Conference hydra::dejavu

    yes, i know, you know.
    
    sad that we shall die alone, worse remain alone in life..'s
    to come
    

There's a good book by that name, I suppose you know. 

				Screwy Lew

We are all so used games where someone has to lose for someone else to win.
What about a game where playing well means something?  One which lasts
a very long time and interim winners are declared by the excellence of
their moves?

A game could be made where losing would mean having to go to "jail".  Jail
being defined as being stuck with one's own survival issues.  Playing well
means making a move which enhances the quality of creativity and grace.
A move which sets up the conditions for another player to make a good
move is a good move in itself.

For example you are in a meeting where the air is full of demagogurey,
ego survival, and avoidance where there is no room for the truth.
The novice player might try to make accurate statements only to  have
his or herself admonished in front of the room.  The Master player
would by some move alter the space in the room which would allow anyone
to come to the truth of the matter at hand.

Non-players would not recognize players nor certainly not the
Master player.  The only acknowledgement the Master player would
get is the satisfaction surrounding the excellence of his/her own move.
If there were other players in the room, they would silently declare
a winner and have the opportunity to create a move of their own.
Subsequent moves or plays which enhanced the quality of creativity
and grace would be cause to declare more winners.

The point of the game in this example is to regain one's nacient ability
to allow truth to be present.  A poor move with no winner declared
would be one loaded with self-riteousness and ego agrandizement whether
it worked or not.

How does one get to be a Master player?  Well, by playing of course.
How does one play?  How does one get into the game?  Let's say, for example,
that this notesfile was such a game.  Those who wish to become players
(vs. pieces) simply declare themselves as such by the quality of their entries.
For instance an entry or reply which acknowledges another's entry without
overshadowing or diluting that entry  would be considered a good move and
by silent recognition, a winner is declared.  Obviously there are traps.

So why play the game?  So why even call it a game?  Well, only because
once made a game, the players reap the rewards of the path toward Mastery.
If Mastery wasn't reward enough, then regaining one's consciousness 
should be.

There are other benefits which carry on into ordinary life.  A player can
become a virtual Master in the game of life as he or she begins to play
this game well; gaining power without force, manipulation and control.
Power without control is called Grace.  Masters are recognized by their ability
to have their lives work and the lives of those around them begin to
transform.

         DEJAVU has a horrible fascination for me. Only America
         could spawn this strange creature filled with the
         readiness to naively follow the weirdest belief systems
         known to man. And then sprinkled throughout it, are
         small jewels of graceful replies and fascinating
         ideas.
         
         Ah! America! Land of Charles Manson and Bob Dylan.
         
         And the Master Game (Robert De Ropp, 1968)
         
         Larry, your ideas are uncannily like De Ropp's and
         also recalled Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game)
         by Hesse.
         
         Lewis, it's a hell of a book. On the nth time thru
         my second copy.
         
         Dejaviewers, throw away the junk and try the only
         game worth playing.
         
         Larry, give us some more.
         
         		Dave (who, in case you hadn't guessed
         it, is not American.)
         

    
    
    The Game has to do with Harmony which is the antithesis of submission.
Pick something, anything with which you are fimiliar with.  Pick anything,
even driving the car in heavy traffic.  Look to see if there is a harmony
and  drive with it.  If you cannot find a harmony in that moment, pick another 
situation or moment in the same situation.  This is good training for making
a good move.  Word of caution: driving an automobile can be hazardous
to you peice so unless you are willing to hazard, find a more benign
form.  This is an EXAMPLE; not a recommendation.

Just because the Game is safe to play doesn't mean you are.
Larry

    I'll pick cycling. It's 6 in the morning, the rain has stopped.
    I'll ride in the foothills, taste the fresh wet air, hear the
    currawongs, feel the road under the swish of tires, be aware of
    the muscles of the body, feel the harmony of life around me, try
    and break from waking sleep to self-remembering.
    
    Is your piece called "student" now? If so, what are the pieces called
    "teachers?"
    
    Dave

    I need a bit of help and this appears to be the best place to find
    it. If the moderators feel that this request is inappropriate, please
    move to proper place.
    
    I purchased a system disk game "Demon's Forge" for my daughter for
    Christmas. There are no instructions other than the explanation
    of why you have been thrown into this maze. There are multiple
    directions to take once in the caves and dungeons, but the player
    (you) must talk to the system in order to accomplish anything. If
    anyone has this disk and has figured out the words that command
    response, please contact me via mail or phone. It's becoming
    frustrating for everyone and it is definitely a challenge.
    
    Thank you ....... from the closet within the Brazier....... . .
    
    Ken

re: .8

If you're interested, there is a Notes Conference on Games, PICA::GAMES.
There area also several conferences on various types of PC's (IBM's,
Mac's, Amigas, VAXMates, Rainbows, etc).

Terry

    I'd like definitions of the terms used in .0...
    Although they seem pretty obvious,  I think we each attach
    connotations to them which may be inappropriate in this
    context... Seems to me that if we each use different
    definitions, then we're playing with different rules.
    Can we define the game a little more precisely so that
    we can decide whether we really want to play?
    
    A specific request (does this mean I'm making two moves?):
    Please explain the entertainment/anger connection. It's not
    at all obvious to me.
    
    /bruce

    The game I'd like to play is one in which everybody wins...
    That we each move toward our goals, and assist each other
    as best we can...  where the energy is all positive, and there
    is no "blame."  It's hard to undo all the conditioning, though.
    
    I also think that the goal is _playing a good game,_ acting
    with integrity, moving toward mastery.
    
    /bruce

>    I'd like definitions of the terms used in .0...
>    Although they seem pretty obvious,  I think we each attach
>    connotations to them which may be inappropriate in this
>    context... Seems to me that if we each use different
>    definitions, then we're playing with different rules.
>    Can we define the game a little more precisely so that
>    we can decide whether we really want to play?

It's ok to use any definition you want for the terms used in .0.
It is one's personal sense of the Game itself, how to play, how to 
make good moves, what is a player and a piece.  That sense comes from
one's ability to communicate which is also, indeed, one of the
prime qualities of the game.
    
>    A specific request (does this mean I'm making two moves?):
>    Please explain the entertainment/anger connection. It's not
>    at all obvious to me.
    
Ok, to compare and contrast.  Let's say we all sat around and had an
enjoyable dinner with good food and spirited conversation.  This being
a joyful experience which we normally call entertainment.  Then let's say
we brought out an ordinary game like Monopoly where there would be
an eventual winner and others as loosers to varying degrees.  Some anger,
no matter how slight is still imposed.  It was more fun for the winner and
less for the loosers.  We all have the social graces not to demonstrate that
anger, and yet, I suggest anger is still there.

Grace, with a capitol "G" is the term used to symbolize the experience
of the former "entertainment" where we all dined and enjoyed with everyone
and everything included.  Everyone "won".

The Master game is not about entertainment in the ordinary sense.  It is about
playing in such a manner that the quality of one's moves determines having
"won" at no expense to any other player.  Other moves whether good or poor
determine the footing  for all moves; hence it is possible to say everyone
"won".

At first the Master Game appears to be intellectually complex.  It is not.
It does not work on an intellectual level though many have tried.  It 
works on the level of Being.

Larry

There's no need to avoid Monopoly. Just play *it* as part
of the game. For example, one could try to loose.

John D.

    re .13
    
    ...or assist in some person's winning.
    
    With monopoly, when the game is over everyone turns the pieces,
    and money back in.  Sound familiar?

The truth of the matter is that life and games are both "realities" at some 
level.

If we call this exercise (i.e. The Master Game) a "game", some may see the 
relevance to the "real" world in the sense that a game models reality. 
But some of us may get caught up in the concept and meaning of gaming.

Gaming for some is a contest.  It is a way of stretching to reach goals 
(that seems to be OK), but it also connotes conflict and winning, which can
only be achieved at a cost to others - the losers.  
A great example of this is the (in)famous "Red / Black Game."

Communication in the verbal/written sense is based on the gut feelings and 
images people develop in response to the words they are presented with.
Selecting the "right" terminology is then important when attempting to 
enable a change to a different state of mind.

It's a little like the song "Imagine".  Lennon only wanted people to 
visualize a different world - and many did.  
But many got caught up in the "real" meaning of the lyrics and the effects 
the words had on their basic beliefs, and they therefore rejected the whole 
conceptual framework.

The role for some in the world is to enable people to change their "normal" 
paradigms and feel a different (and greater) reality with as few barriers 
or internal conflicts as possible.  It should just happen.  It should be OK.

One way to do this is to live life as a "Master" and help others learn by 
being a model and by asking subtle, thought-provoking questions.

Another way is to "see", feel or visualize oneself and others with this 
openness to new ideas, and to develop ways to enable the world to evolve to 
a similar and more positive use of energy.

A game might help enable this awakening process - people are not afraid 
of games BECAUSE they are not reality.  They are led unsuspecting, into the
thought processes around the new level of consciousness.

The pure concept of being made aware of the "Levels of Consciousness" in .0 
and the way in which "The Master Game" might bring this continuum to a front-
of-mind thought process is beautiful.  Just being made aware that there is an 
evolution is a wonderful thought.  These are steps in our education process, 
and even if people "work" to achieve the next level, at least they become 
aware of the continuum of human energy and universal energy.

The question is - is the relevance lost?

At the game level maybe all "players" must be instructed to follow the first 
"rule" of the game, that the rules of the game apply in real life.

How this all got started:

I have been working on something quite different.  At least for
the last few months looking into my childhood and recalling those
events where I made decisons where I sold out, traded off, and
yes even murdered my Beingness as a way to survive life
with two very ordinary and selfish parents.  This has been a very
painful experience and I considered my success low.

Over the past twenty years I have read a lot of stuff, done a lot of stuff
which I consider quite out of the ordinary.  Did I do it to get better or
did I do it to learn something in order to make a difference in the quality
of life in this universe?  Well, whatever motivated me, I have had a lot
of disjointed realizations and Ah-ha's.  Nice but not very effective.

A few days priopr to entering the note on Master Game I had very upsetting
dreams.  Literally when I closed my eyes the lights went on..  One night
in particular I had cold chills, profuse sweating and multiple movies
going on all night long.  Also there have been drastic changes in the
way I see relationships and how I experience them.  

One morning in a flash this whole thing came together.  And there is more.
It almost has a life of it's own.  The Game feels like a separate state
of consciousness.  At times I see it applies to everything in life.
It is a context described by the Game.  It is not a thing or a thing to do.
The Game describes a ground of Being and an application to life itself.

In the context of the Game, I see my parents just doing what they did
and I responded.  At least for today, I have no emotional charge on my past.
What I do have now is another point of view: they did not do it to me;
I did it to myself.  The Game also provides the context in which to
revive or recover lost Being-stuff.  It says play life as if it mattered.

Not everyone will participate in the game or declare themselves as players.
Not everyone will like the context of the game.  There are those, in fact, who 
will see the game as harmful and strive to banish it.  The Game has
room for that.  It is all part of the game.

I did not invent the Master Game.  I did come to realize it in such a way
to be able to apply it to my life and write about and talk about it.
This is not "My" Game.  It is anyone's game who wishes to play it.
What has happened is it is now here in this local reality.  The information
has been transmitted and it is up to each individual to do
with it what he or she pleases.

What I suggest is true is that a group of people knowingly and consciously
playing the Game and declaring themselves Players recreates the context
to be manafest in the world.  I further suggest that this line of reality,
this particular universe will head off like a freight train into very
different lands.  What does this land look like?  From here, to me, it
looks like a world which includes everyone and everything.  It takes the
unworkability in the world and transforms it.

The Game says co-share a world of you-and-me. It says 100% responsibility
for each player.  It doesn't say divide the responsibility and find out who
is to blame.  It says that it is possible to make each and every moment
of time be transformed into a moment which works.  The Game is a model
of engagement.  It transcends the passivity of a philosophy and it
includes philosophies.

You want to stop terrorist attacks, rid ourselves of nuclear threat,
create clean environment?  Well, then play each moment of your life
as if the outcome of the entire universe depended on it (it does).
Just filling up the gas tank in your car and including the station
attendant in a world of you-and-me makes a difference.

The Game says include failures both personal and public.  It says take
poor moves and create a good move.  Take those past relationships and
the people who still don't like you and include them in who you are.
It says take the negativity in  your life and allow your Beingness
to transform it into energy which works.

A notesfile is a pretty good place to start.  There are plenty of jerks
out there whom you can include.  You can take somebody's off the wall
diatribe and convert it into something special.  You can transform
the space where it is ok for a jerk to be a jerk.  *Beings arrive
into safe spaces.*  A jerk behaves that way because he or she uses  it
to defend themselves when the space appears unsafe.  A good move
cleanes up the space  A terrorist is a jerk who has taken it to extremes.

This is what the game is all about.  Use every moment to practice
cleaning up the space.  You and I aren't going to single-handedly
affect all the garbage in the world.  What we can do is keep as much
local space clear as possible, learn how to be a Being which
creates safe space and then step back and get ready for maximum
Adventure!

    Somehow, though this is a poor move, the reply in .16 calls for
    tears.
     
    I say this not to exemplify the Game.  I say it to acknowledge
    the author.
    
    This one wishes to acknowledge another Being in the Universe.
    
    OK, so there is only one Being in the Universe..What the hey?
    
    L.

        
    Larry 
    
    Ref. .18
                       
    Thanks for the acknowledgement.  You have some great insights.
                   
    I think emotions are among the best moves we all can make.
    Aren't emotions at the center of our best communications at this
    level?
    
    Ref. .17
                
    I like the concept of "acting as if".
              
    We can be gaining in our perspectives of who we are and how we fit
    in, in the context of different levels of "reality" but act *as if* we
    are "there" - where or what ever that is.                          
                                                          
    The world *can* be changed by a few, a critical mass of caring people
    that have a vision and act as if it were possible. 
              
    After all, we are all one being - one energy - we need only to become 
    aware of it.  Time and distance are not issues at this level. 
    
    The kind of changes we are talking about here *are* possible, and
    we only need to *act as if* - to make it happen.
                                   
    John  
    
    
    

I took .20 out since I got fed up with my own typing.    From
home this editor runs about .2 Baud so I get pretty impatient.
Then it occurred to me that the Game decrys impatience.  A hasty move
is more likely than not to be a poor one.  So while I'm waiting around
for the screen to catch up, I open up the dictionary and check my
spelling.  This also gives me the opportunity to notice some pretty
interesting words.

    
    Larry

	Eggo games. Not to imply that, but.., no ifs, ands or Butts. 
But, but, Life is suffering, and when all the games run dry ~we~ can
start really trying, (or being tried). Crucified, on the crux.
This author doesn't know, can only suggest. The author can only 
knows? suggests!, leggo.
					Luiggi

    Re: .21

    I didn't understand what you were trying to convey.  Could you
    rephrase it please?
    
    Jeff

We all are going to get an ego.  This is the normal course of personality
development.  The personality is that complex description by which
we have defined our pieces.  Ego is the _condition_ by which we as
players are identified with our pieces.  One of the aspects of the
Game is to become less identified with our piece and reduce the  effect
of being encased by our piece (ego).  The condition, the potential for
becoming identified with our piece, will not go away though it's affects
can come into our range of choices.

There is always the danger of playing a "fake" Game where it is played
by an ego.  It can even get sophisticated so as not to be easily 
recognized as a fake.  This adds a little "spice" to the game, eh?


There is no requirement to play the Game.  Those who choose to become
players with purpose are invited to do so.

At first the Game appears to be cold and devoid of emotion.  Like music,
Art and dance; at first the learning of the the techniques are pretty
much an intellectual effort.  Certainly a Master musician is much more fun
to listen to and evokes more emotion than the beginner.

    
    
    Larry,
    
    Would you consider this an esoteric form of behavior modification?
    In other words, once we begin to "behave" accordingly, so will the
    rest of the world.
    
    Cheryl

                                                               
    Perhaps playing this game is "living one's life dedicated to maximum
    awareness" as Scott Peck puts it so well.  It is then possible to
    find others playing the same game without them even being aware
    of it...a truly elegant way of living. 
    
    As put so well in one person's VAXmail header, "Living is easy with
    eyes closed."  Peck's opening statement in "The Road Less Traveled"
    is that "Life is difficult." but when you realize this, it all of
    a sudden becomes a whole lot easier...and with one's eyes open at
    that.
         
    Awake to know who you truly are and what you are a part of.
    
    Cindy

RE: .17

Anybody read the story 'The Wall' by Jean Paul Sartre?  The 'hero' of
that story suddenly found himself playing this "Master Game" perhaps.
Under a death sentence to be carried out in the morning, he suddenly
became free to move all over the board, which he did.   He laughed at
his captors, and was genuinely amused by them, among other feelings and
actions.   Funny thing though: the execution was never carried out; he
was reprieved at the last minute.  At that point he rolled around in the
courtyard in hysterical laughter at the absurdity of it all.

So, the above thoughts were triggered by the following from .17:

>It says take the negativity in  your life and allow your Beingness
>to transform it into energy which works.

I'm reading (better: trying to read) a book by James Hillman now called
Re-visioning Psychology.   He seems to be saying that we only come to realize
creativity when we take in the reality of death into our souls, and THEN 
become re-born, somehow.    It's very difficult reading.   Anyone read the
book, or have thoughts on the game James Hillman is playing?

re: -.1

Hi Cindy.   Looks like M. Scott Peck is on the track too, right?

-- mardy

    Though I have not read Hillman, the myths around death and rites
    of passage are abound.  Certainly my near-miss last year had profound
    effects on my view of life.  As of late, the notion of soul-death,
    though it be a contradiction in terms , became very real.
    
    It isn't so much that a soul dies as it gets stuffed into a
    box-too-small.  What it is actually that gets stuffed and who stuffs
    is another question.  Maybe that is the definition of a poor
    move.  Conversely, a good move is one that *indirectly* lets a soul
    know about it's condition and a better move is one which actually
    releases a soul.
    
    L.
    

    Ref .26
    
    I have not read Hillman, but he may be referring to the concept
    that there is a continuum between life and death (maybe even a 
    full circle connection?) and we can not fully appreciate the highs
    of life unless we have something to compare them against - the lows
    of death.  Gibron speaks of this concept in "The Prophet."
                              
    Hence, we need to experience the valleys of pain and dispair in order 
    to have a relative understanding of the peaks of joy and ecstacy. 
    
                                                           
    Ref. >It takes the negativity in your life and allow your Beingness
    	  to transform it into energy which works.         
                                                           
    I believe that this transformation is the "Master"ful way of handling 
    the negative parts of our lives.  The way in which we reset from a 
    wound to our self image can be a negative addiction or a positive   
    addiction.  (It could be said that the master would not allow a wound
    to his or her self image - but we are all trapped or choose to be
    trapped at this level some of the time.)                                          
                                                  
    Negative addictions include over use of:                  
                                                  
    	Coffee                                    
    	Tobacco                                   
       	Food                                
    	TV                                        
    	Sleep                              
    	Alcohol                                  
    	Drugs                                     
    	
    	Suicide is the ultimate negative addiction
                                                  
    These are all escapes of one kind or another, and do not really 
    rebuild the damaged person, they actually further contribute to 
    the loss of positive feeling about onesself.           
                                                   
    Positive addictions all (by definition) offer an opportunity to
    rebuild self image by stopping the downward spiral with an 
    achievement (however small) which is the footplant upon which
    the upward movement starts.  These include:
           
    	Self
    	Family
    	Work
    	Athletics
                                                              
    Ones Beingness needs to change the usual damaging patterns and  
    establish a positive addiction as the standard reaction to 
    negative pressures and activities in our lives. 
                                 
    This can be a conscious effort at first and later it may become
    more sub- or un- conscious, i.e. attitudinal.
                                                
                  
    	                     
                              

                                                 
    Re.28 (Pincomb)
    
    John,
    
    I'm not sure that there are true positive addictions, because anything
    in excess is an addiction, be it coffee or exercise.  Indeed getting
    out of the addiction cycle is part of spiritual growth as defined
    in the 12-step programs (AA and the like).
    
    On the other hand, it is highly recommended that one refrain from
    ingesting any caffeine, alcohol, tobacco, etc. if one is serious 
    about staying in peak health 100% of the time.
    
    Cindy      

                    
    Cindy           
                    
    Maybe I should have put quotes around the word addiction when mentioned
    in the positive context.  I think the idea is to substitute a positive
    use of ones energy for a negative one, thereby helping the growth
    and development process.
                    
    I agree that even "positive addictions" can become negative if 
    done to excess - but they at least are moving the focus of ones 
    energy forward.  A good move in terms of "The Game."                                           
                                                                               
    Achieving balance in ones life between physical, intellectual and
    emotional levels is also a good move.                                                        
                                                                     
    This balance is easy to achieve at higher levels of being - actually
    it defines a higher level - but hard to achieve and maintain for those 
    of us that do not have it to start with, or do not have any Master to 
    guide us, or who are choosing to stay at a lower level.   
                    
    The concept of working toward using ones energy in a positive way
    albeit a positive "addiction" is an intermediate goal for for those 
    of us in this group.  It may even be a primary goal.
                                                        
    It is easier when at this level to grasp the concepts and feel some 
    amount of control over the process, to take appropriate positive 
    actions and (therefore) achieve results that give us positive feelings. 
                    
    This is one of the ways we can help move ourselves to a higher level
    or at least take control for ourselves and start moving in a more
    positive direction.
                                     
    John             
                                 

                                      
    John,
    
    I still don't think that it is good to substitute one addiction
    for another, be it 'positive' or negative.  Addiction, to me, implies
    that one is not deliberately and consciously choosing the path. 
    
    On the other hand, if the ultimate goal is to rid ones self of all
    addictions (positive and negative), then I would concur.
    
    Will give this more thought and some dictionary work re: addiction.
                                   
    Cindy

    
    It's the unconscious addictions which close down our ability to
live fully.  How many people are addicted to their opinions?
Aren't they enclosed in these opinons and don't even know it?
Notice that a move coming out of an opinion or belief has no
room to include another person's position unless that position
agrees with the former?

    
    Larry

                                                                            
    Ref. .32                                                                
                                                                            
    At one level of the game, a move might be interpreted in this way.      
    It might be explained by being stuck in the preconceived or learned 
    meaning of words and concepts that elicit "programmed" responses at 
    the gut level.  If the moves attack the belief structure they attack 
    the being.                                                  
                                                                            
    At another level, a "stated opinion" move might be the catalyst that      
    provokes the thought necessary to enable a change in the other person.  
    Depending on the level of the "receivers" they may accept the new        
    thought, or react by fighting, as would most of us who are afraid of 
    change.                                  
                                                                            
    Classically, change is perceived as being frightening, even painful 
    to implement because of the loss of control or personal base at some 
    level. 
                                             
    At some levels it is important to try to remain open to change for 
    ourselves and to even force ourselves into positions where we have
    to accept new perspectives.     
                                    
    This is growth, and the physical, emotional and intellectual effects 
    that we experience make us stronger and help teach us and prepare us
    for other challenges we face in being.       
                                                 
                                                 
    

Yes, it is a fine line.  Attacking another's belief attacks the being
 when the being is attached to a belief..  A good move enhances the 
being-state such that the being itself can see and possibly detatch
from it's belief.  This leaves the being in the state of choice whether
to remain attached to the belief or not.  The play of a Master is
to leave the being empowered to experience itself free from it's
attachments and experience itself itself.

    I think any move made with the intent of changing another's
    state implies judgement of the other's state and is a poor
    move.  I think that the best moves are those which enhance
    one's own state.  Others are free to mimic those moves as appropriate
    in their own game-state.
    
    /bruce
    

    there i go again, judging judging.
    
    /bruce

    We will judge.  It is when we take our judgements as Truth and coerce
    the judged to believe in those judgements, we err.
    So judge then drop it like a hot rock or watch one's fingers sizzle.
    
    So what would you do if you came across someone with a serious
    case of cranialrectumitis?

    
�   So what would you do if you came across someone with a serious
�   case of cranialrectumitis?
 
    cranialrectumitis is in the mind of the beholder...  said
    person might think the same thing about me.  i've changed
    my mind often enough to know that i never have the ultimate
    solution to anything, and that i am often wrong.
    
    i can't change anyone.  i can help only those who wish to
    be helped.  i can't teach anyone anything.  people learn
    what they wish when they wish.  all i can do is try to
    make good moves.  perhaps some will follow my lead.
    
    responsibility means being free to be crazy in whatever way is
    appropriate for you.  and vice-versa.
    
    /bruce

    Do nothing and judge not is the best answer.  That too is the beauty
    of the Game because a player moves by looking at the game board
    and seeing the relative positions of the pieces without regard
    to the shapes or names of the pieces..  A player plays with other
    players and uses his or her piece to demonstrate a move
    
    There is no :"right" or "wrong" piece.  There are only good moves
    and poor ones.  
    
    L

  RE .38  (and .39 comment)

>    responsibility means being free to be crazy in whatever way is
>    appropriate for you.  and vice-versa.
    
  Yes, I like that.  It could be that we're in an unconscious struggle 
  with the Gods.   (This is what James Hillman might say.)   And the
  reason we're having this struggle is that we're being constantly 
  pulled back by literalisms, by the overly analytical, by the need to
  make technological models, by the very medium we're using here, yes, by
  the computer?!   So, we conjure up the ultimate game, the Master Game
  that will in effect beat the computer at its _own_ game.  Good idea! 

  But we may be deluded if we think we can stay on the board.  Perhaps we
  should soar, rise out of the two dimensional plane, and consort with the 
  Gods.  That means, yes, be crazy!  Really listen to our dreams, without 
  literalizing them, without too much of a Freudian disguise/censorship 
  analysis of them, but by taking them at their symbolic face values as 
  coming from the personified beings of the Gods!

  A few nights ago I had some strange dream sequences.   One involved three
  beautiful red apples way up high on an uppermost branch of an apple tree.   
  Another involved a beautiful coat of multi-colors being worn by a person 
  whose sex was indeterminant.   It was such a beautiful coat!    Were the
  Gods trying to tell me something?   

	  Or, is it all meaningless!!!!   There are no "Gods"!   The brain
          is simply a gigantic computer, ultimately understandable in terms
	  of synapses, neurons. and biochemical forces?   That's all folks!?

  -- mardy

I agree, the Master Game can be aeen as two dimensional.  Just finished
perusing Robert S. DeRopp's book _The Master Game_.  It is pretty
much '60's stuff though I find it valuable, it still doesn't say anything
about creating a Game here on the planet.  The book almost beggs
to be three dimensional as it aspires to higher states of consciousness
or "Cosmic Consciousness" as the one and only aim of the Game.  Ok, fine
with me and what I wanted was to make, shall we say, an interim,
Master Game within the context of this and other notesfiles.

By giving the Game a reality, a real method of play: using one's own
entries and replys in such a way that includes entries and replys of
other correspondents and creates the conditon of "grace" or inclusion.
A move becomes an entry in a notesfile.  The next available square being
the next available entry number.  The board being the whole computer
network itself.

If one just looks at the topics and the replys as interesting information
and of some entertainment value, yes it is two dimensional.  If one looks
at the interaction of players as manafest by their replys, the Game takes
on a whole new look.  If one looks at good moves as the successful
interaction of two players wherein both their Beingness are enhanced
by the presence of each other's notes, I call this Grace.

Is this the Third Dimension you are looking for?

Larry

    In thinking about mapping a "Master Game" to a notefile,
    it occurs to me that this a direction in which I have been
    trying to direct myself...  To use notes as a medium of
    _real_ communication,  of sharing my perceptions and experiences
    without denigrating those of others,  of recognizing that
    others' perceptions and experiences are equally valid as my
    own, and trying to understand and accept and _remember_ that.
    
    I knee-jerk many times toward old patterns, but lately can
    usually manage to contain my habitual negativity and elitism...
    
                  
    /bruce

    _real communication_
    
    I wonder what that means.  I have some notions.  And I don't have
    any idea what REAL communication means.  
    
    I'm Game :^)

�    _real communication_
    
�    I wonder what that means.  I have some notions.  And I don't have
�    any idea what REAL communication means.  
 
    
    to me, it's sharing one's own vision of truth, reality,
    experience, etc,  of opening oneself and listening to
    others...    letting oneself recognize that cherished
    opinions are just that...  exploring issues without
    intimidation,  manipulation.... 
    
    /bruce

    RE: .41

    Yes, that seems good to me.  These replies are in essence just that:
    moves on the network board, and they could be viewed as soaring out
    of two dimensions.  But what may be one persons 3-D might be another's
    1-D!   Communication is the key, and that's the game maybe...  I agree.
    It's hard to bring things together, to understand.

    RE: .42

    Yes, I agree.  Communication is the key, _real_ communication, just as
    you say.  We're all of us groping in some way.  Maybe it is true what
    Abe Lincoln said (was it Abe Lincoln?): "I am a pipe through which the
    omnipotent speaks."   We each have our unique soul-pipe, unique to us,
    but maybe we can share what comes through our special pipe, however hard 
    it may be to do this.   

    In .40 I made an attempt, but my closing paragraph leaves me depressed!

     -- mardy

	Looks like three of us were "talking" at the same time!!
	Interesting!   De Ja Vu ?

	-- mardy

    Ref. .40 and .45
        
    Mardy

    Your closing comment in .40 expressed a thought or a feeling that
    was real for you at the time.  I felt, what I thought was your
    frustration when I read it.  Since it was a statement of your feelings,
    I thought it was OK.                                        
                
    Your closing comment in .45 also expressed a feeling, but from a
    different perspective or place.  I thought it was OK too.
        
    The beauty here that I see is that you:
        
    	See the difference between .40 and .45
    	Acknowledge the difference to yourself
    	Express your feelings and share them with others.
        
    This process is not always easy, but it really is not that hard either.
    It becomes as hard as we make it.                           
        
    We need only become aware of the process - which we all seem to be 
    doing in this notes file - to allow ourselves to open up to our own as 
    well as to others' feelings and ideas and communications and beingnesses.


    Nice moves in .40 and .45.  


    John

    are smiley faces just devices we use so that we can 
    make moves that we know are really poor ones, that don't
    really advance anything, but sort of surreptitiously
    point out [our perception of] another's lack of "progress"  ??
    
    sortof like saying "sorry, just can't help myself" 
    
    /bruce

    another device:   my previous reply (932.48)  is really a judgment
    disguised as "being honest about my feelings"
    
    /bruce

    
    It's one interpretation of the way we use symbols in this medium
    to indicate that we're thinking and responding on more than one
    level - and humor/amusement usually deals with multiple levels of
    meaning. There's the first and obvious interpretation of the
    information that's being processed, and the secondary (or tertiary,
    or...) meaning, that is sufficiently at odds (and yet still 
    connected) with what we've perceived in the first place that our 
    response is often a smile and/or laughter (often coupled with 
    confusion). And perhaps the laughter is the way we hide our 
    bewilderment in the face of absurdity.
    
    Regarding 'smiley faces' - when my daughters were younger, and 
    the dreadful little yellow circles were in vogue, they referred
    to the symbol as a 'ha-ha', mirroring my reponse (vocal tone to
    be imagined) after I'd seen the 10,000th spot before my eyes.
    So now, whenever I see them in a note, I think "Ah, yes... the ha-ha
    factor."
    
    Good grief - what kind of move is this??    ;)
          
    Gloria
                                                                  
  

    Remember the court jesters who were the only ones who could tell
    the monarch what he really needed to be told, because he hid behind
    a smiley face that said "I'm [not] joking really"
    
    Actually jesters were Sufi masters (Fools) messing with politics...
    
    Brian

    .....and a Fool does not a Sufi make.
    
    l :#)
    

    How does one tell the difference between a Fool and a Sufi?
    
    Both are thieves.  The Fool steals everything.  The Sufi steals
    the Gold.
                                                            
    
    L.

    Larry, that's too deep for me...
    
    /bruce

                                                       
    I'm bothered by the word 'game'.  I guess this is because I've had
    the unfortunate history of being around people who needed to win,
    or rather needed someone to beat...which was mostly me, in order
    so that they would be able to gloat about it.  Then when I would 
    become good enough at the game to beat them at it (backgammon, 
    stones, chess, etc.), they wouldn't play anymore....or change the
    game to something I didn't know so that they would experience the
    _high_ of winning again for a while, at my expense.
         
    The one thing that also really bothered them was when I was very
    nonchalant about losing as opposed to being disappointed about it.
    
    Any insight?
    
    Cindy

That is what I have always found so disheartening about competetion.
When I won, someone didn't like it; when I lost, I stopped liking it.

The difference with the Master Game is when a person makes a good
move he or she wins and the winning is shared.  In effect everyone wins.
A poor move entrenches oneself deeper into one's own stuff and at times
entrenches another in his or her own stuff.  Obviously there are gradients
of poor moves.  Self aggrandizement at another person's expense is pretty
obviously a poor move.  Pointing out another's faults even with compassion
is still not a good move.  Pointing out one's own faults is also not a good
and the gradient lessens.

So why not simply declare everyone a winner and everyone gets to 
go home happy?  Well, that would mean the end of the game.  I doubt if
this is going to happen in my lifetime; then again who knows?

How about an example?:

Joe and Sally have been arguing about who gets to drive the new car
to work this morning.  They both have good reasons including "I just
want to".  The reverse psychology doesn't work either when they both 
switch positions and try giving the other the new car.  Just a litany of
bad moves.  From here it looks like they are stuck because no matter
who gets to drive what; they both lose.

Here is the crux of the matter.  That argument and whatever happened afterwards
constitutes a moment in time.  It is the NEXT move, the next moment in time
where the opportunity exists to make a good move.  A sincere apology by
one or the other would be a good move.  A better move would be to include
each one's desire and the anger felt during the argument as part of
the next move.  An example of a better move is:  Whomever gets home first
after work, no matter which car they drove, starts dinner WITH the
intention of having peace and togetherness in their own heart no matter
what the other person is thinking or feeling.  No matter what!

  re: .56

  That was a great move, L!  Seeing as we're all sort of ghosts here
  anyway, it's great that we can be kind to one another, disembodied
  as we are, and without flesh and blood in this network.

  I think your example of Joe and Sally was perfect and beautiful!

  So, if we're _forced_ to play the game, the game of life that is,
  we can all win by being kind to oneanother, apologizing, and letting
  ourselves be vulnerable.   There's nothing sweeter....

  re: .55

  I know what you mean, Cindy, about people _having_ to win.  I had a
  friend like that too, who would play this "apple-toss" game with me
  as long as it took for him to get ahead, and then he'd get bored and 
  want to quit!   Yes, he was a real person! - it was many years ago...

  -- mardy

    Thanks Larry (.56), it sure hit 'home' for me and was beneficial in
    a situation I've been trying to deal with recently.
    
    Ro
    

Though I don't contribute to this conference regularly, I do monitor it.
Occassionally a note is started which adds a dimension of substance and 
balance to Dejavu.  The Master Game, to me, is such a note.

Thanks to the originator, and thanks to those who have kept it on track 
in the spirit that was intended.

Jeff

    Hello.  I'd like to add my thanks too, Larry, for starting
    this topic.  Thinking about the Master Game, I feel joyful
    and energized.  
    
    Peace,
    
    Karen

A good friend sent me MAIL indicating that my REPLY # 953.5
could be interpreted as that of someone playing "intellectual 
asshole," with the intent of either derailing the discussion
or of baiting someone else into a game which I would surely
win, because I play "intellectual asshole" so well.

Anyway,  I find that I often get annoyed at other cutesy-poo
jokes, especially the ones that end "i just couldn't help
myself, tee hee!"  and that usually pertain to chocolate
or whipped cream.

Well, in REPLY 953.5, I just couldn't help myself...  whenever
I run into a discussion of reality, I knee-jerk back to the
60's and the line "Reality is a crutch for those who can't
take drugs" always pops into my head.

I recently saw a discussion that suggested that without humor,
we might all go mad.  My question is this:  Is humor a bad move?
Is humor a good move?  Does it depend on whose ox is gored?


/bruce

    

    Ox?  I thought it was a Bull?

< Note 932.61 by HYDRA::LARU "Surfin' the Zuvuya" >
                                  -< tee hee >-
>                      My question is this:  Is humor a bad move?
>Is humor a good move?  Does it depend on whose ox is gored?

I think humor is always a good move.  Hey, but maybe I'm an intellectual
a**hole too!

		Dave

    Humor is like the Mr. Clean or "TopJob" of this cosmic opera
    
    I like one person's definition of enlightenment: Lightening up about
                           IT!
    
    L.

    ...as long as the humor is not at the expense of someone, other than
    oneself... then, it's okay.    But many situations are inherently
    humorous that appear so deadly serious..   So, as you say Larry,
    Lightening up about IT! is a good move!

    -- mardy

    I think humour has a number of r�les;
    
    	1. as a corrective against self-indulgent seriousness
    
    	2. as a jolt against restrictive thought patterns
    
    oh, and
    
    	3. for a laugh!
    
    Brian

Ref  932.55

Cindy - 

I'll take a chance.  (Are we allowed a ":-)"?)

At a very basic level, gaming becomes reality for some people, as in gambling
(gamblers anonymous) and video arcade games (kids cutting school).  
It is also an addiction (there's that "A" word again :-) ), because while 
playing for "real" people do not have to face reality, they can escape.  
The game then substitutes for life, albeit in shorter time periods, but in 
more manageable pieces and with somewhat simpler rules.

Another perspective is that in real life some gamers suffer from a low self 
esteem and a feeling of a loss of control in their own personal reality.  
The game offers a chance for these individuals to escape and maybe to gain 
some self esteem.  

This gain is almost always done at the expense of others, because there 
*must* be winners and losers in a game.

The roles for winners and losers are predefined by our basic models of games
and reinforced in our non-participatory "involvement" methods (read TV), 
"....the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat."  
These perceptions carry over from reality to "game reality".

When such an individual puts so much import into a game, i.e. puts him or her
self into it to gain self esteem or to escape, winning becomes "....the only
thing".  If the other person, you in this case, additionally does not care 
about winning according to the predefinition of competition, the model does 
not match, and there is conflict.  Part of the "thrill of victory" is lost 
because the loser is not devastated.  There also might be jealousy of your 
ability to participate in the game as a game, not "reality" or an escape.
 
You then, become a piece in the game of others that approach games in 
negative ways.  This association of players with their pieces can be very 
damaging, for example:

	Pit Bull owners vicariously fighting in the ring

	Soccer fans rioting and injuring each other or the referees

	Parents of youth sports program participants "watching" the game
	
Many games are actually battle grounds:

	Chess - the men are knights, bishops, kings, and pawns (great word)
	and battle for position and control.

	Backgammon - the battle is for control of specific spaces.

	Monopoly - Malcolm Forbes should have invented this "Capitalist Tool".

	Space Invaders - it's you against the godless hordes.

	(It is interesting that the armed services are deciding that we have 
	an advantage over the Russians because so many of our "up and coming" 
	youth are experts in the hand eye systems that video games provide.  
	We are using similar "displays" in our fighter aircraft.)


It seems like one productive way to approach a gaming situation might be with 
a positive attitude and with the perception that it should be and can be fun 
for all.

The important issue is that gaming *can* be fun and challenging and a great
way to work with, test and develop ones skills and intellect.  Striving for 
personal excellence is a very important part of our growth as people.  
We need to learn how to turn on and focus our energy, but not at the expense 
of others.

"Everybody wins" is a positive and achievable result and it is sometimes 
possible to get everybody to play by this simple and beautiful concept. 
The measurement of "winning" may not be on a checkmate or a gammon but on 
the mutual appreciation of good moves by the players. 
A game can be a soft way (a model) for people to experience this reality. 
                                  
John

    
    Re.67
    
    Hi John,
    
    Thank you - that was excellent.
    
    It is a bit ironic that I should receive a book from a friend the
    other day entitled "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod.
    The first paragraph of the book is:
    
    	"This project began with a simple question:  When should a
         person cooperate, and when sould a person be selfish, in an
         ongoing interaction with another person?  Should a friend keep
         providing favors to another friend who never reciprocates?
         Should a business provide prompt service to another business
         that is about to be bankrupt?  How intensely should the United
         States try to punish the Soviet Union for a particular hostile
         act, and what pattern of behavior can the United States use
         to best elicit cooperative behavior from the Soviet Union?"
    
    Then the 'Tit For Tat' and "Prisoner's Dilemma' games are talked
    about in great detail throughout the book.  Looks like very interesting
    reading from a perspective I've not approached this all from before.
         
    And speaking of a Master - I also recommend reading "The Art Of
    The Deal", by Donald Trump.  Fairly light reading, but talk about
    a wonderful example of YCYOR...he's having FUN!  And not at the
    expense of other people either (deliberately).  I was impressed 
    by what he had to say about his deals and life in general.
                                                   
    Cindy

    FWIW, Donald Trump has been responsible for throwing lots of people
    in the street in order to vacate their apartment buildings in
    NYC in order to complete his deals...  Sidney Schanberg
    (who wrote The Killing Fields) was reassigned from the NYTimes op-ed
    page as a result of his pieces detailing the sleazy practices
    of Trump and other NY real-estate operators.
    
    /bruce

    
    Thanks Bruce.
    
    Always good to hear the whole story.
    
    Cindy