Game is not some special area, but a human ability to keep two absolutely different worlds at a time and decide, which of them is real and which is secondary.

It is highly developed among children when they play and communicate with parents at the same time.

A human in game was the topic of a regular lecture of the Flying University — “Homo Ludens” as anthropological perspective”  — with its coordinator and methodologist Tatiana Vadalazhskaya as a lecturer. The EuroBelarus Information Service writes about thoughts about the new “Main question” .

In 2016 a school of Masters of Game  (Magister ludi) will open. In the opinion of Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, now it’s about time to think how we see it and what’s our attitude to it:

“Initially, the Flying University is a university of game. But the majority treated it metaphorically. It is an attempt to transfer to the higher thinking; however, we never treated it as a metaphor, since for the methodological community the Flying University is an organization-action game.”

According to the speaker, it is, rather, a special approach that is gradually developing and during which transfer from metaphors to actions happens.

Meanwhile, games appeared randomly, when some form of thinking over the problems that have no solution couldn’t be put into any other category.

After that games started being conceptualized, and here we are, seeing it as a fundamental anthology. We don’t have well-developed understanding of what a game is; we have attempts to understand that.

Tatiana Vadalazhskaya gave her understanding of what a game is and asked her students to forget and put aside everything that they know about games:

“Apart from passion and learning component more things appeared to me. First is the constant need for self-identification and orientation in the situation, which came to be much more important than all the previous knowledge about everything. In the best possible way, all my knowledge was only an additional basis, or even a hindrance to playing.”

The other thing, says Tatiana Vadalazhskaya, is that in order to win one should take into account a lot of processes that happen at different levels. You cannot choose only one; otherwise you’ll lose all the opportunities. And this simultaneous work at different levels is a situation of a person, who gathers absolutely all competences inside him — or herself.

One more thing is collectivism. In comparison to action, where there is division of labor, one cannot find a person responsible for every stage and define who’s done what, since this is a united effect that happens in shared understanding; it is a shared achievement.

Next peculiarity: it is hard to transfer the in-game experience to a different world, which means that at the game some quite coherent world that can be developed is formed. And that is also an achievement of the game:

“The last thing that impressed me is a purpose of activity; when we know “product” and construct our actions, — noted the coordinator of the Flying University. — It might seem that the result and win are absolutely different things. After you end everything successfully, you get an answer. If you were only preparing for actions, not some results, it is a different readiness and feeling.”

What is the difference between a man in game and a man of action?

First, Homo Ludens appeals to human’s typology that has been developing gradually and gave certain perspectives.

Secondly, Hermann Hesse and his appeal to the statement, which reads that a game and a man is an attempt to overcome and find a form of existence that will be defining human’s nature.

Third reason is, rather, artistic: Tatiana Vadalazhskaya sees it in ludens by Strugatsky brothers — a new unknown human race with some other qualities, which create anthropological alarm:

“Anxiety about who we are to become and how are we going to get to this, for me is related with Homo Ludens.”

The lecturer thought of two problems that the humanity and she in particular are facing today. The first one is described by Aurelio Peccei, who created the Roman Club, which generated numerous ideas, including those of sustainable development. In the book “Human features” he talks about inadequacy of humanitarian, moral, and ethical to the great technical and organizational possibilities that people have today.

However, it is impossible to take into account all the factors; i.e. we can make forecasts of action, but they give no result and possibility to decide on what to do. Peccei says that something should be done with a people and their ability to answer for their actions: any human today can create a catastrophe of any scale.

The other inadequacy is related to the achievements of humanity in understanding itself and culture. We are used to knowing the artificial nature of everything we live in. We can deconstruct all norms and values to understand that people created them for themselves. We have no authority we can appeal to and ask what is true and what is not. I feel as a creator of the world; but at the same time I can do nothing with it. Having lost the ability to know precisely or appeal to absolutes and truths, we didn’t get a real possibility, ability, and competence to create the world.

Here the question about the ability to agree emerges: when there are no common truths, everyone has his or her own truth and values. Or, if you have no relation to creation you start going down to the level of real life, and that’s when the whole plan of ideals and values is devaluated. Such life rescues from the problem of deciding on something that is impossible to decide on.

And that’s the challenge for a person: what one should do in order to have a meaningful life? And a human in state of playing, understanding, and developing gets the answers and ways to escape this state of disparity.

There is one more thing that makes a game seem like reality: the category of stake — something you stake on in order for our reality to change in a way you like it to. Stake is something that you lose if you lose and something that gets higher if you win. The more your stake is the more your contribution to the future is.

It is impossible to lose without playing and it’s also impossible to be unaware of the stake. In real life we almost never think about stakes that we make in reality where we act:

“The main human quality in game is not only to make a right action, but also be ready to the effects that are to come. The answer to the question asked by Peccei is the change of aim that a person has so that this person bears responsibility for the effects. The person’s action starts only after he or she makes a step. Readiness to answer for effects is something that the game has, but something that our world lacks.

The game also has acceptance of something different, since in this state you never know it and should be ready to be at one field with it. It isn’t obligatory to love it and share views with it. However, this different is present and is a part of conditions of this world. It is important to find this person inside yourself and make it a part of our practice.”