Is Competition Ethical?

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… :mrgreen: 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.

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

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.

I think that you are choosing the wrong word, “sex”, for what you are meaning. It is the synthesizing of distinction and/or polarity that is the necessary condition for creation. Sex refers merely to one specific example of recombinitorial synthesis. It isn’t coherent to refer to electrons and protons “having sex”. They combine in such a way as to composite an atom, but they do not combine such as to produce a third, an offspring, representative of portions of themselves synthesized. Pure mass is formed of the synthesis of positivity (construction) and negativity (destruction) which consumes and removes polarity all together. Mass could be thought of as an offspring or child of femininity and masculinity, but not of sex because it entire consumes the “parents” into the third entity.

And Eve was not created via sex, but rather sex was created via Eve.

The problem is that the analogy between men and women (and thus sex) and polarity synthesis isn’t exact. In one sense, the sense of being more free and flighty, the feminine is the electron whereas the heavier and more rigid proton is masculine.

But in another sense, because women are not pure feminine nor are men pure masculine, both women and men are of mass with merely slight differences in the center of their focus and the degree of their feminine and masculine traits. Without that commonality of the mostly neutral “mass”, they could not reproduce anything. And in the family structure as perceived in India, the woman is the more positive stable center (the proton) whereas the male is more flighty, loose, and negative. The West sees it from different perspective wherein the male is the stronger, heavier law giver and center of concern and thus center mass of the atomic family.

Celine, I will take the following position on this subject:
I am all for political borders being removed and only leaving health borders. There are diseases, infections that can be highly contagious to people not previously exposed or inoculated. As far as bigotry, it is rapidly being removed. On the whole there is far less hate and fear then ever before. Mixed families are darn near everywhere in most countries.
Earth itself created territories and ownership of land and resources . Humans are not the only animals to control resources. Any social creature has leaders, followers and territories. Some followers rebel, leave and start a new group with leaders and followers.

Humans in general do need to be controlled. Self control is not really a strong trait in this animal. Mostly because we are predatorial territorial animals.
If a human population has no direction , no reason to bond, there will be mass disasters. Pack/herd creatures need direction and control. When evolution is further along the need for outer control will be gone.

The video you posted is a rehash , edited , dramatized, twist on books. Do your own research, do not follow what suits your attitude or beliefs. Go beyond. What that vid is and does is no different then what it claims others do. It is brainwashing. It found you and many others that had a hint of dissatisfaction. It caresses it and massages it to a point that like a fish to a lure on a fishing pole, you get hooked. The objective of it is dissent and break away to form new groupings. You the follower, they are the leader. At first they will pretend to be something else, friend ,teacher, guru , etc. They bring you in and oh please follow this rule. Then ok but , let us do this and if you do not then this will occur to you or that… On an on until control is complete. You want to believe in these predatorial sentient critturs because they are emitting sounds and a scent that is familial.

We are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded building or area. People that riot tend to destroy their own community, not the object of their wrath. A sinking ship, a burning building, being cornered, being pushed ,causes emotional upheaval rather quickly (blame primitive adrenaline). People will harm or kill to protect their life and the life of those emotionally bonded to them. Excess emotions brainwash. Turn humans loose without governing and panic will ensue.

Have you not seen how idiotic humans can be? That is not from being dumbed down , it is from being controlled by emotions, chemical imbalance, hormones etc. Intelligent humans get idiotic. If people stop controlling several trillion humans , stop brainwashing several trillion humans in any form, chaos will take on a new meaning. Would that be ethical? No. Stop marketing to humans about luxuries and stories about others? Ethical ? Only if you want trillions of bored depressed humans struggling to find new entertainment and toys. Do you really want the violent sense of humor most have, uncontrolled and undirected? You see that as ethical? We are individual yet not. As a species we are all part of a whole. And that whole needs control. I could address other aspects of our confused sentient animal mentality but, I am hoping you get the drift.

There are millions of individuals that are not being affected by market brainwashing, they stand as the next step. Humanity will split apart. Not by race or religion but by intelligence and breeding for it. Hormones vs brains. Or geeks vs jocks.
Individual over species or species over individual. Present or future.
Your worries over the elite controling and brainwashing the masses is part of evolution. But, the real question is how to responsibly react or act.

Like I said: All oldest and most of the older species. Do you really not know those species?

Yes, she uses the wrong word - “sex” - for what she is meaning.

all matings of elements can be defined as sexual, thoughts too by extension since they are initiated by polarities. Positive vs negative. My book premise.

However, I follow the steps of Walter Russel’s cosmogeny and the Electric Universe theory. You will have to read the Universal One (free ebook on the net) by russell to see for yourself. I do not have the time to expound. No time for a 200+ page thread. PS: walter russell is the father of the electric universe theory. Your premise and mine are completely different and can only lead to a status quo.

Electricity (electromagnetism being its byproduct), is the Sexual Force holding the Universe together – and the core argument of my train of thoughts.

Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation. It is the dual desire force in Mind for expressing its One Idea. Without a division of the one unconditioned Light into two seemingly conditioned lights, Creation could not be. Sex is not a thing, it is a condition of a thing. An electrically balanced condition of anything is sexless whether it be a man, woman, electric battery, or the atmosphere. A sexed condition is an unbalanced condition. An electric battery which is fully charged is dually unbalanced by the opposite electric pressures of compression and expansion. These two opposite unbalanced conditions violently desire to return to the oneness of balance from which they were divided into two. A short circuit between the two poles of the battery will give it that balance. We then say it is dead, for it will no longer perform work by expressing its desire for balance … The sex matings of the elements exactly coincide in effect with the sex matings of humans. Violent explosions in the elements have the same basic cause as such violent explosions as murder in humans. Terrific electric unbalance is the cause of both. Likewise, stability in the elements and in humans has the same cause in equality of balance – Walter Russell’