You do not see how competitive your answer was do you? The answer for a noncompetive person would have been a simple yes or no.
As a matter of fact it would.
Trixie needs some peanut butter crackers.
Well there goes that favorite snack out the door. Couldn’t use anything else could you
In stead of putting it out the door, you could perhaps put it in one of several places, preferably which the sun doesn’t shine, mine or yours it doesn’t matter.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhE2r59kD8[/youtube]
I like chess to expand logic. Such a question out of the blue may have a double meaning. And I responded proactively. But you are kinda twisting the context now.
If one knows that one is playing into a competitive framework that will end up breaking the branch one sits on, why would one? Example: I read yesterday that china was about to crash economically. I dont think any investors/stock market player would engage in a musical chair game if they knew the rule of that game: that 85-90% are doomed to lose their shirt. This kind of competition is cupidity, what we have had for about millennia. Remove the cupid factor and competition morphs into cooperation.
I am not too fond of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism overall but she said a few good things about “greed”, anybody really greedy will always evaluate all the pros and cons before acting. Being greedy has little, if nothing, to do with trampling others.
Again: The answer to the question would have been a simple yes or no for a noncompetitive mind. If you wish logic then your answer and next post are not logical replies to my simple question and simple reply. You want competition to be unethical , yet you give a competitive answer to a noncompetitive question. You play chess to expand logic but, your reply was illogically defensive which is part of a competitive mind. You said I am twisting context. No I am not. Your mind is trying to stay ahead of my percieved competitiveness. I am not competing , I am showing. An ethical competition is healthy, a paranoid one is not. Do you see this?
Thinking ahead is important to see where competition might form and avoid being dragged into it. Non dual thinking is characterized by expressing both sides of any position.
The only competition that is conceivable is which existing within. I didnt perceive any competitiveness in your question though but since we talk of social behaviors and structures, my answer to you was also trying to make a point about it.
In the end nature rules humanity not the other way around.
Nature will judge our fate.
lets hope that china’s abrupt economic hard landing will teach masses something this time. Not only 85-90% of shareholders will lose their shirts but will drag the whole planet into a tailspin. Competition?
Maybe after that more people will begin to follow the 7 immutable cosmic laws fervently
Hope floats. It will be certainly entertaining however. I am sharpening my knives as we speak.
am sure you are prepared for the falling dominoes
As prepared as I can be. Vengeance will be mine.
Looking forward to dead bodies hanging on lamp posts and such.
Let me try it simply. Your replies, your justification of replies is a natural competitive part of you. Competition is not just about winning, competition is bettering ourselves physically and mentally. Our biggest competitor in this world is ourself. Your use of trying to use logic is competitive. Right and wrong is competitive. Choice of what to eat is competing. It is in every aspect of life. You could not answer my questions. You thought too much, tried to get to where you thought I was going. You did not get there but, you did.
China goes down, ok , so. It is not the first time a major country fails and society dies , people die. Who do you hold responsible, the elite or the average to the poor? I hold the ones that are in the majority responsible. I hold the ones that allow themselves to be victims responsible. The average person is not stupid , just lazy. What keeps people from moving out? Why can they just not walk away? They can, ancestors did. Laziness.
my answers always include the bigger picture, as much as I could say that you attempt to trap me… 
But competition will forever remain a cognitive issue since we all have inner struggles. Competition between us though is the biggest nemesis of free will, unless it is meant to be overcome. Just throwing in a few lines of the column I am currently drafting to prolong the discussion
The Origin Of Conflict: Oligarchical Collectivism And The Loss of Free Will
Servitude is inherent to the Oligarchic competitive paradigm that has ruled the planet since the inception of monetarism. This paradigm has sold the dream, or illusion, to possess what Man never can nor will, which is that of owning Earth Herself. The privatization of natural resources and their environmental consequences are embedded in our monetary frameworks. Trying to stand up against monopolies is a stance that cannot succeed when dismissing or ignoring the inner workings of monetarism.
The Most Destructive Paradigm Ever: Owning Earth
Although the fallacy of owning Earth deserves a chapter on its own, let’s first scrutinize the most obvious to connect a few essential dots. The most striking one without a doubt is the unfettered market privatization of anything we can think of. Owning earth, implies that anything must sell. When man thinks Earth belongs to him, that presupposes and comprises all life living on Her. Drawing the line becomes impossible since the very nature of any paradigm is to expand. It is only when man begins to accept with humility that he belongs to Earth, is subjected to Her own Laws instead, that he also really begins to respect life and use Knowledge for a greater good. When Knowledge doesn’t evolve along those lines, it is rightfully perceived as competitive, inimical to individuality and eventually a threat to societies or even his own species. The prevalent war syndrome highlights this within every civilization. Fighting for natural resources also points to property rights and borders as a fiction. That the latter have been and still are scapegoated for the sake of monetary power, Earth’s ownership. Humans should be free to settle wherever they want to. When humans are contained, restricted, they also are more controllable. An open border policy has thus little to do protectionism but the ability to move freely. Protectionism is no more less than a prison without bars. Unfortunately, such an open border premise is unworkable if not implemented on a planetary scale. At this level also, reversing the trends is impossible without a major shock to the system. There are tremendous challenges ahead since cultural issues have rather been used throughout mankind’s history to instill ‘divide and conquer’. Socially, for example, Multiculturalism is too a paradigm operating as a ticking bomb since every race on Earth is being competitively exploited one way or another (in the same way Nature is), and thus causing resentment and racism between cultures. Let alone Robotics, which when fully implemented, will stand against all races. It is important to link the fallacy of owning Earth and the steadily erosion of free will over the centuries - and conclude that freedom never really existed.
No. Not being allowed to compete is not competition but a possible consequence of competition. My example was that 99% are forbidden to compete. Your response is that this non-competition „is competition“. That is not possible. Competition and non-competition are never the same. It is like saying „truth is lie“ or „lie is truth“. So you are wrong.
What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms (formerly known as „capitalism“), but the naturally based competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.
[attachment=0]w_u_p.jpg[/attachment]
And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution and also a good example in order to explain what competition means. If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor, and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying (in your signature): „Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation.“ That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an older one.
according to the free will perspective that implies full self responsibility for what is, the dumbing down argument stands thus no chance. Dumbed down masses compete nonetheless and unknowingly in favor of the competitive top controlling the food chain.
Yes Sex is the fundamental Principle of creation, because without Sex, at a molecular and energy levels, life wouldnt exist. Emotions, waves and vibrations, are too sexed because without the Law of Polarity (found in ectromagnetism), nothing can exist, thought included because a motion and its counter motion originating from One and Sole Source, hence the importance to consider non dualism as an absolute. Everything comes from the One - singularity - and goes back to It. Like I have said many times, absolutes cannot be achieved but always win over. At best, all we can do is doing everything we can to follow them as closer as possible. Cpmpetition is dualism exploited to … death.
Most of all living beings, especially all oldest and most of the older species (thus the huge majority of all living beings) are not capable of having sex. They live without any sex or something like sex.
plz expound with examples…
some organisms are hermaphrodite, that doesnt negate what I was saying earlier.
all life/entire cosmos depends on electricity, negative(feminine) and positive (masculine) charges, the Universe is obviously sexed. Matter is feminine and Light masculine, something hermeticists had already understood centuries ago. Matter is Light at different compression levels though, depending on the molecular structure we look at. That is precisely why the bible describes Eve (feminine principle) was created from Adam (masculine principle)'s rib. The singularity dividing itself into two.
just throwing this in for further input… very famous BBC documentary: The Century of the Self
youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
How competition is used against the masses. 8 hours long, have some popcorn. My advice: download it and watch it at least 3 times to have the full scope of the illusion.
Your fundamental fallacy, Celine K, is saying tools are bad.
Competition is just a tool, used for good or ill.
If I use a knife to kill your buddy, you will say knives are evil, a giant conspiracy.
But I if use a knife to put cream cheese on your bagel, you will worship me and tell me oh what a great god I am.
i’ts the lamest fallacy in the book.