I don't know for sure - but to me it seems that a lot of problems arise because different people see "simple solutions" and "completely avoidable" in so different ways. Continuing on the metaphor I used in the blog; from my point of view, the way I see things, it appears simple and self-evident that a hole in the boat is something avoidable, something which is best to be fixed as soon as detected. But, no matter how self-evident this truth seems to me, there will be just so many other people who feel that the plain simple natural self-evident fact is that a hole in the boat is good to have, because otherwise rowers be lazy and slacking.

People can often discuss on this and that, share opinions, and some people can even change their mind after a thoughtful discussion, or after having a sudden emotionally inspired insight, or after facing enough evidence, or some other such process. But, the more simple and self-evident things appear and feel on the gut level, the harder it is to change ones mind on those views.

So we keep on having leaky boats and all other kinds of smaller or bigger conflicts and confusions, simply because this individual/group/leader feels that going Straight is the simple self-evident solution, while the other individual/group/leader feels that going Spirals is the simple self-evident solution, and then they can't agree.

So, the big question is: Should they agree? Should they compromise? Should they keep on debating until the other realises that this or that view is True while the other is False, so that one is led to abandon ones own earlier view in favour of the view promoted by the other? On the somewhat vague general level of metaphors, personally I tend to feel that some sort of thesis-antithesis-synthesis process would be the most beneficial. A honest thought process, where everyone involved is equally committed to trying to understand the point of view of the other, and ready to question ones own views, and adventurous enough to expand ones horizons, to discover uncharted territories. Such process can lead to a synthesis which often is different from watered-down-compromise; something genuinely new can be born out of such process, so that all parties abandon their earlier views and adopt a new view which is broader and more elaborate than anything they had before the deep open honest thought process.

Yet, again, I'm perfectly aware that this is just the way I see. For somehow I grew up being constantly engaged in such a deep thought process, although for me it has always been more like an inner dialogue; me observing and listening to others and reading books, and observing my own thought patterns, and being on ever-lasting quest to broaden my horizons. For me this happens naturally, and it feels easy and simple to me. So it is easy for me to think that this kind of exploration would be a simple solution. But maybe many other people find this a stupid idea, for questioning ones own beliefs or honestly listening to others appears as a painful tedious and dangerous thing to do, for some people find their peace of mind in being firmly fortified in their prejudices which appear as self-evident facts for them. And who am I to judge? I'm not going to preach that someone else should adopt the solutions which have worked for me. Maybe there are other solutions for other people, and they can find something I'm completely unaware of =)