It was again At de Lange, who helped me to understand some of the
complexity inherent to competition some months ago.
At distinguishes "Frontroom operations (FO)" (those which support
creativity - mainly understood as supporting ones own creativity) and
"Backroom operations (BO)" (those which impair creativity - mainly
understood as impairing the competitors creativity).
Another model of this pair is "consciousness" and "shadow" in C.G.Jung's
framework. The shadow is that, what "can not be, because it must not be".
As long as the shadow is not integrated and accepted, it impairs the
creativity und thus the growth of that person.
Now I can say to those "pro competition": Please admit, that there are BO.
And as long as BO is not integrated and thus stops to act as BO (namely
impair creativity), it is a real danger and fear and refusal is justified.
If you meet someone, who identifies the word "competition" to "BO", he has
a point.
And to those "contra competition": You are right to caution potential
destruction by impairing creativity due to competition. But please do not
identify competition with this BO. Please admit also the huge creative
potential inherent to competition to which your opponent is refering. (If
you are familiar with At de Langes terminology: Competition provides for
force-flux pairs to generate entropy production and contributes to all
essentialities of creative learning - which I may undertake to proof, when
I have learnt more about them in the other thread.)
Best regards,
Winfried
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>