I've read the book, and I love it. In recent email exchanges with one of my group of friends, one friend pointed out that sperms compete in order for one of them to get to the egg, and all the rest die. The book elludes to the fact that competition is not good (is the cause of all evil?). But nature is showing competition (survival of the fittest). How does SOGR explain that? Thanks in advance.

Hello,

How do you know that sperms compete? It appears so, but appearances can be deceiving.

Only one gets in? From a competition viewpoint that seems unlikely. Ever heard of a dead-heat? That would be (at least) two getting in at exactly the same time. It really appears that something else is at work here...

Perhaps, the sperms all came to an agreement of which one of them would get in (for the betterment of all and more for all of course

Who has talked with a sperm to find out what's really going on.

Well, for starters, the competition Wally is talking about is an ATTITUDE. I don't think spermatazoa are capable of attitude so they're not competing in that sense (if at all). They just do what they're programmed to do.

You, however, as a conscious human being have a choice.

And by the way, some scientists do not see that all of nature is in competition. Many now focus more on the collaborative, cooperative aspects.

Although the 'Survival of the Fittest' idea does seem to make sense, and sounds logical
and somewhat convincing.

I don't really know about it and I wonder...,

..., When for example a Lion catches a less 'Fit' animal to eat that's sick, how smart it would be for the Lion to eat that animal?

So I wonder if in reality things might
possibly be less obvious and simple. Also recently I found an article that shows an interesting other viewpoint:

Survival of the kindest

All the Best,
To your Happy Inspiration,
HP

Here's an interesting article by a woman who is both a biologist and a systems analyst. (The scientific stuff -- in clear, simple language -- is about halfway down.)

Competition or cooperation?

Hi all

Interesting articles. thanks Rebecca and HP. I have always been fascinated by people who operate on the opposite end of the spectrum, the competitive plane. To them, competition fuels a sense of satisfaction and increases their self esteem. We learn from Wally, of course, that these forms of attainment do not provide long lasting satisfaction. Up till now however, I have largely took it by faith, and learnt from some personal experiences, that I prefer to be non competitive, and to seek wisdom and truth, the lasting kinds of satisfaction that do not have to depend on other peoples' opinions.

But, at the back of my mind, I do wonder about a lot of the achievements in science, arts and sports. Do these originate from a sense of competition? I guess I would never know for sure.I mean, a lot of what seems to drive these over achieving individuals is the quest for recognition for their unique abilities. And even if they operated on the competitive plane, I still do believe that somehow, as Wally says, they are still cooperating with the supreme intelligence, a sense of reaching a purpose greater than themselves, that provided them with the endurance and perseverance to surmount all their obstacles. Ultimately, as Wally emphasizes, the evolution of our human species is always for the good of all of us, in spite of the competitive undertones that seem to strike us as predominant in almost all forms of human endeavors.

What I am suggesting is that, is it possible, then that competition is actually one form of cooperation to advance the human species as a whole, while allowing the individual to make the most of himself or herself?In other words, I am competing with you, but I am operating from the mindset that there is enough for all, so that you will rise above your own limitations, and drive me to rise above my own perceived limitations. And the cycle of reaching for our highest potential grows. I have seen this kind of group dynamics all the time, in high performing teams, be it business, sports, or group projects. The thing about this is that, this sort of dynamics can break down when one or more persons feel threatened or inadequate in the group, and the "competitiveness" starts to overtake the "cooperative" spirit.

I am open to this idea of "creative competition" or competition within the concept of cooperating for the larger purpose, though I think I am probably being very idealistic,as I am not sure whether we can sustain this kind of dynamics without some kind of conflict happening, though I feel really optimistic that we can do that if we as individuals,can bring ourselves to see the truth behind all these competition, we may just be able to detach ourselves from our ego driven needs to start really cooperating on a deeper level.

On that note, I would probably be asking a similar question as mehran90. Are these "competitive" thoughts in line with SOGR?

The awarding winning reality show "Survivor" is good theatre to observe the competition between a group in a setting that drains you physically and emotionally. I wonder then, when we set an objective to win at all costs, that is really a destructive "competitive" force. But, when we "compete" for the greater good, might we then, be doing a service to humankind as a whole? Can "competition" really be more for all, less to none? We "compete" without the need to eliminate or take anything away from anyone(even if that person feels differently), we are advancing the whole, and hence everyone benefits.Is that possible?

another idea I got from an excellent book called "chi running", is that when our running(analogy for life) becomes a practice, the whole of process of running(living) becomes the result. Or the result is the process of running, and enjoyment and ease of the run becomes the purpose itself. At the end of it all, I think, to me, that concept of process becoming the result really helps one rise above this competition versus cooperation debate to become as Wally says " a citizen of another kingdom"

Hi fellow travelers on the SOGR highway!

In response to Kevin's reply:

Wally's teaching also includes the phrase "more to all and less to none"! You might also think of a rising tide raising all ships. You might also think of Win-Win which is non competitive. However competition by it's nature demands a loser.

When we owned our printing business my goal was to best that we could be, but I also was active in helping other print shops be the best that they could be. Basically I felt that there was enough business to go around. I never checked my prices against some one else. I did get out into the comunity to sell our services; but didn't tear down fellow printers to do it! Our Unique Selling Proposition was "Printing, Copying and Graphic Design to Influence Your Clients and Your Profits"! Our goal was to help our clients make money, printing as an investment rather than an expense! We were able to make a very good living with the business even before learning about SOGR. With SOGR I learned not to fight/compete with my wife/partner, our employees stopped taking sides, our clients enjoyed doing business with us more, business soared and we sold the business at a nice profit!

You may need to be comptitive if you are going to be in the top 1% of income generators - but then that blows out the "more to all less to none" idea! I would think that even just by being the best that you can be you will be in the top 10% of income generators - just because most people will not attempt to be the best that they can be. And as we get richer we can show other people how!

Hello Friends:

I agree with Rebecca that the competition Wally talks about is an attitude and not an action specifically. There is not doubt that people make money and had made money by being in the competitive plane but to what cost to them and others. Because of these people we hear that money is the root of all evil or he/she is rich because she/he stole or abuse everyone. “They are cheap that’s why they have money” another common limiting belief.
Now trying to be the best does not mean by wishing or making others to fall down. I am first because everybody else fail, doesn’t sound too good. Now I am in the top and better watch my back because everybody I stepped on to get here may come and get me.
I rather be the best and having everybody around me saying I am so glad you are doing okay. You deserve it!. Not because I care what others think but it feels much better; also if you know you did the right thing it is a lot easier to feel at ease.
This book IMHO it is not about getting money it’s about getting rich, and being rich is having abundance of all things.

I know rich competitive people and rich not competitive people and the latter have much more fun.

Lots of love

Luz Maria

quote:

I know rich competitive people and rich not competitive people and the latter have much more fun.

Fun is always better! Fun and non competitive is even better! It's relaxed fun!

I have really enjoyed this thread.

I am thinking about my swimming races - if I am nearing the end - and I notice that no one is ahead of me I know I will automatically pick up the pace to come first. Often though a whole pack of swimmers overtake me at the last minute and run past me up the sand!

However, I really am not perturbed if I am beaten. There are benefits in trying to win because I get a much better aerobic workout. Also our club is set up so that we have handicaps which change with how well we swim. That means everyone has a chance to win during the season (and take home a nice bottle of wine). We are all contributing in different ways to the well being of each other.

I agree with Rebecca that competition is an attitude. At a recent board meeting of our club there was some correspondence from a new member complaining about his handicap and criticising the handicapper. This person also works in the same building as one of our board members and came down to his office for a whinge session.

We had a long discussion about this and decided that these were not the values of our club. The member who had introduced him was asked to tutor him in how to behave. If we had let this pass it would have fostered something quite nasty. I have been in races where people became so competitive that they swam over others or even hit them in the eye (accidentally) around the buoy in their frenzy to win. It amazes me because we are just a little swimming club, not the olympics.

To extend the analogy, sperm swim but as far as I know they don't attack each other - and who knows, it might even be helpful for them to swim in groups - just like my club.

There's probably a difference in competing by trying to destroy others on the way and the situation Tom outlined where everyone is encouraged to be the best they can be.

anyway, thanks for the opportunity to think.

cheers
pauline

Here are my two cents ...

Sperms, and agents in many systems for that matter, do not really compete if I remeber my biology 101 correctly. It is instead more a matter of things finding the right fit. Look at the fertilization of the egg (human or otherwise), the sperm that gets through the outside of the egg just as likely is the last one that gets there, if it is the right "fit".

Isn't that really what Mr. Wattles is taking about? You can decide to do anythin, but you need to find something that is really your heart's desire, or in other words your best fit with the system you are in. Actually, competition is a pointelss way to go about things if you think about it.
even if you look at people, even teams of people, who are 'competing' you get the sence that the one(s) that win are the one(s) that started out expecting to win, believing they were going to win, and were just overall most certain they were going to win.

quote:

You may need to be comptitive if you are going to be in the top 1% of income generators

Hi Tom, isn't that a limiting belief? Why would you think you can't do it Wally's way and be in the top 1%?

The word "competition" is not really what Wally means about being competitive. Or, you could say there's two kinds of competition. On my high school football team, we were taught to play fair and not to hit to cause injury or hurt. This was specifically brought up by our coaches. A few other teams were taught otherwise.

Winning at any cost is what Wally means by competitive.

When I wrestled in high school, I thought the guys that stood across from you and snarled were funny. So are the movies that preach that this is the 'true' winners mindset. It isn't, and it didn't help them win. Many times I would sit and talk with the guys I wrestled that felt the same and we would exchange ideas. This is the "more for all" idea. Same as with Tom helping other printers be successful businesses.

When I was a systems administrator for a Unix computer for Pacific Bell, I noticed that the worst admins were the ones that were secretive and possessive about their methods, like they thought if they gave you one of their tidbits of knowledge you would somehow do them out of their job or some such silliness. The very best admins were the ones that were free with their knowledge and helpful to other admins.

Business IS competition. But, there is "more for all" competition, and there is "competitive - win at any cost" competition.

quote:

Hi Tom, isn't that a limiting belief? Why would you think you can't do it Wally's way and be in the top 1%?

You're right Verne,

I don't think that Bill Gates rose to become the richest person in the world by being competive (although some of Microsoft tactics may have been). He did it by being creative and now he is giving big chuncks of his money away.

When I was in Corporate America as a Cost Accountant the people who rose quickest were the ones who were creative and were helping others rise; and were helping thier company rise.

Thank you as well Tom,

You've pointed out an error I've had in my thinking. I've always connected Microsoft's tactics to Bill Gates. Maybe they are not connected. There certainly was a lot of creativity involved in the formation of the company.

I have just started on a book by Lynne Twist called "The soul of money" and in the third chapter she talks about one of the toxic myths of the modern era. And that is the assumption that "more is better". In our path to genuine fulfillment, more is not necessarily better. In fact, as the author says ..." In our relationship with money,more is better distracts us from living mindfully and richly with what we have."

Doesn't it all remind you of the lesson in the PG course about the CEO and the fisherman?

Hey, Kevsky -- it reminds ME of the references to that book in one of the first few course sessions. Lynne Twist's book had a big influence on me when I read it about 7 or 8 years ago. It really does add another dimension to Wally's take on things (although I don't agree with her on everything, but who cares about that?).

quote:

the assumption that "more is better".

I strongly agree with you Kevsky. One of the fantastic things that happened to me in my financial meltdown and recovery was to see that I can live much more happily on less and now I am clearing my flat and storeroom of all sorts of things that have become a burden to me. I do have a lot more money in the bank and that to me represents freedom. At the moment I don't even need more money in my account and I am certain that if I needed more to purchase something I really wanted then it would come - so many times a new client has turned up just at the right time.

It is so wonderful to sit in my flat now with so much space and feel the breeze pass through and see the dappled light on the floor. It feels like there is more room for me.

cheers
Pauline

It makes me crazy how all the reality shows on TV have the premise that there must be a "winner". Through this process of judging and the final result brought about by anonymous phoned in votes where people who are obsessed can vote as many times as they get through, With, "American Idol" you can reasonably deduce that the "final few" will possess the combination of talent and personality that makes them "marketable commodities". Creeps me out.

There are 2 kinds of people, those that believe there is enough to go around and those that don't.

Those that believe there is enough can see how needless it is to "covet", because they have come to realize they are truly the creators of their experience. The quality of the experience is revealed in the results.

This thread seems to follow a theme that presumes that competition is bad. Let's contemplate that.
One the the things that gets left out a lot in "prosperity teachings" is the disparity or seeming inequality in creative opportunities when you are either a "business person" or one who creates business, ("sales/marketing").

As opposed to an employed person on a set income.

One who is in the position of "business owner" or "sales agent" appears to have easier access to the creative processes where prosperity consciousness can be utilized where there will be measurable results.

A "wage earner" seems limiting, as far as getting raises/promotions or marrying the bosses son/daughter, LOL. Not that I haven't seen it done! Many times a person will do "the job" with all the essentials of comittment and passion and "just know" that there's "something out there" waiting for them and it probably won't be running the widget machine.

Maybe that's the real difference. The more you have to struggle for it, but then that brings us back to, is competition bad?

I'm wondering if maybe some of us are meant, by intention, to play the roles we're here to play now, and whatever changes come will come as intention intends. I probably just broke some rule of grammer with that last line. But, maybe "competition" has its place in the overall scheme of things.

And, some of us are meant to , and blessed to be gifted with the insight, to learn how to be deliberate creators.

Kevsky, I just went back and read your post at the beginning of this thread and you said, in a more thoughtful and eloquent way, what I tried to say.
I'm as frightened and dismayed and sometimes really pissed off and some of the manifestations of the "win at all costs" mentality.

In hoping and praying that this "ugly underbelly of the human race" can ever change, the only things "we" can do is "choose to believe" in it and just don't stop holding out hope for it.

In spite of the suffering it inflicts on the planet and its occupants, "good folks like us" can learn about it and apply its principles, improve our lives, and each time one of us takes a step up, will reach down and help lift up someone in need.

This makes me think of Apple. They don't seem to be competing with anyone. When I look at other computer companies, like Dell, Gateway, HP and others, they all seem to be fiercely competing against each other, trying to beat the other guy. Sometimes even attacking the other guy.

Apple, on the other hand, seems to be off on the side, doing their own thing. There is almost no relation between what they do and other computer makers. Apple haters are quick to point out that Apple machines don't have the latest greatest processor or that new extreme graphics card in them. On top of that, they charge almost double what all these other manufactures charge for a supposedly "inferior" computer. Yet they have a large and strong market share. They are probably easily in the top 1% of income earners just doing the best they do on the path they ar eon, even if it seems completely different than what everyone else is doing, or what other people say they should do.

I think those are, "the lasting kinds of satisfaction that do not have to depend on other peoples' opinions." that Kevsky talks about. I love that line BTW. I know that's what I want in my life.