> > 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? > > While I hate falling into the trap of quoting management jargon, I think you're confusing underlying conflict with the medium through which said conflict expresses itself. The examples which you cited are all examples of conflict leading to war. You can also have conflict resolution through a civil/ criminal justice process, conflict between companies expressing itself in marketplace competition, (peaceful) conflict over resources resolving itself through technological development to spur productivity.
This does not do anything to answer Gautam's original question. As you've pointed out, the expression of conflict can lead to war or any other sort of destructive power struggle - meaning that conflict is not sufficient to achieve progress (by any common-sensical definition of the word). Also, if you hold truck with Heroic / Great Leader theories of innovation (Mozart would have been a musical genius and written marvelous symphonies with or without facing any conflict), or Random Walk theories of history (things just happen. What the heck.), then conflict is not necessary for progress either. -- Aadisht Khanna Address for mailing lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
