Isn't that the same thing? In my mind, not necessarily.
The difference comes down to not only intent, but also "the stakes".
In a recent workshop we discussed this difference as it pertains to martial arts competition versus essentially martial arts for everything else, but specifically self-defense or self-protection. (As an aside, I think the term "Self-Defense" is overused / misused. "Self-defense" is what you claim in a court of law after you have committed an act of--albeit necessary--violence. "Self-protection" is the act itself and inherently doesn't need to be violent. But, self-defense is part of the colloquial lexicon so we still use the term.)
In competition, not-losing is not enough. You have to win! Competition is a wonderful thing. The goal and the focus is definitively narrow. In taekwondo competition you win by scoring more points than your opponent. Sounds pretty specific right? Actually, it is much more specific than that. You score points by contacting the top part of your foot, and only the part of your foot below the ankle, to very limited areas of your opponents body with the requisite amount of force. In fact, this has become so well specified that in high level competition we use electronic pressure sensors to keep score. Or, you can knock your opponent out. Conversely, you can not-lose by avoiding getting scored upon. However, even if the game ends in a tie, the judges will give the match to the more aggressive competitor and you will still lose the match.
The only way to really not-lose is not to play.
This is the beauty of having very specific and hyper focused goals. It is very easy to know exactly what needs to be done in order to succeed. It is also easier to know if success is not feasible. You can very simply not-lose (not play), but then will definitely not win (reach that particular goal)
That is not a necessarily a bad thing if approached correctly.
In self-protection we say that you don't have to win, you just have to not win. The reality is 90% (arguably much, much more) of your self protection will involve no altercation at all. It is your educations, behavior and avoidance that will protect you majority of the time. And, if the altercation does occur you don't need to win. You just need to not-lose. In self protection, not losing is defined by returning to a safe state...being able to extricate yourself from the "game". You don't need to score more points, or knock your opponent out. You just need to escape. But, what if you are not alone? Then you not be able to just flee. Sometimes there is more to not-losing. You may have to use your training, you may have to leave your comfort zone, you may have to call upon something that you never knew you had, you may have to ACT for the sake of yourself and others.
Not-losing is also defined by the stakes, the level of risk.
When our goals are well defined it is easier to win and it is easier to not-lose. In order to be successful, we need to clearly define what success means. And, we need to be disciplined to not "try" to do everything. In this narrow focus, a lot of not-losing (the choice of elimination) can lead to winning in a big way.
However, our life goals are a lot more than the sum of many narrow focused goals. There is a lot more at stake: professional fulfillment, family, health, happiness. These things are all more abstractly defined and the definition of risk is much more gray. As such, life is not a series of binary play/not-play choices.
Even when victory is not well defined we still need to participate because the risks not to are too high. Even when we are not sure that we will win, we must continue to move forward and do our best to not-lose.
Sincerely,
Somnath Sikdar
Master Instructor
