The common link for solving whatever challenge life presents you with contains a challenge of its own. You can overcome any challenge if you centre yourself, but the trick is to know what to centre on. The appropriate centre depends on the challenge. Below are five examples of challenges, with the main one being to quit smoking.  

A ballet dancer spins without getting dizzy because she practices centring her gaze on a fixed point for some time during each turn of a pirouette.

A golfer soon learns that thinking, “All I have to do is miss that tree,” almost ensures the ball will hit the tree because his mind is centred on the tree. What he should do is pick a point on the fairway that will give the next shot a clear path to the green.

In dieting, the high failure rate indicates a need for dieters to change what they centre on for success. Instead of choosing a preferred body weight, they should centre on living a lifestyle that will maintain their preferred body weight before and after the body weight is achieved.

Many people do anger management courses because they are coerced into it. These people do well in the course until a marriage is resumed or a court case is over and then slip back into the cycle of violence. These courses should centre on frustration rather than anger because frustration comes before anger. Centring on frustration points to the skills, knowledge, beliefs and values needed to reduce the frustration that leads to anger.

Now for an example from my life of what centring means and what happens when the chosen centre is appropriate to the goal. I was addicted to cigarettes for 39 years and during that time I must have attempted to quit a hundred times. But, when I centred my mind on something other than quitting, quitting became quite easy, so easy that it was weeks before my wife realised I wasn’t smoking.

In previous attempts I centred on being a smoker trying to quit, which was really centring on smoking. This time I centred on being a non-smoker, which means thinking and acting as a non-smoker thinks and acts. By centring on ‘I am a non-smoker,’ I found that the anguish of not smoking was almost non-existent. Other people tell me they had a similar experience when they made the decision to go cold-turkey.

Non-smokers don’t hang around smokers to get smoke in their lungs, and they don’t get irritable from not smoking. How many non-smokers get irritable about not smoking? Non-smokers don’t brag about how long it is since their last fag. A non-smoker doesn’t try to impress all and sundry by announcing that he hasn’t had a smoke for a week, and non-smokers don’t chew on lollies to take their mind off smoking.

I didn’t do any of those things either, and any such thought drifting into my mind was quickly shown the way out. How easily I quit by doing that is an example of what it’s like when the mind is comfortable with both the centre and the goal. There was a complete giving over, or conversion, to being a non-smoker and all of my self-talk reinforced my new identity as a non-smoker.

So, the first and most important step we should take to overcome any challenge is to choose what to centre on to succeed, and then practice positive self-talk every step of the way.
 
Bob Myers.

People tell us we should forgive and forget but forgiveness does not necessarily include ‘forgetting.’ To forgive is to remember an event without resentment or wanting revenge. We can forgive someone even while we are angry and hurt, or wanting our hurting to be recognized.

Some people believe that forgiving means  wrongdoers don’t have to face the consequences of their actions, or have to make amends, but neither of these has to be part of forgiveness. Forgiving is not about letting the wrongdoer off the hook, it’s about freeing yourself from the destructive torment of hate and resentment. Not forgiving can condemn yourself to a life of misery; of being battered in a stormy sea while the wrongdoer goes sailing on in calm waters, happily unaware of the hate that threatens to drag you down.  

It can be quite foolish for a woman in a domestic vioence situation to ‘forget’ this man is likely to react violently in certain circumstances.  It can be foolish because the same thing is likely to happen next time he is faced with the same circumstances. It can be irresponsible because it fails to protect other people from being affected by his actions. It also fails to help the perpetrator, and that can sometimes be the most serious failing because helping the perpetrator face up and make amends helps all those he will have dealings with in the future. 

Forgive and forget’ can contribute to continued violence, to the extent that forgiveness  becomes just another part of the ‘cycle of violence.’ When that happens, forgiveness is still necessary for your own sake, but there should be conditions attached to any reconciliation. This is important in domestic violence. Many people find it difficult to understand why a woman remains in a violent  relationship being beaten by her partner, especially if she has opportunities to leave. However, the emotional and psychological forces involved can make it very difficult for her to leave, especially if the man is well aware of those forces and uses them to trap her in a power game he may actually believe is love. He is partly right in that belief but it is his love of power, rather than love for his partner. 

Women in domestic violence situations can mistake feelings of dependency as love, which can be made more complex by cultural or religious beliefs about a woman’s role in regard to sex and love. When she does muster the courage to leave, her partner may be devastated and crumble into a broken, sobbing mess pleading for forgiveness and making all sorts of promises to be good. This part of the game is an attempt to hook the woman’s compassion and her need to be wanted, which often works. So she forgives him and after a blissful few weeks he slowly returns to his old habits, and the cycle of violence continues.

Reconciliation does not have to be part of forgiveness. Before reconciliation can be successful, the cycle of violence needs to be broken by the abuser successfully completing an attitude-changing course on establishing and maintaining a relationship based on equality. Ideally, the woman should also successfully complete such a course before considering reconciliation. Forgiveness, forgetting and reconciliation are three distinct and independent concepts that may or may not be tied together.

Bob Myers.

We usually think of peace in terms of 'being calm and peaceful.' We may picture something tranquil. However, if that is the true meaning of peace, no human relationship can be peaceful, because conflict is inevitable in human relationships. World peace would also be impossible to achieve. As well as being unachievable, perpetual tranquility could become incredibly boring. Just imagine what life would be like without novelty; or without the unexpected and the bloopers that make The Funniest Home Videos Show so popular. A great deal of humour is based on mistakes, accidents and out of the ordinary events. Disputes between close friends can be hilarious to audiences and, with hindsight, even to the friends involved. Even constant disputes can be positive. Many wonderful friendships, and marriages, have existed between people who argue about almost everything while enjoying a strong spiritual bond.

The word dynamic means lively, vigorous, vibrant or changing. Therefore vibrant peace can include the differences, disputes and conflicts that seem to strengthen some relationships rather than cause harm. Dynamic peace allows a relationship to grow through, or because of, the existence of conflict. The difference is in how the people involved respond to the conflict and what they are centred on as they express their views. People can be very assertive in ‘robust discussions’ and still keep within the guidelines of conflict resolution. They strike a balance, without being aware of it, between their need to belong and their need to assert themselves as individuals.

In 1996 this concept inspired me to register the business name Harmony in Dispute. To me, that captures the fundamental of dynamic peace in human relationships at every level, from the interpersonal to the international. And the guidelines for establishing dynamic peace are the same at all levels too. No matter what age or position we hold in life, we are still struggling to resolve the childhood inner conflict between the need to belong and the need to assert ourselves as individuals. All adults are just grownup children who mainly learned how to resolve conflicts in their family setting and, if that early experience was negative, they may continue to resolve conflict in a negative way. However, it’s never too late to learn to transform conflict into the creative conflict that is part of dynamic peace. 


Bob Myers

Everything we do is to either gain something we think is helpful or to avoid something we think is harmful. A person either runs towards something or away from something. So if we want to sell something we have to convince a customer of the benefits to gain from buying or the bad things that will happen if they don’t buy. This ‘carrot or stick’ motivation is also used in attempting to change people’s beliefs or values.

We acquired most of our beliefs and values from other people during our childhood. This was a mixture of what they were taught in their childhood and whatever changes they made to suit their needs. All of this was what other people found helpful or harmful for them but times have changed and we have to look to the future in a very different world.

Like every other person before us, we face the conflict between our need to belong and our need to be an individual, but there are compelling reasons why we should change how we judge our self worth and self confidence as we face the problems of this century. By changing with the times, we stand to gain a resolution of our inner conflict and have happier relationships with other people. We could also avoid the inevitable disastrous consequences of an economic system based on continuous growth. We could do our bit to have a base of sustainable development adopted. Sustainable development: not sustainable growth.

We could judge everything by its effect on sustainability and by that I mean maintaining a balance of three equally important things:  a sustainable population level; a sustainable use of resources; and an economic system based on a smarter use of resources. Development is an important human need but it should result from a smarter use of resources while maintaining a steady economy and population level. Global cooperation is essential for establishing effective sustainable development and that means we need to treat the people of all nations as equals.

Instead of going along with our society’s adversarial competitiveness, this new base for judging our self esteem, self confidence and importance would be our level of skills, knowledge and performance in regard to sustainable development. And our cooperation with others to achieve this would bring a sense of belonging and dynamic peace to our relationship with people and with the environment.

Bob Myers.

It’s true that we are born with the need to be an individual and the conflicting need to belong, not only to belong to other people but to nature and the cosmos (or God). We are also born with incredible potential to satisfy these conflicting needs and enjoy peace and happiness. Each of us arrives in this world with the potential of the full range of human characteristics, traits, virtues or whatever else you want to call them. We have the potential to be whatever it is possible for a human person to be and to maybe surpass the achievements, positive or negative, of any person who has lived before us.  

Which of our characteristics or traits are encouraged or restricted is determined by the culture we are born into, and by the beliefs and values of the people around us, especially our carers and teachers, who experienced the same process.  And although they loved and cared for us, and wanted us to feel we belong in a spiritual way, the social structures of our culture strongly encourage the opposite. Our economic system is competitive and so is the majority of our recreational activity. Our parliamentary and legal systems are adversarial and emphasise the fear of punishment for maintaining social order; these systems only succeed in perpetuating the desire to dominate rather than belong.

To a large extent, our culture encourages the characteristics or traits that cause us to judge our self esteem and self confidence by comparing ourselves against the wealth, possessions, power, knowledge and skills of other people. Winning, status and image is portrayed as giving us importance and happiness. This is false because the balance between the need to belong and the need to be an individual is upset when one person’s gain in self esteem is another person’s loss. All the violence in the world stems from our failure to set up social systems with values and beliefs that maintain a balance between the need to belong and the need for individuality.

There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality. Difference doesn’t disappear with equality. It’s possible to have importance and equality. It’s possible to have authority and equality. By changing what we base our sense of importance on, we can also change our sense of belonging and bring the two into balance.
Bob Myers.

Whether the setting is the home, workplace or community, the single most important thing affecting our happiness and peace of mind is how we resolve the life-long conflict between two deep human needs: the need to belong and the need to be an individual. This conflict affects the aims and achievements of every person in our groups and every relationship we have. It is an inner conflict as well as a social conflict and each affects the other.    

We first experience this conflict between satisfying our own needs and considering the needs of others around the age of two as we begin to discover our place in the family group. The level of self esteem we develop at that age and the way we judge our worth in regard to other people sets the stage for the next crisis period in our human struggle. That crisis period occurs at teenage as we break away from the control of our parents and face the give and take of fitting into the wider community.  But the basic struggle continues throughout life and affects all our relationships with other people. Therefore it’s important to understand how to use conflict to strengthen relationships.

Peace of mind and a sense of satisfaction in relationships result from striking a balance between these two needs. Not from giving or from gaining, but from a balance of the two. The further we stray from that balance, in either direction, the more stressed the relationship becomes. Regardless of whether we call it balance, justice or equality, it’s necessary for peace and happiness in relationships involving two people or a million people. In practice, the balance is better described as an average rather than a constant. It could even be thought of as dynamic because of rapid variations but the important thing is that the people involved have a sense that there is balance between their need to belong and their need to be an individual. People in such relationships stand tall as individuals who belong. And for many, that extends to include their relationship with nature and the cosmos.  

Bob Myers.

In our world, money, or profit, is referred to as ‘the bottom line’.

A few years ago I decided to convene a meeting of four people I considered to be great role models and teachers. I invited a Hindu named Gandhi, a Muslim named Mohammad, an atheist named Einstein and a Jew named Yoshu, better known today as Jesus. Since they are all long dead, getting them together was no easy task and required a lot of imagination and careful research.

The purpose of the meeting was for these very learned men to share their ideas and opinions to determine what the real bottom line is in regard to life in general, so we have something clear to use for making laws that govern human behaviour.

 As the convenor of the meeting, I made the rather empty threat that there would be no food or drinks until they found a common thread in their teachings and agreed on a statement that was easy for people to understand. Research indicated they could do this because all four men had a deep respect for each other’s views and a genuine concern for people in general.

They got along very well and found that, apart from some very different terminology, they agreed on most things. The main sticking point was whether intelligence pre-existed matter or evolved. Anyhow, the statement they came up with was:     

“The fundamental principle to live by, in general, is a complete and utter commitment to seeking the truth to guide your every word and action and, by doing that, all laws would be based on the social truth of all people being equal.”  

However, they added a warning that although most people would agree about all people being equal, they might kill you for saying it should be the bottom line.
Bob Myers.

People spend millions of dollars on what often turns out to be a fruitless search for some form of peace and happiness. The sad news is that most just waste their money because they can’t recognise peace and happiness when they find it. So they just pass it by. Part of the reason is because we think of peace as being something calm and tranquil. We don’t think of finding peace in the midst of a heated argument. Nor do we think of finding happiness in a catastrophe if we think of happiness as being a constant state of euphoria. Constant tranquillity and constant euphoria might sound like a promise of heaven but it certainly isn’t life.

The best we seem to be able to manage in life is to experience short periods of tranquillity or feelings of euphoria that pass too quickly. Most are just fleeting moments that become wonderful memories we carry with us for the rest of our lives. However, we can do better. We can have both peace of mind and a sense of harmony as normal parts of daily life, even in the midst of turmoil and sadness, if we are realistic and aim for dynamic peace and happiness.

The word dynamic means vibrant, lively, energetic and surprising. Dynamic peace immediately becomes more appealing and exciting than constant tranquillity over the long term. Therefore, peace and happiness can vary without being lost, because it is really based on something deeper than the fluctuations and disturbances appearing on the surface. Large fluctuations can occur without destroying the overall sense of stability within human relationships when the people involved follow the guidelines that transform conflict into creative conflict. They can learn from nature and experience harmony in disputes.   

Four themes run through the material on the Harmony in Dispute website and I will explore these in future blogs. Using these four themes as the framework was inspired by the work of Brendan McKeague, lead trainer with Pace e Bene Australia.   

1.    Exploring our relationship to other people; to the environment and to the cosmos
         (or God, by whatever name). 
                    Included under this heading are things like identity, self esteem, self confidence and
                     morals, as well as beliefs and values regarding authority (ours and theirs).
2.    The ways in which our culture affects how we relate to each other. 
                    Included under this heading are things like love, sexism, racism, social status,
                    structural and systemic inequality and discrimination.
3.    Where and how to regain spiritual and emotional strength when life gets tough. 
                    Included under this heading are the myriad of ‘self esteem service stations’ people
                    use to lift their spirits, ranging from religious practices to secular activities such as
                    shopping and sport.
4.    Exploring new and better ways to enhance problem solving and conflict resolution skills. 
                    Included under this heading are various sets of conflict resolution methods and
                    guidelines, as well as the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Dorothy Day,
                    and various religious figures.  

Bob Myers.

I believe most Australians are heartily sick of the pathetic performance of our federal politicians and would like to see a change in the way politicians behave. However, the change I propose is entirely different to what we usually get when we go to the polls.

Over the past few years we have witnessed lots of mudslinging and accusations of sexism that highlight the problems plaguing our politics. Men and women are different and have different leadership styles but women can only advance to become leaders in politics if they adopt male leadership methods. Women have to become better than men at what men do best if they want to become leaders. So that means we are missing out on the advantages of having women in parliament, and may as well have just all males.

Rather than have a change in leaders, I believe we need a change in the make-up of the leadership. The office of prime minister is not mentioned in our constitution. It is conventional for that title to be bestowed on the leader of the party that wins the most votes in an election. Therefore, it is possible, if the winning party so chooses, for the office of prime minister to be filled by a partnership of a female and a male with equal responsibilities and powers.

Our society is half male and half female. Our leadership should reflect that fact. 

There is a difference between male and female leadership styles even though both can be great leaders. Males and females have many common traits and skills but have some differences in needs and interests, and therefore have different views on some things.

 Australia could lead the world by being the first to have a balanced leadership team in which a male and a female have equal responsibility and equal power, even though they may agree to perform different tasks within that position.

Some advantages of co-leadership are:
Balanced leadership resulting from combining the gender leadership styles.
The glass ceiling would be destroyed because women would have a permanent role in top level management.
Women would no longer have to adopt male ways in order to succeed and would be free to explore what ‘the female leadership style’ really means.
The focus of debates would necessarily shift, from winning to seeking agreement.
Accepting the value of gender differences would greatly improve gender relationships.
Robust discussions might still occur but would seek understanding and agreement in regard to the actions to take.
Conflict resolution and gender relationship skills would be important factors in choosing leaders and would become major subjects of school curriculums.
The flow-on effect of this would be a reduction in domestic violence, longer marriages and a reduction in divorces.
Overall, there would be real cultural recognition of the equal status of men and women.

So, after all the laughter and jokes about my suggestion subside, and after expressing all the reasons why it would never work, or be accepted, think about the advantages and how it could be made to work. This is the type of leadership required for solving the enormous problems we face in this century.

Bob Myers.

People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By Bob Myers.