Game Theory House | Australia
Theory of Games – Homo Ludens
The theory of the games is a well-known human phenomenon that has been actively developed in sociology, mathematics and economics for the last hundred years. In order to escape the terminological labyrinth of this theory, we will reduce it to two basic principles. In the following text (and sketches) we will explain how this picture, with two opposing principles, can be transposed to practical life and life philosophy in general.
Two basic principles of Theory of Games – Dichotomy of the Movement
Given that the Games Theory today is mainly reduced to statistical speculations and economic algorithms, we will try to get out of this magic circle of “capital gain” and try to return to more archaic, playful but also more symbolic descriptions.
Two, as a necessary number of superseding (doubling, sharing, dialogue etc) is also needed here to describe the mechanics of two principles on opposing poles that work as opposites on the micro-level, but harmoniously (unpolarized) at a macro level.
This definition necessarily takes into account the theory of the game through its two basic categories.
These two principles will be marked as:
Games of chance (lotto, bingo, lottery, etc) – REACTIVE
Competition games (football, boxing, chess etc) – PROACTIVE
In the first example of the game, the participant (player) does not take any action and only awaits the decision of the case. This is not about winning a game with an opponent (even if the opponent was a player himself), but about winning a game with fate. On the contrary, the boxer, the racer, or the chess player does his best to win. It is less important are these games athletic or intellectual. The player’s attitude is the same: he is making an effort to win the rival in conditions that are equal for both of them. So it seems justified that games of chance are placed opposite to the competition games.
From these two principles, we can easily extract an analogon with the everyday life of an individual, but also of a group. A vast number of people of today go through life reactive (allowing fate to shape their lives), where their only participation is REACTION on existential data. Since this REACTION can be manifested in a rather elaborate and complicated way, the assumption of an individual is that he is actually participating and putting in an adequate effort. Nothing is further from the truth, and closer to a subjective projection. REACTION is not participation, but only adapting to a new template imposed from an external dimension. PROACTIVE behaviour involves making decisions that are contradictory to the data. It implies a pre-planned effort and effort without any certainty of success. A proactive principle also implies a conflict that is a prerequisite for any growth. Proactive behaviour implies hope, not a blind dream of a future in which we are not constituents.
On the other hand, in order not to fully favour this approach to the game (life), we need to pay attention to another very important fact, that is, Games of chance, unlike competition games, provide a huge intensity of happiness in the event of a win. The amount of happiness we can feel through the case is incomparable with the anticipated satisfaction we experience through the planning scenario. Although it may sound irrelevant, we must not forget all the artistic giants through the history of mankind, who described motives like love, passion and ecstasy, almost exclusively through the principle of the case.
In order for these two principles not to be perceived as contradictory, but only as parallels, existing parallels in each individual, we need a strong picture that explains two simple yet complicated ideas. The idea is that the principles are mutually related, despite their pragmatic differences. And the idea that in spite of the one-sided structure, in both principles, there is an implication and suggestion of the other, as a constantly existing and present chaos-order.
