I do not believe in competition that is motivated by greed and ego boosting, because it is inherently dualistic—it is based on ignorance. But, we are often pushed to grow by/through competition. Indeed, biology, and a study of evolution, shows us that intelligence (complexity in behavior) is fostered through competition. So, it would be wrong to assume that competition itself is bad. Rather, it is how the competition is approached, and seen, that matters.
Competition whose goal it is to name a winner and a loser, to decide which of two are better, may increase complexity and intelligence, but it is an incomplete growth. I think that competition whose intention is to bolster the growth of both parties is more complete and beneficial to both parties, for it is about harmony as opposed to discord. Harmony seems to be a truth of life. Biology shows us that things must work together to work at all. Our bodies are amazing examples of this. Any organism is an example of this, of how the parts work together for the benefit of the whole, which also benefits the parts.
Winning and Losing
Challenge breeds growth. But it is the attitude by which challenge is offered and met that ultimately matters. When it comes to humans who are not fighting each other for food or women like many other animals do, whether competition is “friendly” or “unfriendly” does matter. He who is not challenged does not grow. Often, in competition, the winner was not challenged. Thus, he may win, but he does not grow, and thus, ultimately loses.
Thus, the focus on winning itself is an impediment to growth. The goal of competition should be growth rather than winning, for winning does nothing but boost the ego and encourage a duality, not of harmony, but of discord. Discord is not conducive to growth, harmony is. So, it makes sense that we should approach our competition, our lives, with the attitude that harmony breeds growth.
Growth needs to be our goal. This is not an arbitrary maxim. It is something that is derived by observing nature itself, and also (and this is very important) realizing how important is the attitude by which we observe. Competition that is seen as “against each other” is simply going to ultimately be less productive, less conducive to growth, than competition that is seen as “working with each other.” People who compete with the common goal of mutual growth will always “win.”
Working Together
People who work with each other will always get further, achieve more, than those who work against each other. One can think of a team or group that must accomplish a goal. The team that works best together will usually win, and there is a reason for this: because harmony breeds success and growth. If the goal is to “win” then it is true that a leader may rise and do most of the work, etc. And that team may win because of the talent of that leader. But, again, the issue here is the goal. If the goal is not for the team to simply “win,” but rather the growth of the whole group, (not necessarily equally, but as each is able), then to “win” may not be winning after all.
People are not created equal. Just as it would be absurd to say that an arm is equal to an eye. They are not the same, though they are part of the same organism. They are both the same (in the sense of being a “part” of the “whole” body) and different, in that they look different, perform different functions, etc. The problem is to see them as equal in that they are “the same,” for they are quite obviously not the same.
The question again comes down to attitude, to how they are seen and treated. They can both be valued equally, without being seen as being equal in all ways. Something can be valued for what it is. It is, of course, important to remember that there can be no whole without parts, and there can be not part without a whole. Thus, they are dependent upon each other for each other’s existence. One cannot exist without the other. This is the very epitome of harmony.
Attitude
The issue here is not to decide whether things are the same as, or different than, each other, or even the idea of equality. The issue is the attitude by which competition and the goal of competition is seen. Competition can be good, and even may be necessary to growth. But, what I propose is that it is better to work with each other as opposed to against each other. Two people can compete and not look at the situation as being against each other. This may seem a foreign concept to many people, for they take for granted that one plays “against” the other team and “with” their own team. But it is possible, and I propose ultimately important, to see the whole situation as working with each other—that the teams work with each other, while competing, to achieve a common goal. When we look at it this way, competition can still be there, but both the “winner” and “loser” wind up better off in the end.
With vs. against. This is one of the conceptual axes on which life turns. It is one of the choices we have in life, for we, and only we, have control over the attitude with which we see, and go about, or lives. To be able to look past the immediate, to be able to see the “with” as ultimately more important than the immediate “against,” is a sign of growth, of wisdom. Something may be important and of benefit as itself, but if it is not used properly in harmony with others, it is useless or even destructive.
For example, an engine is integral to a car. Without the car (the other “parts” that make up the “whole” of the car) the engine is pointless and serves no purpose or function. Only when it is a part of the car does it become integral. Thus, the engine itself, outside of the context of the car, is very unimportant. Only when it is a part of the car do we see it as important, in fact, integral. So, it is not the engine itself that matters, but the way it fits into, and how we understand it within, a context. Something’s worth is decided by the context in which it is and is seen. The same with “against” in competition. When against is seen as part of the whole of with, then it is productive and serves a wonderful, and integral, function. Against outside the context of with is like a car engine outside the context of a car.
.
From my personal notes, 8/19/99.
