The Anatomy of Peace (Arbinger Institute)

Someone was reading this book on the bus a few years ago and I was intrigued. Later I heard it was written by the Arbinger Institute and was less intrigued. Their book Leadership and Self-Deception presented some sound ideas but was irritating to read. It was an idea book masquerading as a novel. Philosophy wrapped around a fictional framework that pretends to be a story but is really an obedient usher . . . Something about that gets up my nose. The Anatomy of Peace resorts to the same sad tactic. It's still worth reading, but that doesn't make it a joyful undertaking. Ignoring the eerily complicit characters, then, here are some of the more engaging thoughts:

• Saladin was a great military leader because of his compassion and respect for his enemies.
• Conflict often becomes collusion as both parties cooperate to maintain a mutual antagonism.
• Normally we assume that conflict is best resolved by forcing the other side to change, which is why conflict persists.
• In any situation we may choose to see those around us as objects or as people with a worth equal to our own.
• One way to influence someone you want to help is to form relationships with people who are important to that person.

Perhaps the most satisfying section was the page about Rene Descartes. I don't like that man. He was the one behind "Cogito ergo sum," or "I think therefore I am." From this foundation he argued entities that could not display an adequate complexity of thought were not in possession of a soul. It was a short, slithering sidestep from there to animal vivisection. Apparent pain in something that doesn't have a consciousness of self must be counterfeit. So he reasoned. Ugh.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger disagrees with Descartes. His counterargument is outlined on pages 78 and 79 of The Anatomy of Peace. To summarize, Descartes formulated his thoughts and his theory using borrowed language. Perhaps he existed, but entities outside himself donated the tools with which he built his proof. That he existed was true, but more important was that he existed with others. What is the self without the fact of non-self? The most fundamental principle of being is not the individual but the individual as he relates to others. Tolerance of the dry and contrived plot extracted a large payment in units of patience, but these pages alone justify my expenditure.

A sample:

"A contemporary of Heidegger named Martin Buber, whom I mentioned this morning, agreed with Heidegger that way of being in the world is what is most fundamental to human experience. He observed that there are basically two ways of being in the world: we can be in the world seeing others as people or we can be in the world seeing others as objects. He called the first way of being the I-Thou way the the second the I-It way, and he argued that we are always, in every moment, being either I-Thou or I-It -- seeing others as people or seeing others as objects."