Living in a complex world, everyday we’re moving from friend groups, to work, to chores, to dreams, to drama. Each and every area of life has such depths, that it seems like a world in itself. What can be gained, by looking at it through the metaphor of the game of games?

The concept of the game of games has been with me for a while. While its nothing more than an idea, a concept for something much bigger, at times it has helped me to put things into perspective.

It gives the everlasting dash between topics and fields a name, and makes it addressable. Giving things a name, puts them in the realm of the thinkable, which is already helpful for such things that seem almost out of reach.

But what can be gained from it? Let’s first have a closer look at the definition.

The Basic Concept

Behind the game of games lies a certain viewpoint which can be taken of things, by calling life a “game of games”. This viewpoint assumes:

• Life contains of many distinct areas, which can be called as games, which much like a game follow certain rules, contained to these areas.
• These life areas could be finance, work, housing, health, social life, sports, intimate relationship, and many more.
• Calling them as a “games” introduces a playful aspect. It suggests looking at each area with the possibility of change and positivity, rather than with seriousness and dread.
• Each area of life is pursued with a certain level of success. Like in a game, it is easy to tell which area of life is doing great, and which is lacking.
• Calling Life as the game of games implies that while each area seems separate, losing in one of those games will affect all other.
• Though each game or area seems like a world in itself, the real game is about juggling and balancing all aspects, which again can be done at a certain level of success, like a game.

Concept Examples

Especially the last two rules tie all the others together into the viewpoint. For example, one might succeed in every area of life, but only lacking in the social game - having no friends. This might render all other areas meaningless. Successes couldn’t be shared or cherished, and lack of networking skills would also spill into work.

Or to give another example, one might exceed at all areas of life except finances. Without the single aspect of money, the family and socials may break apart. Intimate relationships will suffer, as the wife might leave the husband once he loses his job. Or it might become impossible to get a high-paying job, due to lack of cleanliness and clothing. This is not to simply say “money rules the world”. It is just one of those aspects, which once it goes south, could spoil everything else. Equally, only focusing on money will also not solve anything.

Game Severity in Relation

While the concept has been with me for a long while, recently I stumbled upon a new aspect of it. It has to be with being a bit more specific in how individual game affects one another. The idea being that each game has a different weight in relation to other games.

While it would be laughable to try and list these individual relationships and their weights based on the situation, I assume that there is some value in considering them. Once I reach a conclusion here, I will add those in a follow-up post.

Humane Aspect

Applying this concept, we can pose an interesting question in terms of approaching others. How much are we going to judge a person, only because this person is lacking in one or two areas of life? Maybe fitness and money? Depending on how hard they are losing, this might have a severe influence on all other aspects.

Is it possible to look at humans, independently of how well they are doing at their games? To use an American label, “a loser”, would be one who lost at many, or possibly all of their games. But how could we tell if that person is suffering from losing only one aspect, which influences everything else?

One step further, at what point would we, as an outsider, approach this person and reach out in compassion? Would we reach out to “the total loser”, who is completely broken at the bottom of the hierarchy? Would we feel connected to someone who lost at 3, 2 or 1 game? Or at 1 game, temporarily?

I dislike the American thinking of labeling someone as a “loser”, and indeed this whole theory stands opposite to that sort of mind. A game of game suggests that whatever the current score, the game is still open as long as somebody is alive and playing. Maybe as a society, our responsibility is not to have everybody succeed, but it is to invest in the circumstances that are needed for somebody who temporarily lost to stand up again.

Taking the viewpoint of the game of games, in its consequence, could help us to create more fair, and more humane cities, societies and interactions.

Theory Limits

Writing about this, what are the limits of this concept? I would call this concept a success, if it inspires others just as it inspires me. If it can bring a helpful perspective, which can be applied during certain times.

One limit for sure is the lack of a greater picture. Lacking the greater philosophical context, it is hard to say for me how outdated the idea is, who already discussed it, or how much else exists around it. The fallacies of the idea are unknown to me. If a fellow reader of this blog could point some hints in the comment section, I would be very glad.

Rounding Up

Having a great concept for life is not as good as having a good life. Simultaneously, an abstract concept might still be helpful with navigating difficult times, and overcoming challenges.

When all areas of life meld together in a self-sustaining and stable state of harmony, a mental modal like this might seem funny, or like a joke. Until then it might be a useful companion, which at-least for me, I am sure will keep in evolving.