Playing with Rules

I want to kinda review my understanding of the finite vs infinite game, since some folks get really pissed off when I question their accepted rules.

So let's consider one of the numerous spiritual axioms, such as “you must transcend the ego to directly experience the bliss of pure being” (cut and pasted from a “spiritual” website).

Okay. great stuff, right?

But here's the rub. The infinite player will accept that rule, but only to continue play. The best way to continue play is to play with rules.

However, the problem, as I see it, is that finite players attach to the rules (sometimes unconsciously) as an end to play and, therefore, will get downright ornery when someone wants the game to go on by questioning the rule. This is because they have deemed the rules as sacrosanct and crucial to an outcome, such as “experiencing the bliss of pure being” (although often the outcome is that the player simply be accepted as “spiritually pure”).

The generally accepted assertion that you must be egoless to experience pure being, is A-ok by me. In fact, it might even be true! (although I sincerely doubt it).

Yet, the infinite player will engage with others to build on it and add to it, strip and deconstruct it, twist and bend it, turn it inside out, etc, etc, etc. Whatever! It don't matter, because the goal is to enlist more players who want to play with the rules and even create more rules to play with. Hahaa!

Of course, I too, create rules and expect that everyone will play with any rules I impose as well. I look forward to it! This game has gone on for centuries and most likely will go one for centuries more (unless we finally put out the lights).

And the more players in the game, the more exciting and engaging the game becomes.

So, I just wanna say that I truly enjoy playing with you guys and I apologize in advance to those who I most likely will piss off when I question their rules.

Sorry.

Peace Angels!
mikeS

Re: Playing with Rules

Mike
This might seem like a dumb question, but can you define “ego”?
I just think it might help if we agreed we were all talking about the same thing, or at least knew we weren't.
Just as an example, I've seen some people use it when they really mean self interest….recognising the part of them that wants to be seen as generous, for example, is alive and well and standing in the way of selfless action.
I've also seen it used more in spiritual circles to refer to any interior construct of a separate self. This puzzles me, unless its other than a temporary state.
I'm not convinced that I can't simultaneously be separate little me, but at the same time part of a collective (like ants)

Transcending the ego can lead to “spiritual bypass”………all the unhealthy or shadow stuff that's in there is still festering away. It's a pretence that being landed on the montaintop by helicopter is the same thing as having climbed the mountain. It's a good pretence, but ultimately not true.

Rules? Rules were made to be broken,surely. Otherwise it would be Game Over

Liz

Re: Playing with Rules

No, Liz, it's a very good question and certainly does result in a great deal of confusion that probably could be dissolved through that understanding alone.

Basically, I take a Freudian position on the ego as a “package of beliefs” that make up the self-concept, whereas, we are all “skin-encapsulated egos.” I will often use the Wilber designation of “ego-self” to signify the whole package.

I suppose understanding that the separate “me” is a construct of the collective and in fact was created by, and created, the collective (conceptually speaking) in terms of that 'package of beliefs,' seems a viable perspective in my opinion.
“Spiritual bypassing” attempts to deny this mutuality.

Yes, rules are meant to be broken, however, some may not feel that way and hold that some truths are self-evident and unquestionable. I merely question everything and expect to be questioned in return. In addition, I feel some rules should be broken immediately and replaced by new rules and unfortunately this makes me appear impatient with the accepted rules currently adhered to by the majority.

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Playing with Rules

“No Rules” rules!!!!!

hehehehahahahaaahaaahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frans

Re: Playing with Rules

I have appreciated this forum so very much, Mike, simply because there is such a diversity of debate and it is so interesting to read the varying, sometimes agreed upon, sometimes not, perspectives.  And it is enjoyable to see how one idea can many times rocket off into a whole different ball field.  It only goes to show how many layers there really are to things.  And I like broadening perspective, so that is the great dividend here.

Otherwise it would be Game Over

Liz, I think this is a very crucial statement (I'm glad you asked about the ego also…I was kind of wondering about some general definition as well.)  

Mike–However, the problem, as I see it, is that finite players attach to the rules (sometimes unconsciously) as an end to play and, therefore, will get downright ornery when someone wants the game to go on by questioning the rule.

My understanding of Fully Engaged was there was one rule, and that rule was, short of calling one out to a duel at sunrise, that there are no real rules.  Since I came to the forum, there have been a couple of times I have felt that the debate has been put to a quick end by a ”shush now” and I thought, oh, this round of the game must be over then.  Because I have no stake in what somebody else adheres to in their own mind's rule book, I mull it over and whether they have a point or no, I just let it go.   

I think the danger in any gathering, is that sometimes the rule of 1 takes over, which, in the end, only leads to constriction.  I usually give 3 to 5 stones before stepping away from any relational activity that I suspect may just not be the place for me.  If I use up the stones, then I step away.  It's my own game I play.  It always gives me time to assess whether it is my own issue or if the actual dynamic is off by use of the stone method.

One of my favorite quotes is by Carlos Santana: ”This shit is not for me, I don't care how enlightening it is.”  And sometimes, it all boils down to just that.  But I give it at least 3 to 5 stones before coming to such a conclusion.

Peace :)

Re: Playing with Rules

Hey Nahnni!

Yet, even though some discussions may seem to dissolve, eventually they resume in another thread later. I also enjoy when a thread goes off topic and sometimes the new topic or idea is even more compelling.
Yes, there is a danger in any discussion that one personality or viewpoint may predominate. I often wonder if I have done that. However, it seems highly unlikely that the participating members here would ever allow that to happen. Ha!

In fact, I have been mulling over this passage in the pod “about” or mission statement:
 The tentative premise is that “awakening” or “enlightenment” is not an individual activity in which the results are restricted to only a select few. This pod emphasizes a basic theoretical proposition that awakening is an experience that can be accessed with and through others in order for that experience to be transferred upon our mutual ‘world’ experience. This premise may be incorrect, although I sincerely doubt it.

Clearly this is a rule that I imposed that many do not agree with (I wrote the whole thing rather quickly and off the cuff). I think that it need be changed. Anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks,
mikeS

Re: Playing with Rules

Hi Mike,

I don't think there is anything wrong with that premise - it's there to be questioned along with everything else, so…

Nahnni, what does giving something 3 to 5 stones mean?

It might be fun to revisit one or more of the “shush” points and have a look at that - I doubt anyone deliberately shut the discussion down but it's easy to do inadvertently. Maybe we could learn from it, keep the discussion more open-ended?

Would appreciate any pointers you could offer in that regard.

Peace,

Nicole

Re: Playing with Rules

Hi Nicole~

I use the 3 to 5 stone thing to measure my response to something that I am either uncertain of or finding an uncertainty with.  I start out with 3 or 5 stones relative to the size of the situation.  If, say, a disturbance arises,  I examine my response/reaction to the incident which seemed to cause the unease.  If something is a real issue, not simply my own bias or mood, I separate one stone from the total.  Say, I am using 5 stone measure, I am left then with 4.  Sometimes, I don't use any stones (so far, so good), sometimes only 1 or 2 (realistic oppositions).  If I come to 4 out of 5, then I have to seriously consider if I am on the right course or at the right place.  It's just a way to focus on what is occurring if I am uncertain of something, and usually after I have already had a red flag moment.  Some people journal, I use stones. 

It is difficult to explain without sounding a little crazy, but I hope I have made some sense in answering your inquiry.

Blessings :)

Re: Playing with Rules

Hi Nahnni,

Fascinating! Is this an approach you learned, or created?

I think I follow.

Thanks!
Nicole

Re: Playing with Rules

Hi Nicole~

It has its seeds in Albert Ellis' theory of rational emotive therapy, where one examines one's reaction in the moment of conflict.  I was in a situation that I could not sit aside and write down the formula of evaluation, and so I had quickly devised the stone method by placing 5 stones in one pocket and exchanging them one by one into the other pocket to discern whether what was happening came solely from an internal point of view or was really external.  It's probably a good reflection tool, if anything.  An ”is it live or is it memorex?” type of thing.  Sometimes, it is hard to tell the difference, but it is a start anyway.

Many Blessings :)

Re: Playing with Rules

Cool! Thanks, Nahnni,

Nicole

Re: Playing with Rules

Hi Mike~

It's not so much that one viewpoint predominates, but that the viewer engages in the what, why and wherefore of the opposing view, and you are always ready to do this.  So, it makes you an effective challenger on the chess board.  It is more when any player suddenly checkmates as an end to play.  The “shush now” moment.  I've seen this happen a couple of times, but then, that's the way it goes sometimes. C'est la vie.
 
I like the mission statement, especially the first sentence. 

Peace :)

Re: Playing with Rules

hi all - i have mostly finished the first read through of Carse's book - and i relate to most of what he says. 
personally, i don't know how much of an infinite player i am - i might be more of  a finite player who just keeps switching the rules - like a chameleon changes color…. but i think i still might want to win (even though i know it is hopeless - and the whole game goes on continuously anyway)  - otherwise - if i did'nt want to win - would i even be here trying to express my views?
i like Carses descriptions of myth, storytelling, silence - but more about that in other posts perhaps.

but regardless, i enjoy this pod too.  about the mission statement - as you say mike - views are subject to change and in the interest of the possibility of changing rules - keep the mission statement, or change it if it seems to be evolving…

christine