Trimodology: The Study of the Three Modi Operandi: Faith, Code, and Force as a Three-In-One Trio!

By David J. Besley

For the first offender, the cause of many cases is the confusing of the moral and the legal, the public and the private. This is not simplistic or making excuses. Therefore, if the differences could be taught instead of learned from a prosecution, it would spare the pain of prosecution and its antisocial consequences. This, the book attempts to do. Having separated the moral and the legal and adding force back gives faith, code, and force as the three modalities. Next is what to do with them.

Each modus operandi can be singular used and developed separately to produce a skewed adult or generalized in relation to the other two to produce a balanced adult. Societys singularizing of faith, code, and force has resulted in the trilemma presented by law, religion, and force (police and military), leaving the citizen a confused victim.

The generalizing system is pursued through its rules 3, 32, 33, 34, 35 (and back). At 33 (3x9=27 rules), the master control schedule emerges, equilibrating the three modes. At 35, the modes become an amorphous henial of undifferentiated moral material.

The system is built on a triple of opposites. The basic movement of which is from a forward to a reverse to a forward while going one way forward. The three modes form six hierarchies of mixes, which can be sequenced two ways. (1) GCF, GCF or GG CC FF. Together the two sequences combine to culminate a quadrupedia patternas do any consociate threes. This macromodology provides the referent for practical implications and bridges as Part 2 application of the theory to the sex chapters.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris AU
• Release date: Aug 11, 2015
• ISBN: 9781503503427

David J. Besley

The author is eighty-seven years old and a retired secondary teacher. He is a single grey nomad living south to the Murray in the summer and north to the Gwyer River in the winter east to the coast at Benom River in the spring.

Book preview

Copyright © 2015 by David J. Besley.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Classification: Political Science

Rev. date: 08/11/2015

Xlibris

1-800-455-039

www.Xlibris.com.au

697586

CONTENTS

Part One

Introduction

1. Trimodology: Faith, Code, Force

2. Singularising on a Mode

3. Generalising the three Modes

4. The Trimodologists

5. Mode Rules 1–3

6. Rules 2. The Control trine… 3’s to 9’s

7. The Three-Trine Mode Mix 3x9 The 27s

8. Mode Rules 4. The 81’s 34

9. The Two Sides of the Modology Reduction Formula

10. Mode Rules 5 35

11. Development of the Quadrupedia Formula

Part Two

Applying the Theory to Sex

12. Erotology

13. Sex and Structuring

14. Mother

15. Father

16. The Three Sex Moralities

17. Theology and Gender

Addenda

18 (Addendum). The Theory Applied to Reducing (Not to Quit) Smoking

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Bibliography

Glossary

Is religion a study discipline?       Yes

Is law a study discipline?              Yes

Is force a study discipline?            Yes

Well then, if all three modi operandi—faith, code, and force—are separate study disciplines, what about all three together in one triune entity, in one person or one nation, would that be a study discipline?

It must be so.

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

A   real king is the lawmaker, the commander in chief of the armed forces and the spiritual leader of his people. He is tri-personal.

The beheading of Charles 1st signified ‘done with you, tyrant, now every man a king and every woman a queen.’

It didn’t quite work out that way, but the eventual parliamentary democracy with its party politics and law ‘of the people’ retained the basic concept of sovereign freedom of the individual. The Crown versus Jo Blow assumes the equality of the contestants despite their absolute inequality of power.

The population is the rulers’ subjects. It takes a revolution for the subjects to overthrow the masters, to reverse the order. It takes an individual revolution to free a person to become master of his own code, faith, and force modalities. This is the politicisation process. Tied so tightly to the culture of his own nation, the subject citizen is bound by its laws and institutions such that his identity is based on his faith in them. He does not realise that his conditioning has made him the person he is.

To become his own authority, he has to break free of his acculturation to become ‘captain of my soul, master of my destiny’. To be a truly free person with sovereign autonomy, answerable to none but himself, he must exchange subject citizen for citizen of the world. Though he obeys the law in all matters of policy and though he chooses to give allegiance to a nation or a political party, he does so as a free man in full awareness of what it is that he does. He is competent in handling the law where necessary. The buck stops with him.

To be master of all three modalities is a big task. It is hard enough mastering one.

The state has divided them into three separate study disciplines and institutions—law, force (police and military), and religion. Only the politicised embrace all three for the guidance of their lives and the politicians in monitoring the ship of state.

For the unpoliticised majority who would become politicised, it is necessary to separate the three modes as a first step. Obvious as their identities appear to be, they are confused by the specialist in each area judging in binary terms. The law, guilty or not guilty; force, win or lose; religion, good or bad. The law’s ‘right and wrong’ is not necessarily the same as religion’s ‘right and wrong’. There is private conscience and public conscience, and both constantly clash to become the cause of many court cases and much public debate.

Separating the three modalities involves extending the binary analysis to the trinary level of study of all three, both separately and together in their various relationships. Force is easily isolated as it is opposite to both the way of law (the alternative) and faith religion. Force has two opposites.

Isolating law and faith is the problem. Both resist being labelled as opposites. The two are enormously confused in their bid to speak as the authority. Both claim the good, and substantially the same good. Their difference is in their methods of achieving the good. Their binary judging strains to the limit the exercise in separating them clearly.

Binary analysis is the easiest and more appropriate for public speaking. For example, Jesus distinguishes between God and Caesar: ‘Yield unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s, which is to say keep faith separate from Caesar (code).’ Don’t confuse them, don’t mix them. But He also says, ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ a saying so strange as to sound ridiculous until He comes to His crucifixion. As He hangs dying on the cross, the ‘meek and lowly of heart’ human Jesus is saying, ‘Make no mistake, this crucifixion is the logical terminus of the faith way in this world.’ This is Caesar, this is the code mode. Faith and code are diametric opposites at their essence. (‘Take up your cross and follow me.’) Thus faith, too, has two opposites—code and force.

Conversely, it follows that code also has two opposites—faith and force.

This then is my premise—the three modus operandi, in their primary purity, are a triple of opposites. It is similar to trigonometry’s sine, cos, and tan.

Jesus also warned those who follow the faith path: ‘They will despise you and persecute you and crucify you.’ Despite His warning and going the logical distance to the inevitable terminus and His own example of His extreme ultimate gesture of ‘suiciding’ on a cross, His premise of the faith way of trust, truth, honesty, and love as opposite to the code way of power, authority, fear, and punishment has been rejected and misinterpreted for 2,000 years.

Faith mode rules (F) versus Code mode rules (C)

In arriving at the same premise, I cannot expect to convey it or have it accepted by trying to communicate it the soft way—by education. But the premise has been around for a very long time and I have no fear of it being lost or destroyed.

The primary-faith way and the primary-code way, as diametric opposites, is a distinction to be resisted to the limit by church and state alike in their vested interests to be the authority of the good while mixing faith with code and force.

Having arrived at the premise of the three modalities being a triple or opposites— and, therefore, a trilemma—the person undergoing the politicisation process faces a number of choices as to how to dispense the three mode: Whether to ‘follow’ Jesus to his crucifixion or to decline to continue with the faith mode and to switch to the code mode or the force mode. Whether to mix them in twos or threes or whether to make up ground in weak, neglected modes. Whether to embrace all three modes, grow all three from his understanding of the trimodal system formed from the interacting of all three. This latter option is the trimodology choice.

The normal, decent person is not content to be a crucified victim of the law, nor is he prepared to be a bully, and a supreme bully, and treat other people like dirt.

‘Be wise as serpents and gentle as doves,’ says Jesus. He—the average person—may not be as ‘gentle as doves’, but neither is he prepared to be a doormat for others to wipe their muddy feet on. Any person with both a conscience and a will to survive cannot choose to follow Jesus to his death by judicial crucifixion, nor can he choose to follow the rule of the adversary system of law to become a supreme bully.

The resistance to accepting and embracing all three modes, evenly, results from choosing one and following it to exclusivity, to developed excellence and power, to the neglect and elimination of the other two by the mode specialists.

‘You cannot serve two masters,’ says Jesus. The individual can only be in one mode gear at a time, be it faith or code, or faith or force, or any of the other four alternatives. If it is, say, faith, the other two—code and force—are suspended in shadow image, ready and waiting for their turn to be engaged as chosen. They are arranged in hierarchy and exert their influence in a three-tiered mix of all three, colouring the dominant mode and giving a warning of a potential to change to another dominant mode.

The mode specialists strive for the best expression of their chosen mode that they can find and develop to the maximum. I doubt a more exemplary example of the faith mode than Jesus gives, can be found, except I find Him woefully lacking in enlightenment in matters sexual, when the need for it is so great in the twentieth/twenty-first centuries, post Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, the Kinsey Report et al.

He saved the woman from death by stoning for adultery, but you don’t say to a girl traumatised out of her brain with terror, ‘Go your way and sin no more.’ This is codist authority.

However, His, ‘There is no giving or receiving in marriage in the kingdom of Heaven’ correctly identifies marriage as a legal (code) contract and nothing to do with love of the faith mode.

To separate faith and code it is essential to take faith out of code totally to realise that they are two separate, distinct, opposite ways of operating. This is to know the meaning of the expression, ‘my world is turned upside down.’ From faith in law to faith outside law, separate from it is a somersault from A to B to C, that is from right way up, to upside down to right way up again, at a very different place at C.

This is the movement of the Hegelian dialectic, thesis-antitheses, synthesised in the unity of opposites at a higher level of understanding.

But Hegel is very much out of favour these days being displaced by post-modernism’s chaos theory. There are still plenty of propeller aeroplanes around despite the jet engine displacing the propeller plane. Hegel is still relevant.

This basic unit of movement may be restated as from a forward to a reverse and back to forward while going one way forward, the prime example of which is the Copernican model of the solar system with the earth’s revolution resulting in summer to winter, to summer going one way.

Copernican-Newtonian physics is also now out of favour, dismissed as ‘old science’, replaced by space/time and quantum physics. It has been superseded long before its inferences have been exhausted. To deny the Copernican is to deny invaluable benefits.

The mode specialists singularise on their mode, the trimodologist (the politicised) generalises all three modes. The two processes, singularising and generalising, are also opposites (and are shown to be). The specialists commit to singularise only, the generaliser both singularises and generalises. The capacity to generalise (controllably) determines the quantity and quality of mode rules at the disposal of the mode operator and the success or failure of modal endeavour. The rules indicate a solution to the modal conflict.

The generic movement underlying the trimodology thesis is found to apply in the biological arena unifying the social and the physical. The essay’s development is from the social to the physical.

Examples include the following: Sex: forward, reverse to forward, one-way thrusting to orgasm; Locomotion: legs forward, reverse to forward, walking one way; Eating: food ‘in’ the mouth, ‘out’ as excrement, recycled to food ‘in’ one way; Breathing: in, out, in one way, recycling carbon dioxide by plants back to oxygen; Growth: from fertilisation to adult back to fertilisation in sex to adult again, up, down, up through cycles.

These and other examples are perceived as translations from the (one way) planetary movement, so positing a general theory for the explanation of the ‘origin’ of (human) life. This is a logical extension of the significance of the Copernican model and its developed inferences for - seasons, natural regions, ecologies, species.

The social I have put into Part 1, Trimodology, the physical I have put into Part 2, where the trimodal theory is applied to various aspects of sex. Together, the two parts rationally reintegrate the social and the sexual providing a compass for autonomous guidance (for the male).

No apology is made for the ‘cultural bias’, as all contemplation is made in a social and physical context at a particular time and place which presents the problems attempting to be solved.

Although the argument aims for the individual’s controlled freedom, it has abundant implications for a range of social disciplines, also for the physical sciences.

Of particular difficulty and interest is my reliance on mirror-imaging—also a much maligned and neglected area of research. Difficult because I have given it the label of palindromic—PD—to distinguish the concept from 3D, as it requires thinking ‘double’. In PD there are always two—subject and mirror-image reflection. It takes some effort to ‘get into’ the PD. It requires escaping from ego-bound unitary thinking of the 3D. There are rich rewards for doing so.

The theory is particularly useful and provable in freeing from locks where we can’t go forward or back because we are stuck at a 3D terminus, provided it is given the necessary work.

The analysis concludes with the threes changing to fours (mathematically) to form quadrupedal patterns. Accepting that we are quadrupeds that have stood up gives a frame upon which integrated circuits can be constructed of systems and subsystems (of consociate threes) and so an avenue of approach to the complexity of problems. Since any trio of consociate threes combine as shown, it becomes possible to conceive of a unifying formula for the whole system and work towards it.

CHAPTER 1

Trimodology: Faith, Code, Force

T here are three ways to solve conflict. They are the faith way, the code way, and the force way. We can use the nice way—or go to court, perhaps, or punch the opposition to the ground, for example, and this exhausts the range of mode options available. The three modi operandi are so simple to distinguish; a pet dog or cat knows the difference between approval, reprimand, or a smack.

If by faith is meant the fidés, which ‘originates’ in the perfect trust in the bright and serious eyes of the child, then the term ‘faith’ defines the meaning it is intended to here better than other suggested terms including trust, love, truth, reason, soul, and academic method, all of which it accommodates and more. The three modes are chosen from a range of unsatisfactory terms as the most generic.

By ‘code’, do I mean law? No, although law is the prime example. The mode of the adversary system or any other is distinguished from law as it is written. A faith creed and a legal code are similar; what separates their identities—in the Christian culture—are the modes by which each is respectively implemented. More broadly, the code way is the authority way especially of fear and punishment and is not confined to law. For clarity and simplicity, ‘force’ is confined to physical violence, which includes direct action like putting a dog on a leash.

The three modes are most identifiable at their highest tensities of love, fear, and physical pain—love as in the most intimate trust, fear as in a criminal court charge, and pain as in violent assault. At these highest levels of tensities, the modes achieve the primary purity of identity of the primary colours: yellow, blue, and red.

The three modes fill out from elemental primary definitions to huge modalities, as in war law and religion, but retain their integrity of quality. However, their definitions undergo revisions. When ‘faith’ is used interchangeably with religion, it is necessary to look into the religion for the original trust and love from which it grew and underwent various changes of perception to be refined or transmogrified. Three stages are identifiable in developments which occur in redefining of each mode.

From the primary stage on the faith path of the ‘perfect trust in the eyes of a child’, it is a long way to the interiorised trust in the self-confidence of the disillusioned, wary adult, aware of his/her separateness from the exterior world and the dangers it brings and the faith in one’s self it requires; this is the secondary stage. Then with collapse of faith in the separate self, which its vulnerability invites and the rigours of life perhaps incur, the soul moves on to the third stage to the re-exteriorising of faith in a ‘conversion’ to a transcending religion, which reunites, re-ties, the believer to the cosmic system of which she is a part and in which she/he appreciates him/herself to be not separate from his/her maker but to be wholly absorbed in the creator. Here, at last, she/he believes she/he has found ‘a faith’, which will not and cannot fail.

Each level redefines the faith mode. The direction is towards an equilibrium control, through a turmoil of modal conflict. Mode conflict has its own three levels. The primary is like-mode versus like – mode as of two religions, the secondary is of two unlike modes such as faith versus code, the tertiary level is the three modes together comprising a trimodal mix. One trimodal cultural mix versus another is really a quarternary level. Conflicts of definition can result in redefining the modes. Of course there is no compulsion for three stages of a mode’s development to be completed. It is common for people to become stuck at one stage or to reject another and transcend to religion, for example, just as it is common for people to choose to pursue one of the three modes to excellence at the chronic neglect of the other two! The various mathematically possible available options to pursue each have their cost/benefit.

The primary stage of the code mode of law is the authority, fear, and punishment of the criminal court. The secondary level is the civil case where tensities of the court are relatively lowered due to the absence of criminal vilification and punishment. The tertiary level is the mediated settlement. It is a long way on the road of code mode sophistication, taking a case out of the criminal jurisdiction to have all parties involved come together to try to reach equilibration of all the faith, code, and force involved in the dispute. The code mode has undergone the transformation of three definitions.

In thrust to the primary criminal level and pull to the tertiary mediation level, the weight at the criminal end is evidence of the general and legal modal incompetence. By comparison with the code mode, the faith mode’s drive towards and to transcendental religion is in the reverse upward direction but is counterbalanced by the anti-primary-faith mode excesses of religion’s fundamentalism.

Force progresses from the beast unleashed at the primary level, to the bow-and-arrow wielding and disciplined armies hacking each other to death with axes at the secondary level to machine killing at the tertiary level, culminating with the atomic bomb. The technical and scientific achievements can be turned to constructive use redefining force as energy, as in physics. Swords are beaten into plough shares and tanks are beaten into bulldozers. This is the fourth level where (all three) modes are equilibrated.

The three modes are equilibrated in technical force when for example the pilot in his aeroplane knows its codes, which gives him the confidence to release the force to send the aeroplane into the air. As the dangers in each of the three axes are equally terminal for the pilot, so are the dangers in each of the three modes equally terminal socially. The three modes are our modal axes.

Faith mode equilibrations are made when all the faith, code, and force in a dispute are resolved in the goodwill of the faith mode. There is a coming together of faith and code in good faith in the mediated settlement. There is a coming together of force with faith and code when the definition of force is transformed to even the load with the just distributing of power and value. All equilibrations occur at the highest level of definition of all three modes. All are equally necessary, but it is force and code that must change their character to equate with the faith mode. The faith mode heads the equilibrated solution.

The faith mode is the only one whose solutions are sought in equilibrations at all three levels. Its transformations do not change its intrinsic qualities of trust, truth, love, equality of value and of power, justice, and goodwill, etc. However, equilibrated solutions are not necessarily achieved at any level. Uninstructed love can kill as surely as a bullet or a judge’s sentence, and misguided love can betray trust as surely as deliberate malice. It is the failure of human love and trust that is the goad to transcendental ‘solutions’. However, it is also the transcending of one’s own personally held definitions of faith at the tertiary level that potentially allows finding the ambiance that is necessary and the compromise that is required to approach and perhaps reach solutions in equilibrations, subject to the freeing of bigotry to a larger tolerance and relinquishing fixed positions. Short of this highest faith mode level solutions are domination solutions in contests of one faith or faith-dominated trimodal mix versus another and faith mode versus code or force. In this the faith mode betrays itself. A tie result is possible at all three levels, but is the result of contest, not of professed or attempted equilibrating.

Though equilibrations of the three modes are made, the primary and secondary levels of definition remain, as do the third, and are permanently available and permanently used. The three modes are separate or in combination in varying quantums and sequences, but they are also simultaneously tied together in an indivisible trinity of three-in-one unity of a trimodal system. Like the colour-mixing system of the three primaries, they can be multi-combined, and the combining system gravitates in complexity to culminate in equilibration of all three in which, in the case of colours, all colour resolves into either black or white, depending on the colour form and in the case of the three modes all their conflicts are resolved in the peace of their equilibratings.

It follows that if a solution is not being aimed at in trimodal equilibration, it is being aimed at in domination. Solution in domination is not a solution to the problem of trimodal conflict though it involves the equilibrating of faith, code, and force in the ‘superior’ mix of the victor. Equilibrated solutions lie at the top of the tertiary level of definition of all three modes and form a separate quaternary level, transcending all three modes, at which all three become one. At the quaternary level, all three modes are redefined yet again to be apprehended as all amounting to the same thing, each being a differently expressed mode of the same idea, need, wish, and objective. A triple equation is reached only as redefinition allows equilibrations such that the faith is the code, the code is the force, and the force is the faith. This equation cannot be reached while one trimodal mix seeks to dominate another. All trimodal mixes are equalized.

The white light that breaks through the spectrum of colours affirms the original unity of the three primaries. The three primaries returned to white or black with the mixing of equal quantums of them in the spectrum confirms their return to unity. The harmony of peace breaks to the conflict of three modes, which contest to resolution in equilibration where conflict disappears in return to peace. The opposition between the three modes is in stark contrast to their unity. Their conflict is their opposition. Therefore, to be acquainted with the three modes requires their comparative study in terms of their opposition. It is their opposition that is to be resolved to rational unity. The mode specialists of the state institutions, each pounding away at their mode can, tell us about their relationships to each other and what their problem seems to be.

At the three levels of mode definition, all faith, religion, and code laws agree that force is their opposite. Force is not their way and is the undesirable alternative to them. Not so the relationship between church and law. Their relationship, which is to say what a society has historically done with its faith and code mode, is arcane and complex. Therefore in order to address it, force can be suspended temporarily from the discussion, as its position of opposition is secured while attention is focused on the faith-code relationship.

The critical importance of making an accurate distinction between the faith mode and the code mode lies in the terrifying fact that one moment of mistaken identity could land you in gaol. With life and liberty at stake, our accuracy needs to have the sharpened point of the life at risk where error cannot be afforded. There is no room for dreamy academic rationalism or self-deception. Our clear awareness of the distinction as a matter of commonsense or common morality may not be taken for granted. The distinction is not obvious. In fact, the fusing of these two modes has produced confusion so great, I doubt if I can undo it in the work to which I have committed this essay.

We are always facing mode mixes. Except in situations of the modes high and highest intensities, and in reality even then, we are dealing always with trimodal mixes with their emphasis variously fixed or oscillating around one dominant mode or two. For example, the ordinary social mix is faith dominated in its relaxed friendliness but is underlaid with a code caution, with a residual force component kept tucked away, out of sight, but held in reserve for last-resort fight or flight. This ordinary mix is not too tight and has the flexibility to move variously quickly or by degrees to push up the tensity of any one of the three modes or conversely to lower the tensity of any one.

With a combination of instinct, intuition, and experience, we generally become fairly good at reading mode mixes and responding fairly appropriately to them. It is the natural way. We learn by small revisions, large adjustments, and revolutions that teach us most of all. It is to such a personal revolution involving faith and code that this thesis refers.

The confusing of faith and code obscures their separate identities. The consequences can be fatal. The separation to clarity of identity of each could prevent catastrophe. But to achieve it could be so strenuous as to require a revolution of habituated thinking. A systematic study of such a revolution might elevate trimodal management to spare much of the agony. The exercise is to reduce a confusion of the code and faith.

The fact is that it is much easier to mix the mode identities than it is to unscramble them again in the same way that it is easier to mix primary colours than it is to unmix them, which is to say, that it is far easier to know the modes at their highest primary tensities than it is to read diffused mixes. It takes the artist’s trained eye to see the quantums of primary colours in a mix. Similarly, it