Pardon me, for I'm not sure where this post should be categorized.

I had an epiphany yesterday. I had just finished an argument with a friend about atheism and spirituality (not the scope of this post), and I thought I had made some excellent points. I support his atheist views and I think it's good that he's so passionate about it, but I was arguing that he should not be so ready to dismiss the concept of spirituality (as opposed to organized religion) for several reasons. He took these arguments as an affront to his values and pretty much told me to leave him alone because I was pissing him off.

Although I felt as though my argument had value and was logically secure, I realized that I was unsatisfied with the outcome. Of course I didn't expect him to mold his philosophies around everything I said, that would have been naive, but I surely didn't expect him to view what I said as a threat. This was at the end of my work day. I was doing some menial task while in a pretty bad mood as a result of our conversation, and after a while I thought:

"Why can't he tell me I'm right?"

Then I realized, that's all I want. That's all anybody wants. You participate in conversations like that, you argue your points and support what you have to say and are proud of it, and then what? Surely satisfaction doesn't like merely in gabbing away about something you're convinced is true. What are you really looking for?

This is what my epiphany was about. On a very fundamental level, we're looking, thirsting for the other party to say "yes, you are correct. I agree." Perhaps it goes even further - "not only do I agree, but I now see the folly in my own argument, and will subsequently adopt your superior point of view." Being right in our own minds simply isn't enough; we need to see the truth in our own minds reflected in the world around us and by the people with whom we interact.

I wondered then about the significance of this on the scale of human society. It seems as though the core of inter-personal conflicts (whether they be small arguments like mine with my friend, or much larger disagreements like the Arab-Israeli conflict) are a result of one side not validating the other.

Then I wondered something else: is it the fault of the party not doing the validating that relationships break down, or is it the party expecting the validation? To me, that seems very Zen. If you could discipline yourself to be content with your own truths and relate them responsibly to the reality of the outside world, then there is no conflict. If I could have posed my arguments to my friend while simultaneously not expecting him to adopt them (or even consider them, for that matter), perhaps I could have been at peace with myself while performing that menial task at the end of the day.

What do you guys think?

Also, I must apologize for not following up on my introduction thread some weeks ago. I asked some pretty deep questions and was stunned by the quality and breadth of the responses, but for some reason allowed myself to not reply to any of them. Mea culpa. For the record, I appreciated greatly everyone who responded, and I'll strive to be a more active participant of the forum.