If we introduce categorical judgments, then it was only from the Renaissance that Western Europe's view of human nature began to fence itself off from its “dark” arbitrariness and allowances. Since the boundaries of causality in the “participatory” layer of traditional culture are erased, the issue of game “adaptation” is not raised entirely in matters of social relations only: any position of the player as a person is his adaptation to Society and its aimless existence, including the categories of the afterlife the games of Senet, or the mysterious Consualies with the likeness of the winner to the likeness of God. Therefore, "social games" are games that are completely natural, but endowed with a social boundary for their implementation, in which the very attitude to the player is constructed by social reality in its own reflective cauldron of cultural participation.
Both social and artistic games have attitudinal reflexivity. For the artist, it lies at the foundation of the game itself, for society, for the game, it has no meaning until the designation of Significance itself . And it is in this connection that only the best of the best are historically allowed to participate in "social games" - the role of the adaptive ( significant ) personality in social games is the main thing that determines its very fateful holiness; replacing the “best” personality with a simple player, the entire category of social games as sacredness will disappear to the state of its natural origin.
Even in the modern era of the cultural layer of "cause-effect", there are games that are not intended for the mass player, and those, in the absence of their own social "sanctity", are conducted according to their own established laws - which are only car races, in which the pilot line-up includes the universal elite of the "rich". If we talk about society not in its categories of people and nation, but take exceptionally small structural groups: the role of goal-setting in initiatory games differs from one social group to another, but the fact of the difference in their forms and circumstances of conduct allows us to completely move away from their "naturalness" ( what not to do in the case of initiatory games of monkeys). And of course, if the initiate key is reported to the initiating player, the game itself will automatically turn into an initiatory test.The principle of secrecy for preserving the ontological foundation of the Game is a legitimate given for carrying out an initiatory ritual, which in its sincere form will show “our own” and “someone else's”. However, it does not follow from this that the "player" enters the initiatory procession in complete obscurity; “Initiatory science” as Julius Evola describes it possesses those categories of game “balance” that can be attributed to honor and justice: for honor to pass the initiation honestly, in fairness to know about the circumstances that oblige you to undergo this initiation - two simple initiatory truths.“Initiatory science” as Julius Evola describes it possesses those categories of game “balance” that can be attributed to honor and justice: for honor to pass the initiation honestly, in fairness to know about the circumstances that oblige you to undergo this initiation - two simple initiatory truths.“Initiatory science” as Julius Evola describes it possesses those categories of game “balance” that can be attributed to honor and justice: for honor to pass the initiation honestly, in fairness to know about the circumstances that oblige you to undergo this initiation - two simple initiatory truths.
The final thing that brings the game to the status of "public" is the main thing from which the entelechy of any skillful game takes its basis. If we regard this statement as a consequence, we become the owners of that category of thinking, before which the products of the intelligentsia stratum from themselves and their special form of social detachment become clear: the intelligentsia are those who establish the categories of the "best of the best." What is in the social game “the best of the best” is, let it be, the “balance of mechanics” of holiness, and the “social game” itself becomes the periphery of the transmission of social symbols. That, in fact, distinguishes social games and skillful games, given their general nature, that behind the social games there is a stratified elite (organizers-priests and worthy players),and for the skilled - the intelligentsia, which does not necessarily have a social stratum; if the current composition of the elite is determined by the intelligentsia raised by society itself - if not a utopian society, then it is definitely "healthy" and succumbsnatural and correct Law . Having lost its traditional cultural paradigm, that is, “causally” getting rid of the religious and mystical relations of “holiness”, whether it be ancient games or “healthy elite” knightly tournaments with pagan romanticism inherent in chivalrous culture, the leitmotif of attitudinal reflection of new games was the unsatisfied demand for score and measure in the idea of sports.
How correct will it be to start the history of board games with astragals [1]or from a mancala, it is unclear. Whether a lucky chance arose first of skill as a conscious playful element of a mechanic or not - it does not matter; it is only known that individually they can be a game of themselves in the same pronounced form in which chivalry appears. The emergence of cash-expressed games from their own elements is undoubtedly a natural phenomenon. Nor will it be crafty to say that primitive peoples and primitive civilizations are responsible for the "cash out" of skill and luck into the forms of board games. Let us turn to Julius Evola: “ , , , {experimentum crucis). , , , , "(Y. Evola:" Rebellion against the modern world ", p. 194). About that decisive for the traditional society, that is, in our case for the society of the cultural paradigm of "complicity" of the game action (Evola concretizes on the physical "test") for the establishment of general, "supra-objective" Divine justice, the question of a game competition (since a primitive person has everything what is created has a goal-setting), is a matter of exclusively suprasocial Law; "... truth, law and justice in the end appear as manifestations of a metaphysical order, understood as reality, which the state of truth and justice in a person can awaken in an objective way " (Y. Evola: "Rebellion against the modern world", p. 196). Talk about this is only for the reason that the first board games made not as entertainment, but as an establishment of not objective, but the Legal truth of the possession of primitive competencies , which, with the help of a completely objective outcome, establishes the correctness of the competitors: the more a person can be trusted in matters of (albeit primitive) economics, the more skillfully he competes in “ mankalu ", as it is objectively. The same rule applies to every competition that the ancient thought came up with.
« . : «» … « » ; , «» «», «» «»<![if !supportFootnotes]>[1]<![endif]>, - ? , , , – , , . - «», «» « » , « » , - , ; « , ; »<![if !supportFootnotes]>[2]<![endif]>.
: , . , . , - . «», - « », « », - . , , - , , , . , , - .
, - «», «» «» (. « ») , «», - , , , - , , «» , «» «» , - « », «» .
, «» [3] : , , , , , « , , , , », , - ; -, . , , - , . «» «» , – ; .
, ; , . , , , - , , .
, , - « », . : «» , «» [4] [5], - , «-»; «» , , - «» . .
, - , «» ? , , , , - ?
, ; , , , , , . « » , - , «» , . ; , « » : ; «» ?
«», , - , . .
, , . , , - , «, , », , ; « , », - .
, «» . , : . , , , , , «» , , : , , , , , . « », « » .. «» , , , - «» , .
«» «», - «» «» . : «» « », «» , «» , ? , : , , ; , ( ) , , , - «» .
«», « »? , «-» ( «») , «- » ( » «» ), «- » ( , ), «» , - , .
, ; «» «» « » , - , . , , , , «» , - , . : « » , ?
, «» . , «» , - . , , , , - . «», , «» ( «» «»). «» , , «», , , «» : «-» , , , , «», «» .. «» «points ", an objective score , or score according to the rules, which in Sport are edited depending on the results of research devoted to the" mana "of the game.
[1] J. Baudrillard - “Consumer Society. His Myths and Structures ”.
[2] V. Odoevsky “Paradoxes. The theory of fine arts ", - Moscow bulletin. 1827. Part 2. No. 6.
[3] F. Nietzsche: “Thus spoke Zarathustra. Part one. Preface by Zarathustra. About three transformations "
[4] Y. Evola: "Rebellion against the modern world", p. 196
[5] F.G. Jünger: “Games and the key to their meaning. Chapter "Sports".