This is http://www.essayz.com/a9710191.htm Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %POLARIZATION MUTUAL CONFLICT DISTRUST DISRESPECT+971019 %CONFLICT RESOLUTION PEACEMAKING PERSONAL INTEGRITY+971019 %FINDING COMMON GROUND RIGHTEOUSNESS SIN EVIL FALL 971019 People in Group A have personality types, desires, fears and dispositions which have led them to agree upon Group A Values and Ideals. People in Group B have other complimentary dispositions which have led them to agree upon Group B Values and Ideals. The People in Group A and Group B have complementary personality types, desires, fears and dispositions. A complete healthy community needs the kinds of people found in both Group A and Group B. A community which is totally lacking in people of one of the groups cannot be complete and healthy. The values and ideals which are affirmed by Group A people, are complementary to the values and ideals which are affirmed by Group B people. A complete and healthy community needs to have people in it which affirm the values and ideals which are affirmed by people in Group A AND ALSO needs to have people in it who affirm the values and ideals which are affirmed by people in Group B. A community which is totally lacking in affirmations of either set of complementary set of ideals and values cannot be complete and healthy. Unfortunately, the people in Group A are prone to pass judgement upon people in the complementary Group B --- doing so in terms of the ideals and values of Group A. Unfortunately, the people in Group B are prone to pass judgement upon people in the complementary Group A --- doing so in terms of the ideals and values of Group B. Each group tends to affirm its own characteristic set of ideals and values --- at the expense of affirming the complementary ideals and values which are characteristic of the complementary group on the other side. Group A people see Group B people doing things which are highly objectionable --- in terms of Group A's ideals and values. Group B people are seen as not being trustworthy. Group B people see Group A people doing things which are highly objectionable --- in terms of Group B's ideals and values. Group A people are seen as not being trustworthy. Group A people and Group B people are in conflict over issue X, on which they do not see eye-to-eye. People in the two groups do not trust each other and are so are not in open and honest dialogue with each. They do not trust each other because they have not been in open and honest dialogue with each other --- and so are not familiar with each other. How can anyone expect us to associate with people on the other side? They do not behave in ways which merit our respect. For us to enter into open and honest dialogue with any people on the other side --- would be a sign of weakness, a lack of loyalty, and would entail the risk of engendering doubt about our own ideals and values. That is too risky for us to contemplate. We better not contemplate any such an action. Forget it. People on the other side are first going to have to behave in ways which will elicit our respect and trust --- before they can expect us to be open and honest with them. It is clear to us what ideals and values they should live in terms of. They should stop ignoring the ideals and values which they should live in terms of. They show no sign of repenting, and in fact they try to justify their actions and lack of action in terms reasons which make no sense at all --- for they ignore the really important ideals and values. We cannot compromise our ideals and values in order to get along with people who are willfully unrepentant and/or who support people who are willfully unrepentant. We stand for what is right and righteous, they do not. They make it impossible for us to get along together. It is time that we stop associating with such people. We may get their spiritual disease through too intimate an association with them. We must maintain our purity and righteousness at all costs. - - - - - - - - - - - - There is something wrong with how we are thinking about our situation. This way will lead us farther and farther apart into greater and greater levels of mutual alienation, conflict, coercion, and violence. Let us think carefully about what we are doing. Out of disdain for the other group members each group fails to address the needs and concerns of the other group --- because members of each group fear that to do so will require that they compromise their own principles, ideals and values in the presence of members of their own group --- and so become alienated from those people whom they trust most. Members of each group together regard their own principles, ideals and values as meriting ultimate concern --- to the exclusion of addressing the needs, concerns, principles, ideals and values pointed to by members of the other group. Thus few, if any, members of either group are willing to make the sacrifices which are essential to starting dialogue with anybody about how to achieve the kind of balance which is needed to enjoy both personal and communal integrity. Members of each group are: (1) More concerned with being perceived as righteous: defined in terms of conformity to the principles, ideals and values of their own particular group --- than they are (2) Concerned with participating in right relationships: defined in terms of open and honest dialogue with members of all groups which are seeking both personal and communal integrity through healthy syntheses. In anticipation of rejection by members of their own group --- each member cannot commit to seeking both personal and communal integrity through healthy syntheses developed in open and honest dialogue with people who are "different". It is difficult to admit to another member of one's own group --- that it might be essential to enter into dialogue with a member of a complementary group which is not trusted. It is more difficult to be in dialogue with a member of a complementary group which is not trusted. It is even more difficult to be in dialogue with a member of a complementary group which is not trusted --- while in the presence of a third person who may report the breach of loyalty to others in their own group. There is a quantum jump in risk when there is a move from dialogue between only two people of like or contrasting views --- to dialogue involving three people. There is an additional quantum jump in risk when any other person comes into a small group attempting to start a pattern of dialogue --- and so violating the tacit rules of a collusive game of mutual self-deception. If the added person strengthens the perceived power of the group-think of one side --- the participants in the group-think of the other side will feel threatened and will be inclined to withdraw from open and honest dialogue. Will loyalty to existing patterns of group-think dominate --- or will nebulous and dangerous commitments to seeking both personal and communal integrity finally liberate participants who are trapped in endless conflicts which are dominated by sickening: alienation, distrust, fears, defensiveness, insecurity, coercion, and violence? (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================