Competition is wicked

[Vort]

Vort,

Where we diverge in our principles about competition is in the idea that winning is always good and losing is always bad.

I don't subscribe to that thinking.

In terms of competition, those things are true by definition.

[Dravin]

In terms of competition, those things are true by definition.

I can have a hemlock eating contest in the neighborhood, everyone who refuses to partake of the hemlock loses the competition. This to you, is by definition bad? Losing generally means one does not achieve the prize or goal of a competition but the prize or goal of any given competition is not necessarily desirable. I can, in my own little dictator island, make all the peasants compete in a beauty pageant, the winner becoming the abusive crazy dictators wife. In an arbitrary competition the definitions of winning the competition, and the consequences for doing so are also arbitrary and are not necessarily good by definition. Particularly if we're using a religious concept of good. To win a competition robbing liquor stores in which the prize is sex with an anonymous woman is certainly not good.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

I can have a hemlock eating contest in the neighborhood, everyone who refuses to partake of the hemlock loses the competition. This to you, is by definition bad? Losing generally means one does not achieve the prize or goal of a competition but the prize or goal of any given competition is not necessarily desirable. I can, in my own little dictator island, make all the peasants compete in a beauty pageant, the winner becoming the abusive crazy dictators wife. In an arbitrary competition the definitions of winning the competition, and the consequences for doing so are also arbitrary and are not necessarily good by definition. Particularly if we're using a religious concept of good. To win a competition robbing liquor stores in which the prize is sex with an anonymous woman is certainly not good.

I'm confused. Do people really, honestly not understand what I'm saying? Or has this become a contest of semantics? Because if so, that illustrates my point.

[Dravin]

I'm confused. Do people really, honestly not understand what I'm saying? Or has this become a contest of semantics? Because if so, that illustrates my point.

I certainly don't see where you can conclude that winning any possible competition is good and loosing any possible competition is bad due to something inherent in the definition of a competition. Of course you've not defined a competition (that I noticed), so there is only a generic concept floating out there of what exactly you may mean. Other than it being pride, but that's not particularly useful as a definition.

Or has this become a contest of semantics?

That the winning of a competition is always, by virtue of something inherent in the definition or concept of a competition, good is a semantic argument to begin with.

Because if so, that illustrates my point.

No it does not, but maybe you would care to elaborate on how someone not simply accepting your statement about the inherent nature of winning a competition illustrates that by its very nature the winning of a competition is always good?

Edited May 21, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

I certainly don't see where you can conclude that winning any possible competition is good and loosing any possible competition is bad due to something inherent in the definition of a competition.

Can you name a competition where the point of the competition is to lose? (Bad jokes about weight and virginity aside.)

Competition does not exist without a defined winner. If so, it's not a competition.

Of course you've not defined a competition, so there is only a generic concept floating out there of what exactly you may mean. Other than it being pride, but that's not particularly useful as a definition.

This is partly by intent. I think the fundamental feeling of competition, of wanting to best someone else, is by its very nature prideful and thus wicked and unChristlike. I believe this is difficult for us to accept, or even to recognize, because our society is built on the idea of competition.

That the winning of a competition is always, by virtue of something inherent in the definition or concept of a competition, good is a semantic argument to begin with.

Again, is there such a thing as a competition where the point is to lose?

No it does not, but maybe you would care to elaborate on how someone not simply accepting your statement about the inherent nature of winning a competition illustrates that by its very nature the winning of a competition is always good.

My point was that if people are ignoring or intentionally misunderstanding me and then using that as a semantic point to try to somehow "win" the discussion, it illustrates the non-celestial and ultimately self-defeating nature of competition.

[Dravin]

Can you name a competition where the point of the competition is to lose? (Bad jokes about weight and virginity aside.)

Competition does not exist without a defined winner. If so, it's not a competition.

I gave examples of competition in which the desired outcome by participants is to lose. A competition is generally designed where the point is to succeed, but success is not the same thing as good. Quite obviously if one does not want to marry the crazy dictator winning the beauty pageant is bad, it is undesirable, even if it is the point of the competition. I also gave an example in which even if both the design and desires is success the results, the winning, is bad (in a religious sense as it is detrimental to the wellbeing of the participants and winner).

Your point only holds if one equates* success in the contest as good and failure as bad, which is an assumption I don't hold. I suspect Anatess doesn't either unless I've misread her comment.

* I mean that in a = way, in which in every instance it is the case. Conditionally it can certainly be the case.

My point was that if people are ignoring or intentionally misunderstanding me and then using that as a semantic point to try to somehow "win" the discussion, it illustrates the non-celestial and ultimately self-defeating nature of competition.

Only if one begs the question.

Personally, I'd agree that if one is resorting to intentional misconstruction or ignoring of someone's points to score rhetorical victories then there is a high probability the primary motivation is to satisfy pride in some way.

Aside: A semantic argument does not necessarily mean one is engaging in such, even though it's a common way to use the word. For instance a discussion on the Trinity (actually quite a few religious arguments involving documents) can easily boil down to semantic arguments but can be an honest ones. A semantic argument means you're making an argument pertaining to the meanings of words or language this can be a honest and necessary approach or it can be the round and round dancing of the meaning of is arguments that aren't exactly unknown on the internet.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Dravin

[LDSJewess]

I believe we were all put on this earth with the gift of common sense, but that free agency allows us to put it to use or not.

We can find evil in anything, and frankly short of clear disobedience of the ten commandments in theior literal sense, we can find good in things as well.

Competition in and of itself is not evil, be it at a wrestling match or a beauty pageant. Wrestlers do not engage in their sport or beauty pageant contestants enter the event with intent to lose. They intend to compete and do their best and they intend to win (or have very high hopes to win). When it borders on evil or wrong doing is not the competition in and of itself, but 1. the reason they are engaging in the competition, and 2. their degree of sportsmanship if they do not win their competition. Bad sportsmanship is what develops into anger, jealousy and behaving in an ill mannered way; not the competition in an of itself.

The positive side of competition is when a competitor is engaging in the competition for the purpose of self improvement and in the event they do excel in their field of competition they use their "winning status" in helping others in a positive manner.

[Vort]

I gave examples of competition in which the desired outcome by participants is to lose.

This is tiresome (and from you, one of my favorite LDS-Net participants, that is most unexpected). You wrote:

I can have a hemlock eating contest in the neighborhood, everyone who refuses to partake of the hemlock loses the competition. This to you, is by definition bad?

This is to me, by definition, stupid. One does not have a hemlock-eating contest. That is simply absurd, and is an intentional dodge of my point. It appears you are trying to "win" this discussion in "proving me wrong" by bringing up absurd, ridiculous examples. As I pointed out, this ironically illustrates my point.

A hemlock-eating contest? Seriously?

Losing generally means one does not achieve the prize or goal of a competition but the prize or goal of any given competition is not necessarily desirable.

You are ignoring that the essence of competition is striving with another for the desire of mastery. If you don't desire the outcome, then you're not competing.

When I play Chutes & Ladders with my four-year-old, it is not a competition. I have no desire to win the game. My only desire is to have fun with my child. When I play Stratego with my son, we are in competition, each trying to defeat the other. Hopefully, our competitiveness is subsumed in our enjoyment of mutual play; but I guarantee that if one or the other of us always won, the game would cease to be interesting or enjoyable. It is the competition we are enjoying, the idea of winning mastery over your son (or father). Is this Godly? Is this celestial?

I can, in my own little dictator island, make all the peasants compete in a beauty pageant, the winner becoming the abusive crazy dictators wife.

Then it's not a competition, is it? Unless the pageant "contestants" actually want to marry you.

Seriously, Dravin, what is your point? In the years I've participated here, I have always appreciated your posts, and usually agreed with you. But this time I honestly cannot make out what you are aiming for. I welcome intelligent discussion and even disagreement with my thesis, but your points are not well-taken and not even germane to what I asked about. They're just sort of bizarre and irrelevant. It is as if I asked about "loving my wife" and you started making examples of how some people love bleu cheese or entomology, and how love can include things like slavery and cannibalism.

You must know perfectly well that I am wondering about the very idea of competition. Bringing up outlandish or even stupid examples of "competition" where the prize is death or disfigurement or something equally awful doesn't address the point of my question at all. I can only assume it's an attempt to "win" the "argument" by proving me "wrong" with a bunch of ridiculous examples, like a "hemlock-eating contest" or a "beauty contest enforced by a dictator to pick his bride".

On the chance that you somehow have completely missed what I was asking and your comments thus far are an honest attempt to deal with the question, let me ask something more specific:

Can you give me an example of divine competition between celestial beings? Within Church leadership? Between Saints striving with all their hearts to build each other up?

Do you think it's appropriate to have an elders quorum home teaching "competition" where the winning district goes out for pizza on the losers' dime?

If we are adrift at sea, dying of thirst, with only one bottle of water left, ought we to have a competition to see who will drink it?

In an arbitrary competition the definitions of winning the competition, and the consequences for doing so are also arbitrary and are not necessarily good by definition.

Wrong. If you're competing, then you want the offered prize. Otherwise you are not competing.

A competition is generally designed where the point is to succeed, but success is not the same thing as good. Quite obviously if one does not want to marry the crazy dictator winning the beauty pageant is bad, it is undesirable, even if it is the point of the competition. I also gave an example in which even if both the design and desires is success the results, the winning, is bad (in a religious sense as it is detrimental to the wellbeing of the participants and winner).

In what way do you see this being at all germane to my original point?

Your point only holds if one equates* success in the contest as good and failure as bad, which is an assumption I don't hold. I suspect Anatess doesn't either unless I've misread her comment.

Then you can quickly and easily give me an example of celestial beings competing with each other.

Personally, I'd agree that if one is resorting to intentional misconstruction or ignoring of someone's points to score rhetorical victories then there is a high probability the primary motivation is to satisfy pride in some way.

Curious what you see yourself as doing in this discussion.

Aside: A semantic argument does not necessarily mean one is engaging in such, even though it's a common way to use the word.

It's not the way I used the word. Many discussions by their very nature are semantic, including most philosophical discussions. That is true in the present case only if you can't figure out what I mean by "competition", and that I don't mean something like "a hemlock-eating competition".

[Dravin]

This is to me, by definition, stupid. One does not have a hemlock-eating contest. That is simply absurd, and is an intentional dodge of my point. It appears you are trying to "win" this discussion in "proving me wrong" by bringing up absurd, ridiculous examples.

Nice semantic argument. Actually the plausibility doesn’t matter; you are claiming that inherently in any competition winning is good. If I can demonstrate a competition in which winning is not good (and since good is undefined there are several commonly accepted concepts of it that can be used) then your statement is false and/or needs to be refined. In all probability once everything comes out to play about the nuances and concepts everyone has both your thoughts that winning is always good and loosing always bad and the thought that winning isn't always good and that loosing isn't always bad will have merit from perspective viewpoints.

I'm probably taking a more 'technical' approach to things than Anatess would though. She's probably talking about stuff like winning helping to develop insatiable pride, which is bad, or losing helping develop humility and sportsmanship, which is good. While less technical it's a messier argument as you can get stuck going over if winning or losing was the cause, or if the good outweighs bad (for instance you win $500 dollars but become a butthead, is that good or bad, and even if it's bad is becoming a butthead a result of winning or something else). Death and crazy marriages while still debatable, are probably a touch less so.

You are ignoring that the essence of competition is striving with another for the desire of mastery.

Another semantic argument. I’m ignoring no such thing as I do not define a competition that way. You would make someone who plays a scratch lottery ticket desiring mastery over everyone else who is competing for the money. No, they just want the prize, the stated reward for winning. In the case of the beauty pageant they are in competition via their natural attributes for who will be picked as the bride, no effort, desire, or mastery is desired.

Then it's not a competition, is it? Unless the pageant "contestants" actually want to marry you.

Yes it is. Ask ye olde dictator. The peasants are competing, as per his rules of the competition, to marry him. That they do not desire what reward he offers them doesn’t not mean they are not part of the competition. Of course you’ve left the definition of a competition to be intentionally vague so it should come to no surprise that we may be operating under different nuances of what a competition (and competition in general) is.

I didn't even bring up competitions under false pretenses either. If the stated reward is $500 but it's actually marriage to the crazy dictator most people would conclude when all is said and done that winning that contest was bad.

I welcome intelligent discussion and even disagreement with my thesis, but your points are not well-taken and not even germane to what I asked about.

They are entirely germane to your assertion that winning a competition = good.

You must know perfectly well that I am wondering about the very idea of competition. Bringing up outlandish or even stupid examples of "competition" where the prize is death or disfigurement or something equally awful doesn't address the point of my question at all.

As I said, I’m not addressing your question. If by your question you mean, “Is competition wicked?” I’ve already addressed that question. I’m moving on to tangential topics, namely your disagreement that winning isn’t always good and loosing isn’t always bad.

On the chance that you somehow have completely missed what I was asking and your comments thus far are an honest attempt to deal with the question, let me ask something more specific:

Can you give me an example of divine competition between celestial beings? Within Church leadership? Between Saints striving with all their hearts to build each other up?

Do you think it's appropriate to have an elders quorum home teaching "competition" where the winning district goes out for pizza on the losers' dime?

Yep, you’ve definitely fallen victim to trying to make specific comments to be about your general topic.

Otherwise you are not competing.

I disagree. Anyone who is entered into a contest is competing for the prize regardless of the amount of energy they may be putting towards that goal. If my wife fills out a chance to win form for a snow machine at the mall on my behalf, even if I don’t want it because I don’t want to pay taxes on it and I hate snow machine, I am a competitor, a contestant, I am in the pool of people who can potentially win.

if you can't figure out what I mean by "competition", and that I don't mean something like "a hemlock-eating competition".

If one intentionally leaves a word undefined, and even states they have intentionally left a word undefined it should come as no surprise that people in the conversation will reach different conclusions about the nuances of words. You need to either define the term you want to discuss (Which you are now making an unfocused attempt at doing, though only in a reactionary and not proactive way) or accept that people are going to have differing ideas of what it means.

If we define competition as precluding a hemlock eating competition it is not a valid example of a competition. Of course if we define God as a bunny rabbit Elohim is not a valid example of a God logically speaking. So even if it was defined you can still run into disagreement over the definition or it's implications. Tell you what though, if you throughly define (so no, "pride" or "no hemlock eating or beauty pageants") I may or may not agree with it but I'll use it.

Edit: Ultimately my disagreement with your assertion about the nature of winning and good is probably based on equal amounts of not quite getting the nuance of what you are meaning and the universal nature of the statement. If you mean to say that if one idolizes competition it can easily become a case of seeing every win, by virtue of it being a win, to be good, and every loss, by virtue of it being a loss, to be bad. That "in the context of competition" winning is overwhelmingly set up to be the desired result amongst contestants or designer and that losing is overwhelmingly set up to be the undesired results I can agree with that statement. Though if that is indeed what you meant I don't think it really addresses Anateses position as I don't think that's the position she was trying to stake out.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

You win. Congrats.

[Dravin]

You win. Congrats.

No I don't, or if I do I'd say it's a undesirable or 'bad' outcome. What I desire is to fully understand your position as I don't think you've fully staked it out, at least not in a way that I understand.

[HoosierGuy]

I learned in a humanities class that there is one important thing that makes all stories in books or TV shows or movies worth watching. It must have some kind of conflict. Man against man, man against himself, man against nature, man against God, man against something. There must be that conflict.

Isn't competing another form of conflict? Yes.

[rameumptom]

Vort,

How would you do things differently? Part of the challenge of this life is the fact that there is "opposition in ALL things". That connotes competition. We compete every time we make a choice between good and evil, right and wrong, or even between good-better-best.

Is there a celestial form of competing, or working through opposition, that would work for you?

[Vort]

How would you do things differently?

I have no good idea.

Part of the challenge of this life is the fact that there is "opposition in ALL things". That connotes competition. We compete every time we make a choice between good and evil, right and wrong, or even between good-better-best.

Disagree. Making a choice is not competing in any meaningful sense, certainly not in any sense I'm talking about.

Is there a celestial form of competing, or working through opposition, that would work for you?

Not that I can think of. I believe competition is anticelestial by its very nature.

[apexviper13]

Competitions are good because it gives a person a reason to work hard at something. The purpose is to see who is better at something, not who is a better person than others.

[Guest]

Perfect example:

Naga MMA competition. Nah, let's make it even more specific - Naga Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competition.

I don't like it - my husband does. I defered to him after I saw one event and realized it's very controlled - no pinning or anything - just mounts and positioning - it would be very difficult to get hurt at my kids' age level. My 9-year-old son competed in it.

Okay, so the object of the game is to have the most points - then you win. You win you get a trophy (actually, I think it's a samurai sword or something). Really cool stuff.

My son, of course, lost.

Is that bad? Nope - even my son will tell you that. He learned quite a bit of moves that he thought he already knew - he always got out of those mounts when he sparred at school - coz the kids in the school let up (as they were trained to do). In competition - there's no letting up until the ref says so.

Guess what - in the school yard, there's no ref to tell a kid to let up.

So yeah, my kids' MMA competition is not necessarily win/lose as in good/evil. Of course you want to win, but not so you can get a samurai sword. It is to pit your knowledge against someone so you can see if your defenses have holes in them. Better to learn that in the ring than at the hands of the school yard bully. If you get the samurai sword, chances are, you have learned enough to know how to avoid confrontation at school or to avoid getting pinned if the bully comes after you.

Where else are you going to learn that in a safe/controlled environment?

[Guest]

Another example:

My other kid is in soccer. American soccer. The biggest joke in the name of sports...

In my son's soccer tournaments - nobody keeps score. Nobody wins/loses. Everybody gets a trophy. EVERY SINGLE KID gets a trophy for attendance. What a crock!

So, I pulled my kid out of that idiot tournament. My brother is a professional soccer player who was the goalkeeper for the Philippine team. Yes, he got paid to play soccer. Why? Because of the crazy things he can do with that ball! He can fly in the air sideways from one goalpost to the other, 6 feet in the air to save a goal. He didn't get that good playing no-score soccer! You don't get that good when you don't know you suck so bad you need to train harder!

Have you ever heard of a Philippine Team making it to the World Cup? Of course not! They suck! But, they still play, and they still make money... because it's fun! And people love watching soccer! It's awesome being on that stand watching all that footwork!

You know why America doesn't support soccer as much as they support NFL? Because American culture doesn't enjoy a sport that is an hour and a half long with a final score of 0-0... The rest of the world loves it...

Edited May 24, 2011 by anatess

[Vort]

Perfect example:

Naga MMA competition. Nah, let's make it even more specific - Naga Brazilian Jiu Jitsu competition.

What, exactly, is this an example of?

I don't like it - my husband does. I defered to him after I saw one event and realized it's very controlled - no pinning or anything - just mounts and positioning - it would be very difficult to get hurt at my kids' age level. My 9-year-old son competed in it.

Okay, so the object of the game is to have the most points - then you win. You win you get a trophy (actually, I think it's a samurai sword or something). Really cool stuff.

My son, of course, lost.

Is that bad? Nope - even my son will tell you that.

Obviously, I am completely unable to make my point. This is frustrating, but before I despair completely of making the point, let me try one more time.

Vort: I believe that death, by its nature, is bad. Christ himself said that he overcame death. Eternal death is the ultimate punishment. Were there no redemption from death, we would all be forever lost. In the celestial realms, there is no death. I am convinced that death is a fundamentally bad thing, even if it's necessary in the realm we live in. If someone has other insight into why death per se is not something that we must overcome and that will not exist in the celestial realms, please enlighten me.

Everyone else: No! You're wrong! Death is WONDERFUL! Maybe not ALL death, but death is really great! Look, everyone dies in this world! That's how it's supposed to be!

Vort: Well, yes, everyone dies, because that's the nature of this fallen world. But I don't believe that death is instrinsically a good thing. Death is separation from life, either physical life or spiritual life. That, in its essence, is a bad thing.

Everyone else: No, it isn't! Death is great! What's your problem? Are you deaf? What about when someone is suffering from cancer? Isn't death a blessed relief? What about Jesus? He HAD to die to atone for our sins! It's a very good thing he died!

Vort: Well, yes, but the point is that Christ overcame death.

Everyone else: Look, my grandmother died, and she would be the first to tell you that it was necessary and good. There is clearly nothing wrong with death. It's great! Why can't you see that?

Vort: Never mind.

Or so the conversation seems to me.

Guess what - in the school yard, there's no ref to tell a kid to let up.

I don't consider schoolyard survival an appropriate comparison to life in the celestial kingdom. On the contrary, many or most of the "skills" I learned to survive public school have made me a smaller, more petty, more sinful man, further from God than if I had never learned those "lessons".

Of course you want to win, but not so you can get a samurai sword. It is to pit your knowledge against someone so you can see if your defenses have holes in them.

If that were the case, they would never have competitions with trophies and everything. You would just go to class and roll with others. People who take judo or BJJ or whatever solely for self-improvement with no desire at all for competition don't go to tournaments.

Better to learn that in the ring than at the hands of the school yard bully.

So to live successfully in the celestial kingdom, we need to prepare for the schoolyard bully?

Where else are you going to learn that in a safe/controlled environment?

The scriptures suggest that there will come a time when our children will learn war no more. Whatever will they do without those vital survival skills?!

Another example:

My other kid is in soccer. American soccer. The biggest joke in the name of sports...

In my son's soccer tournaments - nobody keeps score. Nobody wins/loses. Everybody gets a trophy. EVERY SINGLE KID gets a trophy for attendance. What a crock!

Why? It's not a championship trophy. It's a participation trophy.

Shall we ask God to award us based on our head-to-head results with each other?

[Dravin]

Obviously, I am completely unable to make my point.

You're not the only one. For example Anatess made the comment that winning is not always good and losing is not always bad and you've kept right on arguing that competition isn't celestial.

[Vort]

You're not the only one. For example Anatess made the comment that winning is not always good and losing is not always bad and you've kept right on arguing that competition isn't celestial.

If "winning" is not good, then it's not winning.

If "losing" is not bad, then it's not losing.

This is the essence of competition:

1. You define a winner or winners and a loser or losers, then you strive to be a winner.

2. It is zero-sum; as Anatess so clearly pointed out, competition is such that if everyone wins, then no one wins.

[Vort]

I have to admit... competition has made me into a better person...

I suspect this is not true.

I would prob be a lot more lazy if it were not for competition... just being honest ...

It is not obvious to me that being prideful is better than being lazy.

not that I'm trying to be better than anyone, just trying to keep up, learning from people who are both better and worse than me in some given subject area...

Then by definition, you're not competing.

but I agree:

"Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man... It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition is gone, pride is gone."

— C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

I compare myself to others to learn from others - when I find someone who does something better than me, I try not to be jealous, instead I take note of what they are doing, and follow suit.

That isn't competition.

[Dravin]

If "winning" is not good, then it's not winning.

If "losing" is not bad, then it's not losing.

Anatess gave a perfectly valid example in which losing the competition was not a bad thing, I also brought up (though didn't actually argue) that if winning results in an inflated ego that it's a bad thing. You are arguing that someone by having lost has learned a valuable lesson in humility has actually won the competition? And someone who wins a competition and develops a raging ego has actually lost the competition? Because I would call having learned humility/sportsmanship a good thing and that developing a raging ego is a bad thing.

If you're going on the idea that the competition is set up such that winning is the desired outcome by participants and losing the undesired, well, I already conceed in that context it holds, though I did disagree that I thought Anatess was framing her statements within that context.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

I cut your above post because, this is the part that illustrates my point.

So to live successfully in the celestial kingdom, we need to prepare for the schoolyard bully?

YES! Exactly!

The scriptures suggest that there will come a time when our children will learn war no more. Whatever will they do without those vital survival skills?!

Why? It's not a championship trophy. It's a participation trophy.

You can't learn to live in the Celestial Kingdom until you've learned how. And that's what competition is for - to be an opposition to all things.

Otherwise, why not leave Adam and Eve in the Garden if they can learn to live in a Celestial state without learning how to overcome war?

It's not a participation trophy - that's the American soccer trophy - that's not what I'm expecting for my kid's award for achievement.

Take it this way - I don't consider having lived and died by just "participating" as worthy of trophy. Worthy of salvation, sure - I mean, the Atonement is "free" after all... I consider trophy as more than that - the product of working hard for it and succeeding, not just participating.

Shall we ask God to award us based on our head-to-head results with each other?

No. We ask God to reward us on our head-to-head results with ourselves. The only way we know that we have more to achieve is when we see the bar raised by somebody else.

[Dravin]

Anatess' it sounds to me like you have a significantly different concept of what exactly competition entails (then Vort, and possibly even myself). Would you mind defining competition in your own words (or providing on you think fits what you consider competition)?

Edited May 24, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Anatess' it sounds to me like you have a significantly different concept of what exactly competition entails. Would you mind defining competition in your own words (or providing on you think fits what you consider competition)?

Competition (I'm not doing a google on it):

When you pit one against another to achieve a pre-determined goal.

Winner and loser is pre-determined by the rules of the competition.

Now, here is what Vort and I diverge on.

Vort: A winner/loser = good/bad

Me: Winner/loser is determined by the rules of competition. Good/bad is determined by each competitor.

I gave the example of my son in Naga competition. He lost - according to the rules of the game. It is good - according to my son's personal goal to be a better MMA fighter.

But, Vort wants it to be Celestial in nature. So, let's do that.

So, what does MMA have to do with Celestial Kingdom?

Here's one:

To learn how to get up after you lose.

For example - my son, he lost. Good because it made him realize he needs to get better and work harder. He didn't whine and pout and smash his fists against the floor because he didn't get the sword while this other kid did.

So that, if my son is ever faced with The_Phoenix-type challenges, he can look back into the lessons he learned in MMA and learn that yes, he may get knocked down a few times, but there is always a lesson learned and he can get back up, work harder and do better. Hopefully, he will have learned enough to know that nothing good can come out of whining and pouting and smashing his fists against the floor because some guys got a fair shake and he didn't...

Clear as mud?

Now, Vort, I think, is saying that competition is not needed in Celestial Kingdom. Sure, maybe. But, we're not there yet. Opposition in all things is good. Otherwise, there's no need for Adam and Eve to be given opposing trees. Vort said something about death not being Celestial so, you can say until you're blue it is good, for him it is still bad.

Which, I don't get. Because, one doesn't have to only exist in the Celestial Kingdom for it to be good. Death - regardless of how you look at it - is not inherently wicked/evil, just like Competition is not inherently wicked/evil.

Edited May 24, 2011 by anatess