The Peacemaker

Facts are facts. Opinions about the facts differ. It is therefore the job of the peacemaker to bridge the gap between opinions, and in that manner, bring about reconciliation. This much seems obvious. But what if the facts themselves differ? What if the basis for the disagreement is so profound that the world arrays itself differently for each antagonist – and worse: what if the disagreement extends beyond the antagonist, to the peacemaker, who sees the facts themselves in a manner that neither antagonist can accept? What then? Ridiculous, surely: how can the facts themselves differ, when it is one world that we all inhabit? But the facts do differ, because the world is complex beyond the scope of any one interpretation. For this reason, there
The peacemaker threatens, with the threat of peace, because peace means change. The local victor may not win again, when change comes about. This means that the peacemaker has to offer the victor something more than victory – and that he must know what that means. The local loser, too, may remain unhappy, even preferring his previous or ongoing subjugation – presuming as he is very likely to that the devil he knows is to be preferred to the one he does not.
The pragmatic man is generally philosophical about the local – deeply philosophical, even. He is willing to do what it takes, because when he does what it takes he wins, and his victory justifies his pragmatism. But a locally pragmatic solution to the problem of peace is no solution at all, because it is not opinions about facts that differ among those who are at war. It is the facts themselves. There is no pragmatic solution to the problem of differing facts.
That solution has to be derived from the transcendent – and there is no transcendent for the pragmatic man. That means that the peacemaker has to be deeply idealistic.
The pragmatic man regards the idealistic man, not unreasonably, as the slave of ideology, akin, in temperament, to the loser. This is neither surprising
He is in turn motivated to see through the façade of the idealist, to the loser, and to judge him, properly, as resentful, shortsighted, and deeply untrustworthy. But not all ideals are ideologies, and not all idealistic men are losers. Sometimes they are individuals who have sacrificed local victory for something higher. This may make them appear deeply untrustworthy to the master of the local environment, but that is only because the facts that array themselves to him, in consequence of his mastery, remain insufficient. Trapped by the fact of his own local victory, he can only see the reality of what he knows, and does not know that there is also a reality he does not know. The truly idealistic man is an avatar of the reality of the unknown, and not a loser masquerading in moral dress. His difference from the local victor makes him appear in the guise of the defeated
– the only opposite the local victor understands. The facts that array themselves to the idealist are therefore invisible to the pragmatic man, and no communication is possible.
How can the facts themselves differ? And if they do differ, how can the