As emotional creatures we tend not to think of conflict
etiologically. Quite the contrary, when it comes to bellicosity or
temperamental belligerence the offender is almost always stuck in context; when
trapped within the frame of confrontation we tend to have trouble seeing the
big picture, as evidenced by the scarcity of effectively expunged contentions.
Here, I present an alternative to this merry-go-round of spite.
Strength, by its very nature, is relative. One can only be
strong at the expense of another’s weakness. To be powerful is to be more
powerful than a foe, with no baseline objectivity whatsoever. It is from this precarious
inevitability that conflict arises.
To assert strength is to ensure survival. Yet, the
preponderance of quarrels in today’s world, great or small, yield no
consequence to our wellbeing. All but some are merely egotism, an ancient drive
belied by nuanced curves in our expectation of supremacy… all but wasteful
incontinence, to put it mildly.
The premise: if we can satiate the ego of the two that tango, we will effectively render the mating dance superfluous.
Essentially, all conflict is entrenched in psychological
warfare, or rather, psychodynamic warfare: one ego contesting the next and the
next… until a reigning champion is crowned or everybody perishes, and we know
which comes first.
Alas, it is our prerogative, nay, our duty to sacrifice ego
in the face of adversity. The days of “stand up and fight” are gone, existing
only within those who seek to drag war into perpetuity. Lay down your arms in
the face of conflict, cede your ego and know that war will no longer exist.
Surrender.
Should you be the arbitrator of conflict, ensure that both
sides feel whole and from your aerie watch the conflict dispel into the
nothingness from whence it came.
That this is the simplest idea you have ever heard invigorates my waning faith in humanity.
Some restrictions may apply.
Some restrictions may apply.
2 comments:
<< Some restrictions may apply. >>
This closing line saves the day (or the article.)
Surrender or "Bitul" is a valid strategy of survival and thriving in a marriage, or in any relationships where co-existence is a shared core value. However, when the conflict is with a foe whose adenda is to kill or erradicate you, surrender would be the worse possible strategy.
I used to think that surrendering and giving the Palestenians what they demand will resolve the conflict between them and Israel and will eventually bring the desired peace. Well, after giving them the land-portion surrounding the Gaza Strip, Israel received a rain of rockets in return.
The moral of this story goes even deeper: We cannot defy G-d's Will. When surrender goes against the All-Mighty Torah, don't expect favorable or constructive outcome.
Thus, restrictions indeed apply.
The author Daniel Quinn has an interesting perspective on this. He talks about tribal communities stirring up a bit of conflict on a regular basis, to maintain a sense of separation between tribes and assert their ability to fight - in order to avoid actual war. His take on this is that we see this as barbaric, unreasonable violence, but in fact it acts as a way to build strong fences without creating enemies.
As someone who prefers peaceful interactions above all others, I would like to believe that even that would not be necessary. However, I think the impetus for war is a lot more complicated than ego alone. Unless you equate ego with a survival instinct.
Post a Comment