Games without Frontiers vs. GroupThink

In the game of non-duality it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. However, if non-duality is the outcome (reward) you seek, then you play to win.

The problem is always in the rules of the game and not the playing of games because everyone plays, but not everyone plays to win.

The ego-self demands rules for which to tailor its thought and behavior in order to achieve the identified finite outcomes available in all ego-games. This is because most ego-games are played to win.

You can't just play for the sake of playing and if you fail to demonstrate the requisite desire to win, you're quickly disqualified as not a real player. You'll find this conformance rule in just about every serious ego-game. Even games whose outcome is transcending all games requires that you take the rules very seriously.

Players tend to get frustrated if an outcome (conclusion) does not seem likely, particularly if they play by the rules, and this is because outcomes are valuable. Without the rules how can you get the prize? Try to change the rules and you will be met with derision and contempt. Besides, many of the rules have been followed for centuries, so who are you to deviate.

You must deviate.

You'll often get a taste of this in spiritual-religious circles in which attempts are made to terminate the discussion, such as "well, looks like we will never know" or "words will always fail us." The unspoken rule is that "this can not be talked about." Spiritual explorations seen as having no definitive conclusion are determined by consensus as having no value in advancing the outcome and are quickly extinguished.

Consensus is crucial to the spiritual game and if we're all in agreement, then how can the rules be wrong?

Rules by majority consensus (democracy) are often the most debilitating and stifling of all ego-games because they compel by asserting that all preceding rules (precedent) must be followed without a full understanding and disclosure as to WHY. Historical games can be frightening because players perpetuate a "repetition compulsion" and even when the games demonstrate that the rules are unsustainable, the rules must never change. Unquestioning adherence to historical rules leads to GroupThink.

"Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking."

Rules are necessary and egos do not do well in unstructured games.

The ego-self, in predicting its chances of winning, will essentially attempt to reinvent itself in preparation for many serious ego-games. This requires it classify and categorize all competitive participants (other egos) as to their willingness to play by the rules and their level of play. Many are "masters" of the rules, while others are merely classified as beginners or "novices." The ego-self will adjust its thought and behavior in accord with the evaluated (judged) level of the player it interacts with and other players having attained higher rank or title will be deferred to, while others may even be revered.

However, non-players do not even exist in the arena of play that the serious player experiences. This is because ego-games exclude those who do not play by the rules and to participate you must play by the rules. Non-players are non-entities and this is why many egos are often happy when a corporation lays off thousands in order to increase profitability, which means the company's stock price goes up and many egos experience the thrill of winning, even though others (employees) are left destitute. To the serious player, those laid off are non-players and therefore, they don't really exist and need not be accounted for.

In fact, it's important for all egos to be categorized as to their willingness to play by the rules. All egos need to be 'classified' and if it appears you cannot be classified within the conventional brackets, then clearly you demonstrate disrespect for the game and are disqualified as a non serious player, or persona non grata.

This is easily discernible even in societal games in relation to the ostracism of social deviants who refuse to play by the consensual rules, as determined by majority, and are easily marginalized.

However, interestingly enough, in time, society often seeks to integrate many deviants and will often accept and integrate the deviant's rules, with some changes (dumb-down), into the accepted protocol, so that years later the deviant is celebrated as "visionary" or "master." Yet, this signifies a win or achieved outcome and makes the deviant a finite player (even if dead, since winners always live on in the minds of living players) who must relent to accepting the altered rules in order to win the "visionary" title, thereby making his/her rules simply part of the conventional, or serious, ego-games.

All ego's seek allies to further enrich their pursuit of winning (and will often ally with deceased players in a form of historical allegiance). Your allegiance, although valued by other egos, requires a serious adherence to the rules of the game as set forth by players before you who have been acknowledged as winners.

This blog eschews and minimizes the seriousness of all religious-spiritual ideology, or rules, but fully advocates that the games must be played. Serious players will see this as an indictment on the rules passed down for centuries and may seek to disqualify the lack of rules presented here as inauthentic and lacking the seriousness necessary to win the desired outcome.

Many ego-games have been played for centuries and the rules have never changed. Previous winners become the models, or "gurus," for future winners. J.P. Morgan is as much admired and emulated as Gautama Buddha, as a "master" of his respective game. The words of both have been immortalized and the rules they adhered to continue to guide even today's player.

All ego-games must have rules and all egos must play some game at some time. Not to play some game at some time, for an ego-self, would be indicative of non-existence. However, to play with no intention of winning is to play infinitely and forever.

Can you make up your own rules as you go along and change them anytime it appears an outcome is approaching? Can you play by the rules of society with no serious intent? Can you play NOT to win or will you eventually be lured in by the rewards of winning?

Just wondering....


Hans plays with Lotte
Lotte plays with Jane
Jane plays with Willi,
Willi is happy again
Suki plays with Leo,
Sacha plays with Britt
Adolf builds a bonfire,
Enrico plays with it

-Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside
-Whistling tunes we're kissing baboons in the jungle
It's a knockout

If looks could kill, they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears
Games without frontiers-war without tears

Jeux sans frontieres

Andre has a red flag,
Chiang Ching's is blue
They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu
Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games
Hiding out in tree-tops shouting out rude names

-Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside
-Whistling tunes we piss on the goons in the jungle
It's a knockout

If looks could kill they probably will
In games without frontiers-wars without tears
If looks could kill they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears
Games without frontiers-war without tears 
(Peter Gabriel)