The theory that 'opposition' would be needed for games at large has been posited since ancient times. In more recent circles, Hegel made it popular and, philosophically and strategically, the entire socialist/communist movement is based on this paradigm.
The most basic laws of this Universe find an interesting expression in Nordenholz' 'axioms of scientologie' (not to be confused with Hubbard's 'axioms').
A 'specifying' part _always_ finds itself contraposed to an 'individuation' part. The action occurs via the 'mediation' part which usually is some kind of communication (particle exchange). The ARC triangle is the most 'famous' example. (see the chapter on 'Triads and Axiomatic Systems').
A lot of games are easy to see in this light, for example, male/female, hunter/prey, etc.
Some human games at first glance seem to transcend the sometimes 'crude' games of nature/life/morture but, still, they use abstractions such as a shiny, bright ball for the 'yang' part that has to be forcefully inserted into a 'yin' hole with rigid borders and a net behind it.
Those games appear to fall out of the hunter/prey pattern but the attack/defense parts just follow each other very rapidly.
Even a game like chess is based on a battlefield simulation with an attack/defense structure and a black&white (dualistic) scenario.
The difference between all these 'games' is the attitude, or tone level, at which they're being played.
The hunter/prey game, for examples, wobbles around the 'hiding-', the 'can't hide-', and ultimately the 'death range'.
'Ball games' can be played on a very high tone level but very often they get dragged down by 'spectators' who _identify_ themselves with one of the two parties and sometimes transfer this abstraction to the streets and start fighting with each other on a different tone level by attacking each other verbally and sometimes physically.
By entering 'multiple viewpoints' and further abstraction of the basic 'opposition' other games can be created in which the objective is to be the 'best' at something (like running, jumping, selling, etc.). The 'opposition' now becomes the limits of the human body or the resistance of a 'prospect'.
Many of the current games in the fringes, from MLM businesses to cults, are played out at a rather hi-toned level and 'a noble cause' such 'as saving the Planet' gets a lot of people motivated on such a relatively attitude.
What happens very often, though, is that the tone level drops over time. And just like some soccer players in Liverpool or Santiago are getting angry by the tone level drop of their audience, the tone level of the players in those games is being dragged down by the spectator's tone level on some Internet lists and news groups.
In short, what's 'bad' is not the basic triad constellation of thesis/antithesis/synthesis (sometimes characterized as 'needing an enemy'), but the tone level at which it is played out in life.
The act of 'transcending' this Universe can be seen as breaking out of the tone scale circle at the approximate the 'friendship/love' level as described in 'Shifting Attitudes'
One characterics during such a break-out is the dissolution of any borders of perceptions, (see 'No Limits In the Skies').
This has been called 'entering boundless states' - there seem to be no games at this perspective because there is not even a single discrete 'opposition terminal' anymore.
lack of an 'opposition terminal' in a boundless state also resolves the
insistance on a terminal for oneself - the so-called 'ego' disappears necessarily
in the process.
Thus, the view of life as a collection pf games based on triads is providing a surprising solution to the paradox of 'an ego resolving an ego', an impossibility because of its self-reflexiveness.
In other words, it is not the 'ego' undoing its own illusion but the dissolution of any opposition to an 'ego' that will free a Being from its self-restriction to an egocentric illusion.
As mentioned in 'Shifting Attitudes', assuming hi-frequency attitudes combined with 'boundless states' of the mind, is the starting point of Gotamo's 'meditation path' and the only direct overlap of this path with his 'path of reason'.
In theory, 'reason' will yield the same results independently by recognizing the impossibility of the identity of an observer with the observed (cp. 'The Anatta Principle').
In praxis, however, this realization will lead the Being nearly instantaneously to the _intuitive view_ of its own boundlessness. This is tantamount to entering a 'boundless state of mind' - hence the crossover of intuition and recognition at this point.
Now, it may appear that the development of the true state of a Being via the contemplation of the phenomena of 'games' would introduce an unnecessary complexity.
This may be so. On the other hand, the problem for most people appears to lie in the _simplicity_ of things and not its complexity.
By analyzing the structure of games, a reduction process can be initiated that paradoxically leads to the _expansion_ of the Being beyond its self-imposed limits.
It is this expansion beyond this Universe that is the objective of these contemplations.
Even if these contemplations would not point the reader into the direction of this total and unrestricted freedom, the words in these chapters would not be vain and useless.
Breaking down a game - any game - into its basic triads is a valuable tool that can yield the most surprising (and sometimes shocking) results.
But if they do point the reader into the direction of this total and unrestricted freedom, a new game is beginning:
a game in which _nobody_ can possibly lose, a win-win situation beyond proportions - the ultimate challenge!
Now, let _this_ game