This is http://www.essayz.com/b0310021.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.}
==========================================================
 %PEACEMAKERS FACILITATORS CONFLICT RESOLUTION LOVE 031002
%DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICTS IDEALS VALUES PRINCIPLES GOD 031002
%COMPLEMENTARY INEVITABLE DIFFERENCE REAL PERCEIVED 031002
 %SUCCESS BENEFITIARY EXPENSE VICTIM COERCE VIOLATE 031002
 %TOOLS MEANS EFFECTS AFFECTS TECHNOLOGIES CONTROLS 031002
%UNINTENDED MOTIVATIONS CONSEQUENCES TRAGIC FAILURE 031002

     To   be  helpful  peacemakers  and  facilitators   of
conflict-resolution we need to recognize the multitude  of
kinds of roots of destructive conflicts:

     1.  Truly conflicting ideals,  values and principles;
as  contrasted  with  complementary  ideals,   values  and
principles    which  some  people  mis-perceive  as  beomg
inevitibly  in conflict with  each  other.     We need  to
sort  out the differences   between  real  conflicts   and
complementary  realities  that are perceived as  being  in
conflict.

     2.  Truly    conflicting    bases   for    "success";
as  contrasted  with  only  apparently conflicting   bases
for "success".    These issues are usually related to: how
differing  people define "success",  "success  for  whom",
and "at  the expense of whom"; e.g.:

     a.  What  means/tools for achieving "success"  are to
     be   honored,    respected,    admired,    tolerated,
     prohibited, proscribed, prescribed, etc.

     b.  Who has the right to define what "success" is?

     c.  Who has the right to determine who will benefit
     from "success"; and who will pay for "success"?

     d.  Who  has,  or shall/should have,   the  right  to
     determine    what    unavoidable     and      perhaps
     unintended   natural conseqequences of efforts to  be
     "successful"  ---  are to be  tolerated  without just
     compensation?  With  just compensation?

     e.  Who  has,  or shall have,  the right to determine
     what  grounds  for objections to "success"   made  by
     bystanders  --- are  to  be  ajudicated,   respected,
     honored, etc?

     f.  Shall   people   have  the  right  to   sue   for
     compensation for the pain of their embarrassment when
     they are shown to have been wrong, dishonest,  fools,
     incompetent, pretentious, domineering, coercive, etc?

     g.  Shall  people  have the right to sue for  damages
     when   they   lose  philosophical,   theological   or
     scientific   arguments;   or  lose  some   of   their
     supporters in their arguments?

     h.  Shall  domineering  people have the right to  sue
     for  the  loss of victimized codependent  partnerners
     ---   to  true-lovers   who  help   the   codependent
     victims   to recover personal health,  dignity,   and
     interdependence?

     3.  Conflicts over the questions about when violence,
coercion,  domination,  defensive-wars and preemptive wars
are  to be respected,  honored,  tolerated, or opposed.

     4.  Conflicts  over  the  propriety  of  the  actual,
planned  for,   and/or prepared for use of  the  following
alienative weapons/technologies:

         a.  Secrecy?
         b.  Lies?
         c.  Dishonesty?
         d.  Deception?
         e.  Misleading statements/behaviors?
         f.  Threats?
         g.  Coercion?
         h.  Violence?
         i.  Diseases?
         i.  Threats?
         j.  Guns?
         k.  Airplanes?
         l.  Bombs?
         m.  Atomic fission weapons?
         n.  Inter-continental missles?
         o.  Nuclear-fusion weapons?
         p.  Multiple-re-entry missles?
         q.  Poison-chemical weapons?
         r.  Rejections?
         s.  Excommunications?
         t.  Insults?
         u.  Prejudices?
         v.  Ignorance?

     5.  What   shall   be  the   global-transcendent-meta
standards  in  terms of  which  to   resolve   the   above
kinds  of  questions?    Can religious leaders be  led  to
accept such global-transcendent-meta standards?

                                                                                                                               
                         (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in      
                    (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy)  
                                                                                                                               
==========================================================