Meta Losers

There is a fool archetype, primarily found in scenes where individuals indulge in excessive spiritual signaling or psychotherapy, that has an aversion to winning.

Firstly, they interpret winning in a narrow way—a way that superficially resembles the dominant intersubjective sense of conventional success. Additionally, they uncharitably interpret the motivational schema as always stemming from a deep lack, engendering a desire to dominate others.

Secondly, they are motivated by an unexamined resentment for having lost at things they wanted to win, and they adopt a reactionary view that winning is altogether bad. This worldview fosters a neutered morality, trapping them in spiritual or psychotherapeutic bypassing.

I’ll refer to these individuals as “meta losers.” They try to invert the concepts of winning and losing in an attempt to break the “loser spell.” However, they only find themselves more enchanted by it. Essentially, a Nietzschean “slave morality” emerges, where a moral inversion between winning and losing occurs. This allows the losers to feel somewhat good about their losses because they no longer play the winners’ losing game.

However, like most fools, they do offer wisdom: many who attempt to win today are not coming from a place of love, hence are not oriented toward the whole, and are chasing status for petty validation. The spiritual project of connecting to the source to be oriented toward the whole, and the psychotherapeutic project of self-love, are indeed needed to avoid today's prevalent foolish version of winning.

Yet, the meta losers take their noble countervailing efforts against foolish winning too far and end up shaming anyone who desires to win altogether. What a foolish thing to do. Winning is good when one plays and wins wisely. Winning also feels good, and there is nothing wrong with feeling good. There are many games to play and many ways to win:

• One can win at a “finite game,” winning by achieving victory within fixed rules and objectives.

• One can win at an “infinite game,” winning by keeping the play going and evolving the game in the process.

• One can win at the “metagame,” winning by playing the right game at the right time in the right way for the right reason.

All these games can be played with self-love while being oriented toward the whole. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are fools, openly playing to lose while disguising their losses as something noble. In simple terms, the meta losers have grown accustomed to feeling bad, allowing it to become an acquired taste. 

It’s wise for us to break their spell, play more wholesome games, and win in less foolish ways.

If you do not like winning, it's wise to unsubscribe from this Substack. To unsubscribe, click your icon on the right hand corner and go to the settings section: 

Then under ​​Subscriptions, click “Less Foolish.” Then scroll down to the notification section, and click the red “unsubscribe” button: 

If you like to engage in a final act of less foolishness, say the following mantra when unsubscribing: “may all beings start winning.” If you're called to stay, and would like to journal toward some winning, join us weekdays at Collective Journalling.

What is Collective Journalling? This communal practice happens via Zoom and is 90 mins, with check-ins in the chat at the beginning and an opportunity to connect with fellow journallers in breakout rooms at the end. You do not have to stay the whole time. If you are in an antisocial mood, you do not have to interact with anyone, yet you can still enjoy the coffee shop-esque communal vibe. The session concludes with an optional sharing of a passage in the chat. Most of the time is spent in silence together, individually inquiring about what matters most. A lovely group of people has formed around this practice. The practice occurs on weekdays @ 8 AM ET. RSVP link is behind the paywall.