The tetrahedronal model--

I'll try a brief description of the tetrahedronal model of nonviolent

interaction.

Take a pair of pipe cleaners. Fold each into an equilateral triangle.

Hold one down and pull up the left leg from where the ends of the pipe

cleaner meet up until the distance between the ends of the pipe cleaner

equals the length of one of the sides. Do the same with the right leg of

the other triangle. Lay one of the open triangles over the other, and

you'll see that they form a tetrahedron. In Buckminster Fuller's

economics, since two lines never meet, all triangles in nature are open;

the tetrahedron is a case where one triangle plus one equals four (the

four sides of the tetrahedron).

The going-to-bed example of tetrahedronal interaction I use is as follows:

I want my young daughter to go to bed, she wants to stay up and play. If

we persist in those motives, it would be like going in a straight line

along the pipe cleaners. Each leg of each of the triangles represents a

vector which is a motive of one of us. When you get to a bend in the

triangle, that represents a shift in motives. Thus if I started along the

edge of one triangle wanting her to go to bed and she started wanting to

stay up to play with her toys, we might assume tetrahedronality if she

replied to my demand that she go to bed by demanding hot chocolate ("I'm

hungry!"), and I responded that I'd fix the hot chocolate if she cleaned

up her toys (my new motive). As tetrahedronality persisted, I'd turn to

fixing the hot chocolate as she turned her attention to cleaning up the

toys. In the longer course of interaction, she might take longer getting

to bed than I had planned and less than she had. Meanwhile, we would be

attending to one another in a pleasure-producing interaction with a life

of its own.

I see no way to define a central tendency between tetrahedronality and

moving along straight pipe cleaners (which if lined up side-by-side are

like soldiers marching in formation), and hence can infer no formula for

quantifying variance from tetrahedronality. But I can observe how people

describe one another's motives and see whether the approximate the

tetrahedronal or straight-line pattern.

Tetrahedronality corresponds to what in Norwegian is called "ansvar"--

literally "responsiveness," variously translated as responsibility,

liability and accountability. I map how responsiveness/tetrahedronality

or violence crosses system levels from dyadic interpersonal interactions

to triadic interpersonal interactions in one direction and to group-

individual or group-group interactions in another.

In violent interaction, voltage in the interaction circuits mounts as in

a thundercloud, discharging toward human points of least resistance.

Tetrahedronal interaction dampens the voltage.

I postulate that the reason tetrahedronal interaction cools us off is that

we sense it mirrors homeostatic processes and (as Fuller describes) the

form of DNA, hence affirming that social interaction takes living,

synergetic form. Violent interaction on the other hand mirrors entropic

processes--death--raising alarm/anxiety in us whenever we see ourselves or

others moving in straight lines.

There's a lot of elaboration in the book and more detailed explanation and

illustration, but basically, that's the model I work from.

Sorry I haven't said it straight out before, Bill P. Does this help? l&p

hal