Assume that the far left "point" or "peak" (in green) represents a person who wants things to go in HIS direction, while the far right "point" or "peak" (in red) represents a person who wants things to go in the exact opposite direction. In other words, they are arguing with (and against) each other, and each one has become angry, and wants to WIN that battle/contest/argument, etc. And, as often happens, their battle has reached a point where it is beginning to hurt, damage, offend, and/or frighten others, who don't want to be dragged into a battle between Angry Person 1, and Angry Person 2.

​

In a situation like that, one of the more logical and promising approaches, to creating a structure/system/arrangement which might be able to do some genuine good, for both Person 1 and Person 2, might be to place not just 1, and not just 2, but 3 different and distinct people (or organizations, entities, etc.) between them, in a structure where each of Person 1, and Person 2, knows that s/he doesn't have to just get one ally on his/her side, but will have to convince two different people (or groups), with two different roles and perspectives, of the merits of his/her argument. That can pose an interesting and potentially useful challenge, and goal, in itself.

​

Furthermore, each of the 3 people in the "blue triangle" (which can be called the base, the interface, the medial or mediating triangle, or similar terms) might well able to contribute a viewpoint, which, when taken together, can act in a manner similar to the top, front, and side views of an engineering drawing, all of which can help both Person 1, and Person 2, create their own "tetraheed" views, which might be a good step in helping the two "combatants" come to a better understanding and grasp of the other person's positions, beliefs, reasons, etc.

​

And, if 3 people are placed into "cooperative mediating positions", between two "combatants" who feel angry, disgusted, threatened, or whatever, by their opponent's criticism, attacks, etc., then additional "tricks and stunts" also can be brought into play, when those 3 people/entities are selected. For example, one of them can specifically chosen and encouraged to be an ally and advocate for Person 1, while a second can be chosen and encouraged to be an ally and advocate for Person 2; and, the "tie-breaker" vote can be provided by the 3rd "medial" person, who will not start out aligned with either Person 1, or Person 2. Accordingly, this structure would be similar, in a number of respects, to two litigants battling each other in a lawsuit, where each has his/her own attorney/advocate, and where a judge or magistrate of some sort sits as a third (impartial and objective) person. However, two crucial differences would be:

1. Neither of the two advocates would be charging legal fees that are designed, intended, and managed in ways that will suction as much money as possible out of the clients (i.e., to convert that money into income, for the attorneys);

2. All 3 of them must agree, at the outset, that the goal of their joint effort is to actually help resolve the dispute, in a productive and constructive way, rather than to declare  either Person 1, or Person 2, as the "winner" while the other becomes a loser.

 

So - this approach doesn't claim to have all the answers. But, based on a basic understanding of geometry, structures, and systems, it might nevertheless offer a useful and promising system, if 2 people who have launched a battle against each other, can be persuaded to give it a try.

​

​