On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Gautam John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is conflict necessary for progress? Or is it an impediment? Would > individuals be able to reach their fullest levels of potential in the > absence of conflict or is conflict necessary to maximise potential, > individual and social?
You make an assumption that there is a well known, and widely accepted, objective definition of "progress". Tell me, what is the progress being achieved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Northern Uganda with the LRA? Colombia with FARC? Are these conflicts maximizing individual or societal potentials? What about the conflict that is typical to Indian homes: one between a mother-in-law and a daughter-in-law? What individual or societal potential does it maximize? > I'm tending towards conflict as a requirement for change, growth and > potential optimisation. I tend to the view that change, growth, potential optimization, stagnation, peace AND conflict are all part of human nature. The first thing that your question brought to mind was Harry Lime's words (written by Graham Greene) from the film _The Third Man_: Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. BTW, it seems to me that you are staring into the Libertarian abyss [ :-) ]. Step back! Thaths -- Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip. Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son. Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
