blog traffic analysis
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) ==========================================================