Hypergame

Warning, this article content is excessively materialist and in a sense thus outdated.It appears obvious to the many “lay” viewers of David Attenborough documentaries, thanks to their evocative narrator, that the arena of life requires concepts of challenge, struggle, success, achievement, and strategy to be understood. Organisms face ecological challenges that they must overcome; life itself is a challenge, a struggle, and even a competitive game. However, the use of language of avoiding costs to reap benefits, the application of optimality models, and the use of game-theory to understand evolutionary strategies and pay-offs show that intentional language is not only restricted to the laity.-- Neo-Darwinists and Neo-Aristotelians: how to talk about natural purpose Peter Woodford History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences volume 38, Article number: 23 (2016) As long as people compete for anything, be it a job, an apartment, a mate, a seat on the metro, etc, there will be winners and losers.  [Pachernegg  18Facebook.com.]‘Hypergame’ is a term that refers to what organisms do for satisfaction. Organisms have urges they cooperate and compete in satisfying, this co-operation is the hypergame. Organisms compete for resources like space. (See: Territorialism.) Since the wills of different organisms operate in contradiction to each other, this produces conflict, such as disputing.
The Wheel of Fortune is a sign of the hypergame, with ancient roots (see: samsara).
 There's a war goin' on outside no man is safe from
 You could run but you can't hide forever
 From these streets that we done took
 You walkin' witcha head down scared to look
 You shook 'cause ain't no such things as halfway crooks
 They never around when the beef cooks in my part of town
 It's similar to Vietnam
 Now we all grown up and old, and beyond the cop's control [Mobb Deep, 1995]
 ‘Militia est vita hominis super terram’ — Life (of man) is a struggle on Earth, it says in «Job VII:1», but struggle has to be for, with, or against something, but what seems essential to the meaning is that it is a process, an activity, a change—for struggle seems meaningless without change, indeed, one of the dictionary meanings of ‘struggle’ is ‘a hard effort’—effort from exfortiare "to show strength", and a shown strength is already a change, a difference. So we may as well translate the Latin bible verse to mean ‘The Life of Man is a Competition on Earth’, for what is a struggle but against something? and thus a competing against some other agentry? The «Book of Job» itself is chiefly about this, so nota bene that our definition of the matter accords with the main tradition. Indeed, in «The Book of Job» the Master of the World sets a man by the name of Job under the tests of one of his agents, who has been known, fittingly, as the adversary—indeed, rendered from Hebrew שָׂטָן—Satan. But another account in the Bible is one Jacob wrestling with an angel (Genesis 32:22-32)—which is the same through other names. As above, so below. There is one hierarchy and it is a gradiation from top to bottom of the same outflowing essence of the Holy, but chief intelligences in said hierarchy have been called angels (e.g. the better angels of our nature). Since this struggle has meaning, and intelligence, it has results, that of succumbing and overcoming, but this accords to that of a game, as a game is an activity with result, typically that of succumbing (in which the game is over or lost) or overcoming. Because we are referring to the biggest possible number of games, or innumerable games, indeed many games within a larger game, we have called it a hypergame. 
Hypergame is what humans do for the Red Queen, evolution—they perform for satisfaction;—but grossly it is a process of separation since it is for evolution, which is to say of loss and overcoming, of a state from a state (see: historical cycles); but one of the most notable patterns in history is the victory and defeat of human groups, a state defeating a state, in the sense of statecraft but also in the sense of a state of expansion or decline. History is the record of selection, for even documenting it is selecting what to document and what to extinct historically per attempt. ‘Evolution’ is a concept that essentially means ‘order of change’, but in American college Biology parlance it refers to ‘change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.’ This change as recorded in this Biology includes the extinction of types, which means "selection" (for one thing disappears and another remains)—indeed natural selection, survival as opposed to not, which is documented as the existence and the extinction of types which as classified according to traits as Biological species. Patterns that are seen to have loss and reward are in very common parlance referred to as games, but humans are on record for all of history to regard their activities in accord with concepts of loss and gain, or punishment and reward, thus all of human history undeniably has this trait of a game. Given that chiefdom is on record as having a central position among a group, a throne, and that history is largely a record of one replacing another in the leading "seat" of a group, the term ‘a game of thrones’ is, (not) in spite of its associated fantastic notions, perhaps one of the most fitting terms for history and the fate of nations; but hypergame is a briefer term that we have selected for its closeness to the term hypergamy since that latter term also refers to one of the most salient historical trends. Perhaps we may go so far as to say that Man marries himself upwards, if we regard increasing pacification of mortal combat as upward movement. Hypergamy is the preference for women of men that excel apparently at hypergame—but women are attracted to men that are good at game, which is not basically a choice but, a mechanistic response—similar to the mechanistic response of men to excellent body parts. 
 Humans appear in this world with a symphony of needs, which they need to have served to survive. Serving those needs gratifies the human entity. Satisfaction typically accords with physiological needs first and then psychological needs—this is termed as a hierarchy of needs, and has medical definitions; e.g. the vital organs come first: brain, heart, kidneys, liver and lungs. These organs have needs and they communicate these needs to the ego complex through pain and pleasure—such as the lungs when they cannot get enough air. The primal needs of the vital organs are spatiotemporal, chemical and climatic (e.g. room to meet those needs, air pressure and flow, temperature). "When it comes to dating, homeownership can be the ultimate aphrodisiac.” [Les Christie @CNNMoney February 14, 2012]Plausibly the most famous example of hypergame is the Roman elite and their game (which reached the level of of history's longest living empire), and similarly the British elite and the American elite. The Romans are even famous for "kidnapping" womenfolk from their neighbours to satisfy their needs, this scenario was known in history as "The Rape of the Sabine Women." (Rape had another meaning previously, and referred to kidnapping rather than explicitly sexual assault. See: Roman empire.)
Hypergame beyond the physiological needs is recorded to take place in some accord with structures that span many centuries as institutions and customs, but before the prevalence of atheism per official record all institutions were accorded to model types known as gods. All games function with certain laws, and these laws have been recorded as being cognate with their personifications, the gods; thus erring against the laws and against the gods was regarded as largely the same thing; but the gods having an even more primal state than the laws themselves, this status figuring by the prevalence of dynamicity in the affairs of man only to be accorded with something no less dynamic: a living being, a god. 
The gods are archetypes of experience, in the sense that having a type of experience was regarded as being in accord with a certain god or gods, more so than another god or complex of gods. Indeed, say, failure to have a certain experience in battle was regarded as failure to be in accord with a certain god—but the closeness was such that having a certain battle experience was the same as being in the power of that god, or having the power of that god. Victory was a goddess, and being a victor was having Victory (having Victoria) or being Victorius (but the -us ending shows that victorius is manifesting or incarnating victoria, incarnating a muse). The gods are archetypal models of non-atheistic man's pathways of experience, quite, if not fully, cognate with his language, as seen in the examples of victoria and justitia (justice). Indeed, all his concepts per unit had closer relation to one god as opposed to another, and the performance of activities related to said concepts would be said to be serving or operating with a given god. Chiefly regarding themselves as acting according to the signs of a certain complex of gods, given Ancient Greeks operated a concept, hybris, from which the modern concept ‘hubris’ descends from, but action that fails according to the standards accorded to a certain level of gods cannot but have been hubristic. Indeed, "in its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods, and which in turn brings about the downfall, or nemesis, of the perpetrator of hubris." The same is on record to different degrees to accord with other religious traditions. Thus a religious person raised to believe in certain interpretations of the traditionally Western Christian bible might feel that being benevolently concerned with others is doing or being in accord with God's work, while someone who self-identifies as a Buddhist might describe the same action as being in accord with the dharma—but an atheistic person might know it as the right thing to do—but how concerned with others one should be has been—indeed all concepts have been—a matter of dispute for all of history. How hypergame orders itself is thus itself the matter of human life at least so far as it is conceptually defined, and it is impossible to define human experience outside of, well, definitions that are disputed (and thus in hypergame—) as even within a single mind there is competition. If this can be called hypergame is itself a feature of a game in the hypergame, as people like to define things differently and dispute over the definitions (see related: arrogance). Modern Hip-Hop artists regard their performances of their verbal art or rhyme battles as incarnating different gods, apparently with different degrees of earnestness and consistency. Unavoidably, a consistent ultraconservative cannot but see everything as being in accordance with gods of one level or another, and indeed, the creator, director and motor of all, the Primus Motor.
Hypergame on a collective level may be referred to as a game of thrones or a holy game, since non-atheistic entities tend to regard the most important game as holy although they may not agree with the terminology of it being a game. Yet, unavoidably human activity has the most famous activity of a game: overcoming or losing, reward and loss—but overcoming against what are accounted as the greatest privations or potential losses is on record as the greatest reward with its own concept: glory. Countless groups and individuals are on record for all of history as regarding the survival of their group as being in accord with what is right—which can be said to be the most basic form of might being right: survival. As a creature of orientation a human cannot but regard a thing as wrong or right in some temporal sense, no matter how fleeting, but history is littered with counting difficult survivals as the most satisfying: be it winning violent combat or doing habitable or artistic construction.
Even modern nations cannot but regard certain things as sacred, which essentially means regarding some things as being separated in symbolic value from other things of less value in symbolon. Thus a national artifact is regarded for the sentiments it invokes, how it moves the viewer, such as the Mona Lisa, and has per description a sacrality. The work of art is cultivated, kept safe, repaired from damage, it thus has per description a cult. It has a culture around it and a certain sacrality, but it can be disputed how sacred that entity is. In any case, the ultraconservative account will typically be that the item and its cult is under the god of beauty: Aphrodita. 
To have a result in the game, the participants are tested, will they survive versus the adversarial? That test is a will test. 
==Disputing the hypergame==
One of these things is to dispute what satisfaction is, while some dispute that satisfaction is needed at all, others still dispute that it is properly referred to as a game (but even fewer dispute that life has the most famous traits of a game: winning and losing, or at least overcoming or not overcoming; i.e. status). Hypergame is about loving yourself enough not to take stances that cause unnecessary suffering, but on Earth it tends do be not without some lack of ease to take a stance without suffering, even going so far as one of the most influential ideological leaders declaring that ‘being is suffering’, per certain reports. 
==Rhizomata==
*See also: Hypergamy; Will to Power; Pleasure principle; Maslow's hierarchy of needs; Robbin's 6 Core Human Needs
*Territorialism; Territorialisation; Peace on Earth
*Mature society; Edgelord theory
-
Category:The Red Queen's