I like to write this series spontaneously so that it is timely. I usually write it on Friday right before it publishes on the Front Page of Docudharma.
Tonight I read Robyn’s Friday Philosophy essay right when I logged on to the intertubes.
She speaks of fairness and games and such.
I think that’s an interesting conversation and I’d like to continue it here.
Robyn writes:
To many people I suppose that makes me appear to be a fool. If that’s how you see it, so be it. I still believe it is more important that a good game played fairly is more important than who wins or loses. I revel in Tiger Woods and Ernie Els going stroke for stroke in the President’s Cup until it is too dark to play anymore…and then calling it a draw. To me, the view of life as an exercise in trying to be a winner rather than a loser is nearly the very definition I have for labeling someone a loser.
I’d like to riff off that notion.
Both in high school and for the two years I attended college, I was a member of the debate squad. I was brought up listening to my brothers and father argue and search for what was real when it came to whatever topic arose. It was always an education for me.
In debate we were told we had to back up everything we said when we made our case. What made it even more interesting was that we all had to argue both sides of the issue, depending on which “round” of the debates was in session. So my partner and I would argue the “pro” against another school and the next round we’d argue the “con” against another team.
Sure there was all the snark and obnoxiousness one could imagine among us all, in a way it was very similar to the blogs.
But then Kirby Boner came along.
Yep, that was his real name, and I am putting it out there deliberately as praise for him is long overdue.
This happened so many years ago that I honestly don’t remember whether it was in high school or college or even what the topic was (I do remember one of the topics was universal health care — and that was over 30 years ago, sigh. Another was the environment. Sigh again).
I’ve always been competitive to my own standard — in other words, I always judged whether I “won” or “lost” according to the merits of my own work. Sure, I’d get annoyed when I lost a round I thought I had clearly won and mentally cuss out the foolish judge, but ultimately I knew whether I had argued well or not – couldn’t hide from my own self.
Kirby Boner was the best debater I had ever seen. He was class personified. He had red hair and very white skin and I believe he wore glasses.
His arguments were a joy to behold. He knew exactly what he was talking about, had done his research, and didn’t just pay lip service to winning. He really wanted to exercise his own intellect in a way that was true to himself.
My teammate and I lost that debate. I walked up to Kirby afterwards and shook his hand. And I said, “congratulations, you really deserved to win and it was an honor debating you!” He graciously smiled and accepted my thanks, shook my hand, and that was that.
But I never forgot Kirby Boner. I always recalled that losing to him was a more satisfying experience than winning against teams who weren’t prepared, didn’t know how to argue, and played silly mind games to distract the judges from that fact. I felt the debate against Kirby made me a “winner.” It was satisfying.
And I felt that even when I did win against an opposing team who didn’t really know what they were doing, it was a “loss.”
Fair play. My riff to Robyn’s essay is that it is a pleasurable feeling to experience fair play — as luxurious as fine cashmere, as smooth as a ride in a Jaguar, as precious as a Tiffany sapphire. When I debated Kirby, my own feelings of being a good debater were heightened even as he was completely demolishing every argument I made. I felt smarter, and I felt this kind of argument was a good thing in itself, the rules of this game, it was an elevating experience.
I like both the low and high pleasures of life. So I’ll make some more comparisons. Winning or losing in fairness, on a “level playing field” feels like eating M&M’s (peanut) that are really remarkably fresh, like they were just shipped out that day to the candy store. It feels like Beluga caviar as it bursts upon your palate, and there’s a fine champagne waiting for you to take a sip, feeling it dissolve upon your tongue in utter refreshment. It feels like silk and satin and fine old cotton that you’ve had for years and broken in. It feels like quality.
Unfairness doesn’t feel that way. It always feels like something is missing when you either win or lose under unfair conditions. It makes the game so boring you sort of HAVE to put in nonsense and tough talk just to keep from falling asleep. You have to generate some ersatz kind of determination that comes completely naturally on a level playing field.
And fairness doesn’t cost one thin dime. It’s a state of mind, I believe.
So thank you, Kirby Boner, for making me understand why fairness is a quality experience of great pleasure, so that I can recognize it when I am lucky enough to encounter it.
And my thanks and sincere affection, Robyn, for your marvelously original philosophical and artistic creations that make it so easy for me to riff on, and move me, as a writer, towards where I want to travel like a kind and strong wind against my back.
26 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
… at the Orange place, it’s considered de trop to “call out” another poster.
But this is Docudharma.
It is as good a thing to quote each other here, I believe, as we would quote other good writers we encounter either in our own home libraries or surfing the tubes. If Robyn were writing at another blog or a publication or I had read her in a book, the same motivation would have made me write this essay. So that is the spirit in which I am publishing this on the Front Page of Docudharma.
…and for adding to the texture and substance of what I was trying to say.
Robyn
is that I tend to agree with just about everyone here!
I love good debate! It stretches and limbers the mind.
The only problem with L’Orange that there is so little REAL debate anymore. (Consider that constructive criticism…not bashing!….I am willing to debate that point, though!)
Great piece Kitty, even though I can’t find anything to argue with, I don’t even consider praising other DD essayist “calling them out,” lol.
so help me out here.
When I hear words like “fairness” and “level playing field” it feels like the underlying assumption is a game or competition. And for me, I’d like to step out of that frame of reference all together. Perhaps this is completely out-of-the-ballpark utopian thinking, but why do people have to be compared to each other in the first place, making things like fairness necessary?
is just another duality trap. Fairness on the other hand is right down the middle (way).
…for the brief time I debated, I got to learn from some people who went on to do great stuff, but I never got the experience that NPK describes. I never thought of debate as “fair” exactly though…not when an affirmative could lose on inherency with the morning paper :} We were three blocks from a national documents depository and had a former nationals winner as a coach (which didn’t make me more studious, alas). Other kids were more balanced as people, perhaps…everyone got the same time up, but fairness as such never crossed my mind :} I do recall more than a few great debates though. Real clash and clarity are a joy, and the structured fairness of formal policy debate gives them an opportunity to exist.
The advocacy diaries on dkos are boring as fuck, but they don’t bother me overmuch. I think it’s a mix there, of people who are policy advocates — or candidate advocates doing policy — and people who really, really believe in their candidate or issue. The latter are the source of authentic voices, but also the least likely to be polished (or sane, sometimes). Some of us are speaking from the heart and some of us from whatever little bits of heart are left in service to our various and dearly held intellectual ambitions. The danger I find in reading too many diaries (now or any time) is that it all becomes a cacophony, vicious little hill staffers trashing lonely people and lonely people who last saw “fair” in the taillights some miles back howling at the moon.
Hmmmm. Shall I actually hit “post”? Er…I liked your diary and Robyn’s 🙂
You want disagreement/debate, okay, I partially disagree. Winning is fun–be it sports, business or government. Sometimes winning is everything–war comes to mind–a place I don’t want a level playing field. If it’s my family (or country) that could be destroyed, I promise to look for every advantage–fair or otherwise.
But, back to sports–the fun is trying to get the upper hand–to outplay or outmuscle or outsmart your opponent–and in those cases, the field must be level. Competition is evolution–neither good nor bad–just the way it is–in utero for twins–on the course for Tiger Woods–in your debates. You don’t do enough to get by, you do enough to ensure victory.
Chess is the supreme level field–if you alternate who goes first. No luck is involved. I love it. The part that I agree with is that, after a good match, no lording over the loser, just anticipating the next match.
Ah, but I’m older now, my chess opponents are no longer nearby, my wife plays–but that could be a match made in hell. We love each other too much to push pawns at each other. Competition has less allure than it once had–but it was good and it was fun.
Scientists compete with nature to unlock secrets–without that, we’re in the Dark Ages. Then the Bushes of the world win. They don’t believe in competition–and that’s what makes them so evil.
BTW, I’m liking Dailykos less because it’s not philosophical–it’s not interesting–and the only competition is over which candidate is best–as if any of them are so great. My age has brought me wisdom, or dementia, but I now believe Jimmy Carter is a great man and was a spectacular president. He was the first victim of the idiot MSM that heralded St Ronnie. He knew we needed alternative fuels–and that we need morality–ethics. We forget that none of the hostages died in their ordeal with Iranian zealots–people we still don’t know how to handle.
I digress–competition is good–winning is better than losing–but if it’s not war–it’s only transitory.
People who say in a self-satisfied way, as winners of what they see as a game, like to say “Life isn’t fair”. They annoy me. Not least of which is because of the self-destruction implied. No, life isn’t fair, but humans can be relatively fair and it’s in their interest to be so.
The problem for all is that life either isn’t a game or it’s a very long lasting game with changing rules.
Society evolves. For those who like to say in a self serving way that “life isn’t fair”, my reply is “well you better find a way to make it fair(er), or else that saying might be your epitaph”.
Groups of humans evolve over time .. there is group evolution. And for those who are constantly placed at the bottom by those at the top changing the rules to benefit themselves find a way through the knots eventually. Hypocrisy can and does occasionally have real world consequences. It is in the interest of civilization itself to keep those “consequences” to a minimum.