17/07/2023
The first scientific and philosophical studies related to the theoretical consideration of play as a phenomenon appeared relatively late, at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, although there were earlier theories about it. It is no coincidence that the concept of play appears in early Greek philosophers who, establishing philosophy, found themselves in a situation where they also thought about play itself. Thus, Plato (Πλάτων), in his late and unfinished dialogue "Laws", records that people are the toys of the gods, but also seeking to start a dialogue about the relationship between being and nothing, he says that philosophy is also a "hard game that needs to be played ” (Parm. 137b). He emphasized the importance of play, saying that a person should spend his whole life in play. In this way, he hinted at Schiller's (Friedrich Schiller) thesis about the playful essence of man. We are familiar with his thoughts from his "Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man", which are considered to be the pillar of the entire building of aesthetic art, and they say that a man is actually a man only when he is playing because "he is playing only when he is in the true sense of the word" a man, and he is only a man when he plays". Schleiermacher (Friedrich Schleiermacher), for whom a man is a man only when he is free, when he plays, has a similar concept, so for him, play becomes an activity of exceptional importance, one in which freedom is possible, but also overcoming time.
With Kant (Immanuel Kant), we meet a philosophical, in-depth consideration of play, which becomes one of the central categories of his philosophy, especially aesthetics. The progenitor of classical German idealism emphasizes freedom from goals, needs and the struggle for survival as the main characteristic of the game; everything that stands against work. The game is free from responsibility and consequences, it is "a purpose without a purpose" [2], an action that is pleasant in itself and that would like to last forever. His compatriot Hegel (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel) speaks of play as entertainment, something irresponsible but enjoyable. Thus, in his lectures on the history of philosophy, he will write that in play the Greeks were freed from necessity and need, that they opposed seriousness with it.
Plotinus (Πλωτίνος) talks about play as a way of seeing the divine in his "Enneads". Everything strives for that viewing - both man and all nature, and this happens precisely in the way of play. Therefore, it is not surprising that he attached such importance to her. The gods create living toys (Enn., III, 2, 15). At the same time, man is not just a created toy, but is previously shaped in the logos, and since he is the object of divine creative enjoyment, he is able to imitate the creative power of God[3]. The whole world is like a well-thought-out game, notes Plotinus, and adds: "Everything is the arrangement of scenes, the change of scene, the acting of tears, the acting of misery" and everything that is human is the work of a game.
Heraclitus (Ηρακλειτος) sees a similar significance of the game. In one of his fragments, he notes that "time is a child who plays by arranging pebbles; the kingdom of the child"(B 52)[4] and thus recognizes the understanding of play as a symbol of the world, where the course of the world itself is depicted as a child playing. While this great "Dark" thinker superimposes the game on politics[5], one of the most important theorists of the 15th century, Nicholas of Cusa (Nikolaus von Kues), superimposes the game on the obligations set by the cardinal position. Both of them "play" both for the sake of the game itself and to understand the world. It is understanding that is the essential moment of the spirit that lies behind every cultural phenomenon. Many societies and cultures have their respective symbols that a certain community recognizes, accepts and transmits, which enables the adoption of archetypes related to them, which will be discussed in more detail here.
Gadamer (Hans-Georg Gadamer) warns that the game is an "ideal realm" that, coming forward with a request for autonomy, tends to escape the limitation and external tutelage of the state, that is, society. It is interesting that he considers that play, although it has a free impulse, actually has its own essence independent of the consciousness of those who play, so that its subject is not the player, but herself as she manifests herself through the player. Therefore, we meet it even where there are no subjects who behave as if they are playing[6]. The purpose of the game is to shape the very movement of the game, and in it, it is believed, manifests what it really is, just being. Therefore, it is a process of movement, a creation, while the existence of the game is its ex*****on, fulfillment.
One of the first game theorists in the true sense was the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein Josef Johann, who concluded in his "Philosophical Investigations" that it is not possible to define a game with one comprehensive definition of the term, but that for a complete understanding of the essence of the game, it is necessary keep in mind a whole series of definitions of individual segments of that term. Among the most interesting theories of play is certainly the one given by Huizinga (Johann Huizinga) in his popular book "Homo ludens" (The Man Who Plays), which reminds us that all peoples play, although this activity in all languages is not covered by one in a word. Huizinga sees play as a manifestation of culture and tries to determine to what extent culture itself possesses the character of play. For man, he says, play is as important a function as work, so he can be said to be homo ludens, a man who plays. However, he notes, the game is older than culture, and he explains this by the fact that animals also play, which means that the game originated before man. In his opinion, animals not only play, but all the main features of play can be observed in their play. In the animal kingdom, play is more than a purely biologically determined psychological reaction, it is a meaningful function. In the game of "teamwork" it goes beyond the immediate urge to affirm life and brings meaning to life's actions. This is the most important feature and, it seems, the reason for such importance of games and its survival.
TWO APPROACHES TO THE GAME
Two main approaches to the game can be singled out: the philosophical approach, which directs the question about the game to the interpretation of the essence of human play, which appears as a special appearance, as a significant sphere of unreality, and the scientific approach, which sees the game as an anthropological given that stands apart from biological "games". and sets the task of investigating the multitude of forms in which it appears and what its significance is for culture.
This second line of research summarizes the interests we find in the game among cultural theorists, and thus, at the anthropological level, we can understand the game as a basic existential phenomenon that could be determined considering the elements that are arrived at through its analysis:
1) the game provides pleasure that comes from the game itself;
2) the game has meaning (internal [the connection of the game parts] and external [the meaning of the game for the spectators]);
3) the game presupposes a playing community;
4) the game has rules;
5) game implies a toy [as a representative of all things in general];
6) in the game players always have certain roles, i
7) the game presupposes the game world[7].
TYPES OF GAMES
The French thinker Roger Caillois in his work "Games and People" emphasizes the description and qualification of games. He points out that play is free, isolated, uncertain, non-productive, prescribed and fictitious, distinguishing four basic categories of play: (1) agon, ie. games that appear as a competition, that is, a fight in which there are equal conditions for opponents (sports competitions, chess, fencing, billiards, etc.); (2) alea are games opposite to agon, games in which the decision does not depend on the player because it is not a game with an opponent, but with fate (roulette, lottery, gambling, bet); (3) mimicry, games in which the player discards his personality and imitates someone else (acting, acting, performing arts and other imitations); (4) ilinx, games based on causing vertigo and disrupting perception (climbing, merry-go-round, waltz, tightrope walk, etc.)[8].
All games included in this division are between two poles, between leisure, improvisation, uncontrolled fantasy (paidia) and subjection to arbitrary conventions, improvisations (ludus) [9].
Trying to shed light on the basis of the game and its concept, Kayoa insists on classification attempts, as well as on describing the game, and we find a series of observations characteristic of certain games, which have psychological, sociological or pedagogical, but not great philosophical significance.
GAME ENABLING SUB-CONTENT
Mentioning Huizinga in the second place in his book gives a new definition of the game, which is somewhat different from the first one. A game, he says, is a voluntary action or activity that takes place within certain established time or space limits, according to voluntarily accepted but mandatory rules, the goal of which is in itself, and is accompanied by a feeling of tension and joy and the awareness that it is something else but "ordinary life".
Accordingly, each game can be defined on the basis of several formal and substantive definitions, which the local esthetician and game theorist Milan Uzelac explains in detail in his study "The Game Philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa", stating the following:
Game assets:
"What does man actually play with?" Uzelac [10] asks us, and then gives the answer: "He plays (with) himself, with others, with human creations, with things of thought and creations of imagination or, as Fink ( Eugen Fink) formulates: the player plays with the means of the game, with things that collide cruelly in space, and with representations that are nowhere but in his head.
A game requires a game tool - a toy, and a toy can be any thing that has a specific function in the game.
This level especially develops the intriguing, curious aspect of the player, the questioning of what surrounds him, first through the game, and then, through mediation, in the real world.
Game space:
We can call the world of the game another world, because the rules of everyday life do not apply in it.
The goal of discovery in the game space is the hidden, the external hidden. These are the tasks that are set by the game and that the player uncovers, but the ultimate goal of everything is not to uncover that external but the internal one, hidden (in) the player himself. It is the productive and compensatory side of games, the epistemological good that it brings. Therefore, although many psychologists attribute negative effects to them, especially if it is, as they say, violent games, this value of games cannot be disputed. By playing, we gain knowledge and learn behaviors. In this part, the player's motor skills, patience and dexterity are especially developed.
It is an opportunity to mention that the last questioning related to the mentioned phenomenon of "negativity" of the game led to a completely opposite conclusion. The latest research, namely, came to the insight that precisely those apparently calmer games, such as playing virtual football, actually encourage aggression, anger and other negative emotions much more due to, as the scientists explain, a very faithful representation and easier identification with real situations, i.e. realistic personality of the player, but also contrasting emotions that are much more common in such games (from calmness to anger and vice versa) than in those games that constantly, throughout the playing time, evoke the same emotions.
Game Ontology:
Precisely in the concept of unpredictability lies the key to understanding the imaginary world of the game, both spatially and mentally. The player creates a completely different dimension and a new, different, space in relation to the one in which he is actually located, but with it he complements, compensates and/or even surpasses his own and existing one. This is one of the reasons why the player has the desire to devote himself to them ritually, repetitively. With this, the aforementioned creation and assignment of meaning, which characterizes the game, is connected.
Fink warns: "We can choose anything we want, but not really, but only as an appearance" [12]. In the game, one can clearly see a retreat from reality and a transfer to the mode of the unreal, where (in an ahistorical way) everything can be started again, because we are in an imaginary space and time and have a free choice in front of us. The unreal world of the game, as an illusion existing in itself, takes place in the middle of objectively existing things, so starting from the results of the analysis of the game, one can arrive at new insights not only into the essence of the game, but also into the essence of the world in which we live[13].
In this part, the emotional, thought and self-conscious part of the players mostly come to the fore.
Artistic sense of the game:
This is the allegorical and metaphorical part of the game, artistic and expressive, which develops an experience for beauty and creative potential.
If we are guided by the Platonist view of contents as copies of reality, we will notice that nowadays the skillful presentation of "reality" in many games takes one's breath away and that the player has the opportunity to fully empathize with the gaming environment and fully experience it. In this way, the conveyed meaning is realized in its entirety, which satisfies the allegorical level, while metaphysics concerns the faithful evoking of things and ideas that are not the contents of our worldly reality but of the ideal world, the world of imagination, mythology, tradition and fiction. Matter in that case fully supports the form of the player's mind.
And not only does the game have an artistic meaning, but the art itself is the game. Moreover, art is the highest form of play. What connects the game and the arts is precisely that world of the imaginary which, as a real possibility, is more real than any reality. The game leads us to the understanding of the world and as a final creation it is thus close to art[14].
Metaphysical level:
It creates a sense of unity, conditioning and (just) productivity. How?
Games, in addition to producing a sense of the beautiful, also produce a sense of the sublime. The sublime (English sublime, German das Erhabene) undoubtedly represented one of the central categories of Enlightenment and Romantic aesthetics, although it was by no means unequivocal.
Kant only transferred the center of gravity of sublimity from the domain of nature, i.e. sensuous, i.e. phenomenal, into the domain of the noumenal or infinite: "we call sublime what is really great", while what is "really great" is actually only "infinite", i.e. beyond all finitude of the world of nature[15].
The sublime differs from the beautiful, according to Kant, aesthetically in the same way that the longing of the soul (Gemüt) for the other world differs from the stay of the mind (Vernünft) in this world: in the beautiful the mind "peacefully contemplates", discovering the purposiveness ("non-purposive purposiveness") of certain objects in nature (this world), while under the influence of sublime objects the soul falls into a state of "movement (Bewegung)", "shaken (Erschütterung)" and "frustration (Gefühl der Unlust)" because it feels that it is progressing towards "absolute totality", but also that he will never be able to reach it. Thus, in Kant's philosophy, the sublime has the force of a metaphysical proof that "absolute totality" exists and that the human soul can progress towards it to a certain degree.[16]
Although he loftily attached to man's power to represent to himself the "inaccessibility of nature", Kant actually meant much more by nature than the phenomenal world. For him, it was the old harmony of metaphysics and physics, God and his creatures, soul and mind, faith and reason.
Speaking of the metaphysical level, let's also mention Plato, who saw all human life as a game, and people as toys of the gods. Today's man is in the electronic era (of games) and both. He plays (with) other people's lives, but also with his (virtual) life, he becomes a god in miniature. From being a game consumer and u-player, he becomes a creator and a creator, who not only overcomes the feeling of being lost and thrown into space by direct union with it, but also becomes a unifier himself.
WHAT CHARACTERIZES THE GAME IS FREEDOM
Contrary to Huizinga, we find the thesis that play is specifically a human activity, since only humans can play, in the middle of the 20th century as a fundamental and leading thought in the already mentioned Eugen Fink. In his lectures on the fundamental phenomena of human existence, Fink will highlight play as the fundamental ontological structure of human existence, as a human possibility in general, even as the exclusive possibility of human existence.
Such a position is also defended by the above-mentioned Nikola Kuzanski. Animals, although they act as if they are playing, do not have a project (which is the primary feature of modern games), they do not have the idea and decision to play, because they, according to Kuzanski, lack the capacity for freedom that humans have. (here the distinction between "freedom for" and "freedom from" should be kept in mind, which calls into question this statement by Kuzanec). According to him, they have a game as a form, a mere game, but not the designed content, meaning and essence of the game, because they lack the playfulness of the game. Since they have their own free spirit, it is characteristic of humans that they don't have to think, create and thus not play the same way, while this is not the case with animals; everything they do, they do because nature drives them to do it, and all individuals of the same species act in the same way, and they also build their shelters/nests in the same way, he says in the same place.
Apart from the meaning, every game, therefore the game of man, regardless of when it was played and who is playing, has one very important property, which is freedom - the ability to start it when we regret it and to stop it when we want.
It is especially important to understand that play originates from the urge to see (theoria), because only in play (and with play) does it become clear that man is not completely determined, that he does not function only as part of some mechanism; it is the game that overcomes the limitations imposed by necessity. Whoever plays wants to be free, and he creatively relates to the world by asserting his freedom. The one who plays comes out of the world of limitations and relates to the world that realistically surrounds him in a completely different way. It is about the game as the possibility of overcoming the limits with the help of fantasy. Kuzanski has all this in mind when he writes that "the ball and its movement are a product of the mind, that no unreasonable animal makes a ball that it then directs in a certain way towards the goal", and that "the game is such a human work by which man overcomes all other living things." beings of our world".
Although it is limited by the established and general (collective unconscious), what characterizes every game and is a prerequisite for every game is a free act and individuality (personality of the self). Cusanski is close to Plato, but also to modern philosophy and the latest achievements of modern science, by emphasizing freedom as a prerequisite for play, indicating that freedom is necessary for play.
Therefore, the truth of the game is found in the free act, although the givenness of the game is limiting and outlined by the developer's framework. Whoever fails to break down the levels (of the game, i.e. Self[17]) remains forever in the game, has a need to constantly return to it, to separate himself from reality. This represents as much danger as neglecting games, attributing only negative qualities to them or not recognizing them, destroying them. The truth of the game is not in the very phenomenon of playing and games as such, but in its transcendence, the production of truths by the player's abilities. This is the ultimate essence of games, the search for the truth through the content and realization of the game and thus the opening of this side, real truths (only) by producing the newly created player's self.
Full freedom exists only in a game that is on the other side of serious and frivolous, according to Schiller. Freedom as "fulfilled infinity" arising in the game does not appear as coercion, but as an effort for man to be man; because only in the game "spirit is reconciled with nature, form with matter, figure with life."[18]
THE RITUAL CHARACTER OF THE GAME
If we know that the game is older than any culture and that it reflects the primitive man's way of relating to the world, it will not surprise us that the oldest games have a ritual character. The oldest ball games imitate the victorious movement of the sun, its victory over the demons of darkness; the ball game is often associated with the cults of the moon, so when it is known about the ritual ball game in old Mexico, as well as the mention of the ball game in Egyptological texts, and as part of the instructions for the souls on their journey through the unknown regions of the sky, it is completely understandable that today's games (like those that in the best way, representations of both mere exteriors and ideality in all its moments are imitated) with their iconography, they carry precisely those contents.
It follows that man is not only the only being who plays, but also that he is the only one capable of imagining and projecting a game. With him, although there is spontaneity in the game, it is largely designed and productive. And it is precisely because of this self-conscious character of his human being that he has this imitative power.
At first, it appeared in the form of imitating nature in favor of mastering it, and through tradition it became embedded in customary and religious consciousness, while today it is observed by the tendency to reject that same tradition and traditional games in favor of freedom of spirit and unrestrained play, letting go and falling away from nature, natural necessity and rigid clamps. Playing that has lost its sacred moment becomes a ritual of itself, a game that needs to be repeated, restarted, re(valued) and understood in order to achieve the ultimate goal - understanding and self-understanding.
MUSIC
Just as in a religious ritual, music, along with scents, occupies a special place in the service, so does it have importance in the game. And just playing sometimes depends a lot on her. The connection between music and play has long been noted. Huizinga believes that there is a connection between dance and music as there is between poetry and dance.
Their common origin is emphasized by the fact that in some languages the handling of musical instruments is called a game. Music is beyond necessity and utility, it is not subject to the rules of reason, duty and necessity.
SYMBOLS
Thus, symbolism defines a theological, philosophical or aesthetic school according to which religious texts and works of art do not have a linear or objective meaning but are symbolic and subjective expressions of feelings and thoughts.
From the point of view of philosophy, the symbol necessarily refers to the general and the common and therefore it is aimed at the whole person and his understanding of the experience. A symbol derives its meaning from the opposites of the world, which is why, unlike a sign, which always refers to something specific, it is ambiguous (a snake, for example, can symbolize both life and death). According to Ernst Cassirer, a symbol is a purely symbolic term, which includes language, myth and cognition. Symbolic representation is a fundamental function of consciousness, and all human thinking actually takes place in symbols, both the most ordinary conversational and abstract logical and mathematical ones, and the connection between the sign and the signified is not accidental, but is primordially legal. This is shown by hieroglyphs, onomatopoeic words, astronomical and alchemical signs.
The science of symbols is called symbolism and is based on man's need to make the supersensible visible to himself, in accordance with his own existential situation. The combination of ritual and freedom gives space for the symbolic (associative sequence of thoughts, associative level). It is this free and associative act that enables the symbolism that forms the essence of every game.
The symbol is woven into every pore of human life, so we have symbols in science (chemical symbols, symbols in physics, etc.), symbols in art, symbols in psychoanalysis, esoteric symbols, religious symbols, mythological symbols and as a foundation for all of them, archetypal symbols.
Lalande (Jerome Lalande) defines a symbol as that which by analogy represents something else[19]. Psychoanalysts mean by symbol, in a somewhat narrower sense, a substitutive expression that aims to convey in a hidden form to the consciousness certain contents that cannot reach it due to the action of censorship. Modern psychotherapies use symbols as a means to overcome psychic splits and overcome neurotic conflicts, that is, to connect the conscious self with the Self and to speed up the healing process. In various studies, it has been established that there is no essential difference between a normal symbol in art, poetry, religion and a pathological one. All of these are means by which affective thinking is used as a way to manifest the expression of the world seen from within, in other words the expression of subjective experience.
Žarko Trebješanin in his work "Dictionary of Jung's Concepts and Symbols" says: "Symbols that reach the deepest layers of the unconscious mind, where words and concepts do not reach, cause strong emotions, lead to release from tension, resolve conflicts, and have a beneficial, healing effect on the psyche." [20] Helmut Hark (Helmut Hark) in the "Lexicon of Basic Jungian Concepts" states that symbols are "transformers of energy" of psychic events and the spiritual experience of man [21].
In psychoanalysis, a symbol is a form in which one mental image (idea, thought) is replaced by another. With this substitute representation, in a disguised form, "forbidden" contents are transferred into the conscious mind. Forming a symbol is an unconscious process by which a person relieves himself of anxiety due to the appearance in his consciousness of unacceptable and inappropriate ("forbidden") instinctual desires. Symbols thus ensure the "return of the forbidden", and play an important role in the processes of dreaming and daydreaming. A symbol can have a conventional and universal meaning (eg the heart is a symbol of love) and an individual meaning, where the symbol is the choice of each individual person.
Whether we notice it or not, our whole life is intertwined and interwoven with symbols. We communicate with the help of symbols. We are under the influence of symbols in a dream when we are approaching crossing the border into our unconscious, but also in reality, through symbols we try to discover, define and express ourselves and they almost always appear as a continuation of what we are trying to understand when words are not enough. The symbol is inexhaustible and mysterious. In a way, we could say that symbols contain a compressed content, as Jung (Carl Gustav Jung) says, "formed energy". Therefore, the symbol has a dynamic dimension, it also affects the process of spiritual development.
Both philosophy and psychology, specifically psychoanalysis, have always been interested in symbols. Freud (Sigmund Freud) described similarities between symbols from primitive cultures and those that appear in neuroses or in dreams. Jung says about symbols that they express the unknown in the best possible way and represent "bridges built towards invisible shores". For Jung, a symbol is neither an allegory nor a simple sign, but an image that can most appropriately denote the vague sensed nature of the Spirit. The symbol does not hide anything, it does not explain, it refers from the other side of itself to the meaning that is still in the other side, inconceivable, vaguely sensed, which no word of the language we speak could express.[22] "Symbols are neither an allegory nor a simple sign, but an image that can most appropriately express the vaguely sensed nature of the Spirit," says Jung.[23]
Among the many definitions of symbols, Mircea Eliade claims the following: "One of the significant features of a symbol is the simultaneity of the meanings it reveals." Water or lunar symbols are valid at all levels. A symbolic thought can sum up everything. Riddles and secrets themselves give the answer, but in the form of symbols (history of religion).
Hark in the "Lexicon of Basic Jungian Concepts" states: "Symbols are "energy transformers" of psychic events and the spiritual experience of man." Given that a symbol, as we have emphasized, is a complex creation and is formed on the basis of all psychic data, it is also important to say that it is neither rational nor irrational. It is pregnant with its meanings, has a wealth of imagery, and its understanding requires intuitive knowledge.
THE ARCHETYPICAL BASIS OF THE GAME
Archetypes are the most general symbols. An archetype is Jung's hypothetical construct that denotes a general, inherited framework of the entire experience, that is, innate patterns of thinking, feelings and actions created as a result of centuries of accumulated experience of numerous generations of ancestors[24]. In a broader sense, the original model, prototype, prototype or prototype. According to him, the archetype is the basic structural and dynamic unit of the collective unconscious [25] and can be studied through its manifestations on a collective level (in mythical images, symbols, religious dogmas, poetic images, rituals, etc.) and on an individual level (in dreams, visions , symptoms and parapsychological experiences). The function of the archetype is to make it easier for the individual to navigate life-important crisis situations, concludes Jung.
An archetype as having the ability to pe*****te consciousness and become visible. It has the ability to appear in a certain symbolic form. The symbol is thus a bridge between the conscious and unconscious part of the personality. Symbols can be concrete - in the form of people, animals or plants, or abstract - a circle, a cube, a cross, a ball, a mandala... In accordance with this understanding of archetypes, symbols represent a foundation that enables a general understanding of the game, playing and in-playing player into the game.
Since ancient times, the daily movement of the Sun and the alternation of day and night has been represented by a series of images as a myth about the death and rebirth of heroes, and these images have been imprinted in the human psyche, which can especially be put into the context of playing games, both ancient and modern. At this point, it is interesting to mention William Indik, who analyzes classic heroes in modern films as well as the mythological structures of the superhero archetypal character. He states that as a central figure in the film experience, the Hero appears and that he is an integral part of the archetypes in the collective unconscious of American culture. I believe that the same can be projected onto games, because the hero embodies the common hopes and ideals of the culture that creates him. It is the unification and identification with the collective hero that makes this archetype so powerful[26]. Experiencing a modern myth in the form of a game, especially a role-playing game, is, in the Jungian sense, a transcendent experience, where the personal, individual awareness of existence is integrated into the collective through the collective cultural archetype.[27]
Jung especially worked on archetypes: shadow, animal, old sage, child, mother, father, god, devil, hero, anima, animus, archetypes that represent the goal or goals of the development process, but also symbols of all social games. He describes archetypal events: birth, death, separation from parents, marriage, etc. and archetypal motifs: apocalypse, flood, creation and the like, which are also frequent motifs of games.
Dealing with the Self and the archetypal figure of the sage, Jung analyzed Nietzsche's (Friedrich Nitzsche) "Zarathustra", which is a representative of the archetypal figure of the Wise Old Man and a typical figure of the archetype that we can find in myths, legends, folklore, and also in plays. The psychological characteristics of the Wise Old Man, in this case Zarathustra, are in fact the Self embodied in archetypal form.
Jung's entire psychology can be summed up in one word: individuation. Individuation is the growth of personality, which, in the experiences and dramas of life, through the encounter with archetypes, comes to realized maturity and completeness. At this point, we can draw a parallel with (social) games, which have as their goal the "immediate" and "temporary" and "imaginary" achievement of the same.
Undoubtedly, one of Jung's greatest discoveries is precisely the collective unconscious, and we can also add the knowledge of archetypes to it (we distinguish between the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious). The collective unconscious is the oldest and most powerful system of the entire psyche. It is a spiritual treasure inherited from ancestors, placed in a certain way of human experience and reaction to the environment. These include mythological connections and motifs, images that at any moment can be without historical tradition or migration. Just as products arise from conscious psychic content and activity, so products such as fantasies or dreams arise from the unconscious.
In the games, the collective unconscious, the entire inherited experience, patterns of thinking, feelings and actions are presented. They allow us to start the game and to finish it, intrigue us at the very thought of the game and entice us to get into the game. Since the function of the archetype is to make it easier for the individual to navigate life-important, crisis situations, to master "virtual" game situations and to do well in those dominated by archetypes (both in social and electronic ones, especially in role-playing games, video games, and even games on luck) helps or even enables coping in similar real-life situations.
NOVUM
By the fact that archetypal symbols appear in critical moments of life, in situations when we are unable to deal with the situation as individuals, they represent an additional incentive for players.
Something new is created in the game, but it also has the possibility to create itself, to be self-produced. That act of creating an alternative reality and self-creation seemingly separated from reality is actually a self-affirmation of the player's self and a kind of "one-time" process of individuation. It represents a unique combination of the incompatible: creation (Eros) and destruction (Thanatos), just as the archetypes themselves are bipolar in their structure, carrying both a dark and a light side.
It is precisely modern games that satisfy their ontic determinations, that is, those that contain all gaming levels and contents, as well as developed archetypal bases, because they can be understood (determined by a concept). Archetypes are neutral patterns of the psyche waiting in our unconscious for us to bring them to life. And if we give them life, then we can take it away. Therefore, everyone makes their own choice of archetypes depending on their fundamental experience as a human being in a given life cycle.
The one who perceives the symbolic relationship is in the central position, because the symbol is connected with an essential, all-encompassing experience, in the focal point of one image it summarizes the entire spiritual experience related to a certain aspect of truth. It connects the sense of place, time, individuality, collectivity, intention and chance; apparently the most diverse facts point to only one, deeper, fact which is their initial and ultimate meaning. This deepest fact springs from the very spiritual center, to which the one who perceives the value of a symbol joins. It connects man's immanent depths with the infinite, all-encompassing.
This raises the question: does the archetypal basis of play mean penetrating the essence of any kind of play or only certain ones (eg video games or board games)? Accordingly, what is the state of today's games compared to the past, especially when we talk about electronic and virtual games where an individual has the power to fully participate in the game subject?
Faced with the weight of these questions, one should not lose sight of the fact that the drive for play also contains the fulfillment of the entire human survival, because in play, as we have discerned, the essence of the freest and most sublime existence is hidden.
Play is the foundation of man's freedom, the foundation of man himself, a confirmation of his humanity, which is only as long as the game lasts. Therefore, cultivating the drive for play is the goal of aesthetic education, an effort to shape life according to art, to elevate living as an expression of humanity into the realm of the timeless, above reality and immutability, making time timeless, creating space for the moral and physical liberation of man[28].
The game creates order, rules, stands out from the flow of life, in it the child, the poet and the primitive man are in their natural state, said Huizinga, fitting the concept of game into the concept of culture.
The game and the world, as well as art and the world, are connected in one important way: in order to be able to understand the game, we must understand the world, and in order to be able to understand the world as a game in general, it is necessary to reach an even deeper insight into the world. This is where the archetypes appear that make this realization easier for us.
The game has its own space into which it draws both players and observers; its openness towards them is at the same time its closure: one cannot be outside the game and judge the game from there. It does not have its essence in the players and observers, because they come to the essence of the game only in it, and only in the game do they find themselves on the other side of everyday life. Presentation and self-presentation is the true essence of the game, the imitation and self-creation of the player who, by walking through the network of archetypes, reaches the truth of the Self.
[6] Gadamer, H-G. (1978). Truth and method. Sarajevo: V. Masleša, p.132.
[7] Uzelac M.: Game as a philosophical problem. Electronic edition, p. 18-19.
[8] Kajoa R.: Games and people - mask and rapture. Belgrade: Nolit, 1979, p. 42-65.
[9] Ibid., p. 55.
[10] Uzelac M: The philosophy of the game of Nikola Kuzanski. Electronic edition, p. 8.
[11] Fink, E. (1971): Epiloge zur Dichtung. Frankfurt: V. Klostermann, S. 8.
[12] Fink, E. (1960). Spiel als Weltsymbol. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, p. 79.
[13] Uzlac, M.: Game as a philosophical problem. Electronic edition, p. 15.
[14] Ibid., p. 17-18.
[15] Ibid., p. 146.
[16] Jeremić-Molnar, D. and Molnar A.: Discussion of the sublime at the end of the 18th century: Burke, Kant and Schiller. Electronic edition, p. 147.
[17] For Jung, the Self is the archetype of wholeness, soul harmony and completeness. This archetype represents the true center of the entire, conscious and unconscious personality, and is manifested through ancient mythological and religious symbols such as the mandala, stone, quadruped, pearl, gold, flower and the Sun.
[18] Schiller defines this attitude as the pillar of the entire building of aesthetic art, as the basis of the art of life.
[19] Chevalier J., Gheerbrant A., Dictionary of Symbols. Zagreb: Publishing house MH, 1989, p.21.
[20] Trebješanin Ž., Dictionary of Jung's concepts and symbols. Belgrade: Hesperia, 2008.
[21] Hark H., Lexicon of basic Jungian concepts. Belgrade: Dereta, 1998.
[22] Jung K.G., Psychological types”. Belgrade: Dereta, 2003.
[23] Jung, K. G., Man and his symbols. Belgrade: Narodna knjiga, 1966.
[24] The term "archetype", as it is used today, was accepted by Jung in 1919. In search of the essence of the archetypes, Jung had to reach the fields of mythology, alchemy and the history of religions. The etymology of the word archetype was given by Paul Smith in the work "Archetypes in Augustine and Goethe". The first element of that term (arche) means: beginning, origin, cause, primary source and principle, but it also means: leading position, highest rule, dominant; the second element (type) means: form, image, prototype, model, manner, norm, and in a figurative sense: assembly, basic form, primordial form (a form that highlights some common characteristics of humans, animals, or plants as a species). While at first, in Jung, the archetype denoted the motifs expressed in images, later it acquired a much broader meaning.
[25] The collective unconscious represents the deepest, most mysterious and darkest space of the human psyche. It is the universal foundation of the entire personality. The spiritual experience of thousands of generations of our ancestors is stored in it, and the basic units of the collective unconscious are archetypes.
[26] Indick W., Classical Heroes in Modern Movies: Mythological Patterns of the Superhero, Journal of Media Psychology, Volume 9, No.3, Fall, 2004.
[27] Jung K. G., "Man and his symbols". Belgrade: Narodna knjiga, 1996, p. 233.
[28] Schiller, F. (1967): About beauty. Belgrade: Culture, p. 163.
