The Game ( repost )

I want to put this up again with respect to the Zimmerman trial. The trial itself is a game. It could turn into a deadly game before it is all over. With this in mind, here's a discussion about games. Is this game really necessary? Or is it an excuse to do what you want to do anyway?

Anyway, here's the post:


Games are all around us. We are entertained by games. People often play games with each other. You could even say that games are central part of our lives. Even so, games can be destructive. After all, the most deadly game of all is war. Yes, war is a game. Games may be seen as all fun and "games", but games are not always about fun. Games can be very serious business. Lives can depend on the outcome of games. Fortunes can be won or lost on the outcome of a game. With games being so much a part of our lives, could we, or should we strive to eliminate them? We say we want to end the most deadly game of all- war- but do we really want to? Are we addicted to games?

I remember reading about games in the negative sense back about the time I graduated from high school. It was a book called "I'm OK, you're OK"- one of those self help type books.  You can say that I came from a competitive home. Lots of games being played all the time.  Sports mainly.  You can say that I'm a sore loser. I really hate to lose. About that time, in my high school days, I began to experience some of the feelings associated with losing, hence the need to consult some sort of self help book.  If you're going to play the games of life, you need to know how to handle the disappointments of losing them. That book didn't do that, but it did give some intellectual understanding of the nature of games.  I began to read self help books a lot over the years.  Sadly, it doesn't seem to have done much good at times.  I still hate to lose.

Harris' book, mentioned above led me to another book, called "Games People Play".  It expands upon the themes, particularly in subject of games, and how counter productive games can be.  Basically, people play games in order to make up for some feelings of inadequacy.  Winning the "game" gives a temporary sense of relief from that inadequacy, but it doesn't last.  Not to mention, there's bad side affects.  After all, the loser doesn't like it and often will seek to get revenge- or just to "get even".  This of course can lead to a long term mutually destructive series of moves and counter moves that leave both participants worse off over time.  If they are both lucky, they won't completely destroy each other.  Some really hard case games can end in the hospital, courtroom, or the morgue.  Games can be deadly.

How do you recognize a game?  If you want to avoid games, that is.  That has been my aim- just don't play the game.  But you can lose anyway by default.  Perhaps my way is to play it safe.  If you are going to "win", you've got to take some risks.  I've developed an aversion to the game itself.  As I write this, I wonder if this was a mistake.  I'd like to "win", but I really hate to lose.  But you lose anyway if you don't play.  I'd rather win without winning, though.  I'd rather not have to win, and not impose a loss on somebody, so that I can enjoy my win.  But the world doesn't want to cooperate with my funny ideas about these things.  Even when you win, you can't enjoy the victory, but the world forces you to play anyway.

This reminds me of the movie "Spartacus".  Slaves are forced to fight each other to the death in order to entertain others.  Fast forward to today.  We don't go to this extreme, but some of our sports can get pretty rough.  Like boxing.  Men have been killed in the ring.  NFL football has left many players permanently disabled.  I'm not saying this is evil and it should be stopped.  People do what they have to do- so they have an athletic gift, and use it to entertain others- at a risk to themselves.  That's the nature of games- you get forced into it even at your own risk.  You play them if you want to win- but winning can come at a great cost.

Is there a way to win without winning?  Is there a way to avoid the worse aspect of games?  You can say that is part of what this blog is about.  But would such a world be too tame for everybody?  Animal spirits reside in us.  Perhaps there are those who want games because it makes life more interesting.  A life without games gets too boring.  People are enthralled by their animal spirits.  But this blog is about solving problems- raising civlization to the next level.  If games are a hindrance to this end, and I think they are- how can they not be?- we need a solution.  But at the same time, solutions may not be desired. After all, what do you do when there aren't any more games to play?  Life needs something to spice it up.  You wonder if most people would take such a path if it were clearly offered, or choose the game path, because it is more fun.

To give an example of what I think could be a game, I'll point to this E-cat business.  People are behaving in ways that don't make much sense to me.  It doesn't make sense to me because the game can be decided quickly, in my opinion.  After reading some news this morning- with respect to the E-cat- the idea of games popped up in my head.  It really is a game!  Well, if I am right about that, there's going to be a lot of "fun" with this game.  Shall I name the opponents?  It is all rather obvious.  Rossi has his device and his supporters, who believe in him, and his invention.  He also has his critics.  Therein is named the opponents in this game.  Rossi has put it in those terms already himself.  His opponents are "snakes".   He says he is in a war.  Sounds like a game to me.  Good guys and bad guys.

And my reaction is like it always is.  I don't like to play.  I don't want to play.  So, I head to the sidelines while the game progresses.  My way is to end this game.  But by ending it, does it mean that I want to end it fast?  I want to win, and I also like being on the winning side.  As I said before, I really hate losing.  I think the winner of this game should be the one who is right in terms of the facts.  But Rossi is making me impatient because he is holding back some facts.  I'd like to believe in his device, but that is not how I think it should go.  If it is about science, it should be about facts, as opposed to belief.  Give us the facts and end this game.  Let the facts decide who wins this game.

But I can understand why Rossi is cautious.  He has a Goliath against him, and he has to play David.  Goliath is a big sucker and he is a mean sucker, and he plays to win.   If Rossi is going to kick the Goliath's ass, he is going to have to outsmart him.  Otherwise, Goliath will make mincemeat out of him and he knows it.  But that is what makes it so interesting.  Everybody loves an underdog.  But everybody hates a loser!  Better to be an underdog that wins, than be just another dog that become roadkill.  I can understand Rossi's predicament.  Still, the game must be played.  There must be a winner.  Eventually, the winner will emerge.

I not only hate to lose.  But I also hate suspense.  I think I'll plug one of my videos based upon Rush's "Roll the Bones".