Games are fun. Aren't they? An "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement", says the first definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. But if that were truly so, then games would have only been a marginal activity. Instead, games are widespread, enjoy immense social and cultural significance and can be considered dead serious at time. They're found in countless forms within all human cultures and in some animal species – indicating that there's more to them than simple escapism.
What is this thing that gives games their power? If you ask me - The importance of games comes not from the idea that they divert us away from reality, but because it is exactly reality which they're based upon. Another Merriam-Webster definition for "Game" is the following: "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other".
Whether this is a precise definition or not – we'll soon see… but surely it stands in harsh contrast to the previous one quoted above. Moreover, it gives us a glimpse of what a game is truly about: A game sets certain goals. It defines rules, players and a setting. It involves various processes and certain aesthetic qualities. A game is basically a simplified model of our realities, and it can shape our way of thinking and acting – just as our thoughts and actions about reality are what created it in the first place.
Considering the above, I'd like to propose an interesting idea: If we look at our own conduct in the world, and think of it in idealized terms – if we view it as a model… a game…
What is this game we're playing?
Is it a "King of the hill" game, where each individual or group struggles to come out on top of the others? Is it a race, with all the contestants trying to be one step in front of the other? Is it a soccer match? Should we divide up into groups and clash over opposing goals? Or maybe it's a puzzle, with everyone contributing to a joint effort of creating a big, unified picture?
One of my greatest teachers described what he views as the tragedy of modern life as us being "puzzle pieces" playing a "king of the hill" game.
Certain pieces, he claimed – mostly those at the top – like it this way and are desperately trying to maintain their position. "From up here" they say "we can see the board much better than the rest of you – and it's definitely a 'king of the hill' we’re all supposed to be playing". Sometimes, he says – a piece might get a glimpse of the board, in a dream, a vision or a unique moment of awareness, realizing the puzzle for what it is. That piece might also try to convince the others that they should be playing "puzzle solving", instead of just piling up in a heap and racing each other to the top – an attempt many pieces may not like (especially those pieces sitting comfortably on top of the others). You see, leaving the hill isn’t easy… it requires a leap of faith. To that teacher – there was no question. He believed every person should seek out his role, his place in the puzzle, then proceed to fulfill it throughout his life. Like every puzzle, he says, a critical mass must be attained, and once enough pieces find their place on the board – the task becomes immensely easier and faster for the others.
Now that's his view. I myself am not sure that the "puzzle" metaphor is necessarily the best one to live by (though I do lean in that direction lately). What I still find terribly important here is the idea of "a game we're playing", which once understood or defined can tell us a lot about our goals, rules, approach tactics and future directions.
What about you?
What game are you playing?
Where does it get its definitions and rules?
How should one play? And why?
Who is the "winner"? Who "loses"? What is achieved? At what cost?