The Way of the Warrior
(Part 3)

The world, and all things in it, strive for a balance. All of nature seeks entropy, a lessening of tension and stored energy. Less energy means less stress. This is inherently more peaceful, ergo allowing one more time to get to know oneself and the world around you. This does not mean a lack of effort. Peace and a lessening of conflict is a very good goal. But, this takes a great deal of effort. It is not easy to control conflict and confrontation around oneself. Confrontation is often called for, in order to obtain knowledge and to ward off conflicts before they grow beyond ones ability to control. Knowledge is required to help one avoid potential conflicts and stress. Fear is often the result of a lack of knowledge. Fear causes a great deal of stress and without the knowledge to manipulate what one does not know, there will always be more stress and inadvertent conflict.

I am always one to promote having your own values that you can believe in. This is because I also promote standing up for your values. If you know right from wrong, You must protect that which is right and defend against that which is wrong. This is not the same as good and evil which are value judgments based on society and morality. When deciding What is right or even deciding what is best to do, I will always advocate making a decision based on all the knowledge you have at the time and then making it work. If you can not make it work the failing is not in the decision, for it is based on all that you knew when you decided. Failure is usually based on ignorance of a situation or a set of skills. We learn from our failures therefore we get better the more we fail. Refusing to learn from failures is foolishness, and is not a facet of the enlightened. Failure is a constant since we are always striving in areas we do not know well yet. Constant striving in areas we have mastered is egotism and is not a facet of the enlightened. That is being a performer and not a student. Unless you already know all there is to know then it is best to be a student.

And that, sort of, brings me to the major topic of this diatribe. I have recently spent a lot of time with people in a very polarized political environment. I am utterly amazed at how closed some arguments are. Whether it is politics, religion, or menu choices there is never a place for absolute rigidity. In cases of right and wrong there may be a place for absolutes but even then what we determine to be right and wrong often evolves as we grow and learn. Right and wrong should not change based on the situation or whether someone we know is involved or whether we might lose something. That is ethics based on the situation, and situational ethics is simply not ethics at all, but rationalization. When it comes to social issues ( i.e. Politics, religion, music, diet etc...) there is always the possibility to learn and grow and change. There is never a choice that is all wrong or all right. There is never a candidate or choice that does not have some advantage over another choice and disadvantage in other areas. If you hold political, religious, social, or personal values that are not open to question, this is not a value, it is an anchor. These anchors limit how far you can go, how fast you can get there, and blind you to vistas yet unimagined. There is nothing so evil that it has no goodness, or something so good that it can do no wrong. All situations and people encompass a varied blend of good and bad, of right and wrong. A true student can work for a political cause because they believe one way will be better than another. Or they might promote a religion or philosophy because they believe it will help. But if you reach a point where your way or choice has nothing bad about it, where there are no trade-offs for the larger picture, or where opposing ideas have nothing good about them, it is time to reexamine your beliefs. If someone questioning your ideas causes anger, instead of curiosity, it is time to look inward. Argument competition and debate are ways to learn. And we never learn from any success after the first one. When we succeed we have prevailed based in what we already know or can do. When we lose; we are shown the holes, faults and flaws in our current abilities and concepts.

Besides if the person is concerned enough to debate your points or issues, then in all reality, you are not that far apart to begin with. For if they were truly so different, then there would be no point of conflict, for the ideas would be too varied to overlap in a way that would be reasonably debatable. To a Taoist, there is no visible difference between a Southern Baptist and a Missionary Baptist, or even a Methodist for that matter. To a totalitarian, there is no difference between a democrat and a republican, or even a green for that matter. Our very closeness allows for debate of issues. We should rejoice on all the points that we have in common, as a bond between thinking people. We should cherish the argument as a tool for growth in ourselves and if others, if we are any good at arguing. This is the stuff of the headiest social discourse and not an excuse for base emotions of anger, envy and frustration!