What about this one: "Life is a game"
What say ye? Ay or Nay?
Well, there is no doubt that if one looks around that one can see a great many things "fighting to survive and win".
Life forms DO seem to have various freedoms, barriers and purposes (mostly instinctual). And, people, with the ability to
conceive of "mental purposes" (separate from pure instinct), add more chaos to the whole mixture.
But, one can choose to NOT "play games" (in the negative sense of the term).
Also, to relate this to spirituality and something like Buddhism, a state of "pure consciousness" or "pure being" would be what Hubbard called a "no games condition". Nothing happening. No interest to try to "make anything happen", or to have the need to
create any effect.
Cripes, even planets seem to have a "purpose" to spin forever around a sun, and electrons seem to have different purposes, though granted, it doesn't seem like they have much in terms of "freedoms", and their actions are almost totally determined by various "barriers" (gravity, strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, etc.).
If one wants to succeed in life in some way, it probably helps to view it as some sort of game (though it need not be so brutually competetive). And, "winning" need not be so damned important and
serious as it is viewed in Scientology:
"Your personal future for all eternity depends solely on whether Scientology makes it". - L. Ron Dumbass
To me, Hubbard's model
of life as a game seems fairly accurate, since a "purpose" can include just about ANY goal or desire on ANY dynamic (physical, mental or emotional). And, there always seems to be some sort of balance between
freedoms and
barriers, where neither can ever gain complete ascendency over the other. If one takes either freedom to the limit of infinity or barriers to the limit of infinity (viewed as a sort of equation of Calculus), in both cases, again, there would be NO GAME possiblle. Of course, in REAL LIFE, such
absolutes do NOT exist on any level.
Look around and find a real true "no games condition". Not easy to do.
Whether one calls these things games or not, there seems to be endless "purposes" in endless competetion with endless barriers involving various endless freedoms.
I would be interested how this could be delineated in some OTHER way. Any takers?
I think Hubbard did pretty good with this one.
)
