Be a Winner at the Game of Life!

I've often heard people say, in a pop-wisdom kind of way, that 'life is just a game'. By this they are usually implying that you should not worry to much about the outcome of any event, after all the results are arbitrary - it's definition based entirely on the rules employed and the performances of the other players.

It's easy to see why this view prevails because our lives are comprised of many scenarios that are 'game-like'. For example, a job description can be viewed as the rule sheet for a game: You must arrive before 9am every morning, you must complete the following tasks , for this you will receive X ammount per month. In jobs where performance is directly related to pay this game-like nature becomes even more explicit.

If we consider the linear model of a classic computer game such as... i don't know...Wonderboy In Monsterland, we can see how this framework lends itself nicely to our own progress through life. Take the Mating Game:
Level 1 - Meet girl
Level 2 - Date girl
Level 3 - Become intimate with girl ;)
Level 4 - Marry girl
Level 5 - Have children with girl

This is, of course, the world of The Sims. The order and nature of the levels can be seen to be culturally relative - Levels 3 and 4 are reversed in most Islamic countries and Level 2 was apparently far longer and more tedious in the 50s then it is now. The progress through the levels can also be viewed as quite flexible and contains many snakes and ladders (my brother seems to be aware of a warp world between Levels 1 and 3).

However, despite the seemingly random nature of the levels themselves, the ultimate aim of the game is far from arbitrary. The prize for completing the game, when you look down at the little half-you in your arms, is based on rules that exist at a biological level.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The expression that 'life is just a game' is, I believe, born from the postmodern climate of our time- in which history is narrative and truth is power politics. Since everything is relative we are seen as free to adopt the rules that we want for ourselves. Life is, by implication, not just a game - it is our game.

It make sense therefore, that we then choose to measure ourselves by the rulesheets that best define us as a winner. There is, I believe, both great freedom and great danger from this perspective.

Freedom comes when we no longer allow people around us, and crucially the media, to define us. This is especially important in a society which relies on such intagible notions as 'progress' and 'self-improvement' to drive economic growth. It would be simplistic to state the rules of capitalism are 'make money, spend money, repeat' but when looking at those around you, you could be forgiven for assuming as much.

Satisfaction being the enemy of industry, advertisements continually change our objectives encouraging us to always desire more then we have. They are like the computer programmers who, seeing us nearing the end of the final level and threatening to put down our joypads, cunningly create another obstacle between us and that ever-ellusive end sequence.

There are countless individuals employed to make us tire of our current lot and every time we upgrade our still functional mobile phones or decide our TV is not quite big enough, they have probably won another round.

Consequently, we see many unhappy people who, having internalised society's rules find themselves unable to make any progress on the treadmill of consumerism. If depression is the wasteland between our aspirations and our realities, it is one that is becoming more populous in the modern age.

By contrast, the happier game players are those that create and recreate their own rules entirely in harmony with their outcomes. If I don't make much money but am a sociable and well liked person, I would be wise to define success in such terms. For them life is indeed a game, one they have adapted to suit their playing styles and subsequently mastered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although liberating, the above perspective should be approached with cautioned. Recognising that rules are flexible does not mean we have to accept them as legitimate or begin writing blank cheques for every lifestyle imaginable. If we are to continue to live in a society then agreeing on a set common rules is always going to be necessary - though these should always be democratic.

Similarily, as was alluded to earlier, the limitations of this flexibility should also be accepted. You would not tell a starving man that 'food is not the meaning of life' or 'we'll all be dead in the long run'. Our evolutionary inheritance has created bodies for us that must live by some very stricy rules. I have a rule that states if I don't drink a certain ammount of water per day I will lose a life and, reincarnation notwithstanding, I am unlikely to receive the quarters for another go.

If life is just a game, it is one that must incorporate the 'ground rules' of our biological and societal needs. Perhaps the idea of a 'game' should be replaced with something slightly less competive undertones - though 'life is just a weekend of self discovery and team-building exercises in the north of Scotland' doesn't quite have the same ring to it.