocal action).

This is, before such terms existed, Clausewitz describes a “stimulus-response” or reactive behavior, which operates in Life forms as surely as Newton’s Laws do on the mechanical level, and which is why Clausewitz, and those dealing with the phenomenon of War, must deal with the “inevitable” nature of War.

Unlike mechanical phenomena described in Laws of Motion, the opposing “forces” of War—or similarly animal aggression—do not remain equal, they escalate to the extreme—as Clausewitz describes—because they function as expression of the single common denominator and command of life—SURVIVE! have been linked in a reactive motivator circuit.

The law governing war and violence in life then is that physical violence is therefore pushed to its “utmost extreme” because the life dynamic to SURVIVE! becomes reactively motivated.

There is more to technically understand but in simple terms, that critical point at which the reactive, “hard-wired,” response is activated, is still accessible to an external “force” affecting it—however that external influence must be understood as Qualitative not Quantitative.

That is to say, in contrast to Quantitative, which is measured as matter, energy, space, time, Qualitative, measured as components of Understanding influence the quality of the resolution. This is the moral vector.

As defined by L. Ron Hubbard, the components of Understanding are Affinity, Reality (agreement) and Communication (according to the exact formula). (Of course, if one wanted to quantify qualitative influence, one could measure the shift or destruction/ development of physical, environmental and economic resources, or the prosperity, growth, sustainability of all life dynamics.)

Decision of when to engage in conflict, or not, must alike be made by a Marine searching Iraqi homes for terrorists, and by world leaders. Yet, neither can let down guard for neither is Peace gained by allowing criminals and tyrants to threaten others unchecked. Pull the trigger or be shot. Shoot first and perpetuate the hostility? How do you move from that moment of confrontation and decision to feeding the baby and bringing literacy to women?

The point to be made is that without intervention of Qualitative impingement, i.e. the moral vector, actions will follow the reactive or stimulus response pattern.

Two parties in conflict have no stable base from which to locate a Third Party provocateur or to negotiate differences unless there are agreed upon moral parameters because there is not Understanding.

The most universally agreed upon principal that can be used as a moral vector is found in virtually all religions and cultures. It is the ethic of reciprocity which is commonly known as the Golden Rule, and which is stated in both the positive and negative action in the common sense moral code, The Way to Happiness Precept 19 and Precept 20 in such a way as it can be practically applied. Yet all expressions of the ethic provide enlightened Understandings.

Writings on the ethic of reciprocity, which is really a thing to do, point out that Human Rights are expression of this ethic or precept. Therefore, we can understand that Human Rights give objective goals to desire for self, others and the environment, i.e. things they can have.

Therefore, wide dissemination and use of all forms of the ethic of reciprocity by all who ascribe to it will give one fast measure to decisions and actions that will help in creation of world understanding, trust and peace by reduction of the reactive (reciprocal)

Forces.

I do not claim to be an expert in other areas but if we can gain greater knowledge and wisdom of these phenomena, together we can progress to an Golden Age of Knowledge as you have earlier discussed.