The games of life

What defines a game?


Purpose explains a game. It delimits a game. It makes the game.

A game is anything defined by at least one purpose – a computer game, a game of chess, watching a movie, a project or job, a relationship, family – even life itself. Different participants in a game have different purposes. While the sum of the purposes defines a common game, each person ha his own version of that game – defined by his purpose(s).

So when we talk about the importance of being able “to let go“, what are we letting go of? When a person is stuck in loss of girlfriend or enraged by loosing his job, he needs to be able to say “fuck it” and let it go. But what is “it”? The now ex-girlfriend? The job he had? No. The ex-girlfriend represented a game. The job was another game. Both had a defining purpose, and that is what he needs to let go of.

To enjoy the games we play, it is important to manufacture purposes, to give life to the games in order to reap the benefits – experiences and emotions. It is equally important to be able to stop creating a purpose – to let it go. Freedom is achieved by the ability to create and not create purposes, to go into and out of games freely.

Pride, ego and “having to be right” makes it harder to letting go and to create new purposes.

In order to get the full benefits of a game, one has to give value to that purpose. The more valuable a purpose is, the more serious the stakes are, the more benefits can be harvested. Self suggestion becomes an integral part. But one can get to the point where a game gets too real and becomes overwhelming. That’s when you pull out the tool called “fuck it”. Even when you die. But until that time you might as well get maximum enjoyment out of the games of life.

Picture taken from my balcony with Sony Xperia Z3

Picture taken from my balcony with Sony Xperia Z3

28 thoughts on “The games of life

  1. Yes. I just disagree with the ‘letting go’ as a should. It is good (like anything) as potential ability, to grab on, to let go and so on. If it’s a ‘should’, it’s enforced, even from oneself to oneself. What about will? If my house caught fire i could no longer worry about it, and get a new one. It’s not bad. But maybe I could ‘resurrect’, rebuild the previous one too. It’s not bad either.

    And games are games alright. But to me not all games are the same –desirable in the same way. And I think it’s not good when one (me too) has to have a game, for he can be drawn in games he would otherwise not want to play. It’s good to choose what to play.


      1. Yeah.

        It is free when you can stay or go or so many other opposites and middle conditions, at will. I see pros advising people to leave, and it’s OK if they so wish. But if one leaves whenever something gets a little hard…I don’t know. I seems like being ‘dust in the wind’ to me.

        1. The point is rather to acquire The Ability to let go and on par with one’s ability to citrate a purpose. And then let the person decide whatever.

          1. Sure, as abilities they’re all good. It was the wording ‘should let go’ instead of ‘should be able to let go’, I disagreed with.

    1. Will check it when I get off the train (NSB blocks YouTube and the 4G is less than flimsy). BTW, listening to Marcel de Van now – great music. You should check him out.

  2. Instead of “purpose” I like looking at the “overall logic” of a subject or a situation, because that is more objective. A “game” then reduces to simple “is-ness”. One can then view that isness objectively. The idea of “game” introduces a filter of subjectivity through which then one looks at is-ness.

    The basic unknowns in a game are the participants. But each participant is a “logical structure” on its own with its overall logic. One gains greater objectivity by looking at participants as “logic structures” within the “logic structure” of the situation or the scene. It is quite a dynamic logic.

    Loss of a girlfriend or of a job is a situation with its own “logical structure.” There is no such thing as instant “letting go”. There is only a resolution of inconsistencies within a “logic structure”.

    One does not create or destroy out of thin air. It is a matter of resolving logical inconsistencies in the “is-ness” of which one is also a part of. It is looking at one’s own “logical structure” within the larger logical structure of reality. Ego refers to one’s “logical structure”. Pride is an expression of that “logical structure.”

    Looking at life as a game with the purpose of getting enjoyment out of it is just a load of subjectivity. Subjectivity means the presence of filters. One is not aware of such filters. To get rid of such filters one simply needs to seek logical consistency in the is-ness of which one is also a part.

  3. Participation. You may have a purpose of “playing” or “fun” without a huge amount of polarization. Or with a heavy polarization.In which case you can see the purpose being a game modifier.

      1. Absolutely! and even lightly polarized preferences are still some polarization. I would say that lighter polarization leads to a more free and fun response in a game. I would also say that you could be at a level where you accept a side or role in a game for the experience without polarization, just for fun (experience). Geir would, I think, call this a purpose, I would see the act of participation as a bit senior to purpose, but we *could* just be dealing with language issues.

  4. Nice Post, Geir. The funny thing about a game, or games, is the hunger for a win!

    Nobody hungers for a loss, (slimmers being one exception!! 🙂 )

    Probably, the most important attitude, in being able to play a game, is to have a great ‘spirit of play’ present, during any game. Notice that one then feels ‘lighter’, more extroverted and the capacity to operate at ones most creative ingenuity, often makes for a most memorable, fulfilling experience! 🙂

    Once the game gets into a ‘serious’ condition, bang goes the ‘spirit’! Bang goes the fun! In comes the moroseness, mental mass, and introversion, which definitely compromises the creativity, and thus the likely-hood of a loss! 😦

    Here’s a little formula I mocked up a while back, which sums it all up:

    SERIOUSNESS = Mass = Introversion = Effect = Loss!

    INSOUCIANCE = Lightness = Extroversion = Cause = Win!!

  5. Could it be that a purpose is fun itself? I’ve caught myself many times writing in blogs just for that, with not further purpose to share knowledge, do something with SCN etc…

      1. And you win just by playing, as playing is fun. And so then you can’t lose, unless you don’t know you have fun :p

    1. Or create the purposes out of nothing and give them more or less value so that we can say that there are more worthwhile purposes pit there 😉

  6. I smile now when I type, cause I cannot imagine someone who’s able to say “fuck it” when the time will come. Otherwise, great article!

    1. Wow! Definitely a good thing to learn. I’ve packed up and said “fuck it” when the time was right a few times, and it’s VERY liberating!

Have your say


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s