ADORE789 (fwd)

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Aug 24 16:05:03 EDT 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


08/30/10 Monday 3:41pm EST

      GAME ROLES

      Many universes consist of games.

      These universes are space-time game streams.

      Games consist of 5 layers of involvement.

       1.) Game creators
       2.) Game players
       3.) Game pieces
       4.) Game umpires
       5.) Game spectators.

      Each of the above can be broken, not functioning right.

      Thus we have

       1.) Game creators    and  Broken game creators
       2.) Game players     and  Broken game players
       3.) Game pieces      and  Broken game pieces
       4.) Game umpires     and  Broken game umpires
       5.) Game spectators  and  Broken game spectators.

      Games generally are formed of teams and thus are built around an
innate pecking order of command and control.

      Broadly speaking game beings can become broken in two different
ways.

      One, they can be broken in the play itself, a soldier in the field
gets hit by a bomb and ends up permanently in the hospital.  He is out
of that game for a while.

      Spectators get hurt all the time in car races etc.

      Two, they can break themselves, the same soldier in the field gets
sick of his high command whose moral compass seems to be backwards, and
one way or another the soldier renders himself useless so he can't be in
the game any more.

      Generally a being has one role in any particular game, but he may
be trying to play more than one role in the same game which may or may
not lead to confusion, consternation or disaster.

      A being can be confused as to which role they are playing.

      He may think he is a piece when in fact he is a broken player, he
may think he is a player when in fact he is a broken piece.

      That said, every person is involved in many different games in
life, in all different roles, he is thus a complicated constellation of
game creator, player, piece, umpire and spectator according to the game
he has his attention on at the moment, which is probably more than one.

      For example a commander in chief may be a main game player in a
war, and under him he has his generals to whom are delegated authority
to make their own moves.

      As such each delegate becomes a sub player under the main player.

      Just so the generals delegate to captains, sergeants, lieutenants,
and privates.

      Although the private apparently has no one under him in that
particular game, and thus is the ultimate piece, he will be found to be
creating, playing, umpiring, being a piece and spectating in many bigger
or smaller games of life, along side the one he is playing in the war.

      And even as a private, he still has his own free will to determine
what should be done at a local level to forward the purpose of his main
player, and thus he operates as a micro sub player even while being a
piece.

      The piece fair chooses the player he wishes to serve, and the
player fair chooses the game creator whose game he wishes to play.

      Each role has free will to operate as they kind.

      Thus although the piece is 'taking orders' from the player and
serves the player's broader purposes, such apparent subservience is fair
chosen, and the piece is also free to generate orders for himself in the
direction of those same purposes.

      We say apparent subservience because the player is actually
subservient to the piece's desire to play for him.  Without pieces, the
player can not play.

      Thus the piece idolizes the player, and the player worships the
piece.

      If a piece bones up on his skills, devotion, vigilance and
attention to be ever ready to act on behalf of his player, the piece's
life can be greatly rewarded by the player.

      We call this being on purpose.

      The reward is feeling good and having strong reason to get up in
the morning.

      If the piece goofs up in his game play, his life can be made to
deteriorate by his game player, and eventually the piece will take to
messing up his own ability to operate in order to get his game player to
leave him alone.

      If you can't find reason to get up in the morning or are
chronically sick, near dead or dying, you might want to consider
reopening negotiations with your game player or find a new one.

      Game players can be pretty rough on game pieces even when they are
going well.

      Devotion keeps the piece aligned with his game player, even if the
game player is more broken than not.

      The game creator doesn't give a damn what the piece does, the game
player does.

      Thus the ultimate God is not a God of behavior, but the game player
immediately senior to the piece IS, where behavior is translated to
performance in the game.  Thus the player will tend to judge the piece
according to the fruit of his tree, and forgive pecadillos accordingly.

      The umpires judge game players, not game pieces.

      Umpires report to the game creator or owner at the time.

      No one judges game creators except themselves and their cohort
peers with whom they may be in some kind of competition for admiration.

      Game creators are author's, game players and pieces are characters.

      Virtue for the creator is not virtue for the creature.

      Virtue for the author is not virtue for the character.

      A good story contains both good and bad characters.

      The rehabilitation then of any being in any universe is the
rehabilitation of all game roles from broken to fully operational across
all games in all universes the being is involved in as creator, player,
piece, umpire or spectator.

      Sometimes in order to rehab the broken piece, the piece has to roll
up his sleeves and rehab his broken player.

      And likewise the player may have to rehab his broken game creator.

      In the meanwhile the umpire is off having a beer at the pub.

      Everyone will get around to him eventually too.

      Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Aug 24 16:05:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore789.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but 
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFV23jvURT1lqxE3HERAlzDAKCBb7uWKZDH5uUxATdxybf2H8OzPACgjbuo
941oIRvBI+ps1VfIZnOkArE=
=+NsZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list