A book by Takashi Yogi
Copyright 1986 by Takashi Yogi. All rights reserved. Revised second edition 1998
This text may be freely distributed in electronic and paper versions with the following provisions:
1. Copies must be
distributed free of charge.
2. Right to charge for copies is
reserved for the author.
3. Rights to poetry and songs quoted
remain with the original author.
4. The text must not be changed
and this copyright notice must be included.
This text was published in a paperback version. (Currently out of print.)
ISBN: 0-9617221-0-X
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 86-90220
Alternating
Currents Press
4481 Slodusty Rd
Garden Valley, CA 95633
[The printed version of this book is arranged backwards.]
Yes, this book is arranged backward. You may think it is wrong. Unconventional, yes, but not wrong (or right). There are many alternative arrangements; this one would be normal for Japanese or Hebrew.
This book is about changing our way of looking at human behavior, about getting out of ruts that lead to perennial conflicts. It deals with attitudes that affect all relations, from interpersonal to international.
I invite you to try something unusual. Look at life backwards, upside-down. Temporarily suspend your judgment that this is all wrong. We have spent much time trying all the right answers to the question of conflict. Perhaps we have overlooked some alternatives.
Part 1 Foundations
Part 2 Person to Person
Part 3 Society
Part 4 The World
Truth is an illusion. The basic concept of truth is misleading
because it tantalizes us with an object that we can never quite
reach. Truth is like a rainbow. We all agree that rainbows exist,
we can photograph them and explain their existence
scientifically, but we can never touch one. Similarly, truth as an
absolute, unchanging thing is always out of reach.
Sometimes truth seems to be firmly in our grasp. The
scientific truth of the indestructibility of matter was established
for more than a hundred years and was confirmed by countless
experiments. But the nuclear age changed this truth. The
problem with truth is that it does not come in neat packages that
one can find and keep forever. Many people want that kind of
certainty and seek politicians and religious leaders who will
supply it. But truth in matters of religion, morals, and politics
is more vulnerable to change and interpretation than scientific
truth.
At this point someone is likely to mention counterexamples
such as, "This fruit is an apple," or "Two plus two equals four."
These are merely truths by definition, which are different from
debatable statements such as, "An apple a day keeps the doctor
away." Mathematics consists of elaborate games in which we
can make any rules we want. For example, 11:00 plus two
hours equals 1:00; eleven plus two equals one.
This is not merely a philosophical argument. Truth is useful
illusion when we need to count apples, but it can be a dangerous
illusion when it is used as a weapon. We use it to convince
ourselves that we are right and that others are wrong.
Sometimes the issue is trivial, as in arguments over the right
way to mount a roll of toilet paper. At other times the
disagreement leads to international war. In both cases the
problems arise when both sides assume that they alone are right.
These conflicts are perpetuated by the notion that there is an
objective truth and that the erroneous side needs to change or be
forced to change.
The purpose of this book is to suggest alternatives to a
right/wrong view of the world. The book starts with the
individual and proceeds to interpersonal, familial, societal, and
international relations. The basis for international peace is the
relation between individuals. If two individuals cannot resolve
their conflicts, how can they promote international peace, which
is a much more complex problem?
This book does not advocate or condemn any political,
economic, philosophical, or religious system. One reason for
writing this book is to reduce polarization between opposing
groups, which blocks communication and wastes resources in
perpetual conflicts between people. The consequences of
conflicts are more serious now than in the past because modern
technology enables us to fight each other with devastating
efficiency. Yet we try to resolve these conflicts with primitive
methods. There must be a better way.
This is not a book of theory. The challenge is to find
practical ways of interacting that work for real people with all
their imperfections rather than dreaming about a utopia
composed of perfect people. The final test is, "Does it work?" I
have tried the ideas in my own life and can answer: Yes.
Good Guys vs. Bad Guys
The concept of good and bad is pervasive in our culture,
along with the often equivalent concept of right and wrong.
These words are taught to us from infancy and reinforced with
punishment and reward. Children hear fairy tales of the
destruction of evil stepmothers, witches, and wolves. The
dichotomy of good/bad is so familiar that we often don't realize
that the distinction is artificial and arbitrary.
Movies and television are major contributors to our notions
of good and bad. The almost universal plot is: bad guy does
some evil deed; good guy destroys or punishes bad guy. This
plot is the core of countless westerns, war movies, and crime
movies. The hackneyed formula works by exciting our sense of
outrage at the crime and then resolving the problem through
justice and punishment. We don't realize that our feelings are
being manipulated because it is so easy to hate the villains.
The use of good/bad labels is common in our language. We
refer to rain as bad weather, although the same rain brings joy to
farmers. We have a good night's rest, have a bad day because
the car runs badly, have a good supper, and watch a bad movie.
An example of how our language reinforces our values is the way
that words associated with light are positive, but words
associated with darkness are negative: enlighten, bright vs.
denigrate, gloomy. The good guy always rides a white horse. A
useful alternative concept can be borrowed from Buddhist
cultures, which see equal benefit in apparent opposites:
light/dark, rain/sunshine, life/death.
The popular concept of good/bad is useful to society; it
promotes behavior that conforms to the norm. But this concept
is simplistic; life is too complex to fit into such neat categories.
Every good thing has a bad aspect. For example, automobiles
provide transportation but pollute the air. Real people don't fit
the television stereotypes of completely good or completely bad
people. Another problem arises when we try to distinguish good
from bad. A person's definition of "good" depends on culture,
family influences, religious background, education, and social
class. Universal agreement on what is good is impossible.
Morality based on religion formerly had much influence on
social behavior. Social upheavals during the 1960s significantly
reduced the influence of religious morality and produced a revolt
against authority, especially among young people. The result
has been a moral vacuum: the old morality is rejected, but there
is nothing to take its place. Many people are advocating a return
to morality based on religion, but this system offers no incentive
to a non-religious person. Why be honest if you can steal and
not get caught? The usual answer is that it is wrong to steal, and
you will be punished severely if you are caught (or you will
eventually be punished by God). This answer is ineffective for a
person who doesn't believe in God or the possibility of being
caught.
Although this book is written from a non-religious viewpoint,
it is basically compatible with religious belief. I have no quarrel
with religion and hope that religion will fulfill its tremendous
potential for enrichment of life. Religion can provide
meaningful answers to moral questions, but these are
exceptional. The usual answers are based on authority or belief,
which are irrelevant to non-believers.
Regardless of the shortcomings of religious morality, it did
serve a useful function. Life would be chaotic without some
system of values. But agreement on religious morality is
improbable, even among religious people. So we are faced with
the problem: what is a suitable replacement for morality based
on religion?
The approach of this book is to explore attitudes rather than
hunt for better sets of rules. Any set of rules is too rigid to cope
with the diversity of the human species. So we abandon the
search for rules and accept diversity instead of trying to suppress
it. The problem changes from (1) How can we make people
conform? to (2) How can we make it possible for non-
conforming people to live peacefully together? With the latter
approach, we regard diversity as an asset, as fuel for creative art
and science. A diverse society is also more interesting than one
composed of clones.
One could argue that allowing diversity inevitably leads to
conflict, and that rules and force are needed to preserve order.
But who will make the rules? History is full of bloody conflicts
over this question. All the combatants believe that they are right,
and the most powerful eventually impose their version of right
on the others-- at least temporarily. Trying to suppress diversity
by force seems to require conflict.
Solving the problem of conflict requires more than a
refinement of our sense of right and wrong. Simply seeking
truth will not suffice. What is needed is a complete change in
our perception of the world from a fragmented collection of
conflicting elements to an integrated whole. This new
perception sees people as unique individuals, but recognizes that
what benefits one benefits all others because there is no
separation of welfare.
An integrated world view is far from obvious. The world is
full of people fighting each other, and some groups seem to be
exploiting other groups. Survival seems to require competitive
strength and protection of one's own interests. To make some
sense out of this jungle requires a fresh look at the process of
seeing. The next chapter carefully examines our perceptions:
how we learn to perceive, the relation of perceptions to reality,
and how perceptions affect our actions.
How wondrous this, how mysterious!
I carry wood, I draw water.
Ho Koji
The efficiency of human visual perception was not fully
apparent until scientists tried to duplicate its functions with
computers. They quickly found that computers had trouble
distinguishing simple objects and were easily confused by
irrelevant features. The superiority of human vision over
computers is due to perception: visual information is filtered
and modified to make sense in the context of experience.
Perception applies to all our physical senses. It is also used
to process abstractions, such as words and ideas. Perception is
extremely useful to us because it enables us to process complex
information. The same information would be hopelessly
confusing to a computer, which may have good vision, but poor
perception.
Although perception is useful to us, it often causes us to
reject valuable information. For example, our sensitivity to the
smell of leaking gas decreases with prolonged exposure. We
also reject information and ideas that seem irrelevant or "bad."
We need to remind ourselves constantly that the world we see is
created by our perceptions and that the real world may be quite
different from the world inside our heads. Believing often
precedes seeing.
Sometimes perceptions do more than create reality inside our
heads; they change the external reality. The story of Don
Quixote in Man of La Mancha illustrates this phenomenon.
Don Quixote's romantic perception, combined with poor vision,
caused him to see windmills as enemy giants. He looked at a
ragged prostitute and perceived a pure, noble lady.
But strangely, the perception transformed the woman, who
realized what she could be. The same process often works in
real life when people unconsciously conform to other people's
perceptions of them. Children are especially obliging in
matching the perceptions of parents and teachers.
Perceptions are important because they are the framework of
meaning that connects all the experiences of one's life.
Otherwise life would be a confusing jumble of unrelated events.
One can choose one of many possible perceptions of the world
and make the world fit that perception. For example, if one
perceives the world as a dangerous place full of evil people, one
can find ample support for that view in any newspaper. Every
reported crime and atrocity supports the perception, and
anything contrary to the perception is rejected as exceptional.
Our perceptions strongly influence our behavior, and habitual
behavior in turn reinforces these perceptions. For example, the
perception that spiders are repulsive may lead one to kill them.
This distasteful task reinforces the perception. We can easily
become slaves to perceptions that work against us. It is difficult
to change habitual behavior, such as smoking, drinking, or
overeating, when the perception that controls the behavior
remains unchanged.
One hopeful aspect of perception is that it can change
instantly, even after many years of entrenchment. Examples of
such change are found in religious conversion and in response to
crisis. When a boy partially paralyzed by polio first went to
high school in a wheelchair, he hated the stares he received. One
day his perception changed: "I suddenly realized I had a choice.
I could feel ugly, crippled, and helpless when the kids stared at
me, or I could feel like a star. I wanted to be the star!"
Grace
Tasting awe, I am
kin to all that is. Take. Eat
in grateful wonder.
Marybeth Webster
Much of education deals with making distinctions. We start
with colors, numbers, and letters and later learn finer
distinctions, such as differences between reptiles and mammals,
between paintings by Raphael and Leonardo. All this emphasis
on dissecting the world and placing the parts into the proper
pigeonholes obscures the whole and the interrelations between
the parts.
Integration puts all the pieces of the world back together. It
is a difficult task, which requires a view of the whole without
blurring any of the details. It is like looking at the earth from
space and seeing every tree in every forest. Integration is a
worthy challenge to the human mind, which can see atoms
within galaxies.
An integrated view of the world requires a temporary
suspension of our habit of focusing on differences. The
differences are all too apparent. So we will require a bold leap
of imagination to choose a perception of an integrated world.
This perception does not separate the interests of one person
from those of another, but it maintains the differences between
individuals; each remains unique. Using this perception, we
seek ways of allowing these individuals to live freely together
without conflict.
The integrated view is contrary to the prevalent world view
that separates people into conflicting groups. The first step in
the solution of these conflicts is to quit making artificial
distinctions that segregate people: capitalists/socialists,
liberals/conservatives, cops/robbers, right/wrong.
These simplistic distinctions ignore both the uniqueness of each
person placed in a group and the common humanity that defies
grouping. The result is like blurred tunnel vision. The process
of making group distinctions is the problem rather than merely
making the "right" distinction or choosing the "right" side in a
conflict.
The integrated world view is based on the interdependence of
all human beings. This would be more obvious for a "world"
comprising two people stranded on an island. Assuming that
there are adequate resources for both, we can easily see that their
interests are in common. When we expand this interdependence
to a world of over four billion people, the connections are not so
obvious.
One aspect of interdependence that is not obvious is the
interaction between a person and the object of the person's
action. In physics, Newton's second law states that every action
has an equal and opposite reaction. Imagine that you are in a
small boat and try to push another boat away with your hand.
Your boat will move backward in the process. Similarly, there
are really no unilateral actions by people on other people or even
objects. We are not fixed in place physically or emotionally.
Because we are sensitive human beings rather than robots, we
are affected by each of our actions, even if no one else is aware
of the action. For example, a person who embezzles money
without being caught must live with constant fear, guilt, and self-
deception. All our actions become part of us.
At this point the integrated world view is still idealistic and
needs to be translated into practical solutions to real problems.
How do we deal with criminals or people like Hitler? What
about inequity and greed? These questions will be dealt with in
later chapters. But first we need to go from integration to
acceptance.
Done Too Soon
Jesus Christ, Fanny Brice, Wolf A. Mozart,
Humphrey Bogart, Ghenghis Khan, and on to H. G.
Wells.
Ho Chi Minh, Gungha Din, Henry Lewis, and
John Wilkes Booth,
Alexanders: King and Graham Bell.
Ramakrishna, Mama Whistler, Patrice Lumumba, and
Russ Colombo,
Karl and Chico Marx, Albert Camus.
E. A. Poe, Henri Rousseau, Sholem Aleichem,
Caryl Chessman, Alan Freed, and Buster Keaton too.
And each one there has one thing to share.
They have sweated beneath the same sun,
looked up in wonder at the same moon,
and wept when it was all done
for being done too soon.
For being done . . .
Song by Neil Diamond
An integrated view of the world leads us to accept ourselves
and all others as members of the family of humanity. This
approach differs from the usual practice of judging people as
good or bad and accepting or rejecting them. The difference is
that acceptance deals with people as they are rather than as they
should be in comparison with some standard.
Acceptance is similar to the engineering concept of fault-
tolerance. A fault-tolerant system is designed to cope with
imperfection in itself and in its environment; it does not depend
on perfection. A leaf is an example of fault-tolerance. If an
insect destroys the central vein, the leaf continues to function by
using secondary veins to bypass the problem. If the leaf receives
inadequate sunlight, it will grow toward the light. The human
body, with its marvelous capacity to compensate for adversity
and abuse, is an excellent example of a fault-tolerant system.
The automobile has evolved into a fairly fault-tolerant machine;
it can withstand some problems such as dirt in the gasoline or
brake failure. Fault-tolerant engineering is a more reliable
approach than attempts to build perfect machines and restrict
them to ideal environments. Similarly, acceptance does not
require perfection in ourselves or others.
Acceptance is not blindness or blurring of one's vision, but
rather a widening of perspective, which sees a person from many
views. It studies background and motivation, which lie beneath
the surface behavior. In contrast, rejection is usually based on a
narrow view that focuses on some undesirable quality. Rejection
is often a reflex rather than a conscious choice.
We tend to shun automatically people who have an irritating
trait, such as body odor or talking too loudly. But we need not
judge and reject the whole person simply because of our
inability to deal with some part of the person. Acceptance
allows us to see the whole person instead of being distracted by
minor parts.
Acceptance does not exclude careful evaluation of people,
such as political candidates, potential mates, and employees.
The evaluation may lead one to conclude that the person is
unsuitable, but the person is not rejected as "bad." Acceptance
is not naive optimism but a realistic approach that deals with all
people, even those who don't match our expectations. For
example, a responsible parent may have to decide whether it is
safe to let a teen-ager drive. If the answer is no, the parent could
discuss the reasons and suggest remedies, rather than reject the
teen-ager as a "bad" driver.
Acceptance emphasizes the uniqueness of every person.
Instead of dealing with stereotypes of people, we need to observe
individual characteristics and adapt our relation to custom-fit the
individual. We can use our ingenuity to find ways of interacting
that compensate for "negative" qualities, or even utilize them.
For example, stubbornness is the same as perseverance from
another perspective. The adaptive aspect of acceptance is not the
same as analyzing people in order to manipulate them.
Manipulation seeks to exploit people solely for one's own
benefit; acceptance seeks to benefit both parties.
Acceptance implies active efforts to improve situations rather
than passive toleration and resignation. Acceptance concentrates
on control over one's own life rather than control over one's
environment and other people. For example, if you are visiting
someone and the room is too cold, you can put on a jacket rather
than turning up the thermostat or blaming your host. Changing
our environment may be appropriate at times, but it is only one
of our options. When we blame circumstances for our problems,
we are often stuck because we are powerless to change them, but
we insist on getting our way because we are right. Acceptance
gets us out of this rut by allowing us to make choices rather than
merely reacting to our environment, past and present. The focus
shifts from blaming to: "What can I do to solve the problem?"
Assertiveness can be compatible with acceptance, but
acceptance goes further by recognizing the needs of the other
person. An example of assertiveness with acceptance is, "I
understand that this store's policy prohibits refunds, but I don't
want to be stuck with this defective merchandise. Is there
anything you can do to help me?" This approach can be more
effective than a rigid insistence on being right, and allows the
other person to respond without feeling quashed.
People respond to acceptance because it satisfies two
complementary human needs: (1) to be part of the whole and
(2) to be uniquely different from the whole. Acceptance says, "I
like you for what you are: a unique person." Rejection does the
opposite: it ostracizes people for being different from some
norm. The complementary needs satisfied by acceptance can be
expressed as society/individual or as security/ freedom. These
complements are often placed in opposition, but satisfying both
needs at the same time is usually possible. For example, an
individual can be recognized by society for unique contributions,
while the individual acknowledges the support of the society.
Freedom without security is useless, and security in a police
state is a sad trade for freedom. Acceptance gives a person both
the security of society and the freedom of individuality.
Acceptance must be unconditional to be effective. Otherwise
it is merely an impersonal transaction in which "good" behavior
is rewarded by approval and "bad" behavior by rejection. A
person subjected to this treatment quickly realizes that the
behavior is valued rather than the person. In contrast, a person
treated with unconditional acceptance learns trust when "bad"
behavior does not result in automatic rejection. Unconditional
acceptance provides continuity and strengthens relationships.
The hardest part of the concept of acceptance is that it applies
to all people: your neighbor that tried to sue you, the thief that
stole your stereo, rapists, child molesters, Hitler. Unless you are
willing to see these people as valid members of the human race,
you have not yet accepted the concept. Acceptance is a
revolutionary change in attitude toward the world. When you
hate and reject anyone, your world is still a fragmented
collection of good and bad people, and you cannot see people
clearly. When we focus on "bad" people as the problem, we are
distracted from the root causes that produce the problem.
Acceptance allows us to deal effectively with all people, even
those who hate us, those who seek to exploit us, and those
whose actions we despise.
An open attitude to all aspects of life is an additional benefit
of acceptance. When we accept other people, we naturally
become open to new ideas, insights, sensations, and experiences.
Then our perception of the world will change from a hostile
environment to a harmonious one. We will no longer feel
alienated from people simply because they are different from us.
Ordinary people will suddenly look beautiful, and even the
meanest grouch will become interesting. Then we will realize
how much joy we have missed through rejection.
Greyhound Bus 7515
No cold.
No stifling heat.
Painless.
Wrapped in a steel shell
we move through life
feeling nothing.
Takashi Yogi Accepting ourselves should really precede trying to accept
others, but it is much harder. Harder because our perceptions of
ourselves seem so real. Who else knows as much about me as
myself? But these perceptions of ourselves are as fallible as our
perceptions of the world. We accumulate these perceptions in
response or reaction to parents, teachers, spouses, and associates
until we are unable to see ourselves clearly.
The major benefit of accepting others is acceptance of
ourselves. We tend to view ourselves as critically as we view
others, or more critically, since we can't easily hide "faults"
from ourselves. Habitual criticism of ourselves destroys our
sense of self-worth. Insecurity of self prompts constant
comparisons of ourselves with others in attempts to prove our
worth. Acceptance of ourselves relieves us of this burden; we do
not have to be perfect or better than others.
As with acceptance of others, acceptance of ourselves does
not mean passivity, resignation, or illusions about our
capabilities. Accepting ourselves means dealing with our
limitations without labeling them "bad." We can devise ways to
bypass these limitations without trying to be perfect. For
example, we can deal with impatience by changing situations
that provoke impatience rather than simply trying to be patient.
Accepting ourselves acknowledges responsibility for our lives
and keeps us from the trap of blaming circumstances and other
people for our problems. It also gives us more options since our
happiness does not depend on changes in circumstances and in
other people. Notice the difference in the following statements:
Resignation: "I'm miserable but I can't do anything about it
since he is to blame." Acceptance: "I don't like this situation
and will do what I can to improve things for all who are
involved."
Accepting oneself is a prerequisite for coping with
the external world. It gives one a sense of personal center, which
is unperturbed by external turmoil. This stability comes not
from rigidity or insulation from adversity, but from flexibility:
the ability to adapt to one's environment without losing
equilibrium. Flexibility comes from a sense of our uniqueness
and self-worth that is not based on perfection, but on being
human. The resulting inner peace cannot be destroyed by insults
or stolen from us. We can create this peace for ourselves, within
ourselves, whenever we choose, regardless of external
circumstances. We can use this inner peace to transform the
world.
The basic concepts of integration and acceptance have been
covered in the preceding section. Now comes the hard task of
finding practical replacements for the traditional methods of
making decisions. If we reject rigid rules of conduct, we need to
use our new freedom responsibly.
How does one decide moral issues without a fixed set of rules
that define "right and wrong"? The answer is a pragmatic one:
does it work? Will your decision give you what you want? The
crucial question is: what do you really want? Do you want the
million dollars or do you really want the happiness and security
that it promises?
Enlightened self-interest is needed to make decisions that
truly benefit ourselves. This goes far beyond mere selfishness,
which is usually self-destructive. Enlightenment means
awareness of the unity of all people and objects. It shows that
harming others to benefit oneself is an illusion. Enlightenment
is an expansion of our view to encompass ourselves, others,
society, the world, the present, and the future.
Enlightenment does not come easily. It requires education,
experience, and a willingness to study all the effects of a
decision. We are not born with enlightenment; an infant's vision
includes only self and the present. A child may want to eat only
sweets for lack of awareness of the effects on nutrition and
dental health. Experience is often a poor teacher because the
effects of a decision may be irreversible when the lesson is
finally learned. We can use education to learn from the
experience of others and to avoid dead-end paths.
Many of our actions that are intended to exploit other people
actually harm us most. For example, lying is dangerous for the
liar because the liar may start believing the lies. The
rationalization needed to accommodate the lies distorts
perception; the ability to separate illusion from reality suffers.
For example, a person hiding an extramarital affair may fool
herself into thinking that no one is hurt by the deception. She
may thereby continue a compromised life instead of taking
action to improve the situation. Notice that lying is not labeled
"wrong." Sometimes lying may be the best decision, for
example, to save another person's life.
It may seem that we are back where we started. Lying is
prohibited by the Ten Commandments, one of the "rigid rules."
The crucial difference is that with enlightenment the incentive
for behavior comes from the individual, not authority, belief, or
fear of punishment. In the Bible, this is the difference between
living under the law and living in grace. The behavior may be
the same for both external rules and internal choice, but the
attitudes are completely different.
Enlightenment allows us to bypass a problem: the lack of
agreement on truth. Disagreements need not produce conflict if
at least one of the people that disagree realizes that there may be
more that one version of truth and that they can coexist. In the
Japanese language, "You're wrong" translates into "It differs".
Conflict arises from our perception that disagreement must
produce winners and losers, or sometimes, compromises where
both parties are partial losers. An alternative to conflict is to
allow diversity in individual versions of truth, but to remind
ourselves constantly that using our freedom to hurt others also
hurts ourselves.
Richard Cory
Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich-- yes, richer than a king--
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.
Edwin A. Robinson
Selfishness really does not exist. It is only an abstraction,
given apparent substance by the magic of language. Attempts to
produce selfish acts are doomed to eventual failure because the
world is one entity, and attempts to subdivide this unity are
futile. There are many who seem to have succeeded in being
selfish by amassing great wealth and power. One such person
was the first emperor of China, Ch'in Shih Huang Ti, who could
afford to engage 700,000 workers for 36 years to build his tomb.
He was so insecure that he changed sleeping quarters every night
for fear of assassination. There are many other examples of
frustrated attempts at selfishness, from King David to Howard
Hughes. Wealth and power failed to provide happiness and
security.
Attempts at selfishness are not reserved for the rich and
powerful. Wealth is relative. What is more important than the
level of wealth is one's attitude toward other people.
Unfortunately the acquisition of extraordinary wealth or power
tends to produce an attitude that justifies the disparity between
groups. A person at the top tends to forget that the support of
many people make that position possible. It is easy to inflate
one's own value based on social class and lose sight of the basic
interdependence of people.
Unselfishness is as much an illusion as selfishness. It
supports the notion that one can sacrifice one's own interests
solely for the benefit of others. What is overlooked is the
intangible reward that a person receives for an act that benefits
others. Personal satisfaction is worth the price of pain and
poverty. Even the ultimate gift of one's own life is not given
grudgingly; it must have its own special motivation.
Many gifts packaged as unselfish acts are attempts to keep
people separated. Philanthropy and charity are often used to
appease exploited people. The intent is to keep them dependent
on the donors and therefore powerless. But their discontent
usually leads to eventual revolt. No one benefits from attempts
to hoard resources.
There are many people who think they are being unselfish
when they allow others to mistreat them. The advice columns
are full of martyrs complaining about their miserable treatment
from relatives and friends. They have valid cases, but they trap
themselves into thinking that they are helpless victims. Perhaps
they continue being martyrs for fear of being rejected if they
were to be firm with their oppressors.
How does one determine the limits of generosity and
accommodation? One's own needs have to be filled before one
is able to give to others. For example if a person neglects her
health, she will eventually be helpless rather than helpful. If one
neglects one's own needs, the help given to others is likely to be
tainted with resentment. If one cannot give freely and joyfully,
one probably is not able to give.
Both selfishness and unselfishness are attempts to ignore the
interdependence of people. People cannot be isolated by mental
or physical walls. We can neither steal from others without
hurting ourselves nor give to others without benefiting ourselves.
Driven by the winds of life past
I chose not where I sailed
Often cast on rocky shores
or becalmed in mid-ocean
Cursing those who set my course.
But now I will steer my own destiny
Tacking against the wind
or running before it
Secure in raging tempest or calm
I dance with wind and waves.
Takashi Yogi Expressing anger was quite popular as a therapeutic method a
few years ago. People were pounding pillows, beating each
other with soft bats, and screaming to ventilate hostility. Free
verbalization of anger was encouraged, and repression was
regarded as unhealthy, like a capped teakettle on the verge of
explosion. The sanction of anger by some therapists increased
the social acceptability of expressing anger, especially anger
prompted by injustice.
We are constantly subjected to actions that provoke anger;
life is full of thorns-- careless drivers, shoddy merchandise, late
trains. There is no shortage of ignorance and arrogance. But do
we want to respond to every provocation with anger? Anger may
be fully justified, but it can be an option rather than an
automatic reflex. By constantly exercising our freedom to get
angry, we ironically become slaves of our environment.
Anger appears in several forms. A common one is "righteous
indignation." We feel that we are right and the other person is
wrong. Another form of anger comes from a feeling of
powerlessness, a perception that we have no control over an
uncomfortable situation. Anger often results from a
misconnection between stimulus and reaction: "She makes me
angry," rather than, "I allow myself to get angry over what she
does."
Prevention is an alternative to anger. Choosing not to get
angry is quite different from ignoring or suppressing anger once
it arises. Understanding the other person is an effective
preventive measure: Why do people do what they do? What are
their backgrounds? Are they aware of what they are doing? I
have found that many people stumble through life like a rock
crashing down a hill; it is more useful to get out of their way
than to curse them.
Another preventive measure is to focus on solutions rather
than on blame. For example, when we encounter a careless
driver who cuts in, we can often change lanes rather than honk
and curse. Powerlessness is replaced by personal action: What
can I do to compensate or to solve the problem? Even when we
can do nothing, we can keep the annoyance from ruining our
day.
Another way to prevent anger is to develop a sense of our
uniqueness and our relation to the world. We tend to focus so
closely on our own lives that we lose our perspective of the
whole. A wider perspective in both time and space would
prevent distraction by adversity. A secure feeling of our own
self-worth as members of the human family would make us less
vulnerable to insults. A sense of humor can help one cope with
many minor injustices. Life is too short to spend much time
getting angry because someone left the cap off the toothpaste.
Anger is often prolonged by a desire for revenge, which
persists long after the injury and quietly poisons one's life. Acts
of revenge don't dissipate the anger; they usually result in
escalation by the other party or in feelings of hollow victory.
Many people see forgiveness as an antidote to the problem of
anger and revenge. Forgiveness often works, but it is a poor
alternative to acceptance. When forgiveness requires apology or
restitution and the other person refuses, we are stymied.
Forgiveness maintains the concepts of right and wrong; it is
basically an act of condescension rather than of understanding.
Forgiveness is difficult because we are asked to erase what we
consider wrong. How can we forgive an atrocity? Acceptance
bypasses anger, revenge, and forgiveness and allows us to focus
on recovering from the injury rather than on the misdeeds of the
other person. When we discard the concept of "wrong," there is
no need for forgiveness.
There is nothing "wrong" with anger; it is a natural human
emotion. Anger can be useful as a signal that calls our attention
to problems and can be a catalyst for need changes. The danger
is that we allow anger to control our lives and steal our
emotional and physical energy. Life is too precious to squander
on anger.
It is possible to turn a screw with a knife and to cut wood
with a screwdriver, but it is much more efficient to use the
proper tool. Neither tool is "bad," nor is the misapplication
"wrong." There may be times when the best tool for a job is not
available, and a substitute has to be used.
We can choose our tools for living. All behavior has some
utility. Getting angry, excessive drinking, overeating, lying,
withdrawing, being depressed, and being stubborn all satisfy
some need. But many times the need can be satisfied by using
some other behavior that has fewer undesirable side effects. For
example, a person may lie to shield a fragile ego from
embarrassment. A sounder approach might be to use acceptance
to improve one's self-image so that one is less vulnerable.
Understanding the motivation behind behavior is useful in
personal relations. Demands for change of "bad" behavior are
usually ineffective since the behavior obviously satisfies some
need. A demand usually produces a defensive reaction which
makes change unlikely. Trying to force change in another
person is usually a waste of effort. Even when force seems to
work, it produces resentment and sometimes sabotage.
Unconditional acceptance is more effective than force because it
is non-threatening and is the best environment for growth and
change. If the other person does not change, an attitude of
acceptance will often suggest ways to bypass the problem
without condemning the other person.
Many people live in reaction to their environment instead of
choosing the direction of their lives. They are happy only when
conditions are comfortable, angry when they are mistreated, and
depressed by the emptiness of their lives. These people should
not be faulted; they learn to accept these conditions through
years of attempted control by parents, teachers, employers, and
perhaps a spouse or two. Others are trapped by poverty,
exploitation, poor education, or addictions. Constant reaction
against external forces absorbs all the attention; independence
never develops. We are all in this predicament to some extent;
our choices are never completely free. Those that are blessed
with the resources to make choices are responsible for improving
the lives of those who have few choices. The most important
choice is whether to blame ourselves, others, and our past for our
problems, or to accept responsibility for the quality of our lives
and the lives of other people.
Tenderness
What can I do
What can I do
Much of what you say is true
I know you see through me
But there's no tenderness
Beneath your honesty
Right and wrong
Right and wrong
Never helped us get along
You say you care for me
But there's no tenderness
Beneath your honesty
You and me were such good friends
What's your hurry?
You and me could make amends
I'm not worried
I'm not worried
Honesty
Honesty
It's such a waste of energy
No you don't have to lie to me
Just give me some tenderness
Beneath your honesty
You don't have to lie to me
Just give me some tenderness
Song by Paul Simon Much of the problem with marriage is due to excessive
idealism. Couples strive toward an ideal that is almost
impossible to attain. This romantic ideal is based on several
myths. One is compatibility: the ideal mate is similar to
oneself. The reality is that opposite personalities are quite
attractive, and compatibility is not essential. Many marriages of
vastly dissimilar people succeed, and marriages fail between
people who read the same books, share the same hobbies, and
agree on politics and religion. People use computers to find
their ideal mate and are puzzled by the divorce a year later.
Another myth is that a successful marriage requires doing the
right things, such as being neat, considerate, helpful, cheerful
and dependable. A rare marriage may consist of such a pair of
angels, but earthly marriages are much more likely to succeed
when both people acknowledge that they are not perfect and are
willing to make allowances.
"Happily ever after" describes another myth. It offers the
false hope that marriage will make us complete and provide
continuous happiness without disagreement. Marriage usually
magnifies individual problems, and intimacy provides abundant
opportunities for disagreement.
Total unconditional acceptance is the first step in a marriage.
This precludes any demands for changes and recognizes the
unique value of a person. Acceptance means accepting the real
person, not some idealization. Acceptance is unconditional and
continuous; it does not depend on the behavior of the other
person, nor is it suspended in times of conflict. This acceptance
is the string of continuity that holds a relation together through
rough times. It is also the perfect environment for growth.
People are perverse-- they resist change when it is demanded
but often change voluntarily when there is no coercion.
Unconditional acceptance is not the same as unconditional
surrender, the sacrifice of oneself for the sake of harmony.
Acceptance recognizes the needs of both persons in a
relationship. The separation or opposition of interests is
artificial; mutually satisfactory solutions can usually be found.
For example, when creative chaos conflicts with compulsive
neatness, a private room may be a solution.
Dissatisfaction with a marriage is often felt by only one
person. The other may be preoccupied with work and may not
notice the problem until confronted with an affair or a demand
for a divorce. Dealing with these cases is difficult because of the
resistance of the spouse, who feels threatened by the changes.
The resistance is only increased by demands such as "You are
wrong and need to change," or "Get counseling or I will leave
you." Even if counseling is accepted, the resisting person is
likely to remain defensive. A more effective message might be,
"I think you are wonderful, and I would like to stay with you.
We can work out our problems together to make life better for
both of us."
Acceptance can work in a relation even when only one person
practices it. This distinguishes it from other methods of conflict
resolution, such as compromise, which require the cooperation
of both parties. Many marriages are stalemated by the stubborn
refusal of one person to negotiate and the equally stubborn
demand of the other that negotiation is necessary. When
acceptance is used by even one person in a relation, it breaks the
cycle of action-reaction fighting. This cycle feeds on blame,
punishment, and revenge; acceptance shifts attention from these
to ways of satisfying the needs of both parties. One person can
initiate change by finding ways to satisfy one's own needs
without blaming or threatening the other. For example, a woman
oppressed by housework can hire help rather than insisting that
her spouse share the burden.
Acceptance will not save some marriages. Divorce may be
the best answer for both, and acceptance can ease the difficult
transition. Forgoing blame and recognizing each other's welfare
can benefit both parties. Bickering over possessions is costly;
the person who wins pays the heavy price of continued bitterness
from the other. Fights over custody of children usually harm
them more than any inequities of custody. Punishment and
revenge hurt both parties. Acceptance and integration of
interests promotes healing of the wounds.
I see some problems with present marital counseling. Much
of the emphasis is on changing behavior rather than attitudes.
Techniques such as fighting fairly, expressing anger, and
communicating needs are useful, but they don't satisfy the basic
need for acceptance. They deal with the mechanics of a relation,
but leave the old concepts of right and wrong unchanged.
Couples learn that there is a right way and a wrong way to fight.
Fighting fairly is comparable to the Geneva Convention for the
humane conduct of war. Both are preferable to barbarity, but
abolishing the conflict would be much better.
Communication is important but can be misused to convey
only negative information. The messages are received as bad
news: more problems that demand attention. The recent
emphasis on free expression of our needs overlooks the
reception of the message. Unless the expressions are
accompanied by assurances of acceptance and non-coercion,
they will probably be resisted or ignored. Another problem with
our communications is the lack of affection and appreciation
when the situation is normal; all messages are alarms. Mis-
communication can destroy a marriage as surely as non-
communication.
Many marital conflicts are symptoms of deeper problems.
Lack of empathy, recognition, autonomy, or affection can
become manifest as perennial fights over money, chores, or
trivia. An attitude of acceptance can help us to focus on the
needs of the person instead of the surface complaints. For
example, the complaint, "You spent too much for groceries" may
be a symptom of insecurity about one's job. An attitude of
acceptance allows one to respond to the real needs instead of
defending or blaming oneself.
The resolution of conflicts is impeded by the concept of
winners and losers. This view keeps the combatants from
working together toward solutions that benefit both. There are
usually more than two solutions to a problem, but the mutually
beneficial solutions are obscured by a stubborn insistence on
being right. Being right is a lonely place. We isolate ourselves
by using truth to build walls around ourselves, and we use truth
as a weapon to attack vulnerable spots. The typical marital fight
is an escalating exchange of insults that possess enough truth to
be devastating. Both sides are losers in the war.
An alternative to marital conflict is to merge the welfare of
both parties and to realize that what benefits one also benefits
the other. This does not mean joint checking accounts or
merging of personalities. Autonomy and uniqueness are to be
cultivated. Both individuality and cooperation can flourish in an
environment of acceptance.
Children are born self-centered; they are aware of only their
needs. Infancy should provide security and total acceptance.
This forms a solid basis for later social development. As
children mature, they will become aware that their needs interact
with the needs of other people. Sometimes these needs will
seem to conflict, as when two children want the same toy. They
need to learn that there is no separation between their welfare
and that of others.
Relations between adults and children are often hampered by
the assumed authority of adults over children. When a conflict
arises, the adult asserts authority, often overriding even a valid
case presented by the child. There are certainly many cases
where this resort to authority is necessary, but there is also the
danger of misusing authority when more effective methods are
available. Unfortunately many parents are so certain of being
right that they persist in using methods that obviously don't
work, and they blame the failure on the child. Unlike other
oppressed groups, children usually lack control over their
treatment. They resort to fighting back in subtle ways to
sabotage the lives of their parents. Sometimes they wait until
adolescence to revolt. Sometimes their resentment toward
parents is transferred to society and persists throughout adult
life.
Children need acceptance as much as food in order to mature.
The family should always be a refuge where a child has a sense
of belonging. Rejection of children for misbehavior destroys
this security and is a poor motivation for changing behavior.
Acceptance does not imply permissiveness. Children need to be
taught that their actions affect others and that manipulative
tactics such as tantrums will not get them what they want.
Maturation is the process of moving from external control to
internal. If rules are always imposed on children by force, they
will be poorly equipped to make the transition to independence.
Children will be more likely to obey the rules if they participate
in making the rules and understand the reasons for the rules.
When rules are disobeyed, children should learn how they harm
themselves by their actions. Children need to learn to accept
responsibility for their lives and to choose their actions to
benefit themselves and others.
Just once more
Just one more nickel
Pull the crank
and listen for
the sweet clatter of coins.
Silence
only the faint echo of the good times
when life overflowed.
Why complain?
I still get enough to keep playing.
Someday I'll get it.
Do I really believe that? No.
I should quit this stupid game.
One more nickel and I'll leave.
Takashi Yogi
Making the transition from judgment to acceptance is
difficult because it requires a total change in one's attitude
rather than minor changes in behavior. The whole framework of
one's life needs to be rebuilt rather than merely patched. A lot
of our training, education, and experience must be discarded in
the process.
On the other hand, the transition can be easy because the
change in attitude affects all of our behavior. One does not have
to try to change; change occurs naturally once one perceives the
benefit of the change. The following are suggestions for easing
the transition:
1. Notice instances when you judge yourself, other people, or
things. Don't label yourself "bad" for judging or try to stop
doing it. Become sensitive to the following words: good, bad,
right, and wrong. Notice how often these words are used in
ordinary conversation.
2. Practice observing other people who don't affect your life
directly, such as strangers on the bus or people in supermarkets.
Take special note if these people are angry or if they seem
repulsive to you. Try to explain a person's behavior by
fantasizing the person's history, such as an abused childhood,
poor education, illness, or a recent divorce.
3. Study other cultures to expand your awareness of the
diversity of "normal" behavior.
4. Learn unconditional acceptance from a pet animal.
I sense widespread discontent in the United States, which
encompasses all groups: rich and poor, conservative and liberal,
minorities and majorities. The banker worries that Brazil will
default on its huge debt, while the Detroit autoworker wonders
how she will feed her family when the unemployment checks
stop coming. Pessimism prevails; the popular sense is that
social conditions are getting worse. Some discontent and
dissent is healthy, but there is a danger that dissatisfied people
will react by blaming scapegoats and following any leader who
promises relief.
Social discontent spawns many proposals for remedies and
usually produces polarization of opposing groups. Each group
claims that their views are right, and defeating the opposition
becomes the goal. Even when the fighting is not physical, there
is much use of heavy verbal artillery in political speeches, the
press, and the courts.
Perhaps these conflicts indicate a vigorous democracy, but I
wonder how much of it is necessary. We spend a great deal of
energy fighting perpetual battles. These ideological battles often
become violent, as in union/management and pro-life/pro-choice
confrontations. Political warfare has some disturbing
similarities to actual warfare: the labeling and depersonalization
of the "enemy," the concepts of right-side/wrong-side and of
winners/losers, and the reduction of issues to slogans.
Conflicts keep us from using a valuable resource: group
action. The power of people working together is one of the
strongest forces in the world. People have an inherent need to
be part of a group and can contribute prodigious effort. After a
severe winter storm in Santa Cruz in 1982, there was an amazing
amount of volunteer relief work. One man who helped dig mud
out of a house remarked that the work was too nasty and hard to
do for pay. The reward for such action must be social.
Unfortunately, politicians and dictators know the power of
group action and exploit it for their own purposes. I remember
the awesome film records of Hitler being saluted by hundreds of
thousands of ecstatic Germans, and I'm saddened by the waste of
such tremendous energy. If we could direct such energy away
from war and political conflict, we would have ample resources
for solving most of the world's problems.
This section of the book deals with some social problems in
America as illustrations of an integrated view. Attempts are
made to view issues from many sides. The aim is not answers,
but meaningful questions: Is this really what you want? My
view of issues is certain to be limited and biased, and I'm likely
to be criticized by all sides. My goal is to widen the perspective
and start dialogue between groups rather than search for the
"right" answers.
I always feel uncomfortable with political rallies and
speeches, especially when I agree with the views expressed.
Most politicians love such occasions_ the receptive audience,
the frequent bursts of applause. But I usually leave with a sense
of loneliness rather than unity. What bothers me is the use of
political power to win, the division of people into the forces of
good and the forces of evil.
Political action is an important part of a democracy, but I feel
that it is seen by many people as a weapon. Political differences
become power struggles in which the majority imposes its views
on the minority. Democracy, government by the people, often
degenerates into government by the majority, and the wishes of
half the people might be ignored. The majority's best interests
are served by being sensitive to the needs of the minority and
trying to accommodate them. More use of consensus instead of
majority rule can provide more equal representation for all
people. Otherwise, ignoring minority protests often leads to
power struggles in which the balance of power oscillates. An
example of perpetual power struggle is the abortion issue.
Abortion in America was largely unregulated until legislation in
the 1870s banned it. Then the Supreme Court legalized abortion
in 1973. Now there is considerable effort to reverse the law.
Another problem with power politics is the tendency to focus
on scapegoats. People such as Ronald Reagan or Jane Fonda are
used as political dartboards, targets for our anger. Scapegoats
divert our attention from the underlying causes of conflict.
Assassination, political or physical, does not produce significant
change, since the people behind the leader remain unchanged or
become more determined to fight back. Blaming problems on
other people is not very effective and obscures our responsibility
as citizens.
Political divisions are perpetuated by emphasizing
differences between groups. People are separated into opposing
groups, and any common interests are ignored. The other side is
considered ignorant, misguided, or evil because they disagree
with us. Racial conflicts are especially serious because it is so
easy to focus on the trivial physical differences and ignore our
common humanity.
The division of people into conservative and liberal groups is
one of the most prominent divisions in American politics. But
the concept of monolithic groups is a myth. One can compile
lists of views held by most people who would call themselves
conservatives or liberals. But there are too many exceptions:
people who support the ERA and nuclear disarmament but
oppose abortion, people who favor prayer in schools but want to
ban handguns. Therefore the words " liberal" and "
conservative" do not define clearly distinct groups, and these
labels need not keep people from talking to each other.
Political change can be facilitated by an integrated approach.
Political movements typically produce automatic reaction
groups, but these people are less likely to fight if their interests
are considered. Instead of using brute political power to
overwhelm the opposition, it would be more effective to find
ways to satisfy all parties. For example, legislation to end
government subsidies for tobacco could include aid for farmers
to facilitate a transition to other crops.
There will always be disagreement on what is best for society,
but this need not keep people from accepting each other and
working on mutually beneficial solutions. I would like to see
more acceptance of political diversity as a normal condition and
as one of the great strengths of a democracy. Lack of diversity
can result in mass political power, which is easily abused. An
example is Mao Zedong's Great Cultural Revolution, which had
millions of ecstatic followers waving his little red book. Such
unity has a tremendous potential for destructive action with no
counterbalancing forces. Unity is beneficial when it affirms the
common humanity of a diverse group; it can be destructive when
it is used to suppress diversity.
The use of political power is an extension of our attitude
toward interpersonal conflict. When we are disturbed by a
neighbor's dog, we resort to calling the police instead of
negotiating a solution. We win, but we lose a neighbor.
Similarly, we often use political power as a substitute for open
communication and negotiation.
People seldom change their views in response to logical
arguments. The investment in personal beliefs is too great;
attack provokes defense and counterattack. Winning a debate
does not imply change in an opponent. An alternative is to avoid
the defensive reaction by using acceptance. When people are not
threatened, when their views are respected and given a fair
hearing, change becomes possible. The process of changing
beliefs is more emotional than logical. Political power and
compelling arguments cannot substitute for personal acceptance.
I don't intend to disparage the efforts of political activists
who are dedicated to improving social conditions. I hope to
prompt them to examine attitudes that may be obscuring more
effective methods of producing change. The prevalent methods
of fighting political battles produce few lasting victories; the
vanquished minority usually returns to fight. I would like to see
political opponents accept each other as valuable counter-
balancing influences rather than as enemies. You can't play
tennis with an empty opposite court. There is need for more
non-debates in which issues are discussed without a need for
winning arguments. It is the need to win that keeps us all losers.
Labels are convenient and useful, but easily misused. They
are useful because a word or two can refer to a complex mental
image of an object, idea, or person. This process is so automatic
that it can be a hindrance. Labels can be misused to keep us
from actually seeing an object or person. For example we can
stop seeing birds or flowers once we have learned to identify
them by name. We see a mental image of a rufous-sided towhee
instead of the bird itself.
Labels are an important part of the process of perception.
Perception takes raw sensory information and filters it to make
sense in the context of experience. Labels are used to catalog
these perceptions, and can substitute for the perceptions. For
example, seeing the word "maggots" can produce instant
revulsion for most people. Even when one is actually looking at
maggots, the label takes precedence and blocks the perception.
Labels become dangerous when we use them to avoid seeing
and feeling. Labels such as nigger, gook, queer, bitch, pig, and
redneck are used to avoid dealing with people. Even more
civilized labels such as conservative, Communist, and feminist
can be used in the same way. When people are labeled, they
become stereotyped objects.
Labels play an important part in racial discrimination.
Physical racial characteristics are used as the sole basis for
attaching a label with its stereotypes. The label replaces the
unique person, and it is much easier to mistreat interchangeable
objects; if you've seen one, you've seen them all.
Discrimination uses labels to avoid looking at any features that
reveal a common humanity.
Labeling is often the first step to violence toward people.
One horrible example is the Nazi extermination of Jews and
other minority groups. I find the Holocaust frightening because
it shows how easy it is to kill people who have become objects.
It is important to realize how a small shift in perception can
result in atrocities. The prologue to the Holocaust was centuries
of persecution of Jews by Christians. For example, St. John
Chrysostom in the fourth century preached that "The synagogue
is worse than a brothel... it is the den of scoundrels and the
repair of wild beasts."* Similar prejudice was promoted by
countless Christian clerics. As a result, people became
accustomed to the labeling of Jews as subhuman and deserving
of their treatment. Once Jews became labeled as vermin, the
plague of Europe, it was easy to exterminate them as one would
kill rats-- an unpleasant but necessary task. The Nazis were not
monsters; they went home to wives and children. If the
experience of the Holocaust only teaches us that Germans can be
especially cruel, then the lesson that cost six million lives is
wasted: that all of us have similar potential for inhuman action
toward people whose humanity is hidden by labels.
*Malcom Hay, Europe and the Jews, Beacon Press
An all too familiar story: A car driven by a drunk collides
with another car. A innocent woman is killed and her child is
paralyzed for life. Her husband survives, and the drunk has only
minor injuries. How does one deal with this tragedy and with
the feelings of anger that result? The victims are often dismayed
when the guilty party gets less than the maximum punishment.
How much punishment will satisfy the need for justice? Life
imprisonment? Torture? Death?
Our concept of justice is often a disguise for legalized
revenge. There is a prevalent feeling that those who cause
suffering should be made to suffer some form of punishment. In
former times, torture and mutilation were often used. We no
longer approve of such barbarity, but the feeling remains.
People often object to attempts to rehabilitate criminals through
programs such as job training because such programs might
benefit the subjects rather than increase their suffering. Why
should people who do wrong be treated well?
Revenge does not heal the wounds of tragedy; it merely
exhausts the victim's use of the guilty party as an object of
blame and anger. What if a person is severely crippled by an
earthquake while hiking in the mountains? There is clearly no
one to blame except perhaps God, the Devil, or oneself. It is
more useful to concentrate on recovery rather than anger and
blame. The same is true for injury caused by crime. Even after a
person's need for revenge is satisfied, there is still the need to
cope with healing the wound itself. So revenge is merely a
distraction that slows the healing process.
Most of the need for revenge stems from the need of the
victims for recognition that their anger is legitimate. So the
punishment is really symbolic since there is usually no
possibility of full restitution or "eye for an eye" type of justice.
Victims are often satisfied when the punishment is the maximum
possible under the law. Justice is a lofty ideal that is seldom
achieved. There are millions of innocent victims of crime, war,
genocide, and persecution. How does one find appropriate
justice for the deaths of six million Jews? Preventing a
repetition of the crime by correcting its causes is more
appropriate than seeking justice after the crime.
Our efforts to control crime seem to rely on punishment,
which is supposed to correct antisocial behavior in the convict
and deter others. People are processed by the penal system like
cars on an assembly line. They "serve time" and are supposed to
be made safe for society. The great number of repeat offenders
points out the failure of the system. The public is justifiably
outraged by these criminals and demands longer sentences and
the death penalty to solve the problem. Our prisons are
overflowing, but the problem remains.
Another attempt to control crime is protection: if we can't
eliminate crime, at least we can protect ourselves. People carry
guns and Mace, install deadbolts and window bars, and buy
insurance and elaborate alarm systems. The streets are avoided
at night, strangers are eyed with suspicion, and wealth is
measured in number of keys. At some point, these measures
become a reverse prison; we lock ourselves up for security. Are
we willing to trade freedom for this kind of security?
The fear and anger of citizens is understandable. Security
has a high priority, and people will take extreme measures to get
it. People are often willing to ignore constitutional rights of
others and sacrifice personal freedom in order to stop crime.
Any attempts to change the way we deal with crime has to
acknowledge the fear of most citizens. For example, legislation
to ban handguns is futile as long as people think that the police
are incapable of protecting them against crime.
Our reliance on police and punishment obscures methods of
crime prevention which may be more effective. Tremendous time
and money are spent in dealing with crime, but eliminating the
causes of crime receives scant attention. Part of the reason is
belief in the concept of "bad" people who choose to commit
crimes. The only way to deal with them is to eliminate them or
separate them from the "good" people. A more effective
approach is to recognize that all people have the capacity for
social or anti-social behavior and that the environment largely
determines which predominates.
Tracking down causes of crime requires searching through
many layers. A drug addict may be stealing in order to buy
drugs. Threats of punishment are obviously futile; this person
has no choice. It is probably more effective to deal with the
problem of drug addiction before dealing with the stealing. One
could try to stop drug traffic, but it is better to go a step further
and ask why people become addicted in the first place. What is
the environment in our homes and schools that promotes drug
dependency? How do these people feel about themselves and
society? Soon we are forced to look at our basic values and
attitudes.
Making fundamental changes in the law enforcement system
is difficult because it requires a change in attitude and a
complete re-structuring of society. Present attempts to control
crime, such as more police, more prisons, more guns, and more
severe sentences, are short-term approaches that are extremely
costly and inefficient.
Rape is an example of a crime that receives much attention
while its causes are largely ignored. Women are justifiably
angry that their lives are haunted by fear. Attempts to defend
against rape, such as self-defense, increased police patrols, and
more effective prosecution, are useful but do not address the
basic problem. Rapists are being produced at least as fast as
they are being caught. Women will remain vulnerable as long as
we avoid examining the family and educational influences that
are conducive to producing rapists. As long as we view rapists
as aberrations rather than the natural result of societal
influences, we will be plagued by them.
Part of the problem of crime goes back to our basic concepts
of laws and rules. These concepts come mainly from childhood,
where punishment is threatened for misbehavior. But children
soon find that clever action can escape punishment and win
admiration from peers. The message they get from television is
not "Crime does not pay," but "Only the stupid ones get caught."
Children are seldom taught that their actions can harm
themselves. When I was caught embezzling my milk money as a
child, I was severely punished, but there was no mention of the
harmful effects on my health from buying candy with the money.
Most people view law as an external force. They avoid
exceeding the speed limit because they fear a ticket, and they
cheat whenever they think they will not get caught. There is no
awareness that the law is designed for their safety; there is no
sense of internal law. These same people can be found driving at
65 in a fog because it is the presumed legal speed.
The basic alternative to crime is a healthy society in which
every person is accepted as a part of society. Crime is the result
of an attitude that separates one's own needs from those of
society. Most of the violent crimes arise out of anger toward
self, toward society, toward authority. People who feel that they
are nothing and are treated as if they are nothing will try to fill
the void with drugs, alcohol, money, violence, or power.
Nurturing a sense of self and one's inherent interdependence
with society is the long-term solution to the problem of crime.
The battle over abortion seems to be an endless conflict. The
opposing sides are strongly polarized. Both sides are convinced
that they are right, and there is almost no communication
between sides. The only hope for resolution of the conflict is for
both sides to accept each other as human beings. There is no
hope as long as pro-life advocates picture the opposition as
unfeeling murderers, and pro-choice advocates stereotype the
others as ignorant fanatics.
There will always be disagreement on abortion, but we can
try to reduce the enmity between sides. Each side can begin by
listening to the feelings of opponents instead of arguing in
defense. We can accept other people even when we strongly
disagree with their beliefs. This acceptance recognizes that their
beliefs are sincere and as valid for them as our beliefs are for us.
The abortion conflict has been intensified by improvements
in medical technology. The survival rate for premature babies is
now about one-half at 28 weeks (1986), which is the usual time
limit for abortion. Some premature babies have survived birth at
23 weeks. So we have a situation where many abortions are
technically equivalent to infanticide since the fetus may be
capable of living outside the mother.
Much of the conflict over abortion could be resolved by
shortening the period available for abortions. The issue of
abortion changes as the timing of the abortion changes. At one
end of the time continuum is abortion immediately after
conception. This would still be opposed by religious people
who also oppose contraception, but many others would accept it
because a fertilized ovum hardly looks like a human being. At
the other end of the continuum is abortion just before normal
birth. Most people, including pro-choice advocates, would
oppose this case because it really amounts to infanticide. So for
many people, their view on abortion is a matter of timing. Late
abortions form a small percentage of all abortions, but cause the
most problems. These cases involve more medical risk, more
emotional trauma to both the mother and medical personnel, and
the possibility of survival of the fetus. Eliminating late
abortions may be one way to ease the conflict.
Abortion involves medical risk and is traumatic even if one
accepts its necessity. What pro-choice advocates really want is
not necessarily abortion, but the right of women to control their
own lives. Abortion is reluctantly chosen only after rejection of
all other possibilities. One solution to the conflict might be
provided by technology: a semipermanent contraceptive method
that is completely effective without serious side effects. Such a
method would eliminate most of the need for abortion.
Intrauterine devices came close to providing a solution, but
unfortunately had serious side effects and were not completely
effective. Much more work needs to be done to find more
effective contraceptives and to reduce the need for abortions.
It is clear that the controversy will not be resolved by
ignoring those with opposing views. The abortion issue is
extremely complex. It involves morals, emotions, civil rights,
medical considerations, and our basic attitudes toward life. It is
in the best interest of all sides to discuss the issue rather than
fight.
The American worker is one of our most under-utilized
resources. Traditional industrial organization makes a sharp
dichotomy between labor and management that is detrimental to
both. Labor and management have been traditional antagonists,
and the two forces have roughly balanced each other in the
recent past. However this arrangement is becoming outdated as
new developments put stresses on both sides. It is time to
restructure our industrial society to benefit both labor and
management.
One basic problem with the traditional labor versus
management system is that it separates the welfare of the workers
from that of the employers, ensuring conflict between the two
groups. These conflicts can harm both groups by reducing
productivity and profits. Workers have traditionally used strikes
to force employers to improve working conditions and wages.
These strikes have often been long and costly to both sides. This
tactic is becoming outdated as foreign labor, automation, and
high unemployment shifts the balance of power in favor of
employers, who can now afford to fire workers with impunity.
Workers need motivation to do their best. This motivation
comes from a sense of acceptance: being a uniquely valuable
member of a group. Most American companies discourage
acceptance by separating workers from management and by
trying to suppress individuality. Conformity is enforced by
threats, and valuable feedback from workers is ignored. Workers
have scant influence on policies and are unlikely to feel any
loyalty to the employer's interests. It is not surprising that many
workers do the minimum work necessary under these conditions.
Most workers are not inherently lazy and sloppy; the source of
the problem is mismanagement.
Managers have their own problems such as increasing foreign
and domestic competition, poor work quality, and recurrent
recessions. One way to meet these challenges is to promote the
welfare of workers. Fair wages, decent and safe working
conditions, and a voice in policy are conducive to maximum
worker effort. Arrangements for substantial sharing in the profits
of the enterprise can improve morale and provide flexibility in
hard times. The huge disparity between the wealth of owners
versus workers has to be reduced before workers will identify
with company interests over their own immediate needs. For
example, workers would be unwilling to accept lower wages in a
recession when the company president's multimillion-dollar
income is untouched.
Automation, which has been called the second industrial
revolution, is likely to produce major changes in society. We are
faced with a situation in which owners can maintain production
with very few workers. While this may seem to be a boon to
owners, the resulting unemployment will become a problem for
everyone. Unemployed workers are not an asset to anyone, and
industrial output is worthless if people cannot afford to buy it.
One approach to automation is to oppose it in order to keep
people employed. Another is to use it to free people from the
drudgery of industrial production and allow them to engage in
more meaningful activity. Drastic social changes will be needed
in order to use automation to benefit all people. Working as a
means of survival will have to be phased out as machines take
the place of many workers. We will need to re-evaluate our basic
concept of work for wages. Society will have to be modified to
distribute the abundance produced by machines to all people as a
natural right rather than as a reward for work. Society will have
to face the difficult task of providing alternative activity for
many people who no longer have to work, and education will
have to play an important part in filling the void.
There is presently a great deal of attention in American
business on power and profits. The interests of workers and the
public are ignored in the rush to produce short-term gains
through maneuvers such as corporate takeovers. Intense
competition is producing cheap mediocrity instead of excellence.
These conditions are detrimental to everyone. Money and
resources have no intrinsic value; they have meaning only in the
context of other people. The entire material assets of the U.S.
would not be very useful to one person in isolation. Attempts to
hoard resources and exploit people are doomed to eventual
failure. There are presently enough resources in the world to
provide everyone with abundance. The challenge is to use those
resources to benefit all people.
It is popular in some circles to proclaim the evils of colonial
powers and dictators and to side with revolutionary groups.
People with this perspective tend to overlook abuses of power by
revolutionaries. Almost every successful revolution is marred by
excesses. Examples are the bloody aftermath of the French
Revolution, the Stalinist sequel to the Bolshevik Revolution,
and the anti-intellectual purges of China's Great Cultural
Revolution. These flaws cannot be excused by arguing that the
revolutions produced beneficial changes that were needed.
These problems are not coincidental; they can be expected
because revolutions produce change by force. When the
opposition to the force is overcome, there are no balancing
forces to prevent abuses of power.
Military victory is only part of a revolution. What follows is
the difficult task of building a new order from the ashes of the
old. There is physical and economic chaos, and the remnant
opposition is a constant threat. The victors will be tempted to
continue using force to protect their hard-won victory.
Therefore, we often see martial law, censorship, and political
imprisonment in revolutionary regimes.
Some may argue that revolutions are necessary evils to
produce changes; you can't make an omelet without bashing a
few eggs. But there are a few historical exceptions to violent
revolutions. One is M. Gandhi's successful non-violent
campaign to end British colonialism in India. Another is the
movement led by M. L. King to end racial segregation. Both of
these efforts produced profound changes without resort to
violence by the proponents.
Revolutions are no longer isolated conflicts; most of them are
now fought on an international stage. Arms and aid are often
provided by major powers with hopes of benefiting from the
outcome. So what seems a simple solution to oppression usually
turns into a protracted and costly struggle.
One advantage of non-violent change is that there is less
threat to the ruling class than with revolutions. Changes in
behavior are demanded rather than the destruction of people in
power. The ruling class, including those sympathetic to change,
is unlikely to consider compromise and negotiation when their
lives are threatened. Violent action usually produces
entrenchment of policy; retreat is unlikely. Backing an
opponent into a corner and then demanding change is likely to
produce defiance rather than cooperation. Change can be made
more palatable when proponents consider the interests of both
sides in a conflict.
The Unknown Soldier
You press the trigger
the man disappears.
One less enemy soldier_
so far away that you
never saw his face
never knew who he was.
Did he like chocolate ice cream?
Was he married?
Maybe he enjoyed playing the saxophone
and was an expert restorer of old clocks.
What made him laugh?
Who were his friends?
Could you have been his friend?
Do you care that you have killed
someone you didn't know?
Takashi Yogi
There are no winners in any war. The mutual suicide of
nuclear war is only the ultimate example of the futility of war;
even conventional war has only losers. One side may seem to be
a winner because the other side surrenders. One side may be
declared the victor even when it suffers staggering losses, as in
the victory of King Pyrrhus over the Romans or the Russian loss
of 6 million lives in WW II. The concept of winning a war
assumes that the interests of both sides are separate, but this is
artificial. We live in a world where gains and losses are shared
internationally. A depression in one country affects the entire
world. Art, literature, science, inventions, natural resources, and
people are international assets. When we consider the
contribution of one German, J. S. Bach, to the world of music,
we can begin to imagine how much the world has lost in the
millions of German dead. We also have to list the material
losses, the paintings, cathedrals, and manuscripts that were
destroyed.
The greatest loss to the "winning" side is the victory itself.
It reinforces the use of war as an acceptable way of resolving
disputes and thereby perpetuates war. Victory justifies all the
mis-perceptions that are necessary to fight a war: that one side
is right and the other wrong, that the enemy is inhuman, that
there is no alternative to war.
War numbs our sensitivity to other people by separating us
from others emotionally and physically. This separation has
increased with the development of weapons. Armed with a
sword, a man had to face his enemy in order to kill him. The
distance between combatants has increased with the invention of
the bow, gun, airplane, and intercontinental missile. It is now
much easier to ignore the humanity of the enemy when millions
of them are represented by mere dots on a computer display. We
kill another person, ignoring the person's humanity and
uniqueness, and thereby devalue our own humanity and
uniqueness. It is remotely possible to reproduce a great painting
or reconstruct a bombed cathedral, but a person appears only
once and is gone forever.
Wars are perpetuated by a stubborn faith in the concepts of
right and wrong. This blinds us to the equally fervent beliefs of
the opposing side. Armies never march under the banner of evil
or aggression; God, homeland, justice, and honor are usually
invoked. Once the first shot is fired, every soldier is convinced
that the enemy is wrong. The issue of right and wrong is
meaningless in a war. An example is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, which has become a series of retaliations. The list of
atrocities is so long that it is meaningless to ask which side
struck first or which side is more justified in its actions.
Another example of perpetual conflict is the war between the
British and the Irish Republican Army. These conflicts and
many others like them will never be resolved by arguments over
which side is right. The only hope is for both sides to realize
that fighting benefits neither side.
There is a disturbing symmetry in both sides of the Cold War.
Each side has ample weapons to obliterate the other side, and
any increases are quickly matched. Each side is distrustful of
the other side and sees the other side as being the obstacle to
peace. Each side has a list of aggressions committed by the
other side that prove that the other side is intent on domination
and can't be trusted. The result is a precarious stalemate.
War is a logical extension of our use of force to solve
problems. We use force to make children eat their vegetables, to
keep students from smoking marijuana, to keep rapists off the
streets, to keep other nations from infringing on our foreign
resources. Force is often used as a substitute for analysis,
persuasion, negotiation, and incentives. I am not condemning
the use of force as "bad"; I am pointing out our exclusive
reliance on force to make others do what they don't want to do.
The use of force is so common and accepted that alternatives are
usually overlooked.
Force is so tempting in its direct effectiveness that we ignore
the consequences to both parties. We get immediate compliance
from a child by saying, "Go to bed or I will spank you." We also
got immediate obedience from Stalin in 1946 when we said,
"Stay out of Iran or we will use the A-bomb." The child may
store resentment until retaliation is possible as a teen-ager.
Stalin retaliated in 1949 by getting his own bomb.
War is seen as necessary when diplomacy fails. In examining
this assumption, we need to ask why we would consider war
against some countries and not others. War with Japan or
Germany, our recent enemies, now seems extremely unlikely.
Even serious disagreements in trade policy will not result in war
with these countries. Yet we continue a Cold War against the
USSR, a former ally. The difference lies in our mutual fear of
domination and not in shortcomings of diplomacy. This fear
prompts a continuing arms race and conflicts in Third World
countries such as Viet Nam and Afghanistan.
Some people may oppose wars of aggression but argue the
necessity of defending against attack. This distinction is mostly
conceptual. In practice, the requirements and actions are nearly
the same. Heavy militarization is needed for defense, and
provocations can readily be found to justify defensive retaliation.
In an age of "pre-emptive strikes" and "launch on warning" of
missiles, it is pointless to ask whether the missiles were
defensive or offensive and which side fired first.
Much attention has been directed toward the problem of
nuclear war. Nuclear weapons bring new urgency to the problem
of war because of the threat of mutual annihilation. The
seriousness of this threat cannot be overstated, but the weapons
are only the results of attitudes that would remain even if all
nuclear weapons were destroyed. The present wars over
US/USSR domination in Third World countries would
continue. The prospect of fighting a non-nuclear World War III
is a dismal alternative to nuclear holocaust. Focusing on the
nuclear weapons is not sufficient, and disarmament is highly
unlikely as long as mutual fear and reliance on force remain.
Wars are comparable to childish squabbles. One child
snatches a toy and is hit in retaliation. Then the fighting
escalates until an adult intervenes. In international conflicts
there are no interveners; we need to resolve our conflicts without
resorting to fighting. War is primitive behavior that has acquired
respectability through centuries of use. It seems ironic that we
are using the most advanced technology to engage in
Neanderthal behavior. Unlike childish fist fights, our fights can
be vastly destructive. It's time to grow up.
Additional Comments 1997: Drastic changes in the Soviet Union
occurred after this chapter was written. Many people in the US
saw this as a victory of capitalism over communism. So the war
mentality continues. We came very close to annihilating the
world and wasted enormous resources on a conflict that had no
substance. The end of the Cold War has not produced peace.
Our stockpile of nuclear weapons remains. We will find new
enemies such as China, Iraq, and Cuba. We have made small
progress toward peace; our basic attitudes toward conflict remain
unchanged.
What can a country do if it is attacked? Is war the only
option? Many will admit the senseless waste of war but argue
that there is no choice but to fight back. Part of the answer to
this quandary is that there are many ways to prevent an attack.
One is to avoid being a threat. Military power and defenses are
open invitations to attack. Formidable defenses such as the
French Maginot Line are tempting challenges.
Another way to prevent attack is to adopt a more integrated
world view. Attempts to exploit a country eventually fail and
often lead to war. The harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty
planted the seeds of discontent that allowed Hitler to rise to
power. We need to promote more interdependence and
cooperation among nations rather than competition. A free flow
of commerce, culture, visitors, and ideas can reduce the narrow
nationalism that tends toward war.
A country without military defenses can still resist
domination by an aggressor. The concept of civilian-based
defense has been developed by Gene Sharp.* He cites several
cases where unarmed citizens succeeded in using non-
cooperation to resist foreign domination. This is not the same as
guerrilla warfare or partisan activity, which are underground
forms of war and usually produce increased repression and
reprisals. Non-violent resistance poses risks, but the mass
casualties and physical destruction of military defense can be
largely avoided since there is no need to bomb an unarmed
country. This lack of military resistance does not mean victory
for an aggressor. The will of people is stronger than any
physical force; people determined to be free will never be
enslaved.
The path of non-violent action is not easy. Suffering and
even sacrifice of our lives may be required. The difference
between this price and that of military solutions is that we need
not compromise our principles or numb our sensitivity to people.
We can fully believe in our cause because the nobility of our
means matches that of our goals. The power of non-violence is
based on the humanity of people and not on the force of
weapons. It appeals to oppressors to join their subjects as
members of the family of humanity.
*Gene Sharp, Social Power and Political Freedom, Porter
Sargent Publisher
The Last Pelican
Gliding effortlessly
Majestic motion without movement
Wingtips almost touching the molten-jade sea
Climbing silently with slow, powerful strokes
Then the dive! Wings folded just before the splash.
It gazed at me with sage face.
Wisdom distilled from eons of survival.
"Remember well what you have just seen;
it will never be seen again.
For I am the last--
you have destroyed all the others.
Learn from our dying that all life is one--
we live or die together."
The pelican unfurled its wings and flew out
to merge with
the timeless sea.
Takashi Yogi There are no easy solutions to the problem of conflict. Quick
and simple solutions only aggravate the problem. It is time to
give up our use of force without understanding, time to find
more effective and lasting methods. Permanent solutions can be
found only by changing our attitudes toward ourselves and
others. The problem is not "bad" people, groups, and
governments, but our attitude, which sees them as the problem
and seeks to suppress or eliminate them.
We do not have to wait for society and the world to change in
order to achieve peace for ourselves. We can find inner peace
immediately by accepting ourselves and others as part of an
integrated world. This change in attitude will affect how we
perceive the world's conflicts and how we deal with them. This
will be the beginning of the slow process of healing the wounds
of conflict. The healing will start with the individual and spread
to family, friends, society, and nations.
Part of my optimism for the viability of this attitude of
acceptance is based on a faith in the basic humanity of all
people. This humanity dies hard. It glimmers faintly even in
hardened criminals, mass murderers, and torturers, waiting for
acceptance. If my faith is unrealistic-- if people can become
completely unfeeling robots-- then we would do best to resign
ourselves to protecting ourselves from them with more locks,
police, guns, bombs, and missiles. But we have already
exhausted history trying this approach and have only increased
our insecurity. It's time to try something else. Where did I get all this? I'm not really sure. I gave up trying
to separate my thoughts from those of others; they are hopelessly
intertwined. The notion of an original thought is a fiction. We
harvest on ancient soil cultivated by our countless predecessors.
I owe perpetual debts to numerous authors, such as Dosteyevsky,
Thoreau, Hugo, Steinbeck, Saroyan, and LeGuin; playwrights,
such as Shakespeare and MacLeish; movies such as Kurosawa's
Red Beard and Schlesinger's Midnight Cowboy; and
songwriters, such as Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, and Leonard
Cohen.
I will admit that I did not research the field to see if these
thoughts have been published; I will know eventually. I stole the
core of my thesis, unconditional acceptance, from Christianity.
It is a gem buried under a vast overgrowth of dogma, and most
Christians would not recognize it. I welcome them to reclaim it.
Other concepts, such as oneness and non-discrimination, came
from Zen Buddhism.
But what about love? Some may have noticed the absence of
this word. I avoided using the word because it has a wide range
of meanings for various readers. Many times I feel a sense of
warm connection to other people that I'm inclined to label as
love. But this feeling is personal and difficult to transmit
through language. I think I have described what love is without
using the word itself. Unconditional acceptance transcends mere
attraction and pleasant feelings. It allows us to feel a connection
with people who are outwardly repulsive and hateful. It allows
us to overcome all the barriers that keep us apart.
What I have described is a design for relations in an imperfect
world. The principles of the design apply equally to individuals
or nations. Acceptance provides continuity to carry us through
lapses of enlightened behavior in ourselves or others. The
design is flexible enough to accommodate differences in values.
I have tested the design in my own life and have found that it
works. It not only resolves conflict, but also prevents many
conflicts. It worked where other approaches failed. I remain
imperfect, but my life is no longer preoccupied with conflict.
My hope is that others will continue the refinement and
application of these ideas. I welcome your criticism and
comments. The basic ideas are simple, but the implications are
manifold, and there is much work to be done in translating the
ideas into practical action. There are no quick and simple
answers to the problem of conflict, but we can begin to lay the
foundation for peace between individuals and nations.
I wish to thank Marybeth Webster, Herbert Moore, Harriet
Jacoff, Lea Wood, and my wife Carol for their valuable criticism
and support.
Takashi Yogi
4481 Slodusty Rd
Garden Valley, CA 95633
About the author:
I was born in Okinawa in 1942 and narrowly survived the
horrendous final battle of World War II that cost the lives of
over 190,000 people. After the war my family emigrated to
Hawaii. I studied physics and worked as an electronics engineer
in California. When life in Los Angeles became oppressive, I
went to live for a year in a small cabin without electricity and
plumbing. Another year was spent studying music while living
on about $15 a month.
I had been struggling for over seven years to save a marriage
that seemed hopeless. During a marital fight, I was hit by some
tangerines, which shocked me into realizing that I could choose
not to retaliate and that I could return love instead of hate. That
was the start of this book, which is the product of six more
years of search for a workable solution to conflict. Marital
counseling helped somewhat, but I kept failing in spite of trying
very hard to do the right things. During my search, I noticed that
international disputes were similar to my personal turmoil, and I
widened the scope of my quest. The result in not truth; all I can
claim is that it works for me. I hope it is useful to you as you
find your own path.
Home Page: http://tyogi.org/