In the right

One of the things that deep down most of like is the experience of being right, in the right and in full contrast to being in the wrong.

But the classification of behaviour and thinking and decisions and statements as either being right or wrong is very limiting. As the saying goes: "do I want to be right or do I want to be happy?" It's a choice.

I'm not saying that classifying things as either right or wrong is wrong. That would be a disastrous irony. What I am saying is that it can be more useful to judge the merit of something by how well it's aligned with what I say I want.

This right/wrong duality seems most destructive in human relationships. For example: one person does something in a relationship and the other feels wronged in someway. So, naturally that person reacts by doing something to retaliate and the other person feels wronged, for which the most satisfying short-term response seems to be to lash back in return. This starts a vicious and potentially hugely destructive downward cycle.

Either person can end the destructive cycle. A way out of this is to ask the questions: "what serves my higher purpose here?" or "what is it that I have in common with the party with whom I'm in conflict?" or "Is what I'm about to do aligned with the vision I have for the relationship or am I just lashing out in defense of a perceived attack?"

Many of the stands we take reflect a fight for some principle. To "admit I'm wrong" is untenable. This is potentially a perversion of integrity–a weaker stance. True integrity means acting in accordance with my values, in a way that creates the most value for everyone involved. It does not take admitting that I'm wrong; it takes admitting what's most important to me and then acting accordingly.