Spirituality and game theory

I am kind of a nerd. I admit that. I am also a pretty introverted person, and that is because I like to think things through and study possibilities from outside my own perspective. So often times I am detached from my surroundings as I am trying to understand them more clearly. What I lack in social skill, I do my best to compensate in honesty and authenticity. A part of my process is to reduce things to more mechanical components to understand better the tools we use in making decisions.

I have heard of game theory being used in theological discussions to describe certain characteristics of God, and though this is a very interesting idea, it is not what I am concerned with at the moment. What I have been pondering lately is the relationship between spirituality and zero sum games vs non-zero sum games. A zero sum game is an event where there is a definite loser and winner to the game. For every instance of a zero sum game we must have someone who wins and someone who loses. It is a win-lose scenario. A non-zero sum game is an event where it is possible for both parties to win. Thus, there can be a winner and a loser in a non-zero sum game, but there can also be a win-win. Where the win-win scenario typically means that in some way both parties are also losing, thus the win-win typically means a compromise of some sort.

I ponder this as a progressive Christian, because I see so much zero sum gaming going on among those who hold to a form of spirituality. Even among the progressive bloggers I find a zero sum game being played. “The Evangelicals and fundamentalists are wrong and we are right”. It seems that there is this need to brand your own spiritual ideology so that it can survive in our continually fluctuating hyper-reality, where “shares” and “likes” become statements of truth and validity. What I would hope is that for all spiritual pilgrims who are in the process of becoming more spiritual and more faithful to whatever creed you may hold to that the occurrences of non-zero sum games would increase maximally, or in another sense that it would been seen as a failure of spirituality if a zero sum game had to be played.

Now this conviction requires some qualification. Reality seems to bear down on us that zero sum games are a necessity. At the end of the day we have to choose what is right and what is wrong. We cannot be niave to think that we can all hold hands in one big global group hug. But at the same time, there is something within me that simply rejects this idea that my spiritual convictions have to be regulated by the same mechanisms that govern this physical and material world. I think at heart this primal and elemental idea of “spirit” suggests in a negative fashion that it is non-material and non-physical, and positively I think it speaks to a quality of life, or a standard of living. Thus, there is a way of living that can be called “spiritual.” What does this mean? Well, I think it clearly means that our idea of “spirit” and “life” are intrinsically tied to one another, which makes any objective analysis difficult to say the least, but phenomenologically I think it is fair enough to say that that which is “spiritual” is going to be that quality of life which makes the subject as a subject.

We all have a subjective experience of the world, and as we try to connect with one another what these experiences mean we use objective language in order to facilitate our need to be together. Thus, we need objectivity, otherwise relationships between people and our own survival becomes impossible, but at the same time as we move to grow and establish our self we become more isolated and removed from the instrumental utilitarianism we have epistemically conditioned reality to become. The spiritual is a return to self. It is summed up ever so eloquently in the romantic dictum, “to thine own self be true.” It is the recognition that to our self we have a truth that needs to be followed, and if we are not conscience of it then we risk the outcome that we are being false, in some way.

I say this, understanding that many spiritual traditions might view the above conclusion differently, but it seems to fit within all the ones that I have seen. Buddhism seems the most assertive to a self-referential spiritual autonomy. The Buddhist understands this self-ownership in relation to his spirituality perhaps the best. The Christian still holds to some idea of self-ownership in the doctrine of Imageo Deo. And just about all theistic spiritualities hold to some idea that we are all “children of God.” All these beliefs imply in some sense the reality to which I am speaking of, and that is that we are at home in being true to something inside of us that is non-material and non-physical. Phenomenologically speaking, this can be a naturalistic orientation in the sense that it does not intrinsically point to something divine or supernatural.

The point I see in all this is that our very sense of “spirit” is a non-zero sum game in and of itself. The reason why I simply cannot think of a zero sum spirituality is because the very ontology of spirit forces me into a position of only seeing things in non-zero sum terms. Thus, if I am spiritual then I am compelled by the very fact of the definition of “spirit” to see all things in light of non-zero summness…. “to thine own self be true.” What does that mean? It suggests that being true to self is a choice, not an instinct. It suggests to me that we have to apply a sense of personal truth to every instance of where our self is involved. It suggests to me that there is a difference between being true to something else, and being true to self.

So perhaps, it would be best to understand what is meant by being true to something else. What does it mean to be true to a rock? Well, I think it is easy enough to suggest that being true to a rock means holding the rockness of the rock in my mind according to the rock itself. To be true to the rock means that I “come under” the rock and in a sense, let the rock speak for itself. So given this, how do I be true to self? How do I “come under” myself? Do I let my self speak for itself? While the language of it may be confusing the meaning of it seems clear.

Cognitive functionality seems to work by eliminating personal involvement and inflection. Our minds work best when we detach ourselves from the world around us, but this is not being true to “self.” We are not letting our “self” speak for itself when we become passive instruments of the world around us. Life is not a zero sum game between self and world. We can play a non-zero sum game and assert our self in a rational and mechanical world through the “spirit.” This non-zero sumness imbedded in our own state of being is given in the reality of our life becoming more than the sum of its parts. We both define our self, and submit to the world. We both command and obey. The state of our very existence is a win-win, a compromise between the mechanics of nature and the dynamics of a personal life.

So we are beings who exist in a state on non-zero sumness between personhood and the mechanisms of nature, and this non-zero sumness reaches a state of spirituality when we seek to be true to our self in a manner that recognizes the subject as a subject. This may seem like a rather dry and boring explanation, but what it does is set a directionality for spiritual claims that can be evaluated independent of any actual spiritual affiliation or orientation to any said religion, doctrine, or creed. It assures for us a certain functionality to spiritual claims. Is my spiritual life maximizing non-zero summness?

I bet most people do not ask themselves this question every day when they are praying to God, or meditating in quietness. But it is the essential heart of Jesus’ prayer to God when he says, “Father may they be one as We are One” (John 17:22). And the reason why I think this is such an important message for all spiritual followers to acknowledge and understand is that our primary spiritual obligation is to try to find unity and peace with one another. We do not have to take on the responsibility of living a spiritual life, but when we do let us not loose sight of the foundation of our spirituality. The fact that someone like you, someone like me, someone like us, has been given a gift that makes us appreciate and be thankful for every moment we are given. Christians call it the Gospel, and it is the recognition that God has reached us where we are at. Every spiritual person recognizes that there is a quality to life that is beyond comprehension and expression, and this awareness of life’s surpassing abundance is related to us through the non-zero sumness of the Spirit. We are beings who get to have personal experiences, and we are agents who get to manipulate the world around us. However we relate to it, this non-zero summness always translates to some state of grace in which humanity exists and is compelled to expand this grace to all possible circumstances. We seek to end all unnecessary zero sum games.

But have I not just created a zero sum game for the non-zero sum games of the spiritual life? And have I not also made spirituality relatively insignificant if I do not allow it the right to have a zero sum game for its own identity? I will primarily address the first question, as the second question, I think, is a more interesting subject to save for another time, though I may speculate just a little on it.

Basically, if the spiritual life is the embodiment of non-zero summness then have I not, in a sort of way, made spirituality itself a zero sum game. Hence, if you are not adhering to non-zero summness then you are not spiritual. Thus, it is a zero sum game. I have written this article in a sense, to expose religious followers who might be ardently drawing lines in the sand and shouting from the mountaintops all the divine absolutes that those in the valley are reveling in. But in doing so, have I not myself created a zero sum game about spirituality? As the great critique made by all angry conservatives goes, “Be tolerant of everything, except intolerance! Right?” So before I wind up with my proverbial foot in my mouth, let me take a moment to express how I think the intrinsic non-zero summness of spirituality can account for certain zero sum realities.

First, I ground the spiritual life on a certain awareness of God meeting us where we are at. This can look different respective to your own spiritual devotion, but in order to truly engage in the spiritual life there must be some awareness that we are a part of something more then anything we can describe and that this participation is in a sense a gratuitous act. For Christians there is typically thought to be a kind of “born-again” experience which describes this event.

Second, there is a sense in which the spiritual life is a part of all human activity. We are all, in a sense, directed toward wholeness and goodness. Whether or not a person is aware or actively engages in what might be called the language games of spirituality is irrelevant to the fact of the matter that most likely all people are in one way or another trying to assert themselves as a subject. Hence, everyone is guided by some meaning to everything that they hold in their being as their center. This is in a phenomenological sense a spiritual activity.

Third, the elimination of zero summness is not required for the sustainability or virtue of spirituality to be established. So if zero sum games must be tolerated in order for non-zero summness to be magnified then that is an acceptable compromise which in a sense established the primacy of non-zero summness in the spiritual life. As long as, the zero sum games to be played do not conflict in an essential way with the ground of the spiritual life, which is the “born-again” experience or the Gospel, or whatever understanding we may apply to the experience of being a part of something bigger then our self.

So let me put this in real life terms. I have been in an interesting place between conservative Christians who adamantly reject any possibility for LGBT inclusion, and between liberal Christians who adamantly believe that rejecting LGBT inclusion is immoral and unloving. For all intents and purposes this is a zero sum game. And there is a right way in all of this. We cannot fool our self into thinking that this is an issue that can simply “go away” if we all learn to hug it out. But I myself recognize that I was not always on the right side of this issue. I have changed my position on this issue, because I began to see good reasons to do so, and in this, I look back to the position I was in when I was wrong, and I see that I was still in a place where God met me where I was at. That is the Gospel. I understand that I can be completely wrong about something and God is still with me.

So I was wrong, and plenty of others are wrong, too, but we all carry with us this sense that God has reached us. And though I have a desire to change everyone’s mind on this issue, because I believe I am right on it. I have a further impulse to remain still and let things happen slowly, if they must. I can force the zero sum game on others and create hedges and barriers between me and everyone else who is wrong, but there is another way. I do not have to diminish my conviction or my passion to speak the truth to others in order to “tolerate” their intolerance. I can choose to speak to their own Gospel truth, and from there work toward a common agenda. All who have the Gospel in their life should stand united, and we should all do everything we can to do this. If we can recognize this inner quality to the Gospel then we can take great strides to learning how to deal with our difference with one another. If we can accept that because of the Gospel there exists a middle ground between us all, then we will have a chance to fulfill Jesus’ prayer for us all.

So when it comes to the LGBT issue, my goal is not to change the conservatives mind about how his reasoning is flawed. I have met many conservative Christians who simply want to be “left alone” on this issue, and they do not want to talk about it, because all they want to do is love God and love people. This may seem like a head in the sand approach, but it would only seem like this if we ourselves were playing a zero sum game to resolve the issue at all costs. As an LGBT affirmer, I have no problems with conservatives who want to stay out of the debate, as long as, their desire to simply to love God and love others. This tells me that they have the same Gospel orientation that I am trying to promote in order to maximize non-zero sumness. The fact of the matter is that not everyone can be as perfect and cool as myself. Hyperbole is intentional here.

To be honest, I think we are doing a disservice to the Gospel when we force LGBT inclusion on others even when it is the moral and right thing to do, because we are bringing God down into a zero sum game, which is not how we should be honoring our God. I say this because I have equally heard liberal Christians say how conservative Christians are an embarrassment to God. We should be lifting each other up. And this does not mean that we cannot find other ways to convince or persuade willfully ignorant brothers and sisters.

In the end this non-zero summness when applied in practical measures increases creativity and hard work. Both sides have to work harder to find creative ways to be together, and the goal is worth the effort. All the answers do not have to be given at once, and honestly there may be problems where we have to accept that someone is one the wrong side and another is one the right, and if this is the case then I will have to rightly think that the spiritual life is not as good as I think it is now, but for the time being I see no reason to think that in our quest to be a subject as a subject there can be a single problem which can truly divide us. As long as non-zero sum solutions continue to be found in seemingly zero sum games then I think that there is good reason to think that my spiritual life is confirmed in the brotherhood of man.

So to conclude, I would like to briefly describe how particular spiritual practices can exist as separate entities and still adhere to a general sense of non-zero summness together. I think the best analogy for this are the romantic bonds in human intimacy. When two people meet and devote themselves together they are in a very real sense playing a zero sum game, but at the same time this zero sum game is contributing to the overall non-zero summness of human intimacy in respect to all humanity.

Human intimacy is in a very real sense the best example of the non-zero summness that reflects our spiritual life, though it cannot be completely encapsulated in what I would call spirituality. It is still the best example. When two people are intimate they are fully themselves and fully for the other. It is a win-win by the very virtue of its own essence. But for this intimacy to exist we must choose the conditions of the other. These particular conditions do not threaten in any sense the non-zero summness of human intimacy, and for all intents and purposes this conditionality (zero summness) facilitates the intimacy which takes place. Thus, the zero sum game for mating rituals meets the ends or goals for the non-zero summness of human intimacy. In the same way, it could be argued, that the zero sum game for theological particularism meets the ends or goals for the non-zero summness of spirituality.

So the challenge is whether or not non-zero summness can rise up to provide solutions for every essential zero sum conflict which divides us from each other as being subjects, qua subjects. The spiritual life is essentially a game theory which says that this is possibility for human existence. If the end is a desired outcome then all that needs be applied are the rules of the game. If you believe that humanity is better off finding non-zero sum solutions to zero sum problems, and if you think that the human life is categorically different as subject orientated, then you have sufficient reasons to play the non-zero sum game of spirituality.