I have spent a lot of the past decade thinking about what it is that makes us humans tick, what it was that led to the end of my first marriage, why my second marriage is a totally different and much more rewarding experience, why it is that people who don’t really know anything about each other can hate each other so vehemently, why some people love lychee’s and I don’t. And the answer I keep hearing is, “Look at the models, study the models, respect the models upon which all these likes and dislikes are based, and you will find where the gaps exist. And then when you feel like closing those gaps, you will suddenly have a good foundation for the bridge.”

I have spent time mapping out the 12 basic aspects of every model. The reason I give to always focus on the model is this: ALL we know can never be the complete truth because all we know and all we value will ALWAYS be based on the models we construct. Homo sapiens may have been self-named for the awareness we think is unique among creatures, but since even my dog (who is quite sick as I write this) has an amazing level of awareness about her surroundings and the feelings we have for her, I prefer to consider humans unique instead for the ways we construct and use models in which we take our awareness and create something new from it. And in my mind, this makes both Heidi Klum and Albert Einstein human heroes, for they each expose us to new and exciting ways of being human.

So what I now want to do is begin a regular examination of conflicts that we are currently facing, and see if parsing the disagreements by how each side has constructed their models, could reveal paths for closing those disagreements and creating new models for the future.

Let’s take something that nobody in power has yet been capable of solving, like the Israeli – Arab conflict, see how each side’s models (views) differ, ask if those differences are the key reason there is no peace, and then explore if there are ways to close the gaps. And what we find is obvious… just in each side’s description of the “starting condition” both sides deny the validity of the other side’s starting condition, or reason for distrust. My Arab friends have been taught that the Holocaust was not real, it was made up, and that it was made up as an excuse to take away Arab lands. My Zionist friends claim that no Arab was forced to leave the land of their ancestors, that they left it because they were paid a fair price to cede it, i.e. it was all a business transaction that is now in the past.

From a model master’s perspective, there can never be a peaceful solution to the Mideast conflicts until the models that can create that lasting peace at least have common basis or starting condition. So the first step towards peace has nothing to do with borders, which carry so many economic and military complications, but rather has everything to do with acknowledging the validity of the other side’s basis for anger and need to provide for their own security in a hate filled world. And all that is needed to create that common basis are repeated proclamations by the leaders of all sides that the other side has had many valid reasons to be angry, but it is now time to get past that anger by finally challenging ALL the lies that have perpetrated the continuance of the hatred, lies and half-truths told by both sides over many decades of conflict (i.e. you now begin to change model aspect #2, the Supporting Environment).

Why am I sure that focusing on the starting condition and the current supporting environment will be the required first step towards peace and everything else will be relatively easy after that? Because that is how Gorbachev (in particular) and Reagan-Bush (in response) ended the cold war, by acknowledging something positive about the other side, which quickly provided a common starting condition AND supporting environment for newer models to be based on.

This leads me to state Kaz’s First Corollary: Models based on the same starting condition have the highest likelihood of compatibility…

… out of which we can derive Kaz’s Second Corollary: If you can’t change or challenge the starting condition, you can at least change the supporting environment, and that can then make a problematic starting condition less relevant.

Now what about the field I have expertise in, namely Environmental Sustainability? How can we become more sustainable with our environment in the fastest way possible. Just like with the Middle East, there should be acknowledgment of a common starting condition by all critical stakeholders. But the intransigence of those who gain benefit from the status quo, an intransigence that usually takes the form of denying the beliefs and findings of the environmental and science community, countered by a belief that all businesses are evil, doesn’t have to stop all movements towards environmental and economic sustainability. That is where regulations come in (top-down creation of a supporting environment), and where the market can determine who the stakeholders of the future will be (bottom-up creation of a supporting environment). I will have more on this in my next post.