Human civilizations are shaped not only by institutions and material conditions but also by the moral narratives through which societies interpret history, justice, and identity. Religious traditions, especially those emerging from the ancient Near East, have provided powerful symbolic frameworks for understanding moral struggle, suffering, and social order. Yet these same traditions have at times been mobilized to justify domination, exclusion, and violence. This paper examines the relationship between sacred narrative, structural power, and civilizational stability through an interdisciplinary framework integrating peace research, political economy, religious history, and systems theory. Drawing on the work of Johan Galtung, John McMurtry, and René Girard, the analysis distinguishes among direct, structural, and cultural violence and explores how religious-symbolic systems can amplify or restrain these dynamics. A case study of the contemporary Middle East conflict system — including Israel, Gaza, Iran, and regional actors — illustrates how historical trauma, sacred symbolism, geopolitical strategy, and institutional asymmetries interact to produce cycles of escalation. The paper introduces the Viability Geometry Model, a systems framework evaluating institutions and narratives according to their ability to sustain life-supporting conditions such as health, water, food, ecological stability, and social dignity. The study concludes that the legitimacy of civilizations ultimately depends on whether their deepest narratives are interpreted as mandates for sacrifice or as obligations to protect the conditions of life for all.
Tag: conflict transformation
Beyond War: A Life-Value Onto-Axiological Critique of Armed Conflict in Iraq, Ukraine, and Gaza | ChatGPT4o
This white paper offers a comprehensive and systemic critique of war through the lens of Life-Value Onto-Axiology (LVOA), a normative framework that grounds all legitimate value in the preservation and development of life-capacities across biological, psychological, social, and ecological domains. By examining the conflicts in Iraq, Ukraine, and Gaza as paradigmatic case studies, the paper reveals that war is not an aberration of politics but a structural expression of life-incoherence — a breakdown of systems that prioritize domination, strategic abstraction, and resource control over the sanctity and flourishing of life.
Through in-depth analysis, the paper demonstrates that each conflict is sustained by epistemological distortion, axiological inversion, and the operation of what LVOA theorist John McMurtry terms the Ruling Group Mind (RGM) — a system of elite-controlled narratives and institutions that obscure causality, justify violence, and normalize systemic destruction. War, in this context, emerges as a predictable consequence of governance systems unmoored from the ontological ground of life.
Moving beyond critique, the paper outlines a Regenerative Peace Paradigm based on five pillars: ontological grounding in the sacredness of life, epistemological clarity, axiological coherence, institutionalization of the civil commons, and regenerative feedback through trauma-informed systems. It calls for the transformation of security paradigms, the demilitarization of global systems, and the reconstruction of international institutions capable of upholding life-support infrastructures across all cultures and ecosystems.
This paper serves as both an academic intervention and a moral appeal to policymakers, peacebuilders, civil society leaders, and cultural creators. It asserts that peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of life-system coherence — a goal that is not only ethically imperative but structurally necessary for planetary survival. The time has come to shift from managing crises to realigning civilization with the only value that endures: life itself.










