"handshake"
------------------
perspectives are a pain. differing points of view usually lead to misunderstandings, often with dire consequences. conflicts arise, and the parties are hurt in the process, regardless of whether or not they're willing to be hurt or not. some may argue that forcing someone else to accept your point of view, and by doing so, defecating everything they believe in, is wrong. and indeed it is. but is compromise any better? is it a case of both sides winning...or losing? no matter how grand the scale may be on a situation where opposing points of view may surface, compromise never seems to be reached. people remain true to themselves, while stamping out the resistance. on both sides of the fence, those who fall are regarded as matyrs and heroes, and those who survive continue to uphold their beliefs because in their minds, they're right, and the opposition is wrong. there's no grey to it...just black and white. there is no resolution, only dissolution. but those who seek resolution, they come to a compromise. and again, i ask...is compromise any better? yes, pain is spared. but what about the interests of the respective parties that maintained their righteousness in the first place? the fire that so fueled them to carry out their actions for what they believed? where does that all go to? out the window? some may say that conflict is inevitable but unnecessary. but what if it is necessary? the world doesn't work without conflict. and there's always conflict around us, everywhere, all the time. friction and tension.

though we may try our best to understand what's going on, and though we may truly desire to end the hurting, to end pain, we always act in our self interests, because we believe ourselves to be right. ultimately, it comes down to that. compromise is like a mask, a facade, to hide bitterness. behind smiles, the shaking of hands, treaties, are people who're planning the next strike. backstabbers. but then again, it's to be expected, isn't it? there's no way out of it, is there? sometimes we act in defence of our beliefs, expecting others to understand why we do what it is we do. half of the time, they do understand. the other half, they might not even care. they might not act according to our interests, even if our interests are genuinely good, and dare i say better, than their own views. and then, there's conflict, and people end up getting hurt again. who's to blame? the world would point its fingers at the act, and those who carried it out. but what if intentions were good? what if a point of good was trying to be made...what then? who do you blame? the intended receptor? both parties? you can't go around blaming nobody, can you? but remember this: as long as there's a reason, there will always be the right to act out the way you do. and if it is a genuine belief, then i guess that there's nothing wrong.

perspectives are a pain. because different outlooks lead to one big mess. a potpourri of tension, you might say. we may feign defeat, but in the end, we want our interests to be served in a way that we see fit. and i guess that's how the world works. we can do all that we can to change it, but it's going to stay with us til our dying days.