Philosophical Reflections on PacMan

[peachboy]

Philosophical Reflections on PacMan

 

From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist.

In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:-

1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist.

2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions.

3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend.

The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses.

 

Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension.

Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots.

Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. 

With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends.

Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. 

Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end.

If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end.

Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes.

Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match.

Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.

 

 

 

[Jay Ray]

Wow, this is deep. I love when video games are used as parables to explain reality. 

[Jacobsrw]

On 26/06/2020 at 3:41 PM, peachboy said:

Philosophical Reflections on PacMan

 

From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist.

In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:-

1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist.

2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions.

3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend.

The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses.

 

Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension.

Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots.

Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. 

With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends.

Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. 

Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end.

If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end.

Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes.

Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match.

Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.

 

 

 

This is a precise analogy that explains the duality of human life. 

To live one must accord to the parameters in which limit them, otherwise living dissolves. Life is but a game dreamt by the mind to simply entertain it.

I like what you did here. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Jacobsrw

[JimBo]

Amazing 

[Inliytened1]

@peachboy nice.  Remove all distinctions and you get Pure Being.

Now if only i could do that with Galaga

 

[An young being]

On 6/26/2020 at 11:11 AM, peachboy said:

Philosophical Reflections on PacMan

 

From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist.

In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:-

1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist.

2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions.

3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend.

The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses.

 

Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension.

Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots.

Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. 

With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends.

Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. 

Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end.

If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end.

Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes.

Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match.

Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.

 

 

 

Yeah, finding the balance between both will lead to an ideal-looking life. Maybe, we should remove one or two ghosts from the game! (Like famine and poverty)

[Espaim]

That's a deep analysis

For some reason I always give up on that game

[peachboy]

On 29/06/2020 at 5:00 AM, Jay Ray said:

Wow, this is deep. I love when video games are used as parables to explain reality. 

 

On 29/06/2020 at 6:25 AM, JimBo said:

Amazing 

 

On 29/06/2020 at 6:06 AM, Jacobsrw said:

This is a precise analogy that explains the duality of human life. 

To live one must accord to the parameters in which limit them, otherwise living dissolves.

 

Thanks guys. Really appreciate the responses. 

 

On 29/06/2020 at 6:06 AM, Jacobsrw said:

Life is but a game dreamt by the mind to simply entertain it.

 

Yep. If life has a meaning then it's right there in that sentence.

 

21 hours ago, An young being said:

Maybe, we should remove one or two ghosts from the game! (Like famine and poverty)

 

I agree. It seems these days like we're standing on the precipice of a nightmare. Definitely time to reign it back a little. 

 

 

[cookiemonster]

On 6/26/2020 at 6:41 AM, peachboy said:

Philosophical Reflections on PacMan

 

From Hebrew, Satan is defined as adversary, foe or antagonist. In a game, there is no functionality without counterpoint. A game cannot exist without an antagonist.

In the game of Pac-Man, there are three antagonists:-

1. The multi-coloured ghosts that chase the protagonist.

2. The maze, of which the protagonist is prisoner that restricts movement to certain dimensions.

3. The rules, which stipulate all dots need to be eaten before the protagonist can transcend.

The conflict between protagonist and antagonist implies destruction of one or the other. Yet if we remove the antagonist, as per the convictions of the protagonist, the game collapses.

 

Let's start with the removal of the first antagonist - the multi-coloured ghosts. Absent the chase, the protagonist is now able to traverse the maze at a leisurely pace. Still though, it remains a prisoner of the maze and is bound by the rules that pertain to ascension.

Next then, we remove the second antagonist - the maze itself. With the maze gone, the environment is but a black-screen full of dots. The protagonist is no longer limited to horizontal / vertical movements and has the option of diagonal and even circular movements. Yet the protagonist is still bound by the rules that require eating up of all the dots.

Finally therefore, we remove the last antagonist. The protagonist is no longer bound by the burden of having to eat all of the dots. In fact, the protagonist no longer has to eat any of the dots. 

With all antagonists now gone, a coin is inserted into the slot. A title appears that reads “Welcome to Pacman” which is then immediately followed by a second message: “Congratulations, you won the game.” The screen goes blank and the game ends.

Clearly, that would be a commercial disaster. 

Herein lies the paradox of the game they call life. On the surface the protagonist seeks the destruction of the antagonist. Yet without an antagonist we would simply drift back into omniscience and the game of non-omniscience would surely end.

If destruction of the antagonist occurs as a result of a competent player the result is the same. The predictability of winning marks the end.

Conversely, if the antagonist becomes too competent for the protagonist, again the game collapses. The dream turns into a nightmare and the protagonists wakes.

Therefore, as in the case of Pac-man the sweet spot of non-omniscient stability is found at the point where the protagonist and the antagonist is a perfect match.

Anything other than that and you'll find yourself back home in non-duality.

 

 

 

Very nice. This works well in conjunction with the recent video that Leo made on God realization.

I've heard it said that the Maya and the Satan are the same concept, though perhaps there is room for a more nuanced analysis:-

One could say that the Maya represents the Game in general, whereas the Satan represents the oppositional force within the game. So in your example, Pacman as the overall game would represent the Maya, whereas the opponents within the game would represent the Satan.

Symbiotically though, you cannot have a game without an oppositional force. Therefore, the Maya would imply the existence of the Satan, just as the Satan implies the existence of the Maya.

Thoughts?

@Leo Gura