Lesson 22. Application in Conflict Resolution.

Lesson 22. Application in Conflict Resolution.

Lesson 21 answered: How can internal balance be restored within a living system?

Lesson 22 will answer: How can balance be restored among multiple systems that are in conflict with one another?

Thus, we are expanding the scope of application of the Law of the Fulcrum Point from the individual to relations between systems. This is a completely natural step of development.

Conflict is not an exception of systems, but a natural state of every system in motion.

Conflict does not end when one side wins, but when the parties together rediscover a common Fulcrum Point so that the system can continue to develop.

I. WHY IS CONFLICT A NATURAL STATE OF EVERY SYSTEM?

In everyday life, conflict is often viewed as something negative that must be eliminated. From disagreements within a family, contradictions within an organization, disputes between nations, to differences in culture, religion, or viewpoint, conflict is commonly regarded as the cause of division, loss, and instability.

However, from the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, conflict is not an abnormal phenomenon. On the contrary, it is the natural manifestation of every system that is in motion and developing. Any existing system contains forces acting in many different directions. It is precisely this diversity that creates the system’s capacity for adaptation, creativity, and evolution.

In nature there always exist pairs of forces that appear opposing yet complement each other: attraction and repulsion, assimilation and dissimilation, stability and change. In social life it is the same: among individuals, organizations, or nations there always exist differences in interests, perception, goals, and methods of action. Those differences do not necessarily lead to breakdown; on the contrary, if properly guided, they can become a driving force for development.

This shows that the core issue does not lie in whether the system contains conflict or not. What is more important is whether that system still maintains a common Fulcrum Point so that differences can be harmonized within a unified order.

According to Axiom 1, every system has a Fulcrum Point. The Fulcrum Point does not eliminate the diversity of its components; rather, it keeps that diversity oriented toward a unified structure. When the Fulcrum Point is still maintained, differences can become complementary resources. But when the Fulcrum Point is weakened or lost, the very differences that were once normal gradually transform into confrontation, division, and conflict.

Seen from this angle, conflict is not the primary cause of breakdown. Conflict is only the external manifestation of a deeper change in the structure of the system: the common Fulcrum Point is no longer capable of guiding the components toward a unified goal.

From this, the Law of the Fulcrum Point offers a different approach to resolution. Instead of beginning with the question “Who is right, who is wrong?”, the doctrine poses a more fundamental question:

Where is the common Fulcrum Point of the system, and what has caused the system to lose that Fulcrum Point?

It is this question that will guide the entire content of the article.

Difference does not create conflict. Loss of the common Fulcrum Point creates conflict.

It also explains many phenomena:

•       A family with many different personalities can still be happy if they together uphold core values.

•       An enterprise with many different viewpoints can still develop if they together orient toward a shared mission.

•       A nation with many social components can still remain stable if it still possesses a foundation of common interests and values.

•       Even within a single person, many different emotions do not constitute a crisis if the inner Fulcrum Point is still maintained.

“Resolution does not begin when conflict ceases, but when the parties together rediscover the common Fulcrum Point of the system.”

If conflict is the manifestation, then what is the deep cause of conflict?

II. THE ESSENCE OF CONFLICT IS THE LOSS OF THE COMMON FULCRUM POINT.

If conflict is viewed only through external manifestations such as arguments, confrontation, or violence, it is very easy to conclude that the cause lies in differences of viewpoint, interest, or value. However, from the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, those differences are not yet the deep cause of conflict.

In any system, diversity is always natural. A body is composed of many different organs yet still coordinates into a whole. An enterprise consists of many departments with distinct functions yet still orients toward a common goal. A nation also comprises many regions, many interest groups, and many different viewpoints. It is precisely that diversity that creates the vitality and adaptive capacity of the system.

What determines the stability of the system is not the degree of similarity among its components, but the ability to jointly refer to a common Fulcrum Point. When there is still a common foundation to orient action, differences can be harmonized, complemented, and transformed into developmental energy. Conversely, when the common Fulcrum Point is weakened or lost, each component tends to form its own frame of reference, so that coordination gradually gives way to confrontation.

From that perspective, conflict does not appear because people are different, but because each side is taking a different Fulcrum Point as the basis for evaluating right–wrong, benefit–harm, and action. When the frame of reference is no longer unified, even goodwill can be misunderstood, and efforts at cooperation can lead to failure.

This also explains why many conflicts drag on even though all parties desire a good outcome. The problem does not lie in a lack of goodwill, but in the fact that each side is defending a Fulcrum Point that it considers correct. If the difference in frames of reference is not recognized, every debate easily becomes the repeated assertion of one’s own viewpoint rather than the discovery of a common path.

From this it can be seen that the essence of resolution is not the elimination of all differences. A healthy system does not demand that every component think alike; it demands that the components, though different, can still jointly refer to a Fulcrum Point strong enough to maintain the unity of the whole system.

This is precisely the application of the Theorem of Neutrality to the field of conflict resolution. Neutrality is not a state that eradicates every difference, but the capacity to keep differences coexisting within a balanced order. When the common Fulcrum Point is maintained, conflict becomes a driving force of evolution. When the common Fulcrum Point is lost, those very differences become the source of division and breakdown.

Therefore, from the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, the first task of resolution is not to find a winner or a loser, nor to force the parties to abandon their own identity. What must be done first is to recognize and restore the common Fulcrum Point – the foundation that allows different frames of reference to meet in a larger goal.

Here the chain may be:

Loss of common Fulcrum Point → Loss of common frame of reference → Loss of trust → Loss of cooperation → Conflict → Systemic breakdown.

This chain is valuable in that it does not stop at the phenomenon of “conflict,” but points out the process of formation of conflict.

At the same time, it allows us to construct the reverse chain in the following sections:

Restoration of common Fulcrum Point → Restoration of common frame of reference → Restoration of trust → Restoration of cooperation → Resolution → Systemic development.

III. RESOLUTION DOES NOT BEGIN WITH DEBATE, BUT WITH FINDING THE COMMON FULCRUM POINT.

When conflict occurs, the natural human reaction is usually to defend one’s own viewpoint. Each side tries to prove itself right while pointing out the mistakes of the other. If the dialogue process stops at comparing right–wrong, win–lose, the debate easily becomes a confrontation between two different frames of reference without creating a common path toward resolution.

The Law of the Fulcrum Point proposes a different approach. Instead of beginning with the question “Who is right?”, resolution should begin with the question “What do both sides want to preserve together?”

That is precisely the first step in recognizing the common Fulcrum Point.

In a family, parents and children may disagree about career choice, lifestyle, or educational methods. However, if they look back together, they usually realize that both sides desire happiness, growth, and a good future for the family. That shared goal is the Fulcrum Point for dialogue.

In an enterprise, employees and managers may differ on rights, income, or work organization. But if they look together toward the sustainable development of the enterprise, they will realize that the long-term interests of both are inseparable. The existence and development of the enterprise itself is a common Fulcrum Point capable of guiding the negotiation process.

Even in relations between nations, differences in interests and viewpoints may still be profound. However, peace, stability, security, and long-term development are always goals in which almost every nation has an interest in maintaining. Those foundational interests create the basis for dialogue to continue even when many disagreements remain unresolved.

The examples above show an important principle: the common Fulcrum Point does not erase differences; it creates a space in which differences can coexist and be resolved. When the parties look together toward a goal larger than the immediate interests of each individual or group, the way they view the other side also begins to change. The other is no longer merely someone obstructing them, but becomes a component participating together in protecting a shared value.

This is also the direct application of Axiom 1: every system needs a Fulcrum Point to maintain unity. In resolution, that Fulcrum Point need not be complete consensus on every issue; it is unity around a core value large enough to guide the dialogue process.

Therefore, from the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, the success of a resolution process is not measured by which side concedes more, but by whether the parties have together rediscovered the common Fulcrum Point so that they can continue to walk together.

The common Fulcrum Point is not a “point of agreement,” but a “point of convergence.”

These two concepts differ greatly.

•       Point of agreement: everyone holds the same viewpoint.

•       Point of convergence: people may retain different viewpoints, yet all orient toward a common goal or foundational value.

This is precisely the spirit of Neutrality (Middle Harmony).

Examples:

•       In an orchestra, each instrument produces a different sound, yet all converge upon one piece of music.

•       In the body, the heart, lungs, liver, and brain have different functions, yet all maintain life.

•       In a society, groups may have different interests and viewpoints, yet all converge upon national interest and social stability.

In my view, the concept of the “Point of Convergence” can become a highly valuable term of the doctrine. It clearly distinguishes the goal of resolution according to the Law of the Fulcrum Point from the goal of “homogenizing viewpoints.” Resolution does not demand that everyone think alike; resolution demands that the parties can be different yet still converge upon a common Fulcrum Point.

IV. THE MEDIATOR DOES NOT CREATE THE COMMON FULCRUM POINT, BUT HELPS THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE THE COMMON FULCRUM POINT.

When conflict is prolonged, the first thing that is diminished is usually not the capacity to think, but the capacity to see the values that the parties still share with each other. Each side gradually focuses on differences and the injuries that have occurred, while the shared goals that once bound them are pushed into the background.

From the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, the role of the mediator is not to decide who is right or wrong, nor to impose a solution that forces the parties to accept it. The greatest value of the mediator is to help the parties realize that behind the disagreements there still exists a common Fulcrum Point sufficient to begin the dialogue process again.

This requires the mediator to maintain methodological neutrality, yet not be neutral about the goal. Their consistent goal is to guide the parties back to the foundational values that all wish to protect. That may be the happiness of the family, the development of the organization, the interest of the community, or peace among nations. When those values are recognized, dialogue will have a new foundation on which to continue.

From this angle, the mediator does not perform the resolution process in place of the system. Just as a physician does not heal in place of the body, the mediator cannot create consensus in place of the parties. They can only create the conditions for the parties to recognize the common Fulcrum Point for themselves and thereby actively restore their relationship.

This is precisely the direct application of Axiom 5. An external Fulcrum Point truly exerts its value only when it awakens the internal Fulcrum Point of the system. The mediator is therefore not the center of the resolution process. The center remains the relationship between the parties themselves. When that relationship rediscovers its Fulcrum Point, the process of self-adjustment is initiated and the possibility of sustainable resolution can appear.

From that viewpoint, it can be said that the success of the mediator does not lie in settling a particular conflict, but in the fact that after they leave, the parties can still continue dialogue and resolve new disagreements on their own upon the same common foundation. That is the true sign that the Fulcrum Point of the system has been genuinely restored.

In Lesson 21 we reached the conclusion:

The physician does not heal in place of life.

In Lesson 22 we can reach the corresponding conclusion:

The mediator does not resolve in place of the parties.

These two sentences essentially express the same principle:

No one can perform, in place of the system, the function that belongs to the system itself.

This is the recurrence of the “red thread” we discovered in Lesson 21:

•       The teacher does not learn in place of the student.

•       The leader does not operate in place of the organization.

•       The physician does not heal in place of life.

•       The mediator does not resolve in place of the parties.

In my view, this is not merely a beautiful comparison, but evidence that the Law of the Fulcrum Point is generating an application principle of cross-domain value. Each application differs in its object, yet all converge upon one law: the role of the Fulcrum Point is to awaken the system’s capacity for self-regulation, not to replace the system’s operation.

If Section IV answers:

“What is the role of the mediator?”

then Section V must answer:

“How do we know that a resolution process has truly succeeded?”

V. SUSTAINABLE RESOLUTION IS THE RESTORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP’S CAPACITY FOR SELF-REGULATION.

From the perspective of the Law of the Fulcrum Point, a resolution process cannot be evaluated solely by the temporary subsidence of conflict. In many cases the parties may cease arguing while the deep cause remains intact. Then conflict merely shifts from open manifestation to a latent state and can erupt again when a new stimulus appears.

What determines the sustainability of resolution is not whether every disagreement has been fully resolved, but whether the relationship between the parties has restored its capacity for self-regulation. A healthy system is not one that never generates contradiction, but one that has the capacity to recognize, adjust, and overcome contradiction without losing its unity.

This is precisely the direct application of the Theorem of Self-Regulation. After each conflict, if the parties can receive feedback, transform that feedback into understanding, and thereby adjust their own behavior, the relationship will not only be restored but will become more mature. Conflict then is no longer a cause of breakdown, but becomes a driving force for the system to perfect itself.

Conversely, if after each resolution the parties still depend entirely on a third party to maintain stability, that shows that the system’s capacity for self-regulation has not yet been re-established. The mediator can help soothe a particular conflict, but cannot replace the self-regulating mechanism of the relationship itself.

From this viewpoint, the highest goal of resolution is not to create a period without contradiction, but to build a foundation so that whenever contradiction appears, the parties can together return to the common Fulcrum Point, dialogue within the same frame of reference, and actively find an appropriate solution.

It can be said that resolution is truly complete only when the mediator is no longer needed. At that point the common Fulcrum Point has become part of the system itself, enabling the parties to maintain dialogue, self-adjust their behavior, and develop together under new circumstances. That is also the clearest expression of a system that has regained its capacity for self-organization and self-balance.

In Lesson 21 we had the chain:

Fulcrum Point → Information → Energy → Behavior → Result → Feedback → Knowledge → Self-regulation → Evolution.

In Lesson 22 we can construct the corresponding application chain:

Common Fulcrum Point → Dialogue → Understanding → Trust → Cooperation → Self-regulation → Sustainable development.

This chain is highly meaningful because it shows that trust is not the starting point, but the result of jointly converging upon a common Fulcrum Point and maintaining dialogue.

VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE, DIPLOMACY, AND SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

If the Law of the Fulcrum Point is regarded as a general principle of systems, then conflict resolution can also be approached in a new direction. Instead of focusing only on handling the manifestations of contradiction, a foundational question needs to be posed:

What common Fulcrum Point needs to be restored so that the system can self-regulate and continue to develop?

This question does not deny the role of law, of negotiation mechanisms, or of political, economic, and social solutions. On the contrary, it adds a layer of analysis that helps those solutions orient toward the same long-term goal: building and consolidating common foundations strong enough for differences to be harmonized within a unified order.

From that perspective, peace should not be understood merely as the state of absence of conflict. A society completely without difference is neither realistic nor reflective of the developmental laws of open systems. What is more important is whether that society maintains common Fulcrum Points strong enough for every difference to be resolved through dialogue, cooperation, and self-regulation.

This viewpoint also opens a unified way of looking at many fields. In governance, the common Fulcrum Point may be the mission and core values of the organization. In education, it may be the goal of human development. In diplomacy, it may be the long-term interest of peace and co-development. Although the forms of expression differ, the essence of the resolution process remains the restoration of a common foundation so that systems can continue to operate in a state of Neutrality.

At a broader level, the application of the Law of the Fulcrum Point in conflict resolution also reveals a principle that runs through the entire doctrine: not taking the elimination of difference as the goal, but taking the creation of the capacity to develop together upon a common Fulcrum Point as the goal. It is precisely this principle that distinguishes resolution from homogenization. A healthy system is not one that no longer has diversity, but one that knows how to transform diversity into its own strength.

Seen in that light, resolution is not merely a method of settling contradiction; it is also the art of maintaining unity within diversity. When each system knows how to find and safeguard its common Fulcrum Point, conflict will no longer be a sign of breakdown, but an opportunity for the system to self-regulate, mature, and develop sustainably.

The pinnacle of resolution is not the cessation of every difference, but helping differences converge upon a common Fulcrum Point so that the system can continue to develop.

— Axiom 1: Every system needs a Fulcrum Point.

— Axiom 5: The role of external impact is to awaken internal capacity.

— Theorem of Neutrality: Differences are not eradicated but are harmonized.

— Theorem of Self-Regulation: A mature system is one that knows how to resolve new contradictions on its own.

At the same time, if placed alongside the two preceding lessons, we will have a beautiful developmental rhythm:

•       Lesson 16: The pinnacle of medicine is not the replacement of life, but the understanding of the law so that life can perfect itself.

•       Lesson 21: The pinnacle of healing is not the replacement of the strength of life, but helping life rediscover the correct Fulcrum Point so that it can perfect itself.

•       Lesson 22: The pinnacle of resolution is not the cessation of every difference, but helping differences converge upon a common Fulcrum Point so that the system can continue to develop.

These three sentences are forming a characteristic “triad of principles” of the applications section. They differ in their objects, yet all lead the reader back to a unified conclusion: the Fulcrum Point does not replace the system; the Fulcrum Point helps the system bring into play the capacity that already belongs to it. This is also the “red thread” that we have steadfastly maintained from the earliest axioms to the concrete applications.

From Lessons 21 and 22, two different forms of self-regulation have in fact appeared:

•       Lesson 21: Self-regulation of a single system.

•       Lesson 22: Self-regulation among multiple systems.

This is a distinction of great value.

It shows that the Theorem of Self-Regulation is valid not only for the human body, but also for the family, the organization, the community, and even nations. In other words, self-regulation is not merely a biological phenomenon, but a law of every system that possesses a Fulcrum Point.

At this point, one can see a common principle gradually becoming clear in the application lessons of the Law of the Fulcrum Point. Whether the object is a living body, a person, an organization, or social relations, the goal of any intervention is not to replace the function that already belongs to the system, but to help the system rediscover the correct Fulcrum Point so that it can self-regulate and continue to develop. It is precisely this principle that creates unity among the different applications of the doctrine, while opening the possibility of applying the Law of the Fulcrum Point in many other fields of life.

Please continue to follow the next lesson:

DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF THE LAW OF THE FULCRUM POINT OF TEACHER PHẠM HÙNG SƠN.

THE LAW OF THE FULCRUM POINT – Axioms and Theorems of a Neutral System.

PART IV. APPLICATIONS.

Lesson 23. Application in Community Planning and Development.

Purpose: Designing sustainable communities.

Thank you for following. With warm regards.

Tây Ninh Electric Lady.

BÀI ĐĂNG TRONG BLOG.