connectedAs we’re seeing in the last several posts, when we realize we are part of a connected whole, it fundamentally changes how we approach conflict resolution. It is only in the short run that I can “win” by defeating you. It is only in the short run that I can thrive if you do not. Only in the short run can I prosper if you do not.
My wife and I have been locked in an intractable argument more times than I can count. I use words well, and in the early years, I often marshaled my powers of oration to “win” the conflict. However, when I got my way at the expense of her well-being, it was a short-lived victory at best. Very quickly, I realized that when she bowed to the forcefulness of my will and words, I did not win. I could occasionally bully my way (not often enough, I thought), but even when I did, I suffered the loss of her affection, the loss of mutuality, the loss of trust. These, it turned out, were worth a great deal more, than whatever the thing was I was pushing for.
That makes sense, if we are one and not two.
income gapThe same is true of societies. Extensive research has been done about what happens when inequities widen within a society. When one group wins and another loses, the outcome for the entire society worsens. When the gap between the haves and have-nots widens, even the haves suffer.
Any time we are in a relational network, we exist in the “everything-is-connected” reality. The very concept of “winners and losers” assumes two-ness. If that is a flawed concept, no wonder our efforts to “win” yield so little fruit.
Watch the video below. What is interesting about it, is that even the winners in societies with wide gaps, suffer. It’s a little statistical, but it’s only 16 minutes. It is an important bit of evidence that undercuts our two-ness model, and advocates for the oneness suggested by our saints and sages.

Share This