Laminated Societies and War

A brief definition and discussion follows:

Laminated Networks vs Melting Pots

....Transportation and Communication capabilities have allowed co-adaptive networks to spread throughout the extent of such modernisms. Periods of retraction see principly skeletal networks persisting as excess manpower is shed from post-successful schedules. Such skeletal structures bias retention on trust and similar deductive rational systems, as efficiency dictates less distribution of acceptably effective work efforts. Initial movements see increased tolerance for deviation from source analysis, while terminal-approach analysis requires increasing consistency. However, though severing conceptual co-adaptive bonds may be immediate, severing physical associations are alwarys constrained by physical mundane realities, such as moving a household from one city to another. This tends to diassemble the natural mutual support networking from the convenient ones. Compatable network categories with sub-threshold extension populations tend to meld in coalitions of convenience reflective of their original source populations. Familiar enemies in strange hostile places tend to form alliances of survival. This phenomenon leads to a laminated social-political envelope insulating small coalitions against the uncertainties of changing macro-social ambiant changes. This appears to be a modern phenomenon, as it occurs in widespread transnational distributions. Unfortuantely, such laminations appear to naturally cecede as they retract into older ethical forms of survival.
.....Perhaps the question is not one related to enemies, and, instead, is related to compatibility. Such questions require at least one unbridgeable dichotomy. For example, those who gate principles over materialism are disctinct from those who gate materialism over principles. Peoples able to maintain characteristic separate identities must be of principles not to be abandoned for any material benefit. While, Peoples whose stability of principles is variable as determined by material presence cannot be stable in principles sufficient to sign a treaty of war in search of more peaceful evolutionary environments. What is a nation unfamiliar to torment to do in the presence of such embedded populations as are not able to control their progeny? Truly peace was not a participant to time only to be subsumed by terror in the minds of wartime treaties. How do such members of certaintly separated laminated co-adaptable classes of philosophies or structures of reason separate mutually destructive versus mutually obviating ways approaching concepts of rational systems. Surely the extent and nature of necessary assistance concepts will vary sufficiently widely that success in one category would be judged failure in the other category. Further divisions occur along linguistic and tribal-national lines. However, material driven compliance behavior implies resolutions always exist even if temporal. Principles driven compliance is due to the nature of being as a construction of "nurture" while genetic humanoidism is a construction of nature. The difficulty arises because "nurture" based systems depend upon stable explanations to support transgenerational explanations and tend to fail to sustain "being" when engulfed in contradictions. Sadly, contradictions which are tolerated by an "everyone has a price" co-adaptive system are anathema to the "everyone dies on his cross" co-adaptive systems within the linked networks nature of any village concepts.
.....Why is this so? Each network has a characteristic set of situational based dialogues...a dialectic, so to speak. Each dialectic depends upon the stability of the preferred conotations for its functionality. Interlinking two co-adaptive networks also interlink the usage of the two categories of dialectics which characterize each co-definable social group type. This induces a displacement in the definitions used by each network set for each category of diallectics, which renders dysfunctional paradigms required to transfer skill internally or exterally, as constrained by Interests and Questions coefficients...both of which wane in the presence of unresolvable contradictions which are not gated properly relative to their particular parent system-sets. Rational Systems are collections of logical modules, within each Rational System culture is used to bridge from ways acceptable relative to one logical system to other incompatible ways acceptable relative to another co-adaptive logical system within the same Rational System. For example, the command "put your weight into it" may work to open a large wooden box, while such a command may well cause one to shatter a similar box made of glass.
.....Creating dysfunction under the guise of mutual assistance cannot be within the purvue nor the closure of any rational system related to a wartime treaty between peoples presumably functioning within rational systems based upon principles which must always be gated over materialism. Separation of dialectics has been historically essential to stablizing rational systems, as naturally required by village concepts. Where communicative networks overlapped each other, informal cast systems' non-interaction has provided a natural linguistic buffer to supplant the functionality of physical separation the most ancients knew. As systems-interfacings become more complex, honor and loyalty become characteristic necessities of viable laminated systems, whose laminated characteristic is essential to maintainance of the rational systems required to sustain the more general community. Of course, we stand amidst the shambles of trust as towers have fallen. The question is posed by fate, "What is functional separation?" When does rational system functionality require physical separation, as would give rise to separate languages over an acceptable period of future peace, if by peace we include such intrusive behaviour as would distract our essential attention? Clearly, a melting pot is not possible for these two broad categories of rationally structured reasoning system sets...based upon principles versus materialism, respectively. Decision making must be predictable, and cannot be so if cross-category thought occurs in analysis.
.....We arrive at the historical question: "When incompatible laminations mutually discover each other, under what conditions can they retract into distinct mutually separate physical locations through whose boundary only essential transfers occur without mutual degradation?

DADADIN 20Feb2002