support the show…


C36: Consciousness Intermission - The Game of Life


In today’s little ditty of a show I expound upon the “game” analogy that popped into my head when pondering the meaning of life.

When Season Six continues, these are some of the things I want to talk about with Daniel.  In the meantime I thought I’d talk about it with you.

And thanks again to my podcrush Duane Rutter for sharing more of his music with us.

4 comments to C36: Consciousness Intermission – The Game of Life

  • Kyle C

    What are the objectives of the game? Is there a prize for completing/winning? What are the incentives for playing? I don’t feel like these are defined in the podcast, but are necessary to judge a strategy’s effectiveness (through logic and evidence). In other words, there has to be a defined goal, otherwise we can never judge our progress towards….what? I like the use of metaphor, it helps put a conceptual twist of the question of what do we want from life. Definitely gets the brain juices flowing.

  • Paul

    I’m loathe to invoke a guru figure here as thats smething I ant to get over doing but something I think Krishnamurti famously says pops to mind here that “truth is a pathless land.” I don’t know if it is or not and part of me wants to say “F**K YOU Krishnamurti.” But I think I maybe I invoke K’s words here in reaction to the notion that life is perhaps a singular game that has a singular set of rules or whatever. Yes, interesting analogy with many resonances that I like but even if it were true that Amy or Daniel have some specially true insight into how to play a truly singular game I would still want to say F**K YOU and do it my own way. I think Amy leaves open the possibility such innovation toward the end of the podcast which is an example of why I am warming to her perspective so much lately.

  • Paul

    I find it annoying that as soon as I post a comment my view on the subject I was posting about changes. So to bring things up to date from some initial reflection on my post, I would say that the Mist game analogy is rather consistent with the notion that truth is a pathless land. The analogy suggests that there is a singular truth but that there are no paths to follow to reach it and that one must find out by making ones own way. To extend this thought to the question of whether we can help others in the game/reaching (or perhaps ‘living’) the truth, could be to imagine pointing out a path through the game to others. But in as far as we had found our truth through pathless rather than paved discovery, we would not be able to lead or help others to find truth for themselves through giving tips on how to play the game. Maybe.

  • Paul

    I think in general what I react against in the game analogy is the preordainedness of it. The preordained must be limited like a computer game is limited and has an end. The only way in which the game analogy might be consistent with unlimitedness is if the rules of the game were that there were no rules, thus, the limited game analogy would negate itself as a limited game.

Leave a Reply