A Bit of Optimism - Resolving Conflict with William Ury

Episode Date: January 4, 2022

Fear and anger seem to dominate the headlines. So, to start the New Year, I thought it would be a good idea to find out if there is anything we can do to get to a resolution. And William Ury is about the best person to help figure that out. The author of "Getting to Yes" and co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Program, he has helped negotiate disarmament pacts between nuclear superpowers, ease religious and ethnic strife in the Middle East, and find common ground among warring factions in Venezuela. So I called William to see if he could start the new year by resolving, well…all of America’s current problems. And the result made me feel quite hopeful. This is…A Bit of Optimism. If you want to know more about William and his work, check out:https://www.williamury.com/https://www.xniforpeace.org/https://www.abrahampath.org/ 

William Ury is one of the nicest people I have ever met. Whenever I talk to him, I feel at ease. I feel like I'm learning. I feel like I can accomplish anything. And this is probably not by accident. He is best known for being the co-author of Getting to Yes, which is a staple for any business school student or, quite frankly, most people in the world. It's sold an astonishing 15 million copies and been translated into a whole bunch of languages. He also co-founded the Program on Negotiation for Harvard Law School. He's been negotiating peace agreements around the world for decades, from nuclear disarmament pacts with the Soviet Union, to Arab-Israeli conflict, to tribal squabbles among the Bushmen of the Kalahari. So I thought I'd call him to see if he

could shed some light on how we can resolve some of the many conflicts that we have ongoing in our world today. This is a bit of optimism. You have made a career not only as an author and professor, but a peace negotiator. You've traveled around the world, whether it's Arabs and Israelis or Venezuela or wherever you've gone, to negotiate peace amongst people who hate

each other, let's be honest. It seems that's what we need in our country, that we have two factions, and I believe it's more political parties than it is the average population. I think we're still pretty moderate and I think America is pretty frustrated with the state of the world, but we have two parties of a single nation that accuse each other of being traitors or un-American. There's no listening. There's only talking. So my question is, have you ever negotiated peace inside a reasonably functional country, inside a reasonably functional government? How do we get peace in this country, Bill? Great question, Simon. It's funny. It you know, I've been wandering the world for the last four decades looking for the most

intractable conflicts. And I come back and I find an intractable conflict, an impossible conflict right here in my own country, which has a lot of the same features of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the conflict in Venezuela that's been roiling that country for 20 years. We're dividing ourselves into two different tribes. And I agree with you. I still think the majority of Americans who don't dominate the airwaves, you know, basically we want to get along with each other. We're dividing ourselves into these two tribes of Democrats and Republicans and hating each other and forgetting that way before we're Democrats and Republicans, we're Americans. And what do Americans do? Americans talk. We meet. We unite. That's why we're the United States. And so the question is, how do we do that when we've been hijacked? I mean, essentially, that's how I think of it. Our country's been hijacked.

Even in the brain, you know, there's this left amygdala that was there to protect us, but is driven by fear. And our left amygdala has been hijacked. And we're trying to protect what we hold dear from those enemies. The result is that by playing this finite game, as you would put it, you know, a win-lose game, the result is we're all losing and we're losing our country. And so the question is, how do we get out of it? I believe we can do it because I've seen it happen in other countries where it's been worse. You know, I was in South Africa during apartheid. I mean, apartheid was 10 times worse than what's here in this country in terms of hatred, bloodshed, and racism. And everyone thought when I was there

in the 80s, you know, people thought this blood war is going to go on for as long as we can tell, you know, even the best observers. And yet within a very few brief years, the South Africans proved them wrong and they transformed their country. They didn't end their conflict, but they transformed it. And apartheid came to an end. And if they could do it, we could do it. You said the conflict here between these two warring factions of political parties mimic

some of the elements of Arab-Israeli conflict. Can you break down more specifically what are the common elements that you see? Well, one is toxic emotions, treating the other with contempt. When we get into that reactive, deep fear of the other, almost existential fear that our very life is in danger from the other side, from the enemy. That's what's present in the Arab-Israeli conflict and increasingly present here. Number two is the positions get really entrenched and there's no budging.

I mean, there's no communication. It's like you're in different realities or in different silos. That you find true in the Arab-Israeli conflict too. And the third is the intensity of the fighting, where it's almost on the verge of violence, or at times it leaks into violence. And there's even, you know, vast numbers of Americans fear that we're headed towards a civil war where there would be levels of violence unprecedented here in this country since the civil war. Those are the three elements that are common

to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's the toxic emotions, the rigidly opposed positions that don't budge, and understand how we got here in the first place. What is it that takes a nation where people were cooperative and did get along and politics was not always like this? How did we get here in the first place? Because it clearly didn't happen overnight. It's been a steady drumbeat. It's been an evolution to get from that to this. Do we need to understand the root before we can really solve the problem? I think it's really important to go to the balcony for me, which is that metaphor, a place where we can get the larger picture. And that's what's really needed here. When you're hijacked, you need to go to that balcony, which is the right thinking part

of the brain, the prefrontal cortex. And there are different factors that have created this. You know, there was the loss of a common enemy, at least in our lifetimes, you know, we have the Soviet Union. But I think more importantly, in this country, there were large segments of people who felt left behind. When I started off in the field of conflict resolution negotiation, I was looking around for where I could really get my hands dirty. I just didn't want to read about in books. So I took a job as a mediator in a coal mine in Kentucky. I did my doctoral research as anthropologist in that coal mine. And I got to know the people and it's those people who feel

left behind. And those people to whom Trump spoke and continues to speak, but people who feel like their country is being taken away from them underneath. And when you have a substantial number of people who feel excluded, and that's not even to speak of people, other people, I mean, obviously African Americans have felt left behind, you know, so many different groups. But when you exclude people, and when people feel excluded and humiliated, then you start to go into your different tribes. And then of course, there's the effect of social media that creates cocoons and different realities. There are a lot of different factors that have created this problem. And it's really important to understand them if we're going to

figure out how we're going to get through this. And I believe, based on my experience, and I have to tell you, after all these years of working in the world's impossible conflicts, I haven't given up hope around this country. I believe it's possible because I've seen it happen in other situations with my own eyes, and I believe we can still do it. So existential threat, an external existential threat, I think is very interesting. When the Soviet Union fell out of the game, we as a population no longer perceive this external existential threat. And something history has shown us, this upsets me, this depresses me, but in all of my work, it seems to be clear that one of the ways in which human beings find clarity in what they stand for is not by articulating their why, but by looking for the thing that is the opposite of what they stand for. Because knowing what we stand for can sometimes be ethereal and intangible and about the future and something like that, where when I can see and feel a threat to the thing that I believe, and though I can't put it into words, that's tangible.

And when the Soviet Union fell away, the thing that was the not that, I can't put it into words, that's tangible. And when the Soviet Union fell away, the thing that was the not that, I don't know what I stand for, but I know it's not that, we start looking for a not that anywhere to help give us a sense of purpose or cause. And unfortunately, when we no longer look outwards, we start looking inwards. So it upsets me as an idealist that we have to have an enemy to know what we stand for, but it seems that that is the case. And unfortunately, we have ignored any threats from the outside world and are focused exclusively on the false enemy within. That's true. We've met the enemy and they are us. The thing is, when we get hijacked by fear,

then we look for a scapegoat. You project all of the problems and all of the terrible things you projected on someone and then you try to kill them in some way. And that's a path to doom for us because we live in a highly interdependent world. We live, as you put it, an infinite game. We live in a world of relationships. And when you take that very narrow win-lose, us versus them mentality, and you put it in a world that's as complex and interdependent and relational as we are, you may get short-term wins, but the truth is in the end, everybody loses. You get lose, lose, lose outcomes. And we could see that happening in our country, that even the winners lose. I mean, you know,

like the Democrats won, but for how long? And they're going to lose. And then, you know, then the Republicans win and then they lose. But the truth is the whole country is losing through the battle. I see only one way out, which is we need to change. We need a paradigmatic shift in the way we look at conflict. We've forgotten it's not enough just to go from win-lose to win-win. That doesn't work anymore. There is a third win that we've missed, which is a win for us all. A win for the community, a win for the society. What both sides think they're doing is that, but they're defining community as their base. That's it. So I have to defend the values of my side before they

destroy this country. You got it. When I was in apartheid looking at South Africa in the 80s, I also spent some time with a group of hunter-gatherers. Always the anthropologist. Right, always the anthropologist. I was interested in how did we survive because we lived as hunter- gatherers. Our minds, everything is like 99% more than that of our time has been as hunters and gatherers. And the secret I found that they have is very simple. When there's a fight, you know, between two individuals or two groups, what happens is the whole community gathers around the campfire, women, men, everybody, the parties, and they look into that fire, which is the fire of conflict, and they talk and they talk past each other and they listen and they argue, whatever. And it goes

on for days. And at night, they call out to the spirits for help and guidance. And then they don't rest until not just the conflict is resolved, the issue is resolved, but there has to be a reconciliation. And sometimes tempers are much too high. And so the elders suggest, you know, you go out and, you know, to one of the parties, you go and visit some relatives for about six months, you know, it's a cooling off. But the key is, there's a shift in mindset, because we approach every conflict like it's got two sides. In this case, you know, it's Democrats versus Republicans, vaxxers versus anti-vaxxers, this versus that. What they know is that there's always a third side. And the third side is not the neutrals in between. It's the whole community that takes responsibility and has that campfire.

And that's how I figured we survived as a species. And to me, that's what we need to look for today in today's America, is we need to remember to take the third side. We need to remember that we're Americans before we're Democrats and Republicans. There's one little detail that makes that argument fall apart, which is remembering that we're Americans, but that's the problem, which is each side believes that they are the most American Americans,

and the other side is violating the sanctity of what it means to be American. And so you back at square one. But you talk about something that I think we need to go deeper on. In each case, you talk about relationship, coming together, all of this stuff. And there was a profound shift in the United States government that happened back in 1994, which has to be talked about, which is it used to be that when somebody won a position in federal office, they moved their family to Washington, D.C., and they lived in Washington, D.C. And though they fought during the day at their job, in the evenings, they went to the PTA meetings, and they went to the kids' baseball games, and they sat in the bleachers with people from the opposite party. And they

knew each other not as political foes, they knew each other as parents and friends, and they knew each other as human beings. And then in 1994, one of the proposals that Newt Gingrich made was, do not move your family to Washington. That is a terrible thing to do. You should stay back and be with your constituents. And so politicians come in for two or three days a week, do their business, then go back. And they're not actually with their constituents. They're predominantly fundraising. So the whole thing's folly. However, the problem is none of them know each other as parents or coaches or friends. They don't break bread together. So all of the examples you give, there's a relational component. We live together, we hang out together, our kids are friends,

and that no longer exists in Washington, D.C. And the question I raise is, can we ever have peace in America if our politicians do not make friends with each other? I completely agree with you. I mean, early on, I remember 30, 40 years ago, we talked about the importance of what are called cross-cutting linkages. And that's what you're talking about. Those little league games where you cross your ideological lines, you cross your religious lines, you cross everything. And America has thrived on forging those cross-cutting linkages, whether it's Rotary Club or whatever it is, you know, that brings people together. What's happened is there's been this fraying of that.

And we do need to reverse that. And I'll just give you as an example, just, you know, back to South Africa apartheid. What they did was because the fighting, the violence actually was so fierce. What they did was, because the fighting, the violence actually was so fierce, they formed what they called the National Peace Accord, which was they had committees at the neighborhood level where you would have people of all races, people of all classes sitting around trying to figure out how do we stop the violence in our community, working with the police and so on. And they had at a community level, at the district level, at the state level,

and at the national level, in those fora where people got together across their differences for a common goal, which was stopping the political violence so that a shift could take place. That's what made it possible. And we need to do something of the same. The most important thing we can do is reach out to our neighbors and find people who disagree with us. And it's not that you have to talk about the conflict, just make a relationship with them. But we're in a situation that seems so toxic that simply talking to the other side, you get blackballed. I heard of a story of a congressional spouse dinner. There were two wives who've known each other for 30 years because both their husbands have been in office for who knows how long. And they sat next to each other because they're friends.

And both of their husbands were admonished and told, never let that happen again. So here's the question I have. Arab-Israeli, not a great example, even though some elements are the same because they're still fighting. That hasn't been resolved. South Africa, though there are some elements, not a great example because the violence got so bad and there was a force of personality in Nelson Mandela, which matters, that forced truth and reconciliation to happen. January 6th apparently wasn't bad enough that the whole country was in such shock that we said, we probably need to stop this. So the question I have is, are we simply waiting for something

so atrocious to happen that both sides can look at themselves and go, okay, this can't happen again? Or do you have a specific example that you worked on that actually looks more like us than South Africa or Arab-Israeli? Because we don't have Nelson Mandela and the violence hasn't got so extreme that we've become shocked into doing something. I don't want it to get there. That's the problem. Even the pandemic wasn't enough to bring our country together. Let me just say a couple of things. One is, let's make no mistake, this is the hardest work human beings can do. It is hard work to sit down and talk or listen to someone whom you violently disagree with and you disapprove of and all that. No question. Number two, I'm struck by your story about the two congressional wives.

And, you know, I see that in every conflict, which is fraternizing with the enemy is frowned upon and sometimes worse. I'm just remembering, take another conflict, Northern Ireland, you know, Catholics and Protestants, you know, sectarian strife. You know, when I started, people said, it's impossible. There's no way. Catholics and Protestants, they drink this in with their mother's milk. It's been gone on for centuries. It's never going to stop. It changed. And this is the key is we have this wrong idea that has to be resolved and we all have to live in peace and harmony. It's not about that. It's not about resolving conflict. It's about transforming it. And transforming is very different. Transforming means changing the form from, yes, you continue the conflict, but instead of the destructive ways you use, you use constructive

ways. And that's what democracy is, right? It's, you know, conflict is not bad. And so to me, what happened in South Africa is the conflict didn't get resolved. It got transformed. What happened between the United States and the Soviet Union was it didn't get resolved, but it got transformed, the risk of nuclear war went down, you know, you went to majoritarian democracy in South Africa. And in every conflict, it's about transformation of the conflict, which is a more modest goal. And more in line with the way our democracy was set up, is actually the world needs more conflict, because whenever you have injustice or you need to make a change, you need conflict. But the question is, how do you deal with the conflict? Do you deal with the conflict

destructively in ways that destroy the common good, or do you contend and cooperate together in ways that promote the common good? And that's the real question. And the last thing I'll say is, I think right now, it's true that the situation hasn't gotten so bad that it's woken us up. But I had a really interesting conversation about a year ago with Newt Gingrich. And I was introduced to him by Van Jones, you know. And, you know, there between Van, Newt, and myself, we could find some common ground in terms of being concerned for our country, where we are in this process, and can we turn this around? So I still believe it's possible. And it may be, you know, that

things have to get a little worse before they get better. I've seen it happen. And what it takes is, get better. I've seen it happen. And what it takes is it takes the activation of us, you know, of us. Two things I want to explore here. So must there not be the courage of accountability? I met him once also, Newt Gingrich, a few years ago, and I found him to be very astute, a student of history. He was dismayed by the situation in America. But I also found him completely unapologetic, or at least completely blind to his role in where we are today. There's a side of me that thinks that until one party, and it can come from either side, takes the risk, the courage for accountability, and said, we are a part of the problem without saying, and so are they.

You got it. And neither party, individually or as a collective, seems to have the courage to say, we are part of the problem. And you and I both know, good luck with your marriage if you operate in a way like our politicians operate, like I'm right and you're wrong. Good luck with your marriage if you think compromise is a dirty word. Good luck with your marriage if you think compromise is a dirty word. Good luck with your marriage if you hold fast to your beliefs for 30 years and never, ever, ever see any kind of growth. We have a country that's now more accepting that gender can be fluid, but political views, nope, that's black and white. Our views are fluid.

I have views that are pretty liberal and views that are pretty conservative and it makes me messy. And I think everybody's political views are messy. For sure. And you and I both know from personal relationships, friendships are romantic or otherwise, until one person has the courage to say, honey, I'm sorry, I screwed up.

It just goes on and on and on. Bill Ury, fix it. You know, going back to marriage, that marriage analogy, you know, if you're asking the question, who's winning this marriage? You know, your marriage is in serious difficulty. And that's the only question we're asking is, who's winning? You know, it's like, no, that's not the question to be asking. The question is, how do we make this country work? How do we create the place we want for our kids? So when we talk about who's winning this marriage, I'm thinking, okay, let's game that out to how our politics is looking, right? Where one parent wants to make an indelible mark on their children

so that their children will live the life that they think is the way to live a life, which is different than my spouse, and they're competing to have an indelible mark on the children, like our parties are competing to have an indelible mark on the country. If that couple existed, we would recommend they divorce. that's true and the trouble is you know this country we can't divorce i mean people keep on dreaming fantasizing about divorcing but but the truth is we're all intermingled i mean every state is red and blue i live in a red and blue state i mean yeah but not because of gerrymandering you know better than anybody we don't live in a world where the electors choose their candidates. The candidates choose their electors. They've cut it up. So their districts are only red or only blue, which again means they don't have to have a political message to appeal to both sides. They only need a political message to appeal to their side. And so that's pretty insidious as well. insidious as well. Yeah. So is this going to be fixed in a day? No. Can it be done?

Absolutely. I've seen it happen in other places. Back in the late 90s, I was a facilitator at a bipartisan congressional retreat. There were 200 members of Congress, 100 Democrats, 100 Republicans and their spouses, and we all got together. They talked. And this was right after the Clinton impeachment. And everyone felt it was toxic in Washington at that point. And they said to me that they'd had more conversation with a member of the opposite party in the two-hour train ride from Washington up to Hershey, Pennsylvania, where the conference was, than they had in the previous four years. where the conference was than they had in the previous four years. But it was interesting was once we got them into groups, just talking about their lives and talking about what was on their mind, there are a lot of decent, good people in these. So they're trapped in the system too.

They have to have courage, but we also have to have courage. And it can happen. I mean, you've seen it happen. We've all seen it happen. We've all seen turnarounds in families, in workplaces, in communities. I've seen it happen in countries. It can happen here. It really can. And it starts with us, not just blaming all the politicians either. It's systemic, but it starts with us. you talk more about northern ireland um so northern ireland catholics and protestants everyone in their different tribes anyone who talked to the other

side was branded a traitor just like you were saying and so where did it start in one way, it started with mothers of sons who had been killed. Because it's like when a Catholic mother and a Protestant mother, they got together to grieve their sons or their brothers or whatever, their husbands who had been lost in the troubles. They couldn't be attacked so easily because they were so clearly had borne the highest pain of the troubles. Once that happened, they had the courage, you know, that courage that comes from that fierce thing. Then they opened a little door for the religious leaders, you know, Catholics and Protestants who could, you know, the priests and the ministers and say, no, I'm not sure killing each other is actually what Jesus Christ had in mind. People could imagine that.

Then they opened the door for the business people who could say, I'm not sure this is good for business. This is driving away any kind of investments and jobs or whatever. And the last to open up and show courage were the politicians. So there was a pattern where it starts with a small group, in that case, it was mothers, to religious leaders, to business, to politicians. And that was when the floodgates opened. And then

you could actually try to knit together a solution that didn't end the conflict, but it ended the war. The one uncomfortable detail, I think that is an excellent path and an excellent analogy for us. The one uncomfortable detail is that the situation had grown so violent that it reached a breaking point where mothers said enough. And we, January 6th notwithstanding, we have not reached a point where the violence has reached a point in America. And I do not want to get to that point where mothers are fed up with their children dying because of political fighting. The case you're making is that change starts at home. The case you're making is that uncle who has different political views at you, and there's so much conversation about

this that has happened at the Thanksgiving table. What do you do with political discourse? And most families either don't show up or they just all agree not to talk politics. But I think what we're talking about is the skill set of how do we find resolution at home? How do we find resolution in our relationships and our friendships? How do you create safe space for that uncle or aunt to feel heard? Which is very difficult. That's what I said. It's the hardest work you can do. And it's doable.

We know it. It takes exactly what you're saying. It takes courage. It takes taking responsibility. In marriage, as I say, you can either choose to be right or you can choose to be happy, but you can't choose to be both. Do we want a country that works or do we want to be right? That's our choice.

Your work, and you've written multiple books over the years, getting to Yes, how long? When did that book come out? Decades ago. 40 years ago. Oh, my God. 40 years ago. I mean, and it's still one of the top selling negotiation books that has ever been written. I mean, it is the textbook. What have you learned about

negotiation vis-a-vis this current state that you look back at what you wrote 40 years ago and you say, my goodness, that's more relevant now than ever, or I would say it differently now. I wouldn't say it the same way. I've learned more. I would slightly adapt that. I hope I've learned a little more. Like NDS, it's sold over like 15 million copies and it continues to sell just as well today as it did 40 years ago. So it hit a vein, which was at that time, the bestsellers on the list on negotiation went by the titles, looking out for number one and winning by intimidation. And Get EDS got to propose the revolutionary idea that you can negotiate and both sides could benefit, you know, so-called win-win. And it works. And it's had enormous success.

And win-win's become almost a cliche. My feeling looking back over 40 years, as I look at the tough, seemingly impossible conflicts that we face today, is getting the yes didn't go far enough. There's two missing elements that you need in these really tough, intractable conflicts, like the one we've been discussing, that need to go together with getting the yes to make it work. Getting the yes is work with the other, right? It's kind of like how do we dance together in a difficult conflict to try to get to a yes. The prior work, which is what you've been talking about, is work with ourselves. We need to get to yes with ourselves. And we need to have that courage. We need to face our own fears. We need to do that work with

ourselves around us. And that to me is what I call balcony work. We need to learn to take a pause. We need to learn to ask ourselves, what do we really want here? We need to go from the amygdala hijack in our left amygdala, which is just driven by fear, to our right thinking and really think about what's really important here. What's the prize? So that to me is absolutely critical if we're going to get to yes. Can you give some specific guidance to us as individuals? If change starts at home, let's say I have a friend or a family member where we are on completely different sides of the political divide. We are emblematic of our national state of affairs. Professor William Ury, PhD, what do I

have to do if I wish to establish peace with my family member? What's the first thing that I need to do? Can you give me some specific advice, please? Yes. Starts with breathing. Remember to breathe. Breath brings oxygen to our brain so we can actually think about what's important because we get trapped in emotions like fear and anger and it's natural, but that's not going to have you say what you'd want to say to your kid or to your spouse. You know, you're going to do it by taking a breath, taking a pause, taking a break, not hitting the send all button, but hitting the save as draft button and thinking about it, going for a walk, doing a workout, whatever you do to go to the balcony. Everyone has their favorite techniques. Have a coffee with a friend, but just don't react right on the spot.

And just take, you know, in this very hurly-burly world, just take a break. Take a breather and ask yourself, what's my why? You know, what do I, what's my prize here? What do I really want? What kind of family do i really want what kind of family do i want what kind of relationship do i want what what do i really want here other than to prove them wrong or to be right what's higher than that what's more important being right or getting what you want and everyone wants to get what they want so that's what we need to do and right now in this

world which is a highly reactive world where you're always just going to reaction, we need to find ways to press the pause button. I find this so interesting that successful engagement starts with disengagement. That's it. It starts with stopping. It starts with stopping, which is you find yourself becoming enraged and angry and to say to that person, I want to have this conversation, but I need to step away for a little bit first. You got it. That's the secret right there. Wow.

Thomas Jefferson, during the Constitutional Convention, used to say, when angry, count to 10. If very angry, 100. That's what we need to do. We need to count to 10 and then come back and think about what's going to really advance our interests. One of the things that I've learned about what makes a successful relationship is that when we fight, we fight to get to resolution, not to be right and the other person to be wrong, and that the other party can see and feel their partner, the other party, working hard in that debate to get to resolution. party working hard in that debate to get to resolution. And so it naturally changes the tactics that I would use or that she would use, like wanting to understand something I don't

understand where in the past I'll just say you're wrong or that doesn't make sense. And now I'll say something like, I don't understand, can you say it again to help me understand? Because I'm trying to get to resolution. And so I love this idea of before you start, stop. The first step of engagement is disengagement. The higher purpose here is resolution. I'm trying to get to resolution. And the thing in between those two is what you just alluded to is listening. People think, well, I listen. But the question is, do you really listen to understand the other? Do you listen, putting yourselves in their shoes, understanding where they're coming

from without giving up where you are, but just for a moment, trying to understand where they're coming from? That's the key is listening from within their frame of reference, not just what we often do is we just listen from our frame of reference and then our mind is saying, I disagree with that. That's wrong. That's wrong. No, that's not the kind of listening we're talking about. And it's very simple. It's not easy to do, but it turns out to be the key that negotiation is much more about listening than it's about talking. I think the hubris that needs to be put aside is that the other party is worthy of engagement. I've had this conversation with both sides of the political spectrum where they believe the other side is stupid and the other side isn't

worth talking to, which I find insanely ironic. Why would I talk to them? They're so stupid, they won't listen to me. I'm like, are you listening to yourself? But there has to be a belief that the other party's point of view, even if you find disagreeable, has value to be heard. Yeah. Doesn't mean it has value to be right. You don't have to agree with somebody to find resolution. You don't have to agree with somebody to find peace. And I love this idea of transforming the conflict rather than ending the conflict.

And that's my big takeaway from this conversation with you, which is peace is not the end of conflict. big takeaway from this conversation with you, which is peace is not the end of conflict. No. It's the transformation of conflict that we may deal with our disagreements in a constructive manner rather than a destructive manner. But conflict is perfectly normal and healthy. It's not normal and healthy. We need more conflict in this world. I mean, that's the paradox is because so much has been suppressed. It needs to surface, but we need to surface it within a container in which it can be cooked, it can be transformed, it can be made something that

we can eat. And on that note, may we both sit down and have a piece of conflict pie, the sweetest pie there is. Good old American pie. Bill, you've got my mind spitting I am forever and endlessly grateful to you not just for coming and talking with me but just for being you and being out in the world fighting the good fight and helping us learn how to live together

and get along together I absolutely love you I love your work and I just love you endlessly so thank you so so much this is the best Simon love is mutual and it's a huge pleasure to be your friend. Thank you, Bill. If you'd like to learn more about what Bill is doing and how you can help to advance peace in the world, check out his organization, abrahamspath.org.

If you enjoyed this podcast and would like to hear more, please subscribe wherever you like to listen to podcasts. Until then, take care of yourself, take care of each other.