Why certain conflicts remain unintelligible to those outside them

Conflicts are usually explained in terms such as interests, strategy, or political errors. All of that exists, but it is not sufficient. If one wishes to understand why certain conflicts do not unravel — why they resist negotiation, diplomacy, and even the mere passage of time — one must go deeper. Much deeper.

Before action, before strategy, even before conscious perception, there is an element that determines everything: the manner in which each mind constructs its version of reality.

Two actors may be looking at the same event and yet not be seeing the same thing.

This divergence is neither accidental nor ideological in its origin. It is cognitive. And from there — from that invisible fracture in the foundations — everything else arises.

There exists a mechanism that connects the way reality is perceived with the most concrete consequences of a conflict. It is not a list of factors, but a causal chain in which each level drives the next: the cognitive mode generates a form of survival, which activates an identity, which filters perception, which crystallises into doctrine, which becomes a system, which produces actions, which generate consequences, which feed back into the original cognitive mode. When the cycle closes, it reinforces itself. And each iteration makes it more rigid.

To trace this chain from the beginning allows one to understand why some conflicts do not resolve, even when there appears to be a willingness to do so.

0. The Point of Departure: how reality is constructed

Everything begins with what may be called the cognitive mode: the fundamental way in which an actor — individual, institution, culture — organises its experience of the world. There are two basic modes.

The sequential mode perceives isolated facts, orders events along a timeline, and reacts to the immediate. The world, seen from this perspective, is a succession of discrete causes and effects. The structural mode, by contrast, detects relationships and patterns: it seeks coherence between parts, reads systems, connects what appears dispersed into families of meaning.

Neither is superior. But they are irreducibly different. In practice, most actors operate somewhere between the two — the distinction marks a dominant tendency, not a sealed category. And even as a tendency, it determines what counts as reality for each actor. Before any negotiation begins, before demands are formulated or red lines are drawn, two parties operating under........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)