Hi Squad
Sorry for barging in at this late phase, my arguments should have been
delivered a few weeks ago.
Kevin wrote:
> I contend that competition is a lower form of social quality
> than cooperaiton. That is, its more moral for people to cooperate than to
> compete. Why? To cursorily answer on a theorhetical level: because
> competition equals a loss of quality. (Two people compete, one must lose.)
> Cooperation equals a gain in quality. (Two people cooperate, they both
win,
> and accomplish much more than either of them could individually.) And
> because of the aspect of unity in cooperation, I sumbit it reaches much
> higher level of Dynamic quality.
I wouldn't label cooperative as dynamic, nor competitive as static. Rather
cooperative as social and competitive as non-social.
We often speak about the biological level as "the law of the jungle",
kill or be killed. And that's what's good at that level, to be the best
competitor, to always win.
Cooperation on the other hand, is about several individuals forming a
greater unity than the sum of the parts. Then we speak about a "pack
of wolves", not wolf a, b, c... You're right that such a unity is
more dynamic than a single wolf, but that's because it's a higher
level, and higher levels are more dynamic than lower.
Magnus
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
