"Games People Play' An Essay in Three Parts Part 1

Games People Play

The nature of the human life is an interesting subject for speculation. It is arguably too large a concept for the human brain, for logic and for language, yet it must be considered. It is the conceptual context of all our behavior. The contention of this three part essay, and that is all  it can be, a contention, is that human social existence is a game of market contracts.
Given this conceit, it follows that there must exist certain currencies, perception, language, mathematics, and money, which allow the keeping of a common score, 'game' being the commensurable element in otherwise incommensurable activities. The obvious questions are to be asked and answered to a high standard of current thought in this work. What is a game? What is a currency? What is a market? In what sense is a common score the arbiter of social existence? What is the relationship of civilization to social existence?

Part 1
Games are everywhere from chess to video games to sport. They are an inextricable element of human social existence. However, a closer look at 'game' such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, the philosopher, took in the last century reveals an impenetrable mystery. It appears that while everyone knows a game when they see one, a definition is impossible [Wittgenstein, 1953]. That leads one directly to the work Immanuel Kant did in the Nineteenth Century on the subject of the unknowable. According to his thought there are unknowable a priori concepts we are born with, the 'thing-in-itself', which we employ in the analysis of perception to form 'categories of understanding' which are in language [Kant, 1781]. 'Game', being unknowable, appears to be such a 'thing-in-itself' which, interacting with perception, creates 'categories of understanding' such as chess or football. It works perfectly.
Supporting this view are the findings of researchers that chimpanzees exhibit game skills [Jensen, 2007]. 'Game' thereby seems to be wired into the primate brain, however that happened. It therefore has all the characteristics of a thing-in-itself. Exploring current game theory research for estimates of the power of this conceit we find that games, no matter how well designed, will not play without a moral imperative that no player will do unto any other player without their consent [Murray, 2007]. From the nuts and bolts of human behavior to morality, the contention that 'game' structures human behavior is one powerful conceptual argument.
Now it is time to turn to the nature of market games and contracts. A market is a locus of buying and selling. It operates on contracts of performance and consideration, the classic model. It is, however, nothing more than an arbitrage game, arbitrage being the simple process of 'taking' plenty to scarcity. All markets operate on a basis of arbitrage. That is where profits are made and losses suffered and score tallied.
Money, while itself subject to arbitrage, enables the establishment of the relative value of disparate products such as apples and oranges on a basis of plenty and scarcity. Money markets define the operating constraints of all other markets and enable the establishment of a common score. Inherent in this view and fundamental to it is the stricture that only humans are players. Markets do not allocate resources to means of production. That is a clever analytical trick. Markets are games of arbitrage resulting in scores, profit and loss, accruing to individual human beings, players. They only incidentally allocate resources and then, not to means of production, but to talent, human beings, who transform those resources into products themselves capable of arbitrage [Smith, 1776]. It is simple. It is complex. Markets are an expression of human social existence. They can exist in no other wise.
Obviously, an examination of currency is needed. First, one needs the concept that true incommensurability is difficult to obtain [Kuhn, 2002]. Apples and oranges are disparate but they can be compared on a basis of enough/not enough which is a countable proposition and therefore in language and mathematics. Such an analysis results in the capacity for arbitrage and results in the establishment of relative value or a sum certain of money. Being contained in perception, in language, in mathematics and in money deems an object socially real.
So, there area four currencies in operation. What common feature defines the category? They are all 'relationals' having the intrinsic ability to establish relations between elements of a class. If I see you standing to my left, that is a relation. If I say that you are taller than I, that is a relation. If my $5 buys more than your $3, that is a relation. If I prove that 3 is greater than -3, that is a relation. However, if one shares a currency, then the simple relational aspect of it becomes an entanglement as the concept applies in physics. If you are to my left, I am to your right. We are entangled. If my $5 buys more than your $3, your $3 buys less than my $5. We are entangled. If 3 is proved greater than -3 to you and I, than surely -3 is less than 3 to you and I. We are entangled.These relations are shared by convention and elevate the 'relational' to an entanglement. This is the stuff of social existence.

Part 2 tomorrow