he Game That Creates Games: The Philosophical Foundation of KAYS

On By konstapelIn Uncategorized

Interested in Kays? Send me an email.

J. Konstapel Leiden 13-07-2025 All Rights Reserved

“The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” — Lao Tzu

Introduction: The Paradox of the Nameless

What cannot be named gives rise to everything that moves. What remains untouched creates the conditions for form. It is not passive. It is not absent. It is the fertile silence beneath all games — the refusal that makes emergence possible.

This document explores the philosophical foundation beneath the analytical layer of KAYS. Where hierarchy and sequence reign in the upper row, the lower layer is non-rule. It is not chaos, but a structured emptiness — a field that refuses determination, and thereby makes transformation possible.

This is what Will McWhinney identified as The Game That Creates Games, what James Carse called The Infinite Game, what Christopher Alexander traced in The Nature of Order, and what Cornelius Castoriadis called the magma of the radical imagination.

The Ontology of the Lower Layer

The bottom row is not a layer underneath — it is the space that lets form exist. In the analytical game, things are named, ordered, used. In the lower field, things appear — not because we create them, but because we stop preventing them.

This philosophical position resonates across diverse traditions. Martin Heidegger spoke of das Man versus authentic being, where the latter is not achieved through willpower but through a letting go of the fallen modes of everyday existence (Heidegger, 1962). Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception shows how meaning emerges in the pre-reflective encounter between body and world, before conceptual analysis takes place (Merleau-Ponty, 1945).

Henri Bergson’s distinction between temps (mechanical time) and durée (lived time) illustrates a similar dynamic: where mechanical time is measurable and quantifiable, lived time is a flowing continuum in which the new can emerge (Bergson, 1896). This temporal dimension is crucial for understanding how the lower layer functions.

From Control to Presence

The shift from control to presence, from language to gesture, from function to beauty, marks a fundamentally different way of being-in-the-world. This transition is not arbitrary but follows what we can describe as a poiesis of letting go.

Gregory Bateson’s concept of “levels of learning” offers a useful framework: where Learning I concerns learning specific responses, and Learning II concerns learning patterns of learning, Learning III refers to a fundamental restructuring of the self (Bateson, 1972). The lower layer of KAYS functions at this tertiary level — it is where new forms of learning itself can emerge.

Francisco Varela’s enactive cognition shows how consciousness does not passively reflect the world but co-constructs it through embodied action (Varela, Thompson & Rosch, 1991). This co-emergent quality is characteristic of how the lower layer works: not as a mechanism that produces results, but as a field in which possibilities actualize.

The Aesthetics of Emergence

Christopher Alexander’s The Nature of Order describes how living structures emerge through a process of differentiation within a whole, where each part contributes to the vitality of the total (Alexander, 2002-2004). This process is neither completely spontaneous nor completely controlled — it requires what Alexander calls “the quality without a name.”

This quality shows remarkable parallels with what in Japanese aesthetics is called ma — the meaningful emptiness between elements that makes their relationship and dynamics possible (Pilgrim, 1986). In the lower layer of KAYS, this kind of space is not empty but pregnant with potential.

John Dewey’s Art as Experience offers a pragmatic perspective on how aesthetic experience functions as a form of inquiry in which meaning and value emerge through direct encounter with the world (Dewey, 1934). This experiential quality is fundamental to how the lower layer of KAYS is embodied.

The Political Dimension of the Radical Imaginary

Castoriadis’ concept of the radical imaginary as the source of new social forms has important implications for how we understand the lower layer of KAYS (Castoriadis, 1975). It’s not just about individual creativity but about the collective capacity to institute new possibilities.

This connects with Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, in which praxis — reflective action aimed at transformation — forms the basis for liberating education (Freire, 1970). The lower layer of KAYS can be understood as a field in which this kind of transformative praxis can emerge.

Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the “space of appearance” shows how political action emerges in the between-space among people, not as a product of individual intention but as an emergent phenomenon of plurality (Arendt, 1958). This intersubjective dimension is crucial for understanding how the lower layer functions collectively.

Methodological Implications

The philosophical position of the lower layer has concrete implications for how we approach research and practice. Instead of the subject-object dualism that characterizes many analytical methods, the lower layer suggests a more participatory approach.

Participatory Action Research, as developed by Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury, offers methodological tools for this kind of research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). By blurring the boundaries between researcher and researched, space emerges for co-inquiry in which new insights emerge.

The phenomenological tradition, particularly as articulated by Maurice Merleau-Ponty and later by Eugene Gendlin’s “focusing” methodology, offers concrete techniques for cultivating pre-reflective awareness (Gendlin, 1981). These techniques are relevant for embodying the lower layer in practice.

Systemic Implications

The lower layer of KAYS can also be understood from the perspective of complexity theory. Stuart Kauffman’s concept of “adjacent possible” describes how complex systems explore new configurations by navigating in the space of possible states (Kauffman, 2000). The lower layer functions as the field in which this exploration takes place.

Ilya Prigogine’s work on dissipative structures shows how order can emerge from chaos through fluctuations that are amplified at critical moments (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). This dynamic of self-organization is characteristic of how the lower layer allows new forms to emerge.

Pedagogical Dimensions

The lower layer also has important implications for how we learn and teach. Instead of information transfer, it suggests a more transformative approach in which learners discover their own meaning-making processes.

Jack Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory describes how adults can restructure their assumption frameworks through critical reflection on experience (Mezirow, 1991). The lower layer of KAYS can be seen as the field in which this kind of transformation becomes possible.

David Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle illustrates how learning emerges through the integration of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). The lower layer functions as the space in which this cycle can unfold.

Implications for Organization and Leadership

The philosophy of the lower layer also has important implications for how we understand organizations and leadership. Instead of command-and-control models, it suggests a more distributed and emergent form of organization.

Peter Senge’s concept of “learning organizations” describes how organizations can function as living systems that continuously learn and adapt (Senge, 1990). The lower layer of KAYS can be understood as the field in which this kind of organizational learning takes place.

Otto Scharmer’s Theory U offers a concrete methodology for cultivating “presencing” — the capacity to act from the emergent field of future possibilities (Scharmer, 2007). This approach is directly relevant for embodying the lower layer in organizational contexts.

Conclusion: The Fertile Emptiness

The lower layer of KAYS is not a layer underneath — it is the space that lets form exist. It is not passive but actively waiting. It is not empty but pregnant with potential. And it is this underlying field that makes systems like KAYS not only operational, but alive.

This philosophical position calls for a fundamentally different relationship to knowledge, action, and being. It is an invitation to move from making to letting happen, from controlling to being present, from naming to experiencing.

And in this movement emerges the possibility for what McWhinney called “The Game That Creates Games” — a field of infinite creativity in which new forms of living, learning, and organizing can emerge.

Extended Bibliography

Primary Sources

  • Alexander, C. (2002-2004). The Nature of Order (Vol. I-IV). Center for Environmental Structure.
  • Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books.
  • Bergson, H. (1896). Matter and Memory. George Allen and Unwin.
  • Carse, J. (1986). Finite and Infinite Games. Free Press.
  • Castoriadis, C. (1975). L’institution imaginaire de la société. Éditions du Seuil.
  • Dewey, J. (1934). Art as Experience. Minton, Balch & Company.
  • Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Gendlin, E. (1981). Focusing. Bantam Books.
  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Harper & Row.
  • Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press.
  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall.
  • Lao Tzu. (6th century BCE). Tao Te Ching. [Classical Chinese text]
  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.
  • Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. Jossey-Bass.
  • Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos. Bantam Books.
  • Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of Action Research. Sage Publications.
  • Scharmer, O. (2007). Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  • Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
  • Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind. MIT Press.

Secondary Sources and Applications

Additional Philosophical Sources

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1980). A Thousand Plateaus. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Gadamer, H.-G. (1960). Truth and Method. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.
  • Levinas, E. (1961). Totality and Infinity. Duquesne University Press.
  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge. Shambhala Publications.
  • Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as Another. University of Chicago Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan.

Aesthetic and Cultural Studies

  • Pilgrim, R. (1986). Intervals (Ma) in space and time: Foundations for a religio-aesthetic paradigm in Japan. History of Religions, 25(3), 255-277.
  • Rancière, J. (2004). The Politics of Aesthetics. Continuum International Publishing Group.
  • Shusterman, R. (2000). Pragmatist Aesthetics. Rowman & Littlefield.

Organization and Management Studies

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning. Addison-Wesley.
  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press.
  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications.

Complexity Theory and Systems Thinking

  • Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life. Anchor Books.
  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
  • Morin, E. (2008). On Complexity. Hampton Press.

Pedagogy and Learning Theories

  • Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning. Routledge.
  • Palmer, P. (1998). The Courage to Teach. Jossey-Bass.
  • Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books.