Love this. The football analogy is powerful. If I understand it right, society is made up of different games (cultures, ways of being) within the binding constraints one overall reality. BTW: I wonder if you should add death to your list and things defining this reality, in the sense of the the finite nature of life within the mortal realm, given the extent to which is motivates/constrains the arbitrary rules we create.
As a society, is it arguable that we are currently in the process of creating more and more games that sit alongside one another in the same reality. Each game is made of differing arbitrary rules which are almost always broken by the neighbouring game. This would potentially be fine if the games did not need to interact. But they do. Indeed, the second defining feature of today is the extent to which different games share the same space (spiritual and physical) within reality. This creates the conditions for conflict that sit apart from a pure contest for a piece of the overall reality.
I like the way you have extended the analogy societally. It is at least a plausible sketch and starting point. Although I wonder whether we are creating more games, or just whether the rules of existing games are changing faster. Perhaps both.
Your second feature is a nice explanation of a number of things. I think I'd argue that many games that used to be spatially (e.g. geographically) distinct are now taking place within the same space. Hence conflict and confusion. Thanks!
Love this. The football analogy is powerful. If I understand it right, society is made up of different games (cultures, ways of being) within the binding constraints one overall reality. BTW: I wonder if you should add death to your list and things defining this reality, in the sense of the the finite nature of life within the mortal realm, given the extent to which is motivates/constrains the arbitrary rules we create.
As a society, is it arguable that we are currently in the process of creating more and more games that sit alongside one another in the same reality. Each game is made of differing arbitrary rules which are almost always broken by the neighbouring game. This would potentially be fine if the games did not need to interact. But they do. Indeed, the second defining feature of today is the extent to which different games share the same space (spiritual and physical) within reality. This creates the conditions for conflict that sit apart from a pure contest for a piece of the overall reality.
Very likely I am making this up of course.
I like the way you have extended the analogy societally. It is at least a plausible sketch and starting point. Although I wonder whether we are creating more games, or just whether the rules of existing games are changing faster. Perhaps both.
Your second feature is a nice explanation of a number of things. I think I'd argue that many games that used to be spatially (e.g. geographically) distinct are now taking place within the same space. Hence conflict and confusion. Thanks!