The subject of conflict is one that humans have historically dealt with poorly. As a means of simplification, it has been my observation that we have three primary ways of interacting with conflict.
We either seek to avoid it, fight it, or are comfortable sitting in it. One option is not necessarily better than any other, but it seems to be the case that we default to one of these options without ever giving any thought or seriousness as to why. We say things like, "I avoid conflict because it unsettles me and I do not wish to have any part of it" or "I fight conflict because conflict ought to be resolved" or "I am comfortable in it because my engagement (or lack thereof) means nothing".
As comforting as these answers may be, they are temporal. They do more to trap us than free us from the chains of our own quiet desperation because we haven't asked what it truly is about the nature of conflict that we fear so much.
Perhaps another appropriate word for conflict is insecurity. Many live their whole lives in search of resolving this insecurity and find comfort in that which does. We hold on tightly to what works and makes us feel secure...but by its very nature, we have willingly submitted ourselves to the conditioning of orthodoxy. This point, belief, or method forms the basis from which we orient ourselves into the world. Note that the problem does not start here, but ends here, if one is not serious.
And so we say our answers come from God, from Buddhism, from Atheism or whatever externality and the like and dedicate ourselves to the mission of these parables without ever questioning the root of our being. Similarities exist elsewhere in love, language, occupation, and all of that. We merely state oppositions in relation to other systems and doctrines out there and condition ourselves to pursue that which we most identify with as a belief. How self-aggrandizing.
I maintain that we are not free to investigate if we remain beholden to this sort of propaganda, as this only furthers the depth of the rabbit hole of which we are so accustomed to living in.
Should this be difficult to understand, it is this: the human, the creating individual, is far more important than any style, structure, or system that assuages our desire for security.
To say that it is about open-mindedness misses the orientation here, as that merely opposes orthodoxy and creates another fixated pattern without ever actually examining and l i v i n g.
We tend not to understand this because we lack awareness and have such a rigid concept of what it means to be free from conflict or to be free at all. One of the hallmarks of human processing is that we are able to define things with utmost clarity - our downfall comes when we refuse to think things otherwise. We become conditioned and well-practiced in these verses and create ideologies and doctrines around these explanations for the world...and so divided humanity has become.
In other words, we have falsely equated freedom from conflict with the lack of its existence; that the resolution of conflict comes when it is eradicated or rendered null. It is through these systems and whatever other structures we come up with that this resolution happens - and so one way becomes the gospel way and all others inferior. Again, I maintain that is but a negative peace, one where the individual stands on illusory ground. Our commitance to this pursuit (or lack thereof) is to go around in circles like a dog tethered to a pole.
Whether one tends to avoid, fight, or negotiate with conflict is besides the question - the individual has the capacity to decide this option at will, and even more importantly so, the ability to investigate, to examine, to l i v e, and understand the nature of conflict itself. Difficult as it may be or seem, to deny this ability is contributory to conflict.
To be aware - to be sensitive to this is perhaps a more fitting proposition.