My Summarized Thoughts on Topics from the First Quarter Introduction C.S.

Lewis once said, There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. In my estimation, one could easily replace the word devils with conflict or wars. After having tuned into the mental airwaves of our nations people over the past few months, I cant help but ask if, as a nation, we do not too often fall into one or the other of these errors about conflict or wars. On one side there are those individuals who endeavor to remain naive to the realities of conflict and wars. They choose to ignore the harsh facts, such as reports of bombings that kill dozens, injure hundreds, even in places not plagued by terrorist activities. The reasons for this vary. Some are simply prone to apathy; if something does not affect these individuals directly, they do not pay that something much mind. Others are simply focused on a particular mindset or goal, such as idealists who believe that if the global economy was stable or everyone believed in one god, that there would be no conflict or wars. On the other side there are those individuals who know all too well the realities of conflict and wars. They go so far as to believe whole heartedly that the harsh facts are a way of life, that conflict and wars will always exist because such things are ingrained in mankinds nature. The reasons for this vary. Some are prone to apathy just as those above; these individuals do not feel compelled to examine the source of conflict or wars in each specific case and instead generalize the realities, more often than not as something that exists elsewhere, in those other countries. Others have only ever known conflict in their personal lives and/or have been desensitized and trained to think them natural. Which of these two options is closer to the truth? I personally believe the truth about conflict and wars, like most truths, lays somewhere in between these two extremes. We cannot be apathetic by any manner about the realities of conflict and wars; we cannot ignore their existence or believe that certain conditions could make them nonexistent, but we also cannot make the assumption that they are merely human nature and that they will always exist. Idealists have to ask themselves why there continues to be conflict (which leads to wars), amongst likeminded people; and, realists have to ask why and how they are able to personally avoid conflict (and wars), if it is so ingrained in mankind. Conflict

It is my personal believe that conflict (the essence of wars) can be boiled down to differences. Mankind finds itself in conflict with one another when and where there are differences in feeling, thought, deed, etc. Things are different when they are unlike each other in one or more ways. Things are only ever different one from another where there exists immutability, or aspects of something that are unchangeable, and where there is separation. Think about a chair and a wall. We know a chair from a wall because they are two distinct and separate objects one from the other. What if there was a wall that had a flap that came down for people to sit on? Is it a chair or a wall? More than likely, we would give it a new name, maybe something like a chall so that we can feed our habit to define, categorize and distinguish it from everything else. Conflict comes into existence, when the chair does not want to meld with the wall and vice versa. They demand to remain immutable and separate one from the other. It is not the differences between a chair and a wall that brings about conflict, it is their desires to remain immutable and separate that brings about the conflict. Differences will always exist, that much is a fact, but conflict and wars do not always have to exist. Just ask any couple that has been married for over ten years and intend to remain so. They will invariably say, Conflict (differences) will always exist, it is how you deal with the conflict (differences) that makes marriages last. They will likely go on, saying something to the effect of: sometimes you just have to turn a blind eye, choose your battles, be flexible, realize that you are not always right, etc. So the key to conflict is wanting immutability and separation in the face of differences. Who or what, other than people, can desire these things? Obviously, the natural world around us exhibits these traits far less than we. Animals will at times, such as during territorial or mate disputes. They are not willing to change in the moment and remain separate and therefore come into conflict with each other. You will not ever see trees come into conflict with some other object. They simple adapt. Roots, for instance, just find ways around concrete, like growing over it. What makes animals and people different from trees? More than anything, I would say it is a sense of self. Sense of Self, The Fact that it is a Myth, and How Alike We Truly are What is self? Self is nothing more than a way of defining and categorizing the world around us, just as we define and categorize chairs and walls. We determine that we are different, distinct and separate from all the other selves around us. Trees do not, as far as we can tell, possess a sense of self. They do not perceive the distinctions and separations between itself and everything around it and therefore never exist as self-aware beings. Because they do not exist as self-aware beings, they will never choose to be immutable or demand to remain separate. Cultures, in my opinion are a sense of self on a grand scale. Culture is the sense of identity that an entire group of people or society holds to, and that helps them

define and categorize themselves from other groups and societies. Culture is based off of ethnicity and traditions. You can even see a sense of culture in the animal world, such as in flocks of birds. Birds identify with birds of a similar appearance and to some extent know that their actions are more likely to be the same because they have the same genetic makeup. So a sense of self exists inwardly and outwardly in the self-aware world. I am interested to see what stance the curriculum takes in the Culture and Identity in an Age of Globalization class coming up. I am interested to see what new insights it can provide. As of now, I see self and culture to be the biggest cause of conflict because they require immutability and separation. People and societies are very protective of that territory. More regarding this protectionism will come later. Before I jump right into my personal view regarding self, I must say that I understand the importance of self. I do not think that it can just be completely disregarded when dealing with others. I believe that inwardly it could be completely disregarded with effective results when the individual truly understands the end state. But when dealing with others, especially when there is conflict involved, the selfdeprived individual cannot demand that the other be the same. It is akin to dismissing the diagnoses of a hypochondriac. Whether they are accurate or not, they need to be treated, with care, to some extent, otherwise the hypochondriac is going to continue feeling as though they still have the condition. When dealing with others where there is conflict, you must consider their inward and outward identity, no matter how much of a myth it is to you. The fact of the matter is, in my personal opinion, self, inward or outward, is, indeed, a myth. I hold this to be true for various reasons, some having to do with Zen Buddhism, some having to do with readings on the cosmos in books by Stephen Hawkins and the like. I believe that we are all one, essentially, or were at one point, hence an expanding universe. I will only go into my personal philosophical/religious beliefs that far so as not to alienate some of you. Instead, Ill explain my point in an somewhat empirical way - the point being that self is a myth, or virtually a myth. Think about chromosomes. We know that there are 22 of them plus X and Y for gender. We also know that chromosomal configurations are the primary factor in making us who we are. Scientists have pinpointed the chromosomal configuration that leads to down-syndrome, for instance. Because there are a finite number of chromosomes, there can only be a finite number of gene sequences. Granted that number is extremely high, but the point is that, based on the finiteness of the number, we are not like snowflakes, each distinct and separate one from the other. My particular chromosomal configuration may just be a condition that has yet to be identified. There are very likely dudes in the world, past, present, or future, with my exact gene

sequence. You might call the condition being Damian if it werent for variances in our names. It is our social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc. that takes what little differences truly exist between all of us - not just those with similar gene sequences - and exponentially increases them, making them more distinct and separate. But even these factors, social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc., like chromosomal configurations, are given more credence than they deserve. For instance, our circumstances, experiences, and/or desires in life can at any moment be completely disregarded; we can go entirely 180 in feeling, thought, deed, etc. at will. People fall into and out of religions, alcoholism, marriages, now even genders, every day, despite assurances to remain committed, our pasts owing to the sentiments at the time. More important, we refuse to see that these factors, social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc., all extend from one aspect of life. Because of this fact, can they really be all that different? Yes, a life of poverty is vastly different from a life of wealth in terms of day-to-day details, but what is the driving force, what is the undercurrent? The poor person and the wealthy person are in pursuit of some kind of need. There is a need that they are aiming to satisfy. The wealthy person is, apparently, more capable at meeting that need. When you boil off all the fat that is social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc. you end up with the core of our existences, why we do everything we do, to meet some need. Human Needs, a New Needs Paradigm

Maslow and Max-Neef are two prominent psychologists who attempted, both in their own ways, to summarize human needs. The major differences between the two are that Maslow postulated that human needs exist in a hierarchy on a sort of triangle. Refer to the image below and to the left. Max-Neef on the other hand believed that human needs are all present at once and in constant flux, there is no hierarchy. Refer to the image below and to the right. Between the two there were a few needs added or subtracted as well. I have endeavored to combine the work of the two men and propose a new way to look at human needs. A visual representation of my new needs paradigm is below. The visual in and of itself will not make sense without some narrative to accompany it. As such, I have also attached three documents titled Niolets Needs Paradigm, The Human Response Grid, and The Early Modern Person Thought Experiment, which will explain each component of the chart you see below as well as some other concepts important to an understanding of this summary. If you desire to continue reading this summary and better understand that which is to follow, you should read those documents, despite their length. Some of you, have postulated, that there is a vast majority of people out there who just want to make certain they can satisfy their and their familys needs, especially the basic physical needs. This same majority would likely choose whichever option in life best satisfies or assists in satisfying those needs. I belief you are correct. It was not directly articulated in class, but I would suggest that the center of gravity for any and all conflicts will always be satisfying needs. Success in conflict and war will always go to

that nation that is able to better meet the needs of the people or take away the ability for the other nation to meet the needs of the people. However, this can only be true in cases where there is a vast majority of people who are moderate.

Zooming in, being specific to our discussions in class, the fact is, not everyones primary needs are the same. Basic physical needs tend to be a common denominator, but there are those individuals who would put their aesthetic needs before their physical needs, making themselves less than moderate. These extremists are doing nothing

more than attempting to meet some need within them, which is very likely in all of us, but which these extremists have deemed of utmost importance. We cannot hope to reach these individuals. One, because we would not be able to meet the need they have determined to be so paramount, and two, because they have made it clear that they will remain immutable and separate from the moderates and, more importantly, us. Habitual Human Responses and the Societies We Create Zooming out, looking at this from a broader perspective, the fact is, in my opinion, in most cases, our human needs are so easily met, especially our basic physical needs, that we have far too much extra time on our hands and more often than not choose how we use that time inappropriately. My wife once said, Philosophers and bodybuilders are just people with too much time on their hands. I would have to agree. So much of what we do in life is actually quite useless, especially when one takes into account the dire straits that others find themselves in, sometimes of no choice of their own. I did not say that in order to suggest that any of us are selfish and/or soulless, though we may be, I said that to point out that just as extremists make use of their free time poorly, so do we.

Extremist or American, either one is going to try to make certain that they can continue to have free time that they can use poorly. They want to make certain they can go on philosophizing endlessly or watching Harry Potter endlessly. In order to do so, in order to maintain their free time, they will have to take measures to protect the ways and means by which their needs are so easily met. This is where protectionist response needs come into play. It is not simply free time that is being protected, but anything that has to do with our needs. People need to feel like they are taking action or moving towards a goal. First and foremost, that goal is likely going to have something to do with security, or protecting their needs-satisfying ways and means. How they can go about this is either in a negative or positive manner. Whether the responses will turn out negative or positive is dependent on where the person is mentally, emotional, physiologically, etc. on the Human Response Grid. If you have seen the chart, you know that it is your basic x, y axis with fear on the left of x, fearlessness on the right of x, hubris at the top of y, and humbleness at the bottom of y. It is my belief that all human responses can be traced back to one or a combination of these basic responses. Because they reside on an axis, it is possible that they could make pairs, but the diagonals are polar opposites and could never make pairs. As described on the Niolets Needs Paradigm document, negative protectionist responses are fear and/or hubris based, while positive protectionist responses are fearlessness and/or humbleness based. Just as we make inappropriate use of our free time, we make inappropriate use of our protectionist response needs. Instead of seeking positive protectionist responses, which are in line with fearlessness and/or humbleness, we more often choose negative protectionist responses, which are in line with fear and/or hubris. The foundations of so many of our societies, as such, are fear and/or hubris themselves. While we could stand as a society for a good long time with foundations such as these, in the long run, all we are doing is fighting fire with fire and creating bigger fires. I say this because, as I see it, for so many years now, we have built societies with the aim of dividing the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys being those individuals, within or without the society, who go about meeting their personal needs in ways that disrupt anyone elses ability to meet their personal needs. We become so fearful of our needs not being met that we enact stronger protectionist responses, again based on fear and/or hubris, such as stricter laws, harsher punishments, different forms of government or economies, different philosophies, cultures, bigger walls, stronger militaries, etc. All the while, we forget what the true purpose for building societies is - to make it easier for everyone to go about meeting their needs, not just an elite group. Instead of acting out of fear and/or hubris and enacting negative protectionist responses, such as building barriers to keep the bad guys out, we should have long ago

made it our habit to find out where society has failed these individuals. Instead of using our free time, after having met our personal needs, to pursue superfluous self-interests, we should have made it our habit long ago to help others, who may be having trouble, meet their personal needs. Societies are no longer serving their purpose if even just one individual is left behind, their needs neglected. Societies are, in fact, acting as a hindrance when, in response to neglected individuals meeting their needs in ways that circumvent society, negative protectionist responses, such as stricter laws, are put in place. Such negative protectionist responses only serve to further immutability and separation between the good guys and the bad guys. It has become our habit to choose negative protectionist responses. Why, is simply because we are creatures with very strong memory capabilities. Most of our actions as people lay in the weakened and or deployable quadrants of the human response chart because we remember all too well how we were hurt at some point in the past and carry that fear and/or hubris through the rest of our lives. We remember how the ways and means that allowed us to easily meet our needs were taken away from us and we erect barriers to better protect the ways and means the next time around. Societies as a whole do this just as often because societies are made up of people. If people were to learn how to let go of hurt, partly by letting go of self, it could just as easily become our habit to choose the opposite, positive protectionist responses. Think about water. Water is another natural object in nature with no self-awareness. If you throw a stone at it, does it hurt the water? No, the stone, and the force behind it, is more or less absorbed by the water and the water completely molds itself around it as if nothing happened. Obviously, if you throw a stone at a person, physically it is impossible to ignore the pain and mold yourself around it, absorbing the blow, but mentally and psychologically, this is not impossible. This brings us back to idealists versus realists. Idealists would say that people can change, and become positive protectionists, never looking back, under the right circumstances; realists would say that people are evil to their core and only know negative protectionism. Again, who is right?

Better Human Responses and the Better Society We Could Create (Here is Where I Rant and Rave a Little, Just to Warn You) I would postulate that the state of mankind rests in between the attitudes of idealists and realists, that mankind in any given moment is able to choose positive or negative protectionist responses equally. I would further speculate that when a

man/woman is able to shed self, and all of the social circumstances, life experiences, and personal desires that come with self, he/she is in a better position to choose positive protectionist responses over negative, because self, in and of itself, is a negative protectionist response. If shedding self were to become a habit, positive protectionist responses, wherein people seek first to help others meet their personal needs before all else, would become a habit as well. The potential to backslide will always exist though. I believe that if we made it our habit to choose positive protectionist responses and stuck to it long enough, societies would build themselves. Rather than turn away from the purpose for building societies, in order to build a society, we should focus on the purpose. We are so concerned with what form our governments and economies should take, what philosophies/religions are right, what strategy to employ, etc. when the answer to all of these questions is, which one best meets peoples needs? Yes, as I have said above, everyones primary needs are different, everyone is bound by a sense of self - immutable and separate, and everyone is prone to negative protectionist responses, so this answer obviously breaks down. How we go about educating people on ways to disregard self, moderate their needs, and choose positive protectionist responses is the real question. In our own country, it may never be possible to see a large scale education campaign or movement, though notable examples have arisen in the past that were not unlike the suggestions above, such as the free love and civil rights movements. At this point, however, I believe that self is too ingrained in our society, parenting, and valuation standards to be surgically removed successfully, to where the country could survive. It would require a complete rebirth, which I do not think the country is up for, at least not anytime soon. Capitalism, to get on a soapbox, is one of the biggest factors hindering one of the most important steps in my proposed solution - shedding self. Capitalism is all about self and the U.S. is all about Capitalism. The essence of Capitalism is the idea that, as long as the well-off, having power, brains, or money (or all of those), continues to pursue self-serving business interests, then numerous people will benefit. The desire to help others is built into Capitalism; people need not have a desire to help others personally; they just need to have a desire to help themselves. Our Capitalist economy has created a corporatist culture. I cannot take direct credit for this concept. Douglas Rushkoff said it quite well in his book Life Inc, though I have had the sentiment myself for some time. A corporatist culture is one wherein people look at everything around them in terms of a monetary value. One might look at their neighbors lawn for instance and instantly think of how it is bringing down the market value of the neighborhood. This mentality carries over into our relationships. In

the same example, that same person might shun the neighbors, never taking the time to get to know them because of how their lawn is bringing down the neighborhoods market value. The last thing I will say in regards to the woes of Capitalism concerns marketing and advertising. You want to talk about brainwashing or indoctrination, just turn on the television, pick up a magazine, or even drive to the middle of nowhere in this country, and you will be bombarded with subliminal messages telling you what you do and do not need and of course how you can get it. The underlying message is Capitalism is good, just keep buying things. Economists groan when it is projected that consumer spending is down. In an economic system that is based on consumers spending money they do not have, even when they are nearly all swimming in debt, why is lower consumer spending a bad thing? I am sure to get a lot of flak for suggesting we do away with capitalism and that is fine. Lay it on me. You might could guess what my preferred economic system would be, but you would probably be wrong. Some of the principles of my preferred economic system are Socialist, but I am for something much bigger than Socialism. For instance, there would be no money in my preferred economic system, at least not money in a form that could be hoarded because I truly believe money is the root of all evil. Doing away with money alone would not cease hoarding, but it would greatly reduce it. In place of money there would be a vast database. What is money essentially for? A standard method by which to measure goods and services between unlike goods and services during trading. If all we need is a standard measurement, then why could we not simple create a computer system with standardized value measurement software whereby we calculate the value of the goods and services on the market? If someone wishes to obtain a good or service from another individual, they work out how best to trade equitably. If there is nothing that the other individual desires, then the first individual could bring in another who does have a good or service that is desired. Any remaining credits or debits only reside between the parties involved. So long as people were in the habit of choosing positive protectionist responses, there would be less concern for imbalances. There are major benefits that arise from this economic system. Less goods need be produce, which would very likely help with establishing a sustainable environment, since goods or services need only be rendered when requested. Your worth is not measured by how much money you have hoarded over the years; instead, your worth is measured by what you can contribute to society, your knowledge, skills, etc. The business interactions with others is more personal. You would likely not look at your neighbors yard and bemoan how the neighborhoods market value was declining. Again, Douglas Rushkoff does a much better job of explaining how a system such as

this could work and what benefits would follow in Life Inc. If you are curious about the finer details, look there. While many of you are likely to disagree with me on my views on the economy, I do not think you will disagree with this. I also believe that the loss of civics as a part of school curriculum has also played into an overly abundant sense of self in this country. At one point in strategy class, there was a discussion about how in todays society, people could not be asked to partake in unrestricted warfare even for the sake of their nation. Doing so would infringe upon freedoms too much. It was proposed that there was a time, in the 40s and 50s, when this could have been possible, owing to a greater feeling of national pride during those years. Another person countered saying that there is still plenty of national pride in the U.S. So, the conversation shifted. What I think was really being spoken of was not national pride, but civic duty. Civic duty is the mindset that society will give to you freely so long as you do the same in return, especially when called upon. There was a time, the height of which may have been the 40s and 50s, when civic duty was common. The change, I would suggest came when civics was taken out of classrooms. Civics as a subject was not purely government 101, there was a certain amount of indoctrination going on as well. I have my grandfathers civic textbook from 1936 to prove it. Something had to be put in the place of the idea of civic duty, however, otherwise there would have been a feeling of loss. It was around this same time that more and more resounding rhetoric about personal freedoms was being championed. Today, civic duty as been replaced with personal freedoms. The difference is in the mindset, society will give you personal freedoms and you do not have to give anything in return, except maybe taxes. Personal freedoms are a diversion. Our society is telling us we can do whatever we want, and what we really want is to buy stuff. To articulate the difference between civic duties and personal freedoms more clearly, civic duties entail that society gives us liberties, whereas personal freedoms entails that society recognizes our innate absolute right to freedom of all kinds. Liberties has limits, absolute freedoms do not. Which is truly more innate? I would think that liberties are more innate. We can never have true absolute freedom. Every single action carries with it certain consequences. Even if we were living in solitude in the woods, we have to act within limits otherwise we might burn down a forest, invite critters to ransack our tents, or the like. In societies, everything we do has the potential to affect someone else. The moment we create societies, we incur limits to our freedoms. Therefore, we need to stop all this hollow rhetoric about how much freedom we have in this country because even in this country there are limits to our freedoms. Instead we should be real and emphasize that what we do have are liberties and that

society will from time to time demand you give back to society in ways other than taxes. We should bring back the idea of civic duty. Why was civics taken out of schools curriculum? I would hate to beat up on Capitalism some more, but . . . civics as a subject in schools simply was not conducive to a Capitalist economy. Civics taught discipline, responsibility, and accountability; these ideals keep emotions in check. Capitalism feeds off of emotional impulses. In order to breed generations of consumers, it became necessary to dispense of discipline, responsibility, and accountability. Unfortunately, this meant dispensing of the idea of civic duty as well. There is much less concern for those around you. If there is concern for society it is in terms of technicalities, or the sterile details of the societys government, economy, infrastructure, etc. The concern lacks any sort of bedside manner. Do not get me wrong; I am not one of those people that say that the days of Leave it to Beaver were so much better, that times were simpler then, that you could leave the front door open, and blah, blah, blah. People that believe this apparently never even watched Leave it to Beaver because if they had, they would have seen that that show actually dealt with some pretty hefty subjects, such as alcoholism, divorce, and abuse. The truth is that nothing, in the way of how people behave, has changed since that time. It is not that there was less crime during the 50s, it was just less reported. If anything, how we behave has gotten better. We have learned what not to do from our predecessors. It was not uncommon during the 50s for a man to come home and instantly raid the wet bar of its hard liquor. It was not uncommon for there to be spousal abuse of some kind. It was not uncommon for there to be racial injustices. Most movies and TV shows just would not talk about these infractions, and as such, what happened in our entertainment media became to be believed to be the norm. But that cannot be true. There would not have been such a struggle to empower women or erase racial injustice if it were. The norm was quite the opposite. We have learned that equality for all races and women is a better standard. Now, it is more common for men to be involved in raising children, so raiding the liquor cabinet is less likely. Women are treated as equals to men, so spousal abuse has very likely reduced. And, of course, racial inequality has been greatly leveled out. We elected an African American President after all. But, in my personal opinion, we are far from well-adjusted and from securing a bright future for ourselves, as individuals or as a nation. Idealist Thought vs. Realist Thought In Terms of National Security

The question also has to be asked, which of these two options (idealism or realism) has the potential to cause greater harm to a nations security, in the long-term? I can easily understand why a good number of people would choose the first option as being potentially more harmful; obviously, if a nation was to not take measures to protect itself, ignoring the realities of conflict and war, they would essentially be inviting invasion. However, I do not believe this option of the two has the potential to cause greater harm to a nations security. While I believe that either option has the potential to cause harm to a nations security, I believe the latter of the two options to be the worser of two evils. I think about it this way: I think of parents raising a child or children. If a parent desired to ensure that they were in constant conflict with their child, it would be an easy matter of yelling at the child, declaring without end how the child is innately bad, incapable of good, and then slap them around a bit. Not only will this guarantee that the child will one day lash back at the parent, but they are more than likely to inflict the same harsh treatment they have received on others, especially their own children. On the other hand, a parent who ignores bad behavior, as if it does not exist, and continues to reward the child is likely to be taken advantage of to a great deal. However, once that child becomes a parent themselves, the tables are likely to be turned. They are aware of how they took advantage of their parents and will ensure their child does not do the same to them. In other words, the cycle stops; whereas, above, the cycle does not stop. Heres another way to look at it: I know that only so many people have some sort of Christian background, but more than likely, all of you have heard at one time or another the phrase, turn the other check, which was said by Jesus. More often than not, the concept/meaning behind this phrase is taken to simply be ignore the offense. I have heard it to mean something quite different and I believe more accurate. It is believed by many Christian scholars that during Jesuss time-period public acts of aggression among Israelites were looked down upon, the perpetrator publicly rebuked. By turning the other cheek, Jesus was telling people to make a defiant statement of nonviolence, invite the aggressor to make themselves look that much more out-of-line. Had Jesus up and backhanded the offender, besides losing street cred for his message, he would have invited others to challenge him in the same way down the road. The mans brother may have taken offense to the response and come at him too. By turning the other cheek, Jesus was saying, Look, you, and anyone else, can beat the crap out of me, but you are going to hurt yourself just as much. You are going to look like a fool beating up on someone who is not going to fight back. This feeling does not only have to come from around the individual; the feeling would more than likely come from within as well. People are bound to ask themselves, Whats the matter with me? Why am I so angry? Why am I beating up on a defenseless person?

No matter how it is explained, the response leans towards a positive protectionist response. When one could 1) dispense of self, 2) moderate their needs, 3) live in the exemplary quadrant of the human response chart - immerse themselves in fearlessness and/or humbleness, one could make it a habit to choose positive protectionist responses. Conflict Avoidance and a Final Thought Essentially, positive protectionist responses are a form of conflict and war avoidance. The possibility that conflict and war could be avoided was rarely brought up during class; it was only during the last class of Conflict that a somewhat lengthy discussion focused on conflict avoidance through less kinetic means, at least from what I can remember. The curriculum as a whole, I have come to suspect, perhaps because of the heavy military population, is geared toward a realist mentality - war will always exist and so we have to learn to end wars by warring. I do not think I need to explain why this is counterintuitive. I do not know about the rest of you, but I personally would like to see more examples of successful conflict avoidance through soft power approaches - ones that are not after a war and that do not involve just throwing money at the situation. Maybe it is not that the curriculum was designed to ignore these events; maybe there are simply too few examples to build a curriculum around. I am not well versed enough in history to say. But even just looking at the civil rights movement or the movement led by Gandhi would suffice for me, rather than at a failed peace keeping effort in Uganda that involved sending a military. I mean, what did you expect? That is my two cents. As far as the curriculum is concerned, I am taking the curriculum for what it is worth, but always making certain to think from the other side, the idealist side, and find the truth in the middle. I for one do not wish to fall into either error, as described by C.S. Lewis, regarding conflict and wars. I do not wanted to pretend they do not exist, but I also do not want to belief that they will always exist. To me, believing the latter is more damaging, because it is desensitizing and can lead to a habitual response. The more I belief that conflict and war are unavoidable, the less I may do to try and prevent them. That would not be an ideal world, and one I really would not want to live in.