Pyrrhus surveyed the battle ground from the now captured Roman camp. 15,000 Roman soldiers lay dead on the field. An impressive figure no doubt. But next to them lay 13,000 dead Greeks. Solid veterans all. The victory lay with Pyrrhus. He could expect new allied forces from the Samnites and Lucanians, but not of the quality of the men he had lost. So he muttered to himself "Another victory like that and the war is lost." WHEN IS A VICTORY NOT A VICTORY? The crux of morale in war is whether a side wins. The most common image one thinks of are happy victorious soldiers marching on to victory after victory. Nothing stands in their way. They overcome all obstacles. Glorious! But also completely unlike war! Victory in war is never so simple a thing as seeing which side won the most battles. Pyrrhus won his fight, but found the resolve of the Romans only strengthened. The Nazi's won in France but in the Battle of Britain their bombing only strengthened the resolve of the British to fight. Germany and Japan lost WWII but now their economies threaten to displace our own as world leaders. While Britain and the Soviet Union won the war and objectively lost the peace. So when is a victory not a victory? I can't say. History is replete with examples of wars in which the objective losers turned out to win. Napoleon in Russia, the Royalists in the English Civil War, the Catholics in the Religious wars in France. In fact saying who is the winner and who the loser often bears not connection to the war at all. Rome conquered Greece, but was then conquered in turn by Greek culture. And on, and on. Given this point, why not try to view victory in a different way? Why not look at the elements that turn disaster into triumph? Why not ask the question "When is a defeat not a defeat?" WHEN IS A DEFEAT NOT A DEFEAT? It is a strange thing to consider - defeat really being victory. Definitely counter intuitive. A basket ball team that loses a game, after all, has lost. No two ways around it. But strangely the idea of accepting defeat willingly is a basic idea in nearly every world religion, from Solomon down to the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. They found something of benefit in losing well that is so basic that most of us completely fail to grasp it. The rest of this paper looks at what they found THE LAST DAYS OF SOCRATES Socrates, the great philosopher of Athens, has gotten himself in the soup big time. He stands convicted of "corrupting the youth." The sentence is death. The cup of hemlock is ready, but the sentence can not be carried out until a certain boat returns from Crete. Socrates talks to his friend Crito. "Socrates, it is still not too late to take my advice and escape ...Most people will never believe that it was you who refused to leave this place although we tried our hardest to persuade you." "But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what 'most people' think? ...I can not abandon the principles which I used to hold simply because this accident has happened to me...unless we can find a better principle ...l shall not agree with you; not even if the power of the people conjures up fresh hordes of bogeys to terrify our childish minds, by subjecting us to chains and executions and confiscations of our property." "I agree with what you say, Socrates; but I wish you would consider what we ought to do." "Whatever the popular view is, and whether the alternative is pleasanter than the present one or even harder to bear, the fact remains that to do wrong is in every sense bad and dishonorable for the person who does it...Suppose the Laws and Constitution of Athens were to come up and confront us and ask this question: 'Now, Socrates, what are you proposing to do? Can you deny that by this act which you are contemplating you intend, so far as you have power, to destroy us, the Laws, and the State as well?" "[I agreed to live by these laws, marriage, education, and criminal.] You did not have equal rights with your father or your employer ...You were not allowed to answer back when you were scolded or to hit back when you were beaten ...do you expect to have such license against you country? ...if [your duty to the law] leads you to war, to be wounded or killed, you must comply, and it is right that you should do so; you must not give way or retreat or abandon your position. Both in war and in law-courts ...you must do what ever your city and your country commands ...[for] violence is a sin even against your parents, and it is a far greater sin against your country." "[Crito, for me to run away) is the home of indiscipline and laxity ...let us follow this course [to stay and die], since God points out the way." And that is what he does. Socrates dies and we still read about it 24 hundred years later. His model of acceptance of the rule of law still inspires legal and philosophical thought today. John Locke's social contract notion is found in Socrates' musings about the laws of Athens. He feels he must follow the discipline of the laws of the land as he has done his whole life, to live honorably. Even if his discipline causes him to die, he feels it is worth doing. It is better to live well that to live long. Socrates is not the first man to reach this conclusion, but he is counted among the most logical. He believes he must obey his duty and be a disciple of the law for purely rational reasons. He is unconcerned with what most people think, because his logic is on a higher level than most people understand. He would die in war as easily as he would drink hemlock. His morale is good. Only in the last phrase does Socrates mention God. God has marked his way for him. Less rational thinkers, who also tend to operate on levels of thought higher than most people tend to understand generally start with obedience to God and work their way back towards reason. DAVID AND SOLOMON "Ye though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil." --23rd Psalm Why on earth would anyone want to walk through the "valley of the shadow of death"? And if one did, it is certainly irrational to "fear no evil." Yet this is what King David wrote. Certainly a great warrior like David would know a thing or two about the valley of the shadow of death. Fear was his business. Both overcoming his own fear and causing fear in his enemies. The rest of the Psalm explains more fully why David was able to fear no evil. For him God was his shepard. God looked over him and directed his actions. So long as he did God's will he would be okay. Even if he died! Socrates believed in the laws of the state and of nature in the exact same way and did not fear his death. Why? Simply because, "Surely goodness and mercy will follow me all the days of my life and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." Living a good life, an honorable life, is one filled with the virtue of "goodness" and "mercy." Going against the will of God or breaking the laws of Athens is dishonorable. One breaks the discipline by such disobedience. One ceases to be a disciple. Life will become very hard. David say analogies between war and his obedience to God. His Psalms are full of violent references to smiting his various neighbors for this or that affront to God. He knew that obedient soldiers did his will and that the unifying religion of Yahweh helped. By following his will, and the anointed king - God's chosen king, each soldier was a disciple of God. If by chance a soldier or king did something that God did not like there was always a prophet of judge standing around to tell them to mend their ways. Kings hated prophets. They were always nagging them to do this or that. How was a king to be a king with gad-flies like Samuel and Nathan running around condemning this action or that adultery. Not king likes to be publically rebuked for his indescresions. Saul didn't and neither did David. Solomon, though, was wise and learned a vital lesson. Accept rebuke willingly, learn wisdom there by. "Turn you [away] at my reproof [?]: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. [I will teach you wisdom]" wrote Solomon in the first Proverb. Learn wisdom from reproof. That doesn't make sense! Being called out in public for screw ups is embarrassing! No one from kings on down to skid row bums want to do it. Yet Solomon says one can learn wisdom through such experiences. The theme runs throughout all the Proverbs: "...he that hateth reproof is brutish..." "...Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way..." "...rebuke a wise man and he shall love thee..." What was Solomon after in wanting people to face their inadequacies? He grew up in a royal household riddled by intrigue, drunkenness and sexual abuse. He saw his brothers kill one another and then rise in rebellion against their father. That was certainly a painful experience. But rather than turn away from the pain by drinking or sex, he faced the problems head on and learned from them. He found that even in disasters there were pearls of wisdom that one could learn if one could only overcome one's own internal resistance. "A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger." This is a wonderful piece of wisdom. It is very true. If one wants to fight just make your tone of voice sharp and biting. A fight will soon come to you. "A wise son heareth his father's instruction but a scorner heareth not rebuke ...Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuseth instruction: but he that regardeth reproof shall be honored ...He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes." "Spare the rod, spoil the child." is so often used as an excuse by parents, who have failed to properly teach their children by reproof, for them to beat their children. But as one can see that is not what Solomon had in mind. Like David and Socrates, what he really wanted was for people to accept the need to act in a good way under the rule of a universal law which controls all our lives. Beating children and women with a stick no greater around than one's thumb doesn't fit the image of an in-control-parent. Quite the opposite. David was a great warrior, Solomon was not. Yet it is Solomon who is called "Wise". Muslims value Sulieman's examples much more than David's. He is counted as the master of the Djins - in Jungian terms, a master of his inner fears. So David, Solomon and Socrates all agree. To live an honorable life, one must follow a discipline which requires one to face and learn from life's many pains. Fear is not a factor. God removes the fears and embarrassment of those who face their problems, be they death from hemlock or charging a machingun. LESSONS FROM CHINA Two writers in Ancient China spoke about war and life, Sun Tzu and Lao Tzu. The first, a general and author of "The Art of War." The second, a philosopher and primary writer of Taoism one of China's three major religions. Sun Tzu went to the king of a small warring state to propose his approach to war. The king listened but was not interested. "Then let me, oh king, show you my system. Allow me to train your concubines, using my methods, to be your body guard." This intrigued the king, "What are your terms?" "I ask for no money to do this. All that I ask for, indeed which 1 demand, is that you not interfere no matter what I do." "No money? Agreed!" The General gathered the women together in a court yard and explained to them what the king had ordered. The king confirmed this. The General then sorted the women out into units. Over each unit he appointed one of the king's favorites to be the commander. He issued uniforms and weapons to the unit commanders and told them to arm and cloth their soldiers and form them into a line in the court yard. They had one half hour to do this. The concubines were not used to such treatment. They refused to put on the uniforms or to take up the weapons. They called their commanders names and threw things at them. When the half hour was up, the concubines stood in a mass in the court yard. The General asked his unit commanders what their orders had been. They told him what they were to do and that it was impossible. They called out to the king who was watching them to throw this man out who dared to insult them so. The general turned to the king, "Remember our agreement. No interference." The king nodded his ascent. "When a general gives an order to his subordinates, it is their responsibility to carry it out. They must discipline their soldiers to the task. This has not been done. The soldiers are not at fault for disobeying. Their commanders are at fault for not making them to obey. For that offense they will be executed immediately!" A scream went up from the women, but the king did not interfere. The favorites died minutes later. Then the General appointed new commanders to each unit and gave them the same order. One half hour later, the concubines now soldiers, stood in the courtyard, fully armed and uniformed, in a straight line. Sun Tzu demanded that soldiers obey orders. They had to follow military discipline and be prepared to die. Victory was up to the general to create. If he failed then he would die. The soldiers were not at fault. They had already given up their will to a higher power. Lao Tzu was an old man when he came to the gates of the great wall. He felt his life had been a failure and he wished to go into the land of the barbarians to die. The gate keeper convinced him to write down him wisdom into a book before he went. The book he wrote was the Tao Te Ching. It was not near as violent as The Art of War. "Accept disgrace willingly. Accept misfortune as the human condition." Huh? What does this mean, accept disgrace willingly? This again makes no sense. It is just like Solomon asking people to accept rebuke, both are embarrassing and shameful. And what of accepting misfortune? Surely that sounds like one might as well roll over an die now. Why put off the christmas rush? Lao Tzu goes on to answer the questions posed. "What do you mean by Accepting disgrace willingly? Accept being unimportant, Do not be concerned with loss or gain, This is called accepting disgrace willingly. What do you mean by accepting misfortune as the human condition? Misfortune comes from having a body. Without a body, how could their be misfortune? Surrender yourself humbly; Then you can be trusted to care for all things. Love the world as your own self; Then you can truly care for all things. Lao adds a new word to the discussion, humble. This is an important word. All the previous writers implied it, and even said it out right if one reads them closely. One learns wisdom by learning to be humble. Fear is removed by humbling one's self to a greater power's will. Picket's men charged at Gettysburg not without fear, but with confidence that Lee would not send them on an attack they could not win. Soldiers who question their commander's competence soon become undisciplined. A general who fails to check this trend by disciplining himself and his subordinates is as Sun Tzu noted "at fault." "Yield and overcome; Bend and be straight; Empty and be full; Wear out and be new; Have little and gain; Have much and be confused... Not putting on a display, they shine forth. Not justifying themselves, they are distinguished. Not boasting, they receive recognition. Not bragging, they never faulted. They do not quarrel, so no one quarrels with them... Be really whole, and all things will come to you." Sun Tzu also recommends yielding as a method for winning battles. Be as water, he recommends. Rolling down a hill with a rushing force, yielding, flexible. Lao Tzu points out how it is living by standard virtues that one gains the ability to yield and overcome. One gains the ability to lose, and by losing, win. "Whenever you advise a ruler in the way of Tao, Counsel him not to use force to conquer the universe. For this would only cause resistance. Thorn bushes spring up whenever the army has passed. Lean years follow in the wake of a great war. Just do what needs to be done. Never take advantage of power... Force is followed by loss of strength. This is not the way of Tao. That which goes against the Tao comes to an early end." Taoist humility is difficult to explain since it is so filled with paradoxical statements like "Work without doing" "Profit comes from what is there; Usefulness from what is not there." and others. Yet it again makes the same message that other writers have. Living a good life, facing problems at hand, feeling the emotions God gives one is of prime importance. "He who does not trust enough will not be trusted." Tao is a strange concept. It is not technically speaking a God. Neither is it laws of nature, as the Greeks would understand. It is a spiritual force inside all things. By "flowing" with it one need fear no evil "Because he has no place for death to enter." The of saying goes, a coward dies a thousand deaths but a brave man dies but once. Accepting death willingly allows one to overcome fear. "WHEN CHRIST CALLS A MAN HE BIDS HIM TO COME AND DIE" Discipleship is a word that is in many ways intrinsically wrapped up with Christianity. Jesus called men to follow him. He asked them to leave their families and livelihoods. He offered them no security, no prize. But they followed anyway. They became his disciples, followers of Jesus' discipline. Willing to die as he required. Today they would be called fanatics. Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, explored the nature of discipleship before WWII. He described the process one goes through to live a Christian live in his book "The Cost of Discipleship." Bonhoeffer himself followed this costly path and was executed by the Nazi's in his native Germany days before the end of WWII for being a member of the underground. The first step of discipleship is the call. Exactly what a call consists of is very different for each person but, in the least, it asks a person to step beyond his normal life into the dark realm of uncertainty. For example... "Jesus saw...Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting nets into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them. Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him ...he saw ...James... and John-and he called them. And they immediately left their ship and their father, and followed him." --Gospel of Matthew Here, a stranger asks four simple fishermen to leave the only life they knew. To leave their families and all that was familiar to them. So that they could follow him into the desert. This is not a rational act! In fact it is insane. Nothing in the material world can justify responding to such a call. But in each case they did respond. Each showed obedience by following without question. One is not a disciple or wise just by the act of following. But without that first act of obedience, nothing else can be taught. Most people are not willing to accept such a requirement of obedience. It looks like too much is being asked of us. The logical mind questions why such a sacrifice should be needed. One attempts to find an easier way to the good life. Bonhoeffer describes such easier ways as "cheap grace." It is easy to get. All one need do is find an easy going priest who will say the right prayer and absolve sins. Maybe he will require one to attend church on Sunday or pray a little, but nothing really hard. Such grace is a "good" life on a very gross level, but it does not stand up when life gets hard - as it invariable does. Cheap prayers sound more like bargaining than humble supplication. "Costly grace" on the other hand requires a person to answer the call with immediate obedience. Without obedience there is no possibility of discipline. So what happens if one feels they are ready to answer the call? How does one know where it is? Can one seek it out? Jesus encountered one such seeker in the story of the rich young man... "One came and said unto him. Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [The young man] saith unto him. Which? [Where on Jesus tells him the Ten Commandments] All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him. If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions ...[Jesus said] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." --Gospel of Matthew The young man in effect commanded Jesus to call him, but when Jesus did so he was unready to answer the call! So it appears, one can not choose when one is called. Ordering God to call is the antithesis of humility, which is an essential element of being able to answer the call. Fortunately, people to not have to seek out the call. Callings are extremely common. They happen every day. Unfortunately they are also ignored daily! Once a disciple has answered the call and resolved to obediently do what he is told, then he can begin to learn wisdom. So where is wisdom found and what does learning it look like? "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?" --Gospel of Mark Take up your own cross. Interesting. Jesus doesn't tell his disciples to carry his cross, the sins of the world, but only their own. He assumes each man has his own cross to bear, if only he will pick it up. He asks his followers to face their lives and deal with them. Mind you he only directs this at his disciples since it is very unlikely that anyone looking for cheap grace would be willing to fess up to their own inadequacies, as directed to, if they were not first willing to answer a simple call. If a person is willing to take up his own cross (ie accept rebuke for his own short comings) then he will begin to learn wisdom. The longer he carries his own cross the more and more open he then is to the second half of what Jesus said. "Let him deny himself ...and follow me." This Jesus fellow is asking his follower to do a very hard thing. He asks them to not place themselves first and to follow his example. And the context of the passage quoted above is of Jesus getting ready to be crucified for everyone's sins. So Jesus is asking his disciples to help other people to bear their crosses. To teach his discipline - in effect to create the Christian religion. "Am I my brother's keeper?" The disciples' answer is yes. Thus Jesus enters the company of Greeks, Jews, and Orientals who counsel men to accept personal defeat as a way to victory. SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI St. Francis personifies the best of the medieval saint. He preached to the poor. He lived in poverty. He taught a discipline that lead to the Franciscan Order. There are many stories about him. How he ran from a battle when he received the call of God to become a hermit. Of how he preached to the birds. And one of his willingness to die for his faith. That is one worth retelling. Once when Francis was in the Levant on crusade, he was brought to the court of a great Turkish Lord. Francis challenged the Muslims to a test of how strong their respective Gods were. All rather Old Testament like, Baal vs Yahweh and what not. Francis suggested that he and some Muslim Ulema [teachers] walk into a roaring fire. The common belief being that the true God would prevent his holy man from being burnt up. The Ulema were not interested so Francis won. The simplest level of understanding this story is that had Francis walked into the flames, a miracle would have happened and he would not have been burned. That is not however the Francis would have faced. To him walking into the fire would destroy him. His willingness to be destroyed, if it is the will of God, is the true miracle. He demonstrates his obedience by the act. Another part of the miracle might be that the Ulema declined to show their faith by the same degree of obedience, since the Islam is noted for the fervor of its adherents. Francis wrote a pray which explains the discipline he found in Christianity. "Lord make me a channel of thy peace - that where there is hatred, I may bring love - that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness - that where there is discord, I may bring harmony - that where there is error, 1 may bring truth - that where there is doubt, I may bring faith - that where there is despair, I may bring hope - that where there are shadows, I may bring light - that where there is sadness, I may bring joy. Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted - to understand, than to be understood - to love, than to be loved. For it is by self forgetting that one finds. It is by forgiving that one is forgiven. It is by dying that one awakes to Eternal Life. Amen." THE TWENTIETH CENTURY It is easy to discount the writings of philosophers and mystics who have been dead for centuries. Maybe it made sense to live a humble life when all that life demanded was tending a flock of sheep. Maybe those rules don't apply in our modern society. After all the Industrial Revolution changed all the rules of the world two hundred years ago. Now the rules are changing again due to the Information Revolution. In fact the writing and distribution of this work could not have happened without the aid of a computer. So is it fair to apply old rules to modern life? I believe it is. The following two sources tie the idea of victory through defeat back into the modern world. Both are close to the cutting edge of the world culture: alcoholism and sports. ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS Alcoholism is certainly not a new phenomena. The word itself comes from the USA in the early 19th century. The evils of drink have been know longer than that. But in the 20th century an approach to treating addiction has grown which has spread literally to every country on Earth. Two Alcoholics met in Akron, Ohio in 1935. They were both severely impaired by their drinking. Likely they would have died shortly had they not found a solution. Both were well educated and well read. One was a WWI veteran, who had lead men in battle on the Western Front. Both had tried just not drinking and found that it did not work. Bill had been dry for six months when he went to Akron on a business trip. The deal he was working became entangled in court and was in the process of falling apart. Bill did not want to drink, but he felt the isolation beating in on him. He knew that if he could only talk to another alcoholic then he would be alright. Then it struck him that he could call the local churches and see if they could help him find one. That is how he met Bob. Bob told him that he could have five minutes to talk to him, since he had heard all the preaching he needed to on how he should stop drinking. He was taken aback when Bill told him that he was not their to make Bob stop drinking but instead to help himself stay sober. That intrigued Bob, and the two men talked for the rest of the day. The first AA meeting. It was not just talking to other drunks that allowed Bill, and then Bob, to stay sober. It was talking in a particular way. They found that by admitting they were hopeless alcoholics they could stay away from booze for that day. They looked at their lives and found that they had made wrecks of them by trying to force their own will in every area. Their alcoholism and their ever increasing desire to control failed to make life worth living. Force only lead to resistance. Attempts to avoid problems only lead to their growing worse. Talking about this, and accepting that they could no longer live a life of "self will run riot" enabled them to let go of the obsession to drink. They accepted the idea that alcoholism was a disease, but having done that they ignored it. Alcoholism was seen as a problem that could only be dealt with by a spiritual awakening. They developed a program of twelve actions or steps that would allow a person to live a "good" life. 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol; that our lives had become unmanageable. 2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. 3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him. 4. Made a searching and fearless morale inventory of ourselves. 5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. 7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. 8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. 9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. 10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it. 11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understand him, praying only for knowledge of his will for us and the power to carry that out. 12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and practice the principles in all our affairs. "Many of us exclaimed "What an order! I can't go through with it." Do not be discouraged. No one among us has been able to maintain anything like perfect adherence to these principles. We are not saints. The point is, that we are willing to grow along spiritual lines. The principles we have set down are guides to progress. We claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection." From How it Works, chapter 5 of Alcoholics Anonymous Admit powerlessness. Accept the authority of a power greater than one's self. Practice a disciple of rigorous honesty, humility and service. This sounds a lot like what Lao Tzu and Jesus said two thousand years ago. Yet this movement started in the Midwest only fifty years ago! Now this fellowship of hopeless alcoholics is found around the world. In Nepal I hear the King considers it a subversive organization and has secret police attending, but whether God is Krishna or Christ, is irrelevant. Accepting defeat works! It is not an easy way. Most people do not like the twelve step approach. There are alternative ways in which people recover from addictions. The AA people noted this as far back as 1939. "At some of these (steps) we balked. We thought we could find an easier, softer way. But we could not. With all the earnestness at our command, we beg of you to be fearless and thorough from the very start. Some of us tried to hold on to our old ideas and the result was nil until we let go absolutely." It is rational to recognize how powerful men are. Men are capable of making many decisions about their lives. They can certainly effect their lives and the lives of those around them. Both for good and for ill! It is a powerful statement to say, "Hello, my name is Bill and I'm an alcoholic." It does not change the world but it is still powerful. Kind of like saying, "That is a cliff. If I walk off it I will fall!" Both statements have the same effect. They tend to make one less likely to chose to fall off the cliff. Many rational people are put off by the idea of believing a God will somehow influence their lives. Yet as they say in the AA Big Book, people believe in electricity without a second thought. And they can not see it either. As of 1987 there were 73,000 AA groups, in 114 countries. An estimated membership of over one million. More less sober and living "good" lives by accepting that they screw up when they run things on the own. Add to this the members of Alanon, Narcotic Anonymous, Codependents Anonymous, Emotions Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous, and whatever over twelve step off shoots there are out there and this Bronze Age morale system appears to be vitally present and working in the late 20th century. FEEDBACK LOOPS AND SPORTS PSYCHOLOGY Religion and even psychotherapy references to the efficacy of victory through acceptance are all well and good, but they are not scientific. It is a truism that the scientific method never admits defeat. If something is not known, it will be soon. One more experiment and we'll have it. So the notions put forward by a bunch of mystics and alcoholics can be justly ignored in the interests of science. Does this sound typical of the reaction given by some scientific types? If so, then it can be justly ignored. In fact recent sports psychology provides good support to the efficacy of acceptance rather than disproving it. Consider the following case. A runner begins to train for an important meet. She is healthy and in generally good condition. She will definitely be a contender. How can she increase her performance? Say her coach opts for the approach used with many race horses - ie dope her up with enough pain killers so that she will breeze through the race without even feeling it. Aside from the fact that this is illegal and likely to show up on a urine screen, it is also a bad plan. Athletes who do try such approaches experience more injuries than other do. They appear to "over do it" and not recognize when they hurt themselves. So drugs are out. What about having the runner practice a meditation exercise in which she concentrates her thoughts on floating in a relaxing pool, outside of her body, while she runs. This will tend to relax the runner's muscles (a good thing) but these runners also tend to have injures. They to appear to not notice injures. What about having the runner focus on her pain? This sounds counter-intuitive. After all running is a painful activity at competition level. Runners often describe it as a wall. If the pain grows too great, they hit the wall and crash. So how would focusing on the pain of running help break through the wall? It is a variation on accepting defeat willingly. The outcome of the race is not no longer relevant. The runner is racing against herself. Pain is part of the experience. Accept it, and it tells the runner how she is doing. It warns her of her limit. It tells her to slow down before she becomes injured. It challenges her to go further into the darkness of pain and slip through the wall. A misconception has arisen over the last few years regarding the role of endorphens and runners high. On hearing that endorphens are like pain killers, people jump to the conclusion that they deaden pain. They do not. They transform pain into a different experience, but pain still remains. To reach a peak performance remaining connected to that pain appears to be vital. Why? Pain is in its essence, information. It tells one to remove one's hand from a hot stove. It is good to have pain, even though it hurts. Emotional pain appears to work in a similar manner. By opening one's self up to such information it becomes possible to make better decisions. By accepting the rebuke of a pulled muscle or a broken heart, one is better informed about just where the cliff edges are. Engaging pain is a scary act. People fear pain, and work to avoid it. Turning around and facing it, in fact shaking its hand, transforms what pain means to people. Pain becomes a friend, or at least an acquaintance. It loses its mystic. It becomes normal and more predictable. It becomes less scary. Regular exposure to pain teaches one one's real limits. One sees peak performance for what it is - a moment that comes and goes, not a place one stays. After a peak, comes a fall. Which can be followed bay another peak. A piece of wisdom no doubt. So accepting defeat, and divorcing one's self from the outcome of a sporting event is scientifically shown to enhance performance. Victory is assured since victory is defined as performing as close to one's peak as possible. If another person is faster, so be it. That does not lessen the individual victory. Not everyone is a saint either. AFTERWARD "Our experience was that those who went to jail in a prayerful spirit came out victorious, those who had gone on their own strength failed." --Gandhi I remember engaging in an argument once about the nature of Zen Buddhism and machine guns. The argument went as follows: If the followers of Zen believe that the world is an illusion and that nothing is truly real, then a monk in deep meditation would be unaffected by illusory bullets zinging through the air. The machine gunner could shoot and shoot until his gun broke but he would not win. This stand made my friend, Tom Farley, go off. "He would be dead! The bullets would cut him to pieces. It doesn't matter what he believes!" So I would say, "But Tom, death is an illusion." "Aggghhhhh! Death is not an illusion! It is all real! He would be dead. That's it." It was, of course, a pointless argument. Yet it illustrates how difficult it is for most people to understand a religious argument. Accepting defeat as victory is another one of those difficult concepts. After all "Death is not an illusion!" But victory often is. They say that a coward dies a thousand deaths but a brave man dies but one. If this is true, then it is because fear of defeat is a death. While a defeat itself is not. Bonhoeffer says Jesus "bids [a man] come and die." Each day they man lets his ego die so that he can do the will of the power greater than himself. Bravery like Saint Francis can lead a person to martyrdom, but not without the persons consent. 1 agree to die now, for it is by dying that we are born to eternal life. So maybe Tom was right. The monk probably would be riddled with bullets. Death would then follow. But death with dignity. The monk chose to resist. He chose to accept death rather than dishonor. Yes he is gone, but he is not defeated. I somehow doubt Tom would understand that either. This marks the end of my series on morale. It has been essentially a religious argument. One must be moral to have morale. I've tried to show how science backs up this claim, but in the end it still takes a leap of faith to really get it. Fear, the stuff of military disaster, breeds in the dark. But as I learned growing up in the woods, when one steps into the darkest spot everything becomes light. Back to Experimental Games Group # 29 Table of Contents Back to Experimental Games Group List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 by Chris Engle This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com