Of all the symptoms of fear, (anxiety, depression, anger, etc) guilt is the most deep-seated and often the hardest to penetrate, particularly because, as opposed to other undesired emotions, it is entirely internal with little exterior manifestation and, as such, it is very difficult to observe. In fact, many claim guilt to be the origin of all negative emotions, as listed above, and many have also claimed that it is NOT an emotion at all, but more endemic to the whole personality or ‘self.’

Guilt is the shadow of all the shadow-zones that we seek to eradicate in order to further spiritual evolution. Therefore, a total all-encompassing ‘innocence’ is the final point of all spiritual evolution. Yet, how many of us could claim such complete innocence or even claim it for another. Maybe, this is why “sorry, seems to be the hardest word” (Elton John).

We float and plod through our “meaningful,’ but erratic, lifestyles, acutely aware of all the misfortune and suffering that surrounds us (not to mention our own) and feel helpless to stem the flow of that suffering. But what can we do? Oh sure, we give to our favorite charities, volunteer our time and some even become activists. But, alas, suffering continues almost unabated and deep within the contours of our mind, beyond all our comforting rationalizations, how can we NOT experience guilt? So how do we minimize the guilt of our helplessness that leads to inaction? How do we accept that we can only provide so much; that we have only so much to give? What rationale do we think up to assuage our guilt and comfort us as we walk on by?

There is a poignant discomfort to our individual and collective guilt that sinks even deeper than our normal everyday lies, deceptions and self-protective strategies. On the deepest level, guilt pervades our very Being simply because we realize (but deny) that we are NOT Being as we were ‘created’ or meant to BE. Whereas you might cognitively extinguish your anger and medicate your depression, guilt is impervious to such methods due to its primordial nature.

It’s as if we are impostors living in ways NOT reflective of our true nature. Deep down we recognize that, in some strange sense, we are not ‘real’ and all our busy endeavors and 'productive' projects only magnify this sense of unreality and fraud. This ‘unreality’ is exhibited more in our relationships with others than in any other function we assign ourselves. (Thus, we have “small talk” to aid in remaining in the shallows of deep interpersonal understanding and intimacy, for fear of the 'exposure' that might reveal our guilt).

We can easily blame the world and others in dealing with our anxieties, what depresses us, and even all the things that make us angry. But guilt is completely intrinsic to the belief in an exclusive, autonomous 'self' and often makes us very, very 'bad' in our own eyes, more so then any attempts by others to devalue our ‘self.’ It may take us many years and much excruciatingly painful honesty, to even start the process of facing our guilt and this is primarily due to the layers of guilt that serve as foundation for further guilt-building.

From childhood lies to adult deceptions, we seem unable to shake free of this self-constructed mass of guilt that tends to weigh us down and makes progress through life so difficult and often wrought with suffering. Each idea of spiritual progress we rejoice in often seems laden down and blunted by an inner core of pervasive guilt in the realization that all our worldly ‘successes” may never be enough to assuage our guilt.

With the oppressive/depressive weight of guilt bearing down on us, is it any wonder that free-floating, non-situational depression is becoming the most diagnosed mental illness in the world. But does the treatment only provide minimal comfort from our symptomatic inner suffering, while the disease of guilt only continues to fester, eating away at the core of ‘self,’ thereby impeding access to Spirit?

INTERPERSONAL GUILT PROJECTION

In our conflicts, you are always prepared for my indictment because guilt is the one thing you must avoid at all costs, since it only activates your deeper self-guilt. In the name of self-protection, your defenses are sharpened to perfection, as you cut me to pieces before I have the chance to defend my ‘self.’ However, I am acutely aware, often even more than you, of your weaknesses or, more specifically, that for which you claim guilt (those parts of ‘self,’ which you would like to forget).

Therefore, our mutual attacks draw deep emotional blood and each combative episode, like every puff of the cigarette, slowly subtracts from the quality, and even quantity, of our lives as life-giving intimacy and deep understanding dissolve away, often never to return. I find it interesting that people are often more ‘intimate’ with their pets then with the people they profess to “love.” This clearly reflects the lack of guilt transference patterns with animals and nature, since no matter how many times Fido soils the carpet, innocence is retained forever to that living ‘being’ that has no ‘self’ except that which we project onto it. (I’ve tried for years to project my 'ideals' onto my wife, but to no avail as she adamantly resists to be what I want her to be. LOL).

The problem is that guilt is so utterly inherent to human beings (as opposed to human Being), that we tend NOT to engage with it, but simply allow it to fester and grow into the ‘stress’ that saps life and eventually results in all sorts of internal ailments, disorders and diseases. The medical establishment informs us that stress is the number one killer and this is because stress is nothing more than years of impacted guilt for every decision you ever made that impeded your desire for the perfection of Spirit within. In every period of your life, what you did to impede evolution (and what you failed to do) follows and defines your 'self.'

We seem unable to shake free of our guilt or that deep sense of somehow being wholly unworthy of our very ‘existence.’ The body is target to unending layers of guilt since it can never meet our concepts of perfection. You indict your body as easily as you indict the body of others. Too fat, too skinny, tall, short, ugly, deformed, defective, etc, etc, etc. Our demand for the perfection of Source/God (your choice) is erroneously transferred to the body in denial that God is not limited by such forms and that the body can never be more than a symbol of imperfection.

We sense an ‘ideal’ of perfection (Plato's "Forms"), and in contrast to that ideal we recognize how radically defective we really are, with all the body’s obscene functions, diseases, disorders and absurd self-constructed purposes and actions. We are virtually incarcerated in our concepts of imperfection and "guilty as charged." No matter how spiritually driven we are to offset such awareness through worldly distractions, deep meditation and continuing our absurd functional distractions, we live with our imperfection through a deep-seated guilt. Guilt rides piggy-back upon the ‘self’ and it seems our only option to shedding this heavy burden, that “old, rugged cross,” is to project that guilt onto others. In this way, by projecting your guilt onto me, you thereby enhance your innocence. Of course, this means you must deny your undifferentiated unity, oneness and almost absolute sameness with me. The world is a reflection of such collective denial.

There are spiritual teachers who state that our guilt is the origin of all our emotional suffering and since we indict ourselves as guilty, we indict others as "guilty by association." This is an aspect of our unified “oneness,” that does not escape us no matter how hard we judge others in order to reinforce our own innocence. If you are dripping with guilt, since you and I are the same in our humanity, I must be just as guilty. However, you delude yourself into belief that I am not aware of your guilt, since you keep it tucked up in the inner folds of your mind, and so even your own awareness of it is rare.

But, I am distinctly aware of your guilt because it is mine, although I too believe my indictment of your many transgressions allows me a facade of innocence. Thus, we can blast away at each other and demand justice for violations of ‘self,’ while claiming innocence through secrecy of mind. This is why the contents of our mind must remain sealed, for if I were to learn the full truth of all your guilt, you believe I could destroy you. We both MUST protect against such exposure and it would seem as though our very life depends upon it. Such is the often precarious dance of relationship.

Such is the death of intimacy.

Guilt impedes intimacy and demands your defenses be forever at the ready. I must NOT expose you, else your righteousness would be ineffective in offsetting your guilt. My identifying your guilt means you must face what I SEE and this you cannot allow. So you will crush me and I know you can, as you know I can, and this locks us into the brutality and unpredictability of emotional combat. You may lose a round, but in recognition of the ongoing never-ending war, you will rejoin the battle with ever more destructive conceptual armaments.

Like storm clouds gathering on the horizon, our conceptual combat is barely perceptible except to the most astute outside observer. In fact, we have become so adept and skillful in our psychic battle strategies that, to the uninitiated, your attacks seem almost charitable. But you are conditioned to my subtle brutalities and prepared to perpetuate your own, in awareness of my subterfuge. So utterly instantaneous and barely perceptible will be our mutual attacks, that often none but the actual combatants perceive the parameters of “another battle in our dirty little war” (Springsteen). This does not matter though, because we are always prepared and ready simply because I know your past and you know mine. The past is that aspect of ‘self’ we seek desperately to escape and is the one thing you recognize could destroy me and reduce me to inadequacy and impotency. But, I know your past and in recognition of your attacks on my past, I make note of those aspects of your past ‘self’ that will deeply wound you.

In fact, many teach that our guilt holds us securely in the past, since guilt is always in reference to a past ‘self’ and is never NOW. They say that our little 'guilt trips' are nothing compared to the guilt we experience in our failure to correspond with Spirit which is always NOW and never THEN. Not to live from that unconditional awareness seems to make us very guilty indeed and we then simply add to it.

If your declaration of war against me, made secretly to yourself, is based on my past attacks, will you recognize that my attack of you is no different than your emotional assaults on me? Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is an analogy relevant to our circular, 'loving' warfare. This is because in your eyes I am the ‘original sin,’ which is my 'loss of grace' and is the origin of your need for self-protection. But, in my eyes, you are the origin of my suffering and make no mistake, you will pay, as "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord."

In fact, I’ve even met with couples who, after years of conflict and attack, in which each mutually pound blame upon the other, will actually reference perceived attacks that occurred even before the marriage vows were taken. The tally was begun long before the union was officially sanctioned. Was this preparation for battle in order to shake free of guilt, a lesson of childhood? Are we so afraid to look at our guilt that we learn from our parents the most effective means of guilt projection as the only way to achieve innocence and grace?

FORGIVE TO FORGET

There is only one way out of this virtual self-created hell and that is, of course, “forgiveness.” However, as opposed to the world’s rendition of forgiveness, Spirit forgives to forget. This is because, if you are NOT living from Spirit you are essentially NOT living. Therefore, contrary to your experience of ‘real,’ how can what is NOT living be ‘real.’ In such a world of ‘unreality,’ who is victim and who is victimizer? Who is guilty and who innocent? (Perfect non-dualism makes no such distinctions, but we do).

In the ‘real’ world’s value system, your forgiving me my transgressions exalts you above me and clearly constructs a hierarchy of value between us. Although you may grant me reprieve from your judgment, neither you nor I have forgotten my guilt and therefore, it remains to eat at the core of intimacy. Thus, I will not lose sight of what your forgiveness really means. In fact, the moment I lose sight of the fact that YOU are the exalted one who has forgiven ME, you will immediately resume your indictment with all the vengeance at your disposal. In this sense, forgiveness is simply another subtle form of victimization.

Couples perform this mirage of forgiveness quite often, depending on how many years of living separately-together has transpired. However, if forgiveness does NOT forget, then, although your forgiveness seems authentic based on what the world teaches, your progression to Spirit is significantly delayed and obstructed. Deep down, in our moments of clarity, we all realize this fact.

Nevertheless, eventually, guilt is reestablished intrinsically in you and therefore, sooner or later, you will extrinsically indict me once again. Unless my transgression is completely absolved from memory, as yours are absolved from my mind, we cannot go further together and, although we may remain together as bodies, we will die apart in Spirit since the Union with Spirit was never realized. Spirit is NOT offered alone and cannot be discovered in solitude. This is because only TWO or more, engaged in that pursuit together, can make such a profound discovery.

Peace Angels,
mike S

It seems fundamentally evident that, in order to aspire to a career in politics, one must eventually seek ‘votes' to advance one's career to ever higher office. Seeking votes means essentially being liked and to be elected to political office means being liked by more people than others seeking the same office.

This requires the acute and finely detailed tailoring of one's ‘self' in order to be liked, as opposed to NOT liked. This process easily eliminates those who are unable, for whatever reason, to tailor the ‘self' in a way that generates votes through ‘likability.' This tailoring process seems so deeply inherent to a political career, that the political aspirant may need to compromise his or her longstanding values and standards to achieve votes. A career in politics is not necessarily compatible with higher values like integrity (maybe this is why so much corruption exists in the field).

In fact, if standards and values are not to some degree compromised in order to increase ‘likability' and collect votes, then the politician will eventually be eliminated from the field or at the least stuck in less esteemed positions. This elimination process, particularly in seeking the highest offices in which more votes are required, tends to produce a specific character type that, in many cases, may be inclined toward personality or character dysfunction almost to the point of a full-blown personality disorder.

I have found that the specific character disorder frequently exhibited by political aspirants is labeled Narcissistic Personality Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, APA, (In fact, the spiritual philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that "narcissism" is one of the most significant impediments to Deep Spirit, although his "narcissism" is a bit more complicated that the APA's definition).

The APA has never, to my knowledge, made any psychological classification of politicians. However, I believe it is warranted. The problem is that in the field of politics it can be very difficult or almost impossible to identify those politicians with the disorder, since we all realize and tend to accept that politics is often a personality competition of celebrity proportions. Therefore, we could be witnessing a full-blown Narcissistic disordered personality right before our eyes, yet fail to recognize the symptoms of the disorder due to the very nature of politics in this postmodern age.

My point in this essay is in relation to the appearance of Deep Spirit and not necessarily, the appearance of narcissistic symptoms. However, Narcissism impedes Deep Spirit, particularly in those exhibiting symptoms of the disorder, and is generated primarily from fear. More specifically, in politics the fear is of not attaining votes because more voters dislike the political candidate. This is the fear of un-likability, that we all on some level experience. Yet my being disliked by many people may not result in the need to tailor my personality in order to be more liked so as to enhance my career, but for the politician this tailoring is crucial to career enhancement.

Narcissism is a personality or "character" disorder actually diagnosable through the psychiatric model of mental disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The officially accepted criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-IV is as follows :

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Although Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a classification of the psychiatric model of mental disorders, the condition is pervasive to the personality or ‘self' and is essentially impervious to medications, and most psychotherapies. In other words, if you are afflicted with this ‘disorder,' narcissistic personality is what you ARE and you most likely can be NO different since the core ‘self' IS the disorder and will not change (at least, not in this lifetime, anyway). This is different from psychiatric mental disorders which are primarily due to brain or neurochemicals imbalances and can be treated through medications

As the symptoms reveal, there is an almost complete self-absorption with little regard for others or the suffering of others. In fact, others are seen as only means to greater enhancement, or advancement, of the ‘self.' Therefore, any spiritual perspective of ‘oneness,' any unity of perception or converging of perspectives to include the collective as opposed to the Narcissistic individual, is essentially absent or at the least, greatly minimized.

I contend that many of our national leaders meet, if not all the criteria, many of the symptoms of this character disorder (notice that only 5 of the 9 symptoms need be met for the diagnosis to be applied).

Based on the limited research available regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder it appears to be the result of early childhood deprivation or neglect in terms of building healthy psychological ego-self structures. Based on current statistics, only a very small percentage of the U.S. population is afflicted with this disorder (many medical statistics claim only 1% of the population, however, since narcissists rarely admit to the symptoms of this disorder they rarely attend treatment and thus fail to be statistically counted).

POLITICAL NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

Due to the grandiose nature of politics, individual politicians must be predisposed to acquiring high public esteem and self-glorification through the acquisition of ‘votes' related to election and re-election. This election process tends to funnel, collect and lump together those who may be prone to narcissistic personality disorder, particularly at the highest political levels. This is a bit different then celebrity status, although certainly there are many narcissistic personalities in that field as well. Yet, since celebrities tend to be esteemed based on some artistic talent and exist primarily to entertain, politicians need not exhibit any specific talent other than that of tailoring the personality so as to attain the greatest number of votes thereby beating opposition. In addition, a movie or rock star can enhance their celebrity status through controversy, while a politician's career can be completely derailed through anything less than a perfect personality and a stellar past. Therefore, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, though evident in other careers, is abundantly manifest in politics at the highest or national level.

However, this is not to assume that all politicians exhibit the full-fledged disorder with most of the symptoms. It may be more indicative of a greater possibility of manifesting the "traits" or "styles" of the disorder. Some politicians will be more narcissistically disordered, while others may be less afflicted. But I contend that due to the nature of the career, most will exhibit symptoms even those who seem to appear the most "honest" (I hate to say it, but George Bush tends to conform quite adequately to this model of narcissism)

One thing is certain however, the higher the office the greater the likelihood that those elected will exhibit symptoms of the disorder as opposed to merely traits or styles. Therefore, we will suffer, more or less, dependent on the degree of Narcissistic Personality symptoms the elected office holder is afflicted by.

Based on this, and my strong belief that regardless of one's professed religion, seekers of Deep Inner Spirit tend to be more inclined to a more generous "worldcentric" perspective and a vision that integrates all levels of our evolving global society. This vision is completely opposite of narcissism and actually demands the clearing of narcissistic symptoms (traits and styles) in order for others, as opposed to ‘self,' to be even considered, let alone considered through a correspondence with a deeper Spirit within.

However, Narcissistic individuals are very adept at "lip-service" or telling us what they believe we want to hear regardless of the truth factor (this is why outright 'lies' are referred to "mis-stating" the facts) in order to enhance likability and acquire votes . Due to this magnified self-absorption, they tend to lack a "worldcentric" perspective and are terminally ‘stuck' in an egocentric view of the world and others. In fact, they tend NOT to be capable of considering any other perspective but their own (unless, of course, other perspectives are similar). The Narcissistic personality is dysfunctionally self-absorbed and wholly self-oriented and obviously not amenable to the progress of an evolutionary collective consciousness that seeks to encompass all perspectives, all the time.

So, when you cast your vote this November, stop to consider which of the politicians seeking office seem to meet the above psychiatric criteria. This may help to insure that you are not voting for a candidate who is Narcissistic Personality Disordered having one chief value in mind above all others and that is the glorification of self. If this is the primary perspective they hold, then most likely they should not hold public office.

Clearly, we are approaching difficult times ahead and the leaders we choose will need a foundation of Deep Spirit in order to help us seek that same foundation within ourselves. If we elect officials, no matter what party, who are personality/character disordered, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the disorder and corresponding symptoms we will no doubt experience. Of course, this statement may initiate an examination of the two-term election of George Bush and the question:

Can a large segment of a national population be Narcissistic Personality Disordered? I'll leave that to brighter minds than mine, but the implications are bone-chilling.

 

In the past 13 years of monogamous marriage, like most, I have had a few occasions on which some rather innocuous flirtation resulted in the potential for more than giggles, googly eyes and secret thoughts. However, I've always had to ask myself why I would want to initiate another intimate/sexual relationship when I have enough problems with the one I'm currently in.

This is why I could never really understand the attraction of partner exchanges or "open" lifestyles or, as the more cerebral of the movement refer to it, polyamory. Oh, sure, I am no stranger to adolescent fantasies, however, when we move through life with a drive-to-question, all our inquiries reach a final conclusion. Unless of course we fail to question our values and then we may move from body to body and never really ask "what is it I'm looking for?" such is the distraction of sex. With 25 yrs as a psychotherapist, I have been confidentially privy to discussions on every sexual deviation (what many call "perversions") known to mankind.

However, these sexual pastimes of consenting adults are deviant only because they break from the norm of the "usual" (statistically speaking). They are not deviant to the participant until the practices in some way impair the participant or others involved. Many sex practices can be compulsively consuming and addictive.

This brings me to polygamy, polyamory, "open relationships" or non-monogamy and partner exchange groups (Actually, polygamy is more related to marriage and is illegal in most states). It's interesting how individuals engaged in consensual sex with multiple partners often report that they are "practicing" polyamorists, thereby adding "love" to provide a sense of purity to what many see as deviant sex practices. In my humble opinion polyamory, or the combination of multiple sex and/or love partners is not necessarily deviant, but is a fraud and is simply an egoic device for which to sacralize sex by infusing it with conceptual love. Yet, in practice it rarely, if ever, meets such lofty standards. The idea that by "loving" many, through sexually engaging with many, somehow increases love in the world is absurd, particularly when we understand the dynamics of separate egos.

Lets suppose, for the sake of discussion, you chose to participate in multiple partner exhanges, open sexual relationships or "polyamory." This means that everyone you engage with would be in agreement. Yet, even under such consensual circumstances, your ego may not be a full participant primarily because you are unaware of your own ego dynamics.

The ego tends to make choices based on ego values and preferences. This is particularly evident with regard to sex. We all tend to have sexual preferences in partners or those who we find sexually appealing. Thus, in your multiple sexual dalliances you will tend toward sexual coupling with those who meet your preferences (many claim this is highly accentuated with males).

This could be problematic in that we make preferences based on what we feel is in some way advantageous to us. In fact, there is no denying that such ‘preferring' is often based on appearances and, yes,  even body parts, Thus, you may find yourself more inclined to prefer one partners ‘body' over another, (or even one's personality over another) in your multiple relationships and this ego dynamic cannot be denied as it is a natural predisposition. Needless to say, one of the multiple partners you engage with may prefer you, while you have no preference for them. The problem is that when preferences are incompatible, conflict will inevitably arise.

Essentially, the ego, (or "you") will no doubt seek to satisfy your preferences unless, and only if, you remove "love" from the scenario and restrict your participation to sex and only sex. Otherwise, eventually you will become a "victim of love" (of course, this is NOT really love but you will think it is) and will surrender your non-monogamous participation without a second thought. In fact, it may be some time before you actually become fully cognizant of your preference of one person or body over another, clearly negating your lofty goal of having numerous "love" partners.

Consensual non-monogamous relationships or open-marriages/relationships absolutely do NOT work this is because they are NOT really about relating intimately, but more about sexual combinations and chiefly engaged with the body. When non-monogamous relationships are considered, they always surround sexual activity. If you make a conscious decision to participate in sex with multiple partners under the banner of love, you are essentially deluding yourself.

But many might argue that there is more to sex than just foreplay and fornication. I would only contend that prior to and preceding the act of sex, the 'polyamorist' could be participating in some form of psycho-emotional intimacy. Yet, I imagine that those who have entered into a verbal agreement to engage in sex with multiple partners, most likely will dispose of anything (love) that interferes in that pastime (unless of course, as I illustrate above, it appears of its own accord, which then nullifies your goal of multiple love partners) . Why be intimate when the goal has already been determined and is thus finite. As I discussed in my previous posts on intimacy or deep understanding, the goal of authentic intimacy goes as deep as Spirit will allow which is, of course, infinite. One way we may deny that increased depth is through bodily compulsions, particularly with multiple bodies.

The point is that regardless of religious marital prescriptions and legal binding matrimonial contracts (who cares about them?), the union of two into ONE, has a Deep Spirit component that archetypally transcends all religion, all societal norms and prescriptions and, most importantly, all bodies. So how did the archetypal idea of deep unified Spirit get into our minds? I'll leave that question to your chosen spiritual path.

Clearly, current sexual preoccupations demonstrate that we have NOT evolved enough to enter into a deep unified spiritual relationship with the world (some, we call "masters," may have done so, if only briefly, since unfortunately many of them have eventually revealed their own sexuality issues). Thus, we must resign ourselves to the joyous engagement of deep spiritual union with another person so that the two may become ONE. Yet, this is only a preliminary step in the Universal Consciousness or Oneness that we all seek (whether we know it or not). Problem is, many have NOT evolved enough to engage with one, let alone intimately engage the world.

It seems that polyamorists or practitioners of non-monogamy may choose the many in fear of the ONE. However, this is not to deny that even those who choose monogamy over multiple partners somehow have greater access to Deep Spirit. It seems fear creates numerous obstacles exclusive to all forms of relating.

My blog posts on intimacy attempted to address the ‘deep understanding' (actual dictionary definition of "intimacy") between minds, and NOT bodies, that is the cornerstone of any spiritual path. But I do believe that until you join with one (even if briefly), the world will remain a distant place and will resist your evolution to "higher consciousness" and union with the universe.

Everybody has considered at one time or another, the idea that "life is a game." Well, James Carse has written a book about such considerations called Finite and Infinite Games. This is one of those profound little books that I return to frequently (my paperback is old tattered and devoid of margins due to my consistent editing and markings) in trying to make sense of the absurdities of living.

This next series of blog posts will examine that book's general thesis and main points. Of course, this is only my interpretation and I would hope that you read the book yourself in order to get the full value of the ideas.

"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play. There is no game, finite or infinite, unless the players freely agree to play it. No one can play who is forced to play. This is an invariable principle of all play. Whoever must play, cannot play. If a finite game is to be won by someone, it must come to a definitive end. It will come to an end when someone has won. Winning is determined by agreement of the players." (italics the authors)

It's interesting how we believe there are so many things we must do in life. Like death and taxes, we feel we have no choice in the matter. Of course, this denies the nature of "play" and that we have chosen to play by the rules of a particular game.

I have freely chosen to participate in the game of paying taxes since I could just as easily refuse to play. Certainly, there would be consequences based on the rules of that game, but the fact is, many choose NOT to pay taxes and thus not to play by the collectively agreed upon rules. You may feel you must play the game of paying taxes, but clearly ‘choice' is built into the game and, make no mistake, you have chosen to play by the rules. Complaints about the game of paying taxes, is part of the rules of that game.

Our games tend to be interwoven. In paying taxes we also play the game of "United States citizen," which is a much broader game and tends to include within it's rules various other games, including taxes. For instance, "Patriot" is a game many play and therefore, not paying taxes would be unpatriotic and would be essentially not to play by the rules of the game of patriot. We choose to play by the rules of the game of patriotism, because we wish to win. To win at being a patriot means to acquire the titles that we all agree are indicative of winning the game of patriotism (we will review the concept of "titles" in another post).

Presidential candidate John McCain has won the game of patriotism and most agree that he has won, so he is free to use his title of patriot in the game of presidential candidate. His winning the game of patriotism makes the game finite since his winning is NOT to be questioned. To question his title to 'patriotism' and thus, his winning, would be to keep the game in play and thus alter the game from finite, or having a definitive end, to infinite with the continuation of play.

If McCain were to win the game of presidential election, we would agree that the game of "presidential election" has concluded by reaching a definitive end and all further need to play has ended. However, many may attempt to alter this finite game by questioning the designated winner and the rules that resulted in that game being won, seeking to create an infinite game serving to continue the play. In fact, many may choose not to play the game of paying taxes, since they refuse to recognize the game of presidential election as being won.

THE GAME OF LIFE

Many people feel that the game of 'life' is a finite game, since it does reach a definitive end which we agree to call "death." Thus, life has finite rules which serve to allow play until death ends the game and we go to heaven or whatever 'place' we determine within the rules as we choose to play. Therefore, all the rules we play by in life include the belief that the game does end. Because of that definitive ending, life games take on an air of sophistication and seriousness, that tend to cause us to deny that we have freely chosen to play.

Often, due to the seriousness of life games, many choose not to take it serious and some, through suicide, choose not to play at all (unfortunately suicide is also a game that can be either finite or infinite). Many believe that if they can acquire a great deal of property, financial resources and game titles (like president, chairman, chief, CEO, retired, grandfather, etc) they have played the game of life well and have therefore won the game. But of course, winning stops play for that particular player within the boundaries of the finite nature of the game of life. This is because the life game includes all lesser games, such as work, career, marriage, citizenship, money, real estate, friendship, old age, religion, parenting, etc, etc, within its boundaries. There are infinite games that can be played in life, but most choose to play only specific finite games since they play life as though it were finite and had a definitive end to all play. Any game that can be won and thus ended, becomes a serious endeavor often with tragic costs. Yet, tragedy is also a game.

Many discard the rules of death and choose to continue play after death. This obviously changes the rules of the game of life because death is no longer considered an end to play and therefore, the game of life has no end and is open-ended. Life is then engaged as a game with no winners or losers, but as simply the ongoing continuation of play. In other words, many alter the rules of death to include continued play therefore essentially negating the game of death and infinitely extending the game of life.

Spiritual/religious paths are often such rule-benders by requiring that the spiritual game be played by choice just as the finite game of life is played by choice. I can freely choose to discard the seriousness of life by conceptually negating death as a finite conclusion to life. Now I am open to play by different rules, which may or may not include the acquisition of titles and property to signify my winning the game of life. This is because as an infinite game, life has no winners or rules other than that all players must continue play indefinitely. This is why many who live in abject poverty are often happier than millionaires.

We cannot deny the freedom inherent to infinite games in that the only rule is to continue play. Thus, lesser games within an infinite game of life no longer take on profound significance through the rules of winning, simply because there can be NO winners or losers and that rule is agreed upon by all who choose to play infinitely.

The next installment of this exposition of Infinite and Finite games will continue the current theme with additional quotes from the book and further discussion.

"A finite game has a precise beginning and end, and has clear spatial and numerical boundaries. There must be at least one opponent. In a finite game there can be only one winner, but other players may be ranked at the end of play." (James Carse, 'Finite and Infinite Games')

Many play the game of life as if it had a "precise beginning and end." This applies a finite rule, making all games conform to a finite outcome of winning. You may not win a career game, however, you may generate enough points to facilitate a higher position within the boundaries of the game.

You may play the game of "simple country doctor" and improve the lives of many or play the game of "famous surgeon" inventing an artificial heart that saves lives. The country doctor may receive little public accolade, while the surgeon is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. However, if the country doctor plays an infinite game there is no need for external rewards because he/she internally values the continuation of play. While the surgeon may play to win and go on to greater external rewards. A problem may arise should the surgeon lose his skills.

To be a doctor requires obedience to time parameters as far as education, internship, licensing, practice, etc, etc. Spatially, such games must be played within the society or country that sets the rules for winning. These rules are often predetermined by winners of past doctor games. You may win the prestige of being called a doctor by those who are not doctors, however, doctors play other games through which to voluntarily compete amongst themselves. Often times this may include monetary games. To play a finite game of "cosmetic surgeon" may have higher monetary value than the game of "podiatrist" even though both are "doctors."

Since there can only be one winner (or winning team) we play many different games to increase our chances of winning. Academic games, played in colleges and universities, have numerous finite games through which to compete for ranking and even possibly win. To win demands you attain the highest prestige in your specified intellectual domain. Universities are often rated on the accumulation of academic winners, thereby improving the universities chances of winning.

Infinite games have no boundaries, such as space and time, and although we all play games within space and time, infinite games are not determined by those boundaries. Religious and spiritual games may be played within space/time boundaries but may not necessarily be limited by those boundaries.

For instance there are many who play the "enlightenment" game and become regarded as enlightened gurus and saints within space/time. However, if their "enlightenment" transcends space/time boundaries and thus, they are not restricted by those rules, they can continue to play "enlightenment" infinitely, with no predetermined rules and no winners.

Enlightenment is as much a game as being a doctor. However, doctors must conform to the predetermined rules as a requirement of play. Gurus and saints play infinite games by setting their own rules, which must allow that rules can be changed as they go along. However, once rules are demanded, the game is finite and a winner is required. Many gurus and saints play finite games and if your particular spiritual teacher plays by specific rules of "enlightenment" you may wish to seek out another teacher. Or else, play the required finite game within an infinite game. But this may require much internal skill and fortitude, especially when taught to follow the rules.

Finite games can engender competing through a team or alone in which the body is stretched to its limits. Although many go beyond what was done before, we all agree that there are limits to what one can do. You may break records in running a 3 minute mile, but never in less than 2 minutes. We all have agreed on that being a rule. Until, of course, someone refuses to agree and runs a 2 minute mile and then the rules must change.

"Other than the principle of voluntarism, infinite games are the opposite of finite games in every way. Infinite games have no spatial, temporal, or numerical boundaries, and no winners or rankings. Finite games are externally defined; infinite games are internally defined."

We all choose to play. Denying that we choose is often a rule of finite games so that the game will be taken seriously and thus the rules strictly followed. On the other hand, infinite games lack seriousness simply because they are internally defined and cannot be won, but allow for voluntary, continued play.

Deepak Chopra is trained in the finite rules of playing a doctor and must have externally exhibited a seriousness for the rules in order to win that finite game and attain the prestige of being called "doctor." However, he has gone beyond those rules internally and thus changed the rules of play thereby developing new rules through which to play "doctor" by not remaining bound to the rules of that finite game. As long as he continues to change the rules, and is not bound by any rules, the game will remain infinite. Yet, at anytime the play is defined as demanding certain rules, the game is then defined as finite, meaning someone must win.

Visionaries and radicals often play infinite games. However, they can eventually become predisposed to a specific set of rules (often their own) requiring the game be finite and a winner determined.

Hitler went beyond finite rules, but demanded rigid conformance to his own finite rules of conquest. His game was terminated by others who refused to play by his rules, thereby desiring that an infinite game be played which included freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, the new players imposed their own external rules and so, infinite play could only be accessed internally while finite geopolitical games continue on, even today.

Infinite games are often hard to recognize in our postmodern advanced society, even by those who look to play infinitely and this is because of the internal nature of infinite games. Many modern spiritual games seem infinite on face value, but it soon becomes apparent that often one must do it this way or that way in order to play and potentially win.

Infinite games can have no winner, but only never-ending play. For most, this seems virtually impossible as all games are usually played with space/time boundaries. A winner is expected and losers are ranked according to how close they come to winning. Many live in complete disregard for the finite games we expect all participants of society to play and we often refer to non-players as "losers."

This finite social conditioning tends to make infinite games incredibly difficult to envision and require leaps of consciousness from which to break from finite rules. Yet, many do experience that freedom on a daily basis.

"The time of an infinite game is determined in the game itself. Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but no infinite game can be played within a finite game. The rules of a finite game are predetermined and fixed. The rules of an infinite game must change in the course of play, to avoid a finite outcome. The rules of an infinite game are changed to prevent anyone from winning and to bring as many persons as possible into the play."

Playing a finite game within an infinite game necessarily changes the finite rules thereby altering the game itself, but only internally. I can play at being a doctor and conform to fixed rules, while at the same time anticipating infinite play within that finite game. This can only be done internally and often must be veiled externally from those who demand finite rules so that winners and losers can be determined. Eventually, infinite players are identified and loved or hated.

Infinite games can adhere to time restrictions but only in order to continue playing and not to end the game by announcing a winner. Infinite players do not take winners very seriously simply because they continue to play internally and have no expectation of outcome other than continued play.

A priest or minister may externally demonstrate adherence to finite rules, while internally playing an infinite game, thereby taking his congregation beyond the predetermined dogma. Such a visionary may eventually be barred from continuing, but by then it may be too late and the congregation will take on a life of its own outside church walls. Such "churches" are open to all denominations and religions allowing no restrictions based on sex, gender, or anything else for that matter. There is no winner, just continued play.

Clearly, a doctor who delights in saving lives, or a politician who revels in going against his party to end suffering, would be playing a finite game within an infinite game. This would be true as long as the rules never become rigidly determined. These individuals then become models for saving more lives, by encouraging more participants to play the game in ending more suffering in more creative ways. This abundance has no end (hence, the term infinite), but only within infinite games can this process occur since there are no winners to end the game and no rules to bar other ways of playing the 'more' game.

Abraham Lincoln's campaign platform demanded the continuation of slavery. However, internally he did not adhere to those rules and merely waited for the correct time to externally declare an "emancipation proclamation." This is an example of an infinite game in which time "is determined in the game itself." Ending the institution of slavery was a finite game that has never ended and is therefore, infinite.

Currently, Barack Obama has refused to comply with the rules of campaign finance and has been severely criticized by the opposing party for breaking those rules. However, his refusing to abide by predetermined rules changes the rules forever. Yet, if he is elected and demands other rules regarding campaign finance, he would thereby alter an infinite game back into a finite game with strict rules.

Of course, visionaries will be condemned for ignoring finite boundaries and rules (loss of license or party affiliation, or even assassination) by those who play finite games. But they will be seen as visionary by those who play infinite games and will be remembered long after they are gone.

History teaches about those who refused to be bound by the rules of finite games. The fact that there are so few models, per capita, illustrates our pressing need to have defined boundaries and rigid rules so that we can evaluate who the winners and losers are and thus, possibly win ourselves.

A finite game must have a winner. What games do you play to win?