The Cylinder Story

The Cylinder Story

by David Chanley

International politics really is like a 5D chess game.  There is more depth and nuances to it than most are aware of.  And, the histories of all the different parties involved involves a larger element of time in the situations than most people are aware of.  The other parties at the table come from different places where they have different points of view from which they see things.

Not everything is always about winning in the conventional sense.  You can't make everyone happy and keep everyone content with an I must win therefore the other guy must lose approach.  The goal is usually to discover the best win-win situation for everybody.  Too many in America and the West have an I must win so the other guy must lose approach.  That creates animosity and a sense of being unfairly bullied.  That really is not a long-term solution.  That will only last as long as the dominant bully keeps everybody else down.  That really isn't the best way to approach international negotiations.  Trying to find the best win-win situation for everybody is a better approach.

Everyone at the negotiating table has their own unique point of view.  There really are more dimensions to things than what meets the eye.  Mutual understandings need to be established as the basis for reaching an agreement.  You have a topic on the table.  You are seated at the table to discuss the topic.  Other representatives are seated at the table with you.  Everyone has their unique point of view.  You all need to understand each other and the topic on the table.

To demonstrate the situation let's take a simple thing to represent the topic that we need to discuss.  The actual topics that we discuss are much more complicated.  Actual topics have even more dimensions to them.  Actual topics are more convoluted.  For this simple demonstration let's say the topic we are discussing is a simple cylinder.  To discover the best win-win situation for everybody we all need to understand the cylinder that is on the table.  To truly understand the depth of the issue and understand the points of view of the others at the table can be more complicated than most people realize.  Let's use this simple cylinder as an example.

Imagine a cylinder.  But, we at the negotiating table don't even know it is a cylinder yet.  We have to figure that out.  We have to figure that out by negotiating.  The unknown is on the table.  I can tell you in the audience that it is a cylinder.  But we at the negotiating table have to figure that out ourselves.

Imagine we all are using our imaginations.  We could imagine many things.  We would have images in our minds.  The actual objects wouldn’t be in our minds.  We would have images of objects in our minds.  We would be imagining images.

Imagine a cylinder.  Imagine three people are looking at it.  The first person is looking at one end of the cylinder.  The second is looking at the side of the cylinder.  The third is looking at a corner of the cylinder.  The first says it is a round circle.  The second says it is a rectangle.  The third says it is like a rectangle.  It has opposite parallel sides but the two opposite sides are convex.

They are arguing.  They see different things.  They are looking at the same object.  Shouldn’t they all see the same thing?  They are stuck.  They can’t move.  They can’t change their point of view.  They see what they see.  Others apparently don’t see it as they do.  They can see they are right.  They know they are right.  They think the others must be wrong.  The others don’t see it as they do.

They argue.  They present their point of view.  They don’t see the others’ descriptions.  They see only what they see.  That is all they can see.  Their knowledge is limited.  Their understanding is limited by their point of view from their perspective.  They lack vision beyond that scope.  They accept their perspective.  They think they are right.  They can see they are right.  They don’t accept the perspectives of the others.  They feel the others’ perspectives must be wrong.  They think the others must be wrong.

People can open their minds.  Imagine the images others see.  You can observe from other points of view.  Broaden your scope.  Enhance your mental vision.

The three looking at the cylinder were stuck.  They couldn’t move.  They didn’t change their point of view.  They didn’t change their perspective.  They could see they were right.  They could see it with their own eyes.  Why should they think otherwise?

Then one of them had an idea.  He was right.  He knew he was right.  He could see he was right.  But a thought had occurred to him.  Did the others have to be wrong?  Why do they see something different?  Aren’t they all looking at the same thing?  Maybe they were also right.  Could it really look different to them?  Could it look different from a different point of view?  What if it really did look like that to them?

What do they see?  Where are they?  Could there be depth?  Could there be more dimensions?  Could there be more than the obvious?  What if everyone was right?  Could everyone be right?

Could all the images be compiled together?  Can we imagine that image?  What would we see?  Could the object be more than what we see?  How could a circle also be a rectangle?  How could a rectangle also have convex ends?  Why don’t the others see the same as me?  I have my point of view.  Why can’t the others see it too?  They have their point of view.  Why don’t I see it too?

Suppose there was more to it.  Imagine it had more depth.  Imagine what it could be.  One person looking at the cylinder had those thoughts.  He put all the descriptions together in his mind.  He compiled that information in his mind.  He developed another mental image.  He imagined a cylinder.  He could perceive it.  He could believe it.  He discovered it did look as they had described.  He developed a greater understanding.  He discovered the object was a cylinder.

They all had different points of view.  They all had different perspectives.  They were describing what they saw.  They weren’t inventing things.  He used their points of view.  He understood what they saw.  The object was as they had described it.  They all thought they were right.  They all could see they were right.  He assumed they all were right.  He discovered more than what they saw.  He discovered they all were right.

The images they saw were as they described.  He learned that they all were right.  But the object they were looking at was a cylinder.  The object was not the images they described.  He also learned that they all were wrong. Imagine that!

They all were right.  The images they described were the images they saw.  They all were wrong.  The images they described were not the object they were looking at.

It all depended on how you looked at it.  They all were contradicting one another.  But they all were right at the same time.  Yet, at the very same time they all were right they also all were wrong.  Imagine that!

International politics really is like a 5D chess game.  Negotiations take understanding, communication and vision.  Do you really think Kamala's babble on word salad can really get that job done?  I don't think so.

Have you noticed how often Kamala really has nothing to say but she keeps babbling on anyway?  A lot of people call that word salad.  But Kamala takes word salad to a whole new level.  Kamala keeps babbling on word salad.  I guess she thinks that if monkeys with typewriters will eventually write something that makes sense if she keeps babbling on eventually she could say something that makes sense too.  She really does take word salad to an all-new level.  With her, the way she babbles on isn't just regular word salad.  What she does is probably better-called babble on word salad.

Kamala is the best at her babble-on style of word salad.  I think she should get recognition for it.  To give her the recognition she deserves I think it would be honorable and fitting to call Kamala, The Queen of Babble On.