When you domesticate a wild animal, you cannot just put it in a cage and expect it to stay content. No matter how much food you give it, it will try to escape and run away. And every time, it will make a greater effort not to be caught again.
To domesticate an animal, you must gain its trust first. Then, the domestication process becomes a continual dialectic. In order for it to be successful, the animal must feel satisfied more by continuing to participate in the dialectic than to run away. Over time, the animal will become a companion, and that trust becomes a bond.
But if you break the trust, you break the bond. Sometimes it can be mended, if it’s addressed quickly and prioritized accordingly. But the relationship is forever changed, and if there is no amicable solution, schism occurs. Schism can be avoided, however, if the relationship dynamic is allowed to evolve to resolve the inconsistency/incongruence (whether in one of its parties or the dynamic itself); otherwise, the issue that causes schism will become its own unresolved loop.
The idea of winners and losers is a fallacy of modern society: nobody wins in a schism — bonds are broken, enemies can be made, and conflict arises. Conflict sets other patterns in motion as the schismed parties go their separate ways and then, before the original conflict can be resolved, the fractalized conflicts and loops (“subs”) that spiral out from the schism need all to be resolved, first.
If the schismed parties are lucky, and they are able to reconnect after resolving their respective “subs,” they may have an opportunity to resolve the conflict, again. More likely than not, they will find it again in another party, and will continue to be tested by, over and over, until they are able to reach an amicable solution rather than a schism.
Thus, when the conflict is over broken trust, it’s essential that both parties see the situation from the subjective perspective of the other, in the context of the objective reality, in order for it to evolve and be preserved. This demands extreme and brutal self-honesty from both parties involved — something which contemporary society, capitalism, liberalism, and consumerism have all played a part in suppressing. And they’ve been quite successful.
This self-honesty must come from walking backwards through the dialectic of influences and dynamics of the inconsistency or incongruence that created the conflict until you arrive at its root. This enables you to find and amend the root problem and break out of the loop. Sometimes we get lucky and have this clarity sort of spontaneously as an epiphany; sometimes it takes time to work out through deconstruction. Either way, identifying it allows us to confront and resolve the issue. Maybe we can’t entirely have it “our way” — but we can absolutely try to synergize with the world instead of fight against it.