There are levels to the game, they say. And it takes a fair bit of experience and discernment to uncover what these levels are and how interconnected they can get.
Sometimes, I find myself playing multiple games at the same time. There's the political game of indirectly swaying a person's opinion to see a certain possible outcome differently and win over the person to your own cause.
Then there's the social game, boosting your social value to gain access to exclusive clubs and influential people, who in certain cases can create and change dynamics with just a phone call.
We can also add the financial game of life—are you playing PvP (player versus player) or PvE (player versus environment)?
There are also many other mini and not-so-mini games like the game of self-discovery, spiritual growth, and mastering a skill, all more or less being played simultaneously.
It's an advantage to be conscious of them, but being unconscious of them isn't necessarily a disadvantage.
By far, political games are what I dislike the most, yet they're often the most crucial in moving the needle forward from a broad and grander perspective.
It's like, by default, power and influence concentrate into a select minority who've found a way to accumulate a large portion of the perceived most valuable resources.
Most games have levels embedded in them, which become a core component of strategy and progress.
If you're like me, whenever I become aware of or am introduced to a game, the first thing I look for is the highest level of the game.
I feel it's a good benchmark to gauge my long-term goals and plan my ascent, that's if I choose to play the game, of course.
However, nine times out of ten, the choice is really more about choosing not to play a game or continuing to play a game after you've realized that it is, in fact, a game.
Stuck In A Level
Assuming we choose to continue playing, what's there to do besides climbing up the levels of such games?
I think the truth is, climbing the ladder of any single game—be it political maneuvering, social climbing, or financial success—eventually leads to a plateau, in the sense that the inherent rules and limitations of that specific game become increasingly apparent. Further progress requires a different approach.
For me, the challenge, or the next level beyond mastery, is in understanding the meta-game. This can be defined as knowing how the games themselves interconnect and how their rules overlap, which can then be leveraged to use success in one arena to gain advantage in another.
Perhaps the point isn't really to keep climbing these levels or be the top dog in certain individual games, but to become a master strategist who can orchestrate the interplay between them.
I know it sounds a bit "puppet master" vibes, but isn't it interesting—and potentially powerful—to design your own game within these myriads of games, setting your own rules, and playing on a level where the very concept of "levels" becomes obsolete?
What does it take? Basically, a start will be a shift in perspective, from a focus on individual victories to a holistic view of the interconnectedness of life's various "games."
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
Honestly I have never thought it in this way, but now to think of it, feels like that's the way we operate all the time, trying to play a game and always concerned about the high scoring. Personally if I put in this perspective then I am the one who is more concerned about crossing every level then focusing on the top most level
Right, I think it's less stressful to focus on increasing levels than reaching the top most level, but each has its own pros and cons. With a top most level view, you usually don't get bogged down by the details of each game/level.
Thanks for stopping by :)