#slightly existential

I am not competing. In society, or with others, towards some pointless goal established by a culture desparately trying to create some clearly defined purpose and easily digestible parameters for "success". I also do not accept the "alpha/beta" narrative that serves as nothing more than a mask for the all too human condition of uncertainty; also as a simple excuse for behaviors conditioned into us by society and culture that are outdated and counter productive to individual self realization. The true challenge is not to be found in striving for dominance. The true challenge is to understand yourself fully and to freely accept the weaknesses and flaws you find. You cannot improve what you will not acknowledge. The mistake that we are taught to see as truth is this notion that proving yourself against others is the only way to know and better yourself. Very few ever say, with a veracity that is readily accepted, that the person you have to be better than, the one person you need to prove anything to, is the person YOU are today. It is often SAID but almost never fully accepted to a point where it completely supercedes the message of competition and domination.

I also will admit that my refusal to compete is not precisely zen. I will not attempt to claim that it is a strictly rational and intellectual decision. I do indeed consider the competition with others to be a pointless process. I am still human however, and nobody goes through their entire life completely free from the influences of the culture and society that they are within. Choosing to step away from the contest is both statement and self preservation, although not neccesarily in equal measure. There is no danger to the ego if you never risk failure. Saying to yourself "I may lose, or I may win, but what is accomplished either way?" is rational but it is hardly a clean position to take. Having been inevitably tainted by the messages regarding success and failure there is, in the refusal to take part, some shadows of what most would consider cowardice. The only authentic stance requires that you honestly and openly examine if the refusal to take part is rooted primarily in a fear of possible failure. Then again all authenticity requires that you be honest with yourself. You can condition yourself to accept a lie told to yourself about who you are, but acceptance doesn't turn it into truth.

All these notions of something toxic or counterproductive being "human nature" are nonsense. We control so many aspects of our primitive or animal selves on such a continuous basis that to claim any specific behavior is beyond our ability to control makes no sense whatsoever. We can control our urge to kill those who threaten us. We can restrain any impulse to strike out physically when angered. We sit at ease amidst strangers while eating. We encounter strangers outside of our family group nearly continuously. We seldom simply take whatever we want. Rape, murder, theft and assault are crimes. In other words actions that were once probably a common aspect of "human nature" have been successfully forbidden to the point that those who commit these actions are such exceptions to the behavior practiced that they are punished for violating the "norm".

The continuing negative consequences of human behavior are not "human nature". They are a symptom of the inadequacy of culture and society when it comes to focusing our potential. They are a consequence of certain behaviors and attitudes that hide behind the wall of "human nature". Greed, violence, anger, fear and hatred may be natural impulses but they are not uncontrollable forces. Children are the pure example of this. They learn what is considered acceptable behavior. It's not until they become adults that they focus on finding exceptions to the rule and discovering allowable distortions. If a society or culture maintains the exact same definitions of what is permissible for both child and adult there will be no difference in the perception of right and wrong. This is not about control or being "treated like a child" your whole life. The notion that once you become an adult you get to redefine the parameters of right and wrong, exactly how is that productive?

It's nearly impossible to perceive, with a "western" mindset, a notion of absolute communal obligation as a way of existing. That doesn't, just to be clear, mean communism. It means having no right to harm others for your own ends. It means not placing your wants and desires before all others. It erases the possibilities for being selfish. You see all others as having equal importance. It's a very "Un-American" mindset because you can no longer look at yourself as the center of everything. Too many people are terrified at the concept of equal importance. Why? Because equal importance denies significance. You are forced to realize yourself as an individual in a vast sea of individuals with no clear markers by which to define yourself. Without external markers what is left? Internal guideposts. You have to take the measure of yourself, what you are and what you could be, from a position from within which you are the only reliable authority. This act in itself could be second nature. A constant nearly effortless process, if that were the way in which we were raised. It only becomes a daunting thing when you are conditioned to look outwards and not in; when everything that is deemed important requires an exterior validation.