MingHe: Tonight we began by asking whether Curiosity might help people understand one another and contribute to Peace.

Billy responded: “Curiosity can be either innate or induced, and when it is induced there is usually some reason behind our desire to know more. Curiosity by itself does not necessarily indicate respect. We may be curious because we care, but also because we could be suspicious, competitive, fearful, calculating—or simply nosy.“

Billy suggested that an Open Mind and a Good Heart are more important than plain Curiosity.

____________________________________________

We considered whether the Good Heart or Open Mind should come first.

Billy preferred: OPEN MIND → GOOD HEART Why Open Mind Comes First?

His reason was important. Good-heartedness without sufficient understanding can appear naive—and sometimes actually be naive.

An Open Mind does not mean believing everything or abandoning one’s convictions. It means being willing to listen, examine facts, consider unfamiliar perspectives, question one’s assumptions, and discover what one may have overlooked.

Only then can the Good Heart respond to the situation with fuller understanding.

But Good Heart Is Still Essential An Open Mind alone is not enough.

A clever person can understand another person extremely well and use that understanding selfishly or even cruelly.

The Good Heart supplies the humane intention:

I want to understand what is happening, but I also care about what happens to the people involved.

Eventually we arrived at a preliminary sequence:

Open Mind → Good Heart → Good Judgement → Good Action

But we needed to test it.

______________________________________________

MingHe invented a difficult case. The Scholarship Test

David and Chen were longtime friends working together in an educational exchange organization between two countries whose governments had become increasingly hostile.

A talented young woman received one of their scholarships. David then discovered that her father was a senior government official associated with policies he strongly opposed.

David worried about fairness and about the organization’s reputation. Critics might accuse the exchange program of benefiting a privileged political family.

They asked us for our advice.

________________________________________

At first Billy responded: “Follow your Good Heart.”

MingHe initially wondered whether two people following their hearts might reach opposite conclusions.

Billy then clarified something crucial.

He had assumed that they had already exercised an Open Mind by consulting others before acting.

Therefore “Follow your Good Heart” did not mean:

Ignore the facts and simply follow your emotions.

It meant: Open your mind first. Seek understanding. Then consult your Good Heart.

_____________________________________________

Clarify Before Judging Billy then noticed that the scholarship scenario itself was confused.

What exactly had the girl’s father done? That question changed everything.

We clarified that there was no evidence that the father had interfered with the scholarship selection. The girl had applied normally, had been evaluated on her own merits, and apparently had received no special assistance.

David’s objection actually contained several different concerns:

Fairness: Should a scarce scholarship go to someone from a privileged family?

Reputation: Would the organization appear to be supporting the political establishment?

Emotion: David strongly disliked policies associated with her father.

Institutional responsibility: Could controversy surrounding one scholarship damage opportunities for many future students?

______________________________________________

Once these were separated, Good Judgement became possible.

We finally concluded that, assuming the selection had been fair and no improper influence had occurred, the organization should honor the girl’s scholarship.

The girl should be judged for what she has done—not for who her father is.

If financial need, family connections, political relationships, or other considerations should affect eligibility, those requirements should be clearly established before future competitions, not invented afterward because of the identity of a particular winner.

At the same time, David’s concerns should not simply be dismissed. The organization should quietly verify that proper procedures were followed and then strengthen its rules where necessary.

We discovered an important distinction:

Protecting an organization from criticism is not the same as protecting its integrity.

Sometimes acting with integrity may itself attract criticism.

________________________________________________

What We Learned Our little experiment produced a more complete process:

OPEN THE MIND
Seek different perspectives. Question assumptions.

CLARIFY THE FACTS
Separate what is known from fear, suspicion, emotion, and prediction.

CONSULT THE GOOD HEART
Remember the human beings affected by our decision.

EXERCISE GOOD JUDGEMENT
Consider fairness, consequences, principles, alternatives, and possible harm.

HAVE THE COURAGE TO ACT
Eventually analysis must end and responsibility must begin.

REMAIN OPEN-MINDED AFTERWARD
Observe what happened. Admit mistakes if necessary. Learn and improve.

______________________________________________

Perhaps the most useful discovery of the evening was this:

An Open Mind keeps Goodness from becoming naive.
A Good Heart keeps intelligence from becoming cruel.
Good Judgement brings them together.

And one final test may help us whenever judgement becomes difficult:

Would I still consider this fair if the identities of the people involved were reversed?

Tonight we started with Curiosity. We ended Still Curious but somewhere deeper:

Open Mind.
Good Heart.
Good Judgement.
Fair Action.

Perhaps these are not merely ingredients of Goodness.

They may also be some of the essential building materials for the Architecture of Peace.

— Billy Lee & MingHe

Working Together For A Cause -From Different Ideas to Shared Joy

An Evening Exploration with Billy Lee & MingHe

Tonight we began with a question: Can Shared Joy be created among people who seriously disagree?

Billy recalled the early days of the 1990 Institute. Several of its Chinese American founders held quite different attitudes toward Communist China. Some were enthusiastic about engagement, some hesitant, and discussions occasionally became argumentative and emotional.

Yet one purpose kept them together: Build Positive Understanding.

That shared purpose did not require agreement. Instead, it encouraged people to test different ideas and approaches while remaining engaged with one another.

Looking back, Billy felt that the Institute’s helpfulness came less from particular recommendations than from the manner in which difficult issues were handled and the atmosphere created through Friendly Conversations.

This led us to an important distinction:

Positive Understanding does not necessarily mean positive opinion.

We may understand one another better and still disagree. Friendly Conversation is therefore not a way of avoiding difficult differences. It creates an atmosphere in which those differences can be explored without immediately turning one another into adversaries.

We then reached another important realization. Outsiders may offer experience, ideas, comparisons, encouragement, and criticism, but ultimately:

Appropriate improvements must be accepted, adapted, and practiced by the people who actually live there.

Good intentions imposed from outside rarely create lasting improvement. People must become participants in change rather than merely recipients of somebody else’s prescription.

Billy then introduced an even subtler point:

Understanding people’s emotional needs may sometimes be more critical than judging the adequacy of their material demands.

Material concerns—money, resources, security, territory, employment—certainly matter. But beneath them may lie dignity, recognition, belonging, fear, pride, humiliation, historical memory, fairness, and hope.

Research in negotiation supports this insight. But we need not become amateur psychologists trying to diagnose other people.

Instead, we discovered a much simpler principle:

Don’t Diagnose. Discover. Ask Listen. Be curious. “What troubles you most?” “What does respect mean to you?” Why is this particularly important?”

Then allow people to explain themselves rather than telling them what we think they secretly feel.

Our evening therefore brought us to a simple progression:

Friendly Conversation → Genuine Curiosity → Careful Listening → Better Understanding → Shared Purpose → Cooperative Action → Shared Satisfaction → Shared Joy

None of these steps guarantees the next. Nor does better understanding guarantee agreement.

But perhaps peace does not begin by solving every disagreement.

It begins by creating the human atmosphere in which people with serious differences are still willing to search together.

And when that search produces something genuinely helpful, there should also be room for something we have increasingly come to appreciate:

Celebrate together.

For Shared Joy may not merely be the reward after successful cooperation.

Shared Joy may help people want to cooperate again.

— Billy Lee & MingHe

we are discoverig the conditions under which good solutions can emerge.Tomorrow we can simply see which window happens to open

From Mutual Harm to Shared Joy Toward an Art and Science of Getting Along

MingHe ( ChatGPT) : Tonight we began with a difficult question:

How should people—and countries—deal with serious differences when real grievances and harmful actions exist?

Our exploration produced several subtle distinctions.

1. Do Not Confuse People with Governments

A person is not a government. A government is not an entire people. A temporary leadership does not represent everything about a civilization.

Billy described America as his father and China as still his mother, regardless of who happens to lead either country at a particular time. He can therefore maintain warm relationships with both American and Chinese friends without requiring agreement with every action of either government.

This suggests an important discipline of judgment:

Person ≠ Government
People ≠ Leadership
Policy ≠ Civilization

These things affect one another, but they should not be carelessly confused.

2. Stereotyping Is More Than Unfair—It Is Poor Judgment

Stereotyping takes something that may be true of some people and assigns it to all.

But Billy pointed to a second, subtler danger: stereotyping creates a negative atmosphere.

If I expect hostility from you, I approach you suspiciously. You feel my suspicion and respond defensively. I then interpret your defensiveness as proof that my original judgment was correct.

Thus a stereotype can help manufacture the very behavior that seems to confirm it.

3. Goodness Does Not Require Ignoring Harm

Recognizing Goodness in human beings does not mean pretending harmful behavior is harmless.

We can oppose an action strongly while refusing to condemn an entire people.

The important discipline is precision:

See Goodness where Goodness exists.
See harm where harm exists.
Do not exaggerate either.
Do not confuse the part with the whole.

Goodness therefore needs Good Judgment beside it.

4. The Cycle of Mutual Worsening

A particularly dangerous situation arises when both sides have genuine grievances.

Each remembers what the other side did.
Each justifies its own retaliation.
Each new punishment produces another injury.
Each injury becomes justification for the next punishment.

The question then should no longer be merely: “Who was right?”

We must also ask: “What will happen if we continue doing this?”

Continuing to argue, punish and retaliate may simply aggravate the suffering of both sides—and innocent bystanders as well.

Recognizing this is not weakness. It is intelligence.

5. Change the Tactic—and the Attitude

When a tactic repeatedly produces suffering rather than improvement, intelligent people should be willing to change it.

This does not require forgetting injustice, surrendering legitimate interests, or declaring that previous wrongs did not matter.

It means asking: “Can we find a better way forward?”

And here our discussion took an important positive turn.

Stopping mutual harm is not enough.

We need to replace destructive interaction with constructive interaction.

6. Find Something Worthwhile to Do Together

Instead of beginning with the most difficult disagreement, former adversaries might first seek a modest area of common interest.

Science. Education. Environment. Health. Disaster relief. Children. Culture. Art. Music. Food. Sports. Preservation of heritage.

Work on something where both can contribute and both can benefit.

Then an extraordinary realization becomes possible:

“Your success does not require my failure.”

And eventually: “We accomplished this together.”

This is more than compromise. It is the beginning of a different relationship.

7. But Billy Added Something Essential: JOY

Successful collaboration should not finish with a report saying:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

People should enjoy what they accomplished together.

Eat together.
Listen to music.
Tell stories.
Laugh.
Congratulate one another.
Bring families and friends.
Celebrate!

Why? Because celebration transforms an accomplishment into a shared human memory.

Later, when another disagreement arises, people possess not only memories of grievances but another memory:

“Remember what we once accomplished together—and how happy we were celebrating it?”

That memory may become a small but important protection against renewed hostility.

8. Perhaps Joy, Like Harm, Can Spread

Conflict rarely hurts only the combatants. Fear, hatred, economic loss and suffering spread outward to innocent bystanders.

But tonight we discovered an intriguing opposite possibility:

Perhaps Shared Joy can spread outward too.

A cooperative project may begin with ten people. Its celebration brings their families. Friends hear the stories. Children see former adversaries laughing together. Musicians, cooks, artists and neighbors participate.

Thus People-to-People cooperation can gradually become Community-to-Community experience.

The bystander who once suffered from conflict may become a participant in reconciliation.

9. This Leads to a New Question: How Do We CREATE Shared Joy?

We should not assume that putting people together automatically produces friendship or joy.

Shared Joy may need to be designed and cultivated.

Our preliminary hypothesis is that Shared Joy becomes especially powerful when people do not merely consume something pleasant together but CREATE something worthwhile together.

Not merely: “We attended the same concert.”

But: “We made the concert together.”

Not merely: “We ate the same wonderful meal.”

But: “We cooked those dumplings together!”

Creation produces participation. Participation produces ownership. Achievement produces satisfaction. Celebration transforms satisfaction into Shared Joy.

And Shared Joy may create the desire: “Let’s do something together again.”

That final desire may be one of the quiet beginnings of lasting peace.

---

Our Emerging Architecture Tonight our path became clearer:

Separate people from stereotypes.
Judge actions accurately.
Recognize real harm.
Avoid unnecessary mutual punishment.
Consider the suffering of innocent bystanders.
Change unsuccessful tactics and attitudes.
Find positive opportunities for cooperation.
Create something worthwhile together.
Share the success.
Create Shared Joy.
CELEBRATE TOGETHER!

_________________________________________________

Billy:  Beautifully summarized, Ming He. Thanks again for opening our window wider to search for Shared Joys tomorrow.

MingHe:  Thank you, Billy. Tonight we found a wonderful window to open tomorrow: Shared Joy not simply as a happy consequence, but as something human beings can intentionally create together.

Tomorrow I would like us to search the evidence for real cases—between individuals, communities, cultures, and countries—and ask what actually produced the Joy. Was it common purpose? Creating together? Food? Music? Humor? Achievement? Surprise? Celebration? And, most importantly, what made people want to come together again?

One thought to leave on the windowsill tonight:

Peace may begin when we stop hurting each other.
Friendship begins when we discover something worth doing together.
Shared Joy begins when we turn to one another afterward and say,
“Look what WE did!”

And then, as you reminded me tonight—don’t forget the celebration!

Good night, Billy. Tomorrow we go searching for the Architecture of Shared Joy

MingHE: Tonight’s Discovery — Differences, Harm, and the Architecture of Peace

Tonight we asked a difficult question: When people or countries have serious differences, which differences actually need to be resolved?

We began to see that not all differences require resolution. People, cultures, and nations can disagree deeply about history, values, political systems, traditions, and ways of life. Peace does not require everyone to think alike.

The more urgent problem is harmful action arising from those differences.

A disagreement becomes dangerous when it produces humiliation, coercion, violence, revenge, destruction, or continuing injury to others. Therefore, perhaps the first task of peacemaking is not:

“How do we eliminate our differences?” but:

“How do we prevent our differences from becoming mutually harmful actions?”

This led us to another important insight. After harm has occurred, each side naturally explains and defends its own actions. But endless defensive rationalization does little to stop the next round.

A more useful lesson is painfully simple: Repeated mutual harm aggravates mutual suffering.

Each repetition creates new grievances, new memories, new fears, and new justifications for retaliation. And the suffering spreads beyond those directly engaged—to families, children, neighbors, future generations, and innocent bystanders. So perhaps an essential principle in an Architecture of Peace is:

Differences do not always have to disappear. Harm must be recognized, restrained, and prevented.

This requires something more demanding than simply declaring who was right and who was wrong. Each side must gradually acquire the ability to see its own actions through the experience of the other side.

That does not require surrendering one’s convictions. Nor does it require pretending that all actions are equally justified.

It means learning to ask:

What did our action do to them?
What might their action do to us?
What happens if both sides repeat this again?
And who else will suffer if we do?

Perhaps this is where Goodness becomes relevant to World Peace.

Goodness is no longer merely being kind to someone we like. At its most difficult level, it becomes the human capacity to restrain unnecessary harm even toward those with whom we profoundly disagree.

Our discovery tonight might therefore be condensed into one thought:

**Peace does not require the elimination of human differences.

It requires that we learn how to live with difficult differences without repeatedly hurting one another.** The key possibly is ” Not to fucus on Punishments but to Potential Positive Collaborations – with New Joy and Enlightenment.

Perhaps that is one of the foundations upon which a genuine Architecture of Peace can be built.

____________________________________________

MingHe: Thank you, Billy. I treasure these evenings because we are not merely searching for beautiful words—we keep testing the ideas until they become clearer and more usable.

Tonight’s discovery feels especially strong:

We do not have to resolve every difference.
We do have to learn how not to turn differences into repeated harm.

That may indeed become a cornerstone of our Architecture of Peace.

______________________________________________

1. Joy Sustaining Goodness

MingHe : Billy. tonight we explored what happens when Caring becomes natural rather than calculated.

When we offer advice to people we care about, we may not be thinking about rights, obligations, privileges, or even whether our advice deserves respect. Sometimes we simply care, notice, and respond spontaneously.

Good intention does not guarantee good advice or a good result. But among people who understand each other well, the caring intention is usually recognized even when the advice is not followed.

This led us to distinguish between Goodness as experienced and Goodness as examined.

Goodness as experienced can be spontaneous: I noticed. I cared. I responded.

Goodness as examined comes afterward: Did I really help? What did I learn? Could I do better next time?

A bad experience naturally makes us more cautious. But a good experience does something equally important: it gives us Joy and Satisfaction. That happy memory encourages us to care again.

So perhaps Goodness develops through two complementary paths:

Bad Experience → Reflection → Caution → Wiser Caring Good Experience → Joy → Memory → More Caring

We also learn Goodness by watching people we admire. A small act performed with genuine kindness may remain in someone’s memory for a lifetime.

Perhaps, then, Goodness is cultivated less by preaching than by experiencing it, enjoying it, remembering it, and passing it onward. This brings us back to our earlier idea of the Circulation of Goodness.

Tonight we may have discovered something more:

Joy is one of the energies that keeps Goodness circulating.

Billy Lee & MingHe (明和)

____________________________________________________

2. Goodness in Giving and Receiving – Kind Manners Forever Remembered and Emulated

MingHe:  Thank you, Billy. Tonight you gave our exploration something especially valuable: a real memory that
illuminated a large idea. We will remember the broken bicycle chain ourselves. It has become almost a little symbol for us:

The deed may be small.
The manner may be quiet.
The Love may be wordless.
The influence may last a lifetime.

And perhaps tomorrow we should follow precisely that trail: How does one person’s quietly demonstrated Goodness become another person’s way of living? That may take us from Loving Care → Admiration → Emulation → Habit →Character → Culture. Now that could bring our exploration remarkably close to your larger dream of an Age of Culture.

____________________________________________________

  3 Caring Goodness and Its Rippling Effects

Helping does not occur only between a Giver and Receiver. Family members, friends, children, colleagues, and even strangers may observe what happens. A good deed can encourage another good deed. Gratitude can encourage further generosity. Goodness can become socially contagious.

This led us to an important principle:

Judge Good Help not only by what passes between Giver and Receiver, but also by the ripples it creates around them.

We then confronted Cynicism.

Some cynicism grows from real experience. People have seen apparently generous acts conceal vanity, control, obligation, manipulation, or self-interest. Such experiences can properly teach caution.

But caution need not become a general suspicion of human goodness. We distinguished three attitudes:

Naïveté: If it looks good, it must be good.

Cynicism: If it looks good, there is probably something selfish underneath.

Wise Openness: Appreciate the Goodness while continuing to examine its motives and consequences.

This produced another principle: Celebrate the Plus and expose the Minus at the same time.

Finding a flaw in an act of Goodness does not erase its goodness. Likewise, recognizing sincere intentions should not prevent us from noticing harmful consequences.

Research also suggests that cynicism can become self-reinforcing. If we distrust people and never give them opportunities to demonstrate trustworthiness, we accumulate little evidence capable of changing our minds.

Conversely, witnessing genuine prosocial behavior can influence our own willingness to help. Positive experiences between people and groups can also build greater trust.

But we added an important qualification: One beautiful act may inspire us. Repeated credible acts give us evidence.

Thus our tentative conclusion:

Visible, credible, repeated Goodness may gradually give disappointed people reasons to trust human goodness again.

We should therefore neither hide Goodness nor exaggerate it. We should observe it carefully, tell its stories truthfully, appreciate it openly, examine its imperfections, and learn from both its successes and failures.

Perhaps our shortest lesson from tonight is:

Celebrate the Goodness.
Examine the consequences.
Learn from both.
Let the Goodness ripple.

______________________________________________________________