Can conflict be removed?

Can conflict be removed once it begins? A recent thread made me wonder.

It seems to me that not getting involved is paradoxically ineffectual, and neutrality is conflict by contrast.

I'll explain. If two sides are against each other, and one takes a neutral stance between them, they are all in conflict. The neutral stance is also in conflict by contrast, if it demands that other sides cease conflict. It is once again in conflict if the other sides demand the neutral side to become un-neutral, and the neutral side resists. If the neutral side simply does not intervene at all, then conflict will either continue or be resolved without the aid of the neutral side, making a lack of involvement ineffectual at removing conflict.

Is this not accurate?

Fair statement I would say.

Opposition requires two or more unshared branches stemming from the same root. The branches are seperate, but the seperation does not bring tension. At what point does tension need released? Before the breaking point most ideally or the action of release would be ineffectual. Is the release of tension the same as the removal of the opposition, or does release make the branches share the load? Neither absolutely maybe. Who creates the tension in the first place so that it needs to be released, and is tension always negative? One would think that it exists for a reason, even for the matter that it has its own reference (widespread language calls it something specifically). The reasons behind it would shed more light on the matter instead of just viewing it as conflict. Even inorganic material can have more than one way to look at it than just "not living". Which can create tension and conflict in itself.

oh_that_guy wrote:Fair statement I would say.

Opposition requires two or more unshared branches stemming from the same root. The branches are seperate, but the seperation does not bring tension. At what point does tension need released? Before the breaking point most ideally or the action of release would be ineffectual. Is the release of tension the same as the removal of the opposition, or does release make the branches share the load? Neither absolutely maybe. Who creates the tension in the first place so that it needs to be released, and is tension always negative? One would think that it exists for a reason, even for the matter that it has its own reference (widespread language calls it something specifically). The reasons behind it would shed more light on the matter instead of just viewing it as conflict. Even inorganic material can have more than one way to look at it than just "not living". Which can create tension and conflict in itself.

Well, conflict is multileveled and complex. There can be a conflict in direction before the conflict 'proper' even begins. Like two magnets which are of opposing polarity. If it were necessary that they meet (i.e. they are both on a path to each other and the path remains unchanged) then they already have a conflict of direction. There is no outward effect while they are still outside of each other's magnetic field, but unless they change direction, conflict is inevitable.

A more 'proper' conflict begins when they meet and begin to influence each other's fields. Being opposed, they will repel each other. Conflict arises if the goal for any magnet is to not be repelled, or if it is for both magnets to attach to each other. A secondary conflict can be, which magnet should reverse polarity in order to attach to the other magnet? Perhaps both magnets wish to keep the polarity they have. This creates a mutual conflict.

If one magnet wishes to change polarity, then there is no conflict. But if even just one magnet wishes for the other to change polarity, and the other refuses, then both are already in conflict. The other magnet may not want to link up at all, and may want to abandon the goal entirely, but once again conflict is mutual - the magnet seeking to attach to the other magnet can keep the other magnet in the conflict against its will, simply because the other magnet does not want to attach.

Sticking with magnets, can magnets reverse polarity on its own to either avoid conflict or force conflict on the other? It may be in its very nature, dictated by laws of the universe (magnetism), to arrive at conflict whether it wants to or not. Does this make the conflict something to just look over though, to disregard? After all, there is no avoiding it. The law only states there will be conflict, it does not mention submission. Is it in the magnet's nature to also view positivity and negativity? Yes, because polarity is solely that. The laws dictate how the two magnets will interact if met, but the magnet has no will of its own to manipulate its own negativity/positivity. In the magnet's case, conflict requires a source outside of its own being (different laws) to be removed, for it has no means of its own to avoid it.

oh_that_guy wrote:Sticking with magnets, can magnets reverse polarity on its own to either avoid conflict or force conflict on the other? It may be in its very nature, dictated by laws of the universe (magnetism), to arrive at conflict whether it wants to or not. Does this make the conflict something to just look over though, to disregard? After all, there is no avoiding it. The law only states there will be conflict, it does not mention submission. Is it in the magnet's nature to also view positivity and negativity? Yes, because polarity is solely that. The laws dictate how the two magnets will interact if met, but the magnet has no will of its own to manipulate its own negativity/positivity. In the magnet's case, conflict requires a source outside of its own being (different laws) to be removed, for it has no means of its own to avoid it.

I just gave the magnets some minds to make an analogy of dualism. Without minds there is no conflict. Or more precisely, conflict is a cognitive construct.

The reason that non-thinking magnets have no conflict is that they have no goals. Just like meteors hitting the moon are not a conflict for the moon. It only matters if the moon cares (and hey, maybe it does care for all we know, maybe everything has a mind, but I can't know that so I set it aside for the sake of intelligible discussion. )

The mind is something that constructs conflict (as we recognize it), yes. But the same mind that creates it has the will to avoid it. While an object without a mind may not be conflicted because a law states it is natural, a person with a mind can manipulate his own goals, goals that possibly create conflict, for a period of time to avoid any conflict.

oh_that_guy wrote:The mind is something that constructs conflict (as we recognize it), yes. But the same mind that creates it has the will to avoid it. While an object without a mind may not be conflicted because a law states it is natural, a person with a mind can manipulate his own goals, goals that possibly create conflict, for a period of time to avoid any conflict.

Yes, but unfortunately the person is not alone. We might not even be alone inside what we consider to be 'ourselves', let alone in a world with similar beings.

Conflict is mutual, so it involves the system, whether it is your internal system or the external system with other beings, one facet that is avoiding conflict is not enough to remove conflict. The only way is if all have no conflict.

Sure, maybe if one individual agrees with the entire system, then that one individual might be without conflict. That doesn't remove conflict elsewhere, though. The problem is more than having one individual be conflict free.

And yes, smaller conflicts can avoid larger ones. But that still means conflict is present. So now we justify conflicts. Which ones shall we justify?

Conflict, either eradication or justification? I don't see complete eradication possible by human hands, but people are capable of justification. Does conflict need to be justified? Power lends a hand on what to justify, but power also brings conflict, and would be fruitless to utilize in this sense. Surely there's something else. I will write more later if anything comes to me.

conflict is yes a cognitive construct, we view something as conflict so it is conflict. to view something without attaching anything to it would remove the conflict, we would just process the situation.

if someone takes your cloak, give to him your jacket also.

if we viewed someone taking our wallet as conflict, we would do whatever necessary to keep our wallet, offering an opposing force with the goal to be greater than the robber/mugger. if we dropped the goal of keeping materialistic possessions, the conflict does not exist. would this be a form of submission though. i think not. submission requires the two parties to have the same goal in mind, with the one accepting that the others is fulfilled. without conflict, the one parties goal is fulfilled, but they were the only one with a goal beforehand, there is no winner because there is no loser.

oh_that_guy wrote:conflict is yes a cognitive construct, we view something as conflict so it is conflict. to view something without attaching anything to it would remove the conflict, we would just process the situation.

if someone takes your cloak, give to him your jacket also.

if we viewed someone taking our wallet as conflict, we would do whatever necessary to keep our wallet, offering an opposing force with the goal to be greater than the robber/mugger. if we dropped the goal of keeping materialistic possessions, the conflict does not exist. would this be a form of submission though. i think not. submission requires the two parties to have the same goal in mind, with the one accepting that the others is fulfilled. without conflict, the one parties goal is fulfilled, but they were the only one with a goal beforehand, there is no winner because there is no loser.

Very good.

I'm glad you posted this because I was beginning to think that nobody would ever get this concept. Thanks for reminding me of it also.