By Bob Myers.

Just because people live in the same house doesn’t mean they live in the same world. There are numerous examples of this from listening to people describing a situation.  Two people describing how a dispute started can have entirely different stories; supporters of opposing sides describing a football match seem to have watched different games; and witnesses to a crime can’t agree whether the culprit was a small female or a large bearded male. 

People communicate from their own interests, abilities and the meanings they have for things. So, two people can interpret a scenario very differently. You are the expert on your needs, and how you would like those needs to be met. No one else knows your problems like you do, because you live those problems, and you know what you can do and what you can't do. Each person is an expert on their own needs, so we should all listen to the experts. Some of the reasons we don’t listen are:

1.            We think that ‘to listen’ means ‘to agree’ with what is being said.

2.            We already know the answer to the problem and can’t wait to reveal it.

3.            We are afraid if we listen we might come to agree and have to change.

4.            We have to win every argument because we lose face when we lose an argument.

5.            We have slipped into the habit of letting our thoughts wander to other things.

6.            We are too busy thinking up what we are going to say as soon as we get the chance.

The list could go on but these will do to illustrate the point that listening is not easy. You have to put effort into listening so you understand the other person's world. Then you can check your understanding by asking the expert; the person you were listening to. Simply say what you believe was meant by what was said. In other words, paraphrase to make sure you understood the message. ‘Now let me see if I heard you correctly. What you said was......... and you were frustrated by this. Is that right?’ The person will either say, ‘Yes, that's exactly right’ or will correct you until you get it right.

When you listen to others you can expect to be shown the same courtesy. If you are interrupted, say something like, ‘I listened to you so I could understand your view and now I want you to do the same for me’. Another advantage is that your reply is based on a sound understanding of the other person's views. You have more influence because the points you raise can include their views; what you disagree with and what you agree with. You may find that the area of dispute will shrink considerably because understanding brings out the virtue of compassion, which cannot live alongside aggression.

Being open and honest about your view generally leads to identifying the real problem. Unfortunately our competitive world teaches us to hold back and not trust each other with information that could be used against us. Putting the viewpoint in terms of safety and fairness helps get over this hurdle because it’s easier and less threatening. Being open and honest means taking a chance.

The usual image people have of conflict involves some form of violence or heated argument but conflict can be as simply as two people wanting to use the toothpaste at the same time. You may think these minor incidents are too insignificant to qualify as conflicts but they can provide a clue to problems in the relationship. It isn't the size of the incident that matters. The way it’s handled can lead to a big blow-up. The use of the toothpaste may be the trigger that ignites a powder keg of resentment about an unequal relationship in which one has 'had enough'. It could also be the focal point of a clash of egos that could end in bloodshed because each is driven to maintain dignity or self-esteem.

Regardless of whether we are talking about conflict in a family, at work or community, the same deceptively simple conflict resolution guidelines apply. People who respect each other listen until they understand the other’s views before honestly stating their own views, tend to seek solutions that meet the needs of all involved.

Abortion is classed as a taboo subject, and that's reason enough to talk about it. It seems to me that the conflict waged between pro-life and pro-choice people will go on forever, simply because both sides are bogged down and spinning their wheels in an unwinnable argument over the morality of abortion. This is a shame because I believe both sides actually agree on the most important aspect of abortion and could work together to prevent a great deal of suffering. (I should state here that I am anti-abortion, which is easy for me because I will never be faced with the decision.)

Pro-choice people are not evil and are not stupid. In general, they readily accept the need to restrict human choices when there are sound, logical reasons for those restrictions. Failing to win them over to the anti-abortion camp doesn't mean we have lost or are wrong, we just don't have a convincing enough argument. And I doubt that we ever will because most anti-abortion people say, "I am against abortion, but in cases where......" Any exception means even pro-lifers realise there is a subjective choice involved.

The argument as to whether a woman should or should not have the freedom to choose abortion is like arguing whether a man has the freedom to choose to suicide. There is no escaping the fact that it's the woman who makes the decision. She may have no choice about getting pregnant but she has the say about ending it. Others can decide whether abortion is legal, but making it illegal doesn't remove her choice, it only adds a different dimension to her choice. Other people can provide options and alternatives, they can provide counselling and put pressure on her to decide either way but the fact remains that the decision is hers to make. If denied a safe method, she can decide to use unsafe methods. It's impossible to deny her the choice unless she is closely guarded 24/7. She has the choice; it's really only a matter of whether a safe way is part of that choice.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion. I believe those who advocate abortion on demand are against abortion as such. They are not pushing for women to get pregnant just to assert the right to have an abortion. They want women to have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. These same people would go to great expense and effort to save a wanted pregnancy or to save a very premature baby. The key word is 'wanted'.

People on both sides of the abortion debate are intelligent and caring and probably agree that every pregnancy should be welcomed. Most anti-abortionists would be over the moon if they could halve the number of abortions performed each year and I believe pro-choice people would be just as pleased if the number of unwanted pregnancies dropped by half.

The question is, ‘Which is more important, winning an argument or reducing the number of abortions?’ Both sides could achieve a great deal by pooling their passionate energy and cooperating to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. The combined resources of both camps could study the causes of unwanted pregnancies and then unite to eliminate those causes. We can do it if we really want to.


Bob Myers,
Author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

Conflict is inevitable, even in ‘love relationships’. Resolving conflict can be difficult, even for people centred on improving the quality of a relationship. It’s difficult because the urge to win or to get even for past wrongs is so much a part of our culture. We need to acknowledge that we are under the influence of these urges whenever we are faced with conflict but also be aware we can counteract that influence. 

It’s much easier to resolve a conflict or solve a relationship problem when we start from the cosmic viewpoint that all humans are equal and think about how that should affect what we say and do. When a relationship is grounded in equality, the people involved will centre on the problem, or conflict, at hand, including the emotional effects and any material loss or damage that needs to be put right. In a relationship of equals, there is no competition; no desire to dominate or thought of retribution. However, as soon as one views the other as ‘the enemy’ and begins focusing on winning or seeking revenge, the chances of peacefully resolving the problem takes a nose dive.

Conflicts are more likely to be resolved peacefully when those involved share the same worldview and have common goals. Religious people should have the advantage in this, since they aspire to share the same worldview, but even religions are notoriously competitive on all levels of interaction. This applies from the level of ‘which is the one true religion’ upwards. And resentment over past injustices has lingered between religions for centuries. Even though organised religion has failed to lead the way in conflict resolution, it is possible for anyone to start the ball rolling in their own life.

Even if the other person in a dispute is intent on winning and therefore not interested in equality, any person who is grounded in equality, and centred on the principles of nonviolence, is in a strong position to gain a fair outcome, and turn an ‘enemy’ into a friend. Therefore, when faced with a conflict, the first thing to do is remember that equality is the true ground for human relationships, and then centre on obtaining an outcome consistent with that base.

Once you are grounded and centred, there are four guidelines to peaceful conflict resolution. It’s ironic that if these guidelines were used to guide communication between people in everyday life, there would be few negative conflicts to resolve. The guidelines for conflict resolution (or for avoiding negative conflicts) are:

·         Respect the other person.

·         Listen until the other person’s views are understood.

·         Be open and honest in sharing your own views.

·         Make agreements for the common good. (Seek win/win solutions)


Bob Myers, author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

The global problems we face in this century can only be solved through global cooperation. For those societies that claim to believe in equality, that simply means putting equality into practice. I want to share with you the ten statements that I write about, and try to practice.

Enduring peace and happiness comes from constantly exploring ways to get the balance right between personal needs, other people’s needs, and the needs of the situation. The situation could be the home; the workplace; a community; a country; nature; or the cosmos. 

From a cosmic viewpoint, equality is the true nature of human relationships. We can use that constant to guide us in building and maintaining relationships and setting up social systems, such as law, education and health.

We use the word ‘violence’ to describe actions or events that cause harm. Therefore, anything that harms the true nature of relationships – by causing inequality – could be deemed to be ‘violence’.

People who are guided by the spirit of equality respond to violence by taking nonviolent restorative action.

Being equal does not mean being the same. Differences make us individuals. Most differences, regardless of extent, do not cause harm in human relationships. Our judgement of differences can lead to harm or to enhancement of relationships.

Inequality exists when individual differences are used to judge one person as superior in some way. In an adversarial society, such as ours, superiority is gained by competition or domination, or both.     

Human equality can be established and maintained by exploring the complementary nature of individual differences to get the right balance for meeting the needs of all those involved.  

The human need to achieve and the need for stability can be met by people striving for excellence and sharing the skills and knowledge gained with anyone who wants them. In that way, the whole group can develop together to whatever level any group member can achieve.

Studies consistently show a correlation between inequality and all social ills, so the success or otherwise of the policies and actions of those in positions of responsibility can be judged by whether they reduce or increase inequality.

People in positions of responsibility who are guided by the spirit of equality seek to have power with people and things rather than seeking power over people and things.


Bob Myers.