People come in many shapes, sizes, ages, and colours but they are all human. People gather in a variety of situations with all kinds of people, but each remains human. And whenever two or more humans gather - at home, at play or at work - there are always problems and conflicts requiring a response from each. Each person’s response is affected by different levels of power, duty, knowledge and skills, as well as the different beliefs, values and culture of each person. But, no matter what form the response takes, it is a human response.

My book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, looks at the sameness of being human and sets out the fundamental tools we need for dealing with problems and conflicts in life. The family is the setting for describing the use of each tool because everyone has some knowledge of family life and an opinion about how the various members of a family should act and be treated. For other settings, such as work or play, the challenge for all of us is to recognise the humanness of the people involved and consciously use the same fundamental tools, albeit in different ways.  The fundamental tools are:  

GROUNDED LOVE.
Grounded love is the first and most important tool. It is love grounded in equality that guides the use of all the tools described in the book. ‘Love’ includes virtues such as respect, assertiveness, care, protection, compassion and cooperation.

 In the home and personal life it can be emotional love. In a group or work situation, it is generally referred to as our duty of care, which may have a minimum level enshrined in law.

A culture of equality can exist even though people have different duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge, and they need the authority to perform those duties and meet their responsibilities.

MANNERS.
Manners are used to establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles.

EXAMPLE.
Regardless of the setting, example is the most effective way to teach and convey expectations of what to do and how to do it.  Example is sometimes described as: walking the talk; practicing what you preach; showing how it can be done; and being the change you want to see happen.

CENTRING.

Centring is focusing on something that helps you achieve the outcome you want. Sometimes it means focusing on the outcome itself and sometimes it means focusing on something seemingly unrelated to the outcome. Centring is a state of mind in which a person, the action and the outcome seem to become one.

The overall aim of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness is for Grounded Love, Manners, Example, Centring and all other tools and skills they lead to, will cease being regarded as tools, and become the normal way of relating to other people, regardless of their shape, size, age or colour.





Photo: Kakadu National Park N.T. 

Peace and happiness isn’t about being free from pain, suffering, disputes or conflict. Peace and happiness depends on the quality of our relationship with other people, with the environment and with the cosmos. The good news is that peace and happiness increases as we become more aware of our true place in the scheme of things and work to preserve it. The pain and suffering, disputes and conflict that can be part of everyday life then becomes easier to cope with.

People gain awareness of this in various ways. Some gain it through religion, others through science and some gain it through everyday experience. Many would probably say they gained it through a combination of all the above. But regardless of how it happens, the awareness is of peace and happiness increasing as we improve the quality of our relationships.

Most human spiritual and social development is the result of reflecting on the consequences of what we say and do; what others say and do; what happens in our environment; and on cosmic events. However, the direction our development takes depends on what we centre on as we reflect on these things.  Choosing what to centre on is crucial to the quality of our relationships and is a decision that needs to be made many times each day, for as long as we live.

Each decision comes at the junction of two possible paths. One path leads to the enduring peace and happiness that continues even though there may be trouble and strife. The other path leads to instant pleasure and temporary relief from life’s problems. Everyone comes to these junctions and must face the same decision many times every day throughout life.

The choice is to centre on our own needs, or to centre on the needs of the relationship. Regardless of whether the ‘other’ is a person, the environment or the cosmos, centring only on our own needs is at the expense of the other and damages the quality of the relationship. The consequence of that damage may not be immediately apparent, but it does exist. The next junction reached may be only seconds away, where we again have to decide between increasing the damage done at the previous junction or take the other path.

Nature and the cosmos are very forgiving and will allow us to simply start again at each junction throughout life. However, other people at each junction have a choice. They may allow us to simply start again; they may impose some condition before resuming the relationship; or they may terminate the relationship. The quality of our relationships, and therefore our happiness, really is our choice. 


Photo: North Island New Zealand.

By Bob Myers.                                                                                                     

Questions about the rights and responsibilities of parents are often raised in regard to discipline and smacking children. Many people believe there is nothing wrong with the age-old custom of smacking or giving a ‘whack with a wooden spoon.’ Many claim that parents should be able to  discipline their kids how they please, within reason. Supporters of physical punishment maintain that there is a difference between child abuse and smacking and that the laws concerning child abuse are sufficient to protect children. A common theme is that ‘I was smacked as a child and it didn’t do me any harm.’ 

People generally agree about the need for discipline, and that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. However, it isn't always clear how those who believe in physical punishment can decide when the line between the two is crossed. More about my suggestion on that below.

It's not surprising that some people still believe parents should have the right to smack their children because smacking wasn't questioned up to fairly recently, and most of us felt the odd whack or two as children. Most parents have probably at least threatened to smack their children. I smacked my kids when they were little, partly because I thought that was what parents were supposed to do, and partly because I didn’t know what else to do. Fortunately, I discovered there are other ways that work better. 

There are many definitions of discipline and some of them support the use of physical punishment. This could be because so many people associate the word ‘discipline’ with punishment, and dictionary definitions usually reflect the common usage of a word. The definition of discipline I use in my books, because it best describes the real task for parents, is: Discipline means to teach, assist, and guide children to become self-controlled. For kids to become truly self-controlled, we have to help them develop a positive attitude towards rules and authority figures, so they will choose to keep to the rules because they provide safety or fairness.

Smacking, along with other kinds of punishment, keeps the parent in control of the child instead of using methods that gradually help the child to have self control. Punishment takes the child’s attention away from the positive reasons for keeping to rules and tends to hinder the development of real self-control. Punishment may only teach the child to avoid getting caught.

Another major reason for not using punishment is that punishment is based on the principle that it’s OK to control a child by inflicting some degree of pain, suffering or discomfort, which I like to believe parents would only do if they can’t think of a better way. The principle that says it's OK to control others by inflicting pain and suffering is the principle behind extremes such as terrorism and extortion. Although it would be stupid to associate smacking with terrorism, my concern is that when we teach a child a principle like that, we have no way of knowing - and no control over -  how far down that road the child will go when trying to control the behaviour of other people later in life. 

I would suggest that the line between smacking and abuse is crossed if the parent knows there are better ways to teach, assist and guide children to become self-controlled but refuses to learn those ways, or the parent knows those better ways and chooses not to use them. My books, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, and Enjoy Parenting Teenagers present many simple ways to help kids develop a positive attitude to rules and authority figures, and maintains that it is never too late to start.


Photo by Microsoft.

I find that many people quickly become bored reading about communication, even though good communication is the most important skill we need for forming and maintaining good relationships. Communication and conflict resolution relies heavily on both talking and listening but since I may only have a short time before losing your attention, I will give just one example in answer to the question, ’What is listening?’

I want you to imagine your life is in danger and you have been sent to see a man who has an important message for you. You believe your life depends on understanding his message. He unfortunately has a speech impediment and, for that reason, many of his words are impossible to understand. Then you discover he can’t write.

How would you listen? I imagine you would listen intently to the few words you can understand. You would listen to the pitch and tone of his voice, and quickly discover you have the senses of smell, feel and sight to listen with. In order to save your life, you would watch every facial expression, hand gesture and body movement. You would take note of his emotional state and anything your senses picked up as a possible clue until you believed you completely understood the message.

However, you would not then take a chance on how accurate your understanding is and just walk away. You would seek to confirm with him, as best you could, what your understanding of the message is; which he can then confirm or deny. You would continue to seek understanding and checking the accuracy of that understanding until you did get it right. That is listening.


By 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.

We fight because our culture taught us to fight.  We had no say in what we were taught as children so it’s not our fault that we fight.  However, each of us can do something about the way we handle disagreements now, simply because we have a choice.

Human behaviour is always complicated so let’s simplify it a little by comparing two couples born and raised in the same culture who are faced with the same conflicts in their relationships. Both couples live in a culture that measures success by wealth and power. Both couples are high achievers who want to do well in a society that idolises winners.

Competition and Domination are known as couple number one. These two are lovers who usually walk hand in hand and are seldom apart. Even when they are apart, they continue to flirt with each other. This flirtation can be a lot of fun but sometimes turns nasty, especially when Domination tries to control Competition by imposing revenge or punishment.

Couple number two is comprised of Cooperation and Equality. These two are also lovers who usually walk hand in hand but sometimes they enjoy spending a little time apart or walking separately, confident in the enduring strength and quality of the relationship.

Both of these couples face the same conflicts in their relationships and both are well aware of the guidelines for resolving conflict. The main difference is in the way each couple interprets those guidelines.  People living in a culture that glorifies winning are encouraged to centre on their own needs as they follow the guidelines and use them to gain an advantage over their opponent. Therefore, Competition and Domination have no problem keeping to the guidelines, even though they know their interpretation of the guidelines will result in one of them losing in some way. The four guidelines for conflict resolution are very simple:

1. Respect your opponent.
2. Listen until you understand your opponent’s point of view.
3. Openly and honestly express your point of view.
4. Seek solutions you and your opponent can live with.

 
Cooperation and Equality, on the other hand, try to centre on the relationship itself as they struggle to ignore the competitive influence of the culture they live in. Their aim is to find a solution to the conflict that will improve the quality of their relationship and strengthen it. They sometimes find it difficult to centre on the relationship itself but know they must guard against the training they received in early childhood to be competitive. They know that if they start fighting as they negotiate a solution, it’s because some kind of competition or domination has crept in and caused them to centre as individuals rather than remaining centred on the relationship itself.

People in competitive mode argue to determine who is right and who is wrong. There has to be a winner and a loser, so the aim is to win. Parliament works that way and so does the legal system. People in countless meetings across the country try to convince other members to vote for their ideas as they debate topics and sometimes an argument can become nasty. Over a lifetime, we witness countless movies and hear countless stories about people settling disagreements with the power of words and sometimes with weapons. It is all around us every day of our life so it’s no wonder we fall so easily into the adversarial way of settling a dispute. And it’s no wonder winning has, so far, been so important to us.

Instead of seeing conflict as a competition, we could change what we centre on so we see it as an opportunity to find a cooperative outcome that strengthens the relationship. 

The dynamics of this apply to conflict in any situation and at any level. That is why I use family situations in my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, to promote cooperation and equality.  


Bob Myers.

The White Ribbon campaign to reduce or stamp out violence against women is a great initiative. However, I look forward to the time when men don’t treat women as equal to men but instead recognise that women and men are equal, and act accordingly. There are many things we can do, right now, to move towards such a reality; the first of which is to recognise the shortcomings of our present society.

The emphasis on family violence should be viewed as just a starting point leading to cultural, systemic and structural changes in society to remove things that currently feed problems such as domestic violence, road rage and street violence.

Physical violence makes headlines because of the damage it causes. However, some forms of violence cause lifelong suffering by destroying the spirit, self esteem and confidence of people. These forms of violence can be compounded if labelled as weaknesses that people should just ‘get over.’ Anger, depression and resentment from this often lies dormant until alcohol, or some perceived injustice, brings it bursting to the surface, sometimes surprising the actor. Others may see it as unprovoked violence because it is not directly caused by people but by the way our society operates.

Family violence can be a symptom of a wider problem caused by injustices known as systemic violence, structural violence and cultural violence that appears ‘normal’. Study after study links this violence to a vague sense of frustration and ‘not being good enough’ that nags at some people and affects every part of life. These injustices form the breeding ground for headline surface violence. And this may be increased by inadequate or inappropriate education.

People decide to set up these systems and structures, and the injustice they build into them is unnecessary simply because it is a decision. People should be held accountable for the effects of the choices they make regardless of whether those choices are made in a relationship or in setting up social systems. A person’s background can make their choices understandable and may remove blame from them for making those choices but it doesn’t remove the need for accountability for the effects of those actions. People learn how to act in future by being accountable now.

The ever-widening gap between rich and poor is evidence of the injustices in society’s systems and structures. Our politicians know, or should know, of the many studies linking inequality to the frustrations that lead to the anger, depression and resentment so common in our society. People find it so difficult to cope and this is compounded by a culture of alcohol abuse. Politicians will only act to address these problems if people demand such action.

The claim that all people are equal before the law becomes another level of injustice when that principle is applied regardless of a person’s ability to pay. E.g. a fine of $300 imposed on the wealthy and on a pensioner for the same offense is a gross injustice. Being equal before the law is unjust when the social system it operates in is unjust.

It’s important to provide people with the knowledge and skills to reduce the frustration that precedes the anger, depression and resentment that so often leads to violence. However, more can be achieved by also removing the cultural, systemic and structural causes of the frustration.

My book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores ways we can counter the effects of living in an unjust society.

 Bob Myers.