From a very young age, children seem to be motivated by wanting to win. Parents use this to their advantage to motivate as well as bring happiness to their children.
This desire to win and to admire winners continues as we grow. The Olympics, any kind of sport, popular music, career advancement, all appears to be built on the winning motivation. The measurement of good is based on being better than others.
There is no doubt that comparison with others in similar situations is the easiest way of measuring success and this may indeed be the appeal of winning; that it validates whatever we do as successful.
But why is successful appealing?
Can we say the same about wanting to be right?
In any group discussion, very often the group separates into camps representing the various argument on the issue. In most political discussion, the party line becomes easy separation points for groups to form. Soon the discussion becomes a competition to be right rather than listening to others, to possibly reframe and modify one's viewpoint to improve understanding of the issue.
Here, the wanting to be right strikes a remarkable similarity to wanting to win. Is it possible that the desire to win is overtaking the supposed aim to discuss and reach better understanding?
When I first started wondering about this, Mike suggested that it is all about sex. That winning is what gives us alpha male or queen bee status, that we are biologically programmed to want to win over others of our species in order to try to rise to be leader of the social group and to enjoy the fruits of being the leader.
The fact that we wanted to win at a young age certainly suggest that it may be biologically programmed but I am always careful about the "hard wired" explanation as it tends to provide an easy end to a search for answers.
Are there other ideas about the attractiveness of winning and being right?
Would non social animals care to win?
If it is indeed a biological aspect of our being, would it be better for us to try to put it aside? It will certainly ease our anxiety and help us reach contentment.
Winning at the Olympics and other pinnacles of achievement is certainly laudable. But are there more worthwhile lives aimed at a more rounded existence rather than giving everything else up in order to excel in one thing?
By definition, only a very small minority can be breaking the Guineas book of records, or win at the Olympics. Winning as a strategy tends to create a lot more losers than winners.
Is there not value in appreciating good music instead of always looking for the best available?
If suffering is inevitable in life, then isn't there something in failure for us to value as well?
Let's have your ideas at this Friday's discussion and comments on the blog.
Plato certainly thought he had all the answers to what was "good" or in the "dark" The cave man couldn't dig himself out, or break the cave to get to the light, no matter what he did. The best he could do would be to find a crack of light so he could play with a puppet and cast shadows, for amusment, or bemusment, it seemed.
ReplyDeleteModern day skeptics, scenics, ranters, and general no sayers, wouldn't agree with Plato. I don't agree with Plato.
Men and women have the capacity to learn from their experiences and to build lives of their own doings. The shakels aren't really there, but if a human believes that failure leads to further failure than perhaps the light is really only for the select few.
To err is to be human seems to imply that humanity should seek to overcome itself. That we all make mistakes but its OK cause we're ONLY human, afterall.
Unlike Humans, computers are perfect, or are they? Do computers make mistakes too? Does the emotion chip really exist? Computers do, have "life" spans afterall; they don't "exist" forever.
But Human Beings have a capacity for awareness that isn't found in computers. If fixated on computer like thinking and attempting to always get it right, then a person could become narrotic to say the least.
There is something else and we can label it awareness. Like feelings, sensations, perceptions, love, compassion, care, or something else. I ouch therefore....Or something more conscious, if you like.
So, maybe to find something that means something to ones Self, and to pursue it could be, a continuous learning process that could span the course of a life. But really, this doesn't sound much different then the computer, other than the obvious physical differences that make human beings more mobile.
But, of course, the computer has a time and a place, and even a purpose in the scheme of things; and computers are necessary for us.
I turn to Nietche here. Read "Beyound Good and Evil" not to be interpreted as "Beyound Good and Bad"-so a professor of mine said in class one day. But every time I bring his name up people seem terrified. Ultimate Power corupts, and Nietche wouldn't disagree. He had a lot to say about institutions, society, and holding entities accountable. A very litteral man too, poetical. He also went crazy, and died very alone. May he RIP.!
On the thought of awareness, Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor in her Ted Talk,
DeleteLink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU
Remarked on the differenced neuroanatomy between our left and right hemispheres, the former concerned with serial processing, that is, the “I am”, and the latter concerned with parallel processing, the “I am being”. Competition comes, usually, from anxiety and desire to escape Nothingness. Why are we afraid of Nothingness? Death, biologically and spiritually, gives to creation. There is no Nothingness. Life, biologically and spiritually, gives exuberance and identity. There is no fear of becoming Nothingness. Form is feeling, shape is spirit. We are life. We are being alive. Life is beautiful, aware, and defined. Like Alan Watts’s title talk, “Not what should be, not what might be, but what is.”
Link for Alan Watts’s talk, part 1 out of 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYpBKkCHUQQ
This topic, on a tangent, reminded me of my unfortunate habit at stargazing in the middle of the night (all neighbours think I’m nutty). Here is my embarrassing attempt at a Conversation with the Moon:
A girl was in love, with the moon. One night, she said, “Moon, do you love me?” The moon stood still, and shined. “You are so beautiful, moon. But, I am sad. I am so afraid.” The moon smiled. “You are so beautiful, moon. But, I will lose you. When I am gone, there is no Light, there is only Nothingness. I am so afraid.” The moon, breathed, and swam beneath passing clouds. The girl, breathed, and closed her eyes. “It is dark. I am, dark.” The moon is silent. “Where are you, moon? What are you, moon?” The moon is silent. “Could you be here, moon? Can you be here, moon?” The moon smiled, and surfaced. “Are you here?” The girl laughed, and blinked. “You are here, I am here.” The moon stood still, and shined. “Love me, do you, Moon?” The moon shined. “Thank you.”
On the idea of anthropology, altruism is apparently as common as competition (a wonderful, humorous, and recommended book on gender competition is Leonard Shlain's "Sex, Time, and Power"). Here is Douglas P. Fry’s Science article on “Life without War”:
Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6083/879.full.pdf
Thank you, and have a great conversation!
Sandra.
We are often asked to "do your best" for any endeavor. If, however, we try to do our best at each and every endeavor, we would quickly burn out. We almost never can maximize; we cannot even often optimize; rather, most often we must satisfice. I read a Christain devotional book "At Peace with Failure" by Duane Mehl (Augsburg Publishing House, 1984) and barely remember it. In "Kierkegaard's Christian Psychology" we are asked not to be who we are and not to be who we are not. An existential challenge. CL
ReplyDelete