Memory

In conflict we rely on memory to recount events. What happens when 2 people have different recollections of the same event? Is it possible to have all parties needs met when an accurate history can not be achieved?

One would assume that accuracy would be important for resolution, as we need to clarify the event(s) in order to move forward. But is it possible to have different histories and still move forward, to reach resolution without the "truth"?

This clarifies a difference between "getting all parties needs met" and "establishing the truth". When we seek to get all parties needs met we are less reliant on an accurate report of history and are more concerned with the present moment. It seems important to approach each conflict with the intention of ensuring all parties needs are met, rather than getting a handle on the truth.