Plurality always existed as did difference of opinions. But, so did each sect, sub-sect, and sub-sub-sect’s
\nneed for individuality.<\/p>\n
Is it a surprise then, that there has never been a world without conflict? It goes with the theory of evolution too, right? Every group of humans fighting a fight only because they want to survive?<\/p>\n
So, looks like there will always be war to be seen as the fittest. By definition then, are compassion, taking care of the “weaker” ones, etc relatively newer concepts that have to fight a long battle of survival?<\/p>\n
Does this apply to non-war situations too? Can war then, be thought of as an extension of a conflict between two people?<\/p>\n
\nWho knows \u00af\\_(?)_\/\u00af, right? Till then I guess we have to make peace whenever we can, and make peace with whatever we can’t.<\/p>\n
~ ~ ~<\/p>\n
This is a thought I tried to articulate in response to a discussion on the StoryBench<\/a> group about “Confilct”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plurality always existed as did difference of opinions. But, so did each sect, sub-sect, and sub-sub-sect’s need for individuality. Is it a surprise then, that there has never been a world without conflict? It goes with the theory of evolution too, right? Every group of humans fighting a fight only because they want to survive?…<\/p>\n