From Mushi-Ken to Morra — The Ritual of Choosing

“In a world of infinite contingency, how do we agree to begin?”

Among the simplest of gestures—a hand extended in a coded sign, a rhyme chanted in playful unison, a glance held just past comfort—there lies something remarkable: the peaceful selection of one over another. Across cultures and epochs, human beings have devised an astonishing array of games, rhymes, and symbolic gestures to determine who goes first, who speaks, who yields.

But beneath this utility runs something deeper: a ritual logic, a choreography of nonviolent primacy. In choosing how we choose, we reveal something fundamental—not about the game, but about ourselves.

I. The Liminal Moment

Every act of precedence opens a temporary asymmetry in the social field. Someone must speak first, act first, go first. Yet to impose that order arbitrarily risks hierarchy, resentment, or shame.

So instead, we invent ways to mediate liminality—to let chance, symbol, or shared rhythm determine who steps forward. The mechanism matters less than the fact that no one person decides.

These games, at their core, are tools of ritual containment: they allow primacy without ego, decision without domination.

II. Ecologies of Gesture: From Mushi-Ken to Jan-Ken

The Japanese game mushi-ken (虫拳) offers an exquisite early example. Here, the frog eats the slug, the slug defeats the snake, and the snake eats the frog—a circular ecology of predation. It is not strength that determines victory, but position in a living system.

In its modern descendant jan-ken (rock-paper-scissors), abstraction replaces animals, but the logic remains: every choice defeats one and is defeated by another. This triadic structure is elegant, minimal, and stable—neither binary nor hierarchical.

Such cyclic systems reflect nature’s feedback loops—not who is strongest, but who is most situationally apt.

III. Songs, Rhyme, and Deflected Will

Elsewhere, in playgrounds and village squares, other systems arose. Rhymes like “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe” or “Plouf, plouf, c’est toi l’idiot” introduce rhythmic chance cloaked in ritual nonsense. These incantations serve a social function: they depersonalize exclusion. The rhyme speaks, not the chooser.

There’s a kind of magic here: the authority of the song exceeds the authority of the speaker.

These rituals enact a form of collective submission to form. They offer fairness not through logic, but through felt rhythm and symbolic neutrality. Ludic yet purposeful, they resolve real dilemmas: who begins, who waits, who is chosen.

IV. Primacy Without Violence

Many of these practices—Morra, Odd or Even, coin tosses, nose goes—share a quality: they are low-stakes, high-consensus rituals. Even when the outcome matters, the form protects the relationship.

In some cultures, these games are not games at all, but social technologies for preserving harmony. They allow decisions to arise without explicit assertion.

It is the ritualization of randomness that makes them tolerable. Fate—dice, straws, rhymes—is easier to accept than will.

V. Toward a Pattern Language of Fairness

We might then identify several patterns common to these rituals:

Pattern Name	Core Logic	Role in Choosing
Circular Predation	Cyclic dominance (A > B > C > A)	Prevents fixed hierarchy
Deflected Decision	Rhymes, songs, or chants determine choice	Avoids personal blame
Shared Suspension	All players perform or wait in sync	Restores balance through symmetry
Soft Dominance	Low-status or passive forms prevail	Encodes resilience and humility
Temporal Deciders	Delay or speed as contest (e.g. stare-off)	Uses time as arbiter

These aren’t just game mechanics—they are micro-rituals of justice, small mirrors of a more hopeful world.

VI. Choosing as a Sacred Gesture

At stake is not merely who goes first, but how we agree to proceed. These miniature ceremonies offer something rare: distributed legitimacy. Even when trivial, they uphold values of equality, rhythm, and emergence.

We might see them not as child’s play but as fragments of ancient civic wisdom: how to begin without conflict, how to choose without pride, how to step forward without stepping on.

And perhaps, in that spirit, the question isn’t “What beats what?”
But rather:

What do we allow to speak in our place, so that we may all keep speaking?

VII. The Deeper Archive: Archaeological Traces and Embodied Memory

The archaeological record shows that these "simple" choosing mechanisms were once precision instruments for fairness. In the caves of Maresha, more than 600 astragali—knucklebones modified with lead weights—were uncovered, carefully shaved for optimal tumbling. Someone 2,300 years ago applied the same precision to randomness that a luthier brings to voicing wood.

A clay cube from ancient Assyria commemorates the casting of lots to select officials for King Shalmaneser III. The same mechanisms that determined turn order in play once appointed priests, divided land, governed cities. The line between game and governance was porous.

Children were buried with dice. The games were not just taught, but inherited—passed down as civilizational technology across millennia.

VIII. The Somatic Intelligence of Fair Choice

Yet the deeper mystery lies in the gesture itself. The three-pump rhythm of rock-paper-scissors isn’t arbitrary—it is somatic necessity. Two beats feel rushed. Four feels ponderous. Three creates what musicians call perfect anacrusis—the preparatory gesture that makes the downbeat inevitable.

These games encode embodied mathematics—algorithms carried not in code but in the nervous system. The fairness isn't abstract—it’s felt. Children don’t struggle with the rules, but with coordination. The body must commit before knowing.

The gestures that persist all share key qualities: bilateral symmetry, visible commitment, rhythmic inevitability. They create proprioceptive consensus—agreement not through language, but through synchronized embodiment.

This is embodied cryptography: the hand becomes an encryption key, the moment of reveal its decryption. The body enforces fairness by making deception physiologically difficult.

IX. Shadow Territories: When Fair Choosing Fails

But even these systems have shadow forms. Children quickly learn to manipulate "eeny meeny" by changing rhythm or starting point. Apparent randomness becomes performed objectivity.

Rock-paper-scissors reveals human “randomness” to be patterned and exploitable. What was meant to remove bias becomes a medium for sophisticated bias.

“Fair” mechanisms can mask exclusion. “Nose goes” rewards the quick, the socially attuned—creating attentional hierarchies disguised as fairness.

The record is sobering: the same knucklebones used for sacred decisions became gambling tokens. Roman decimation—killing every tenth man—used fair choosing to systematize terror. Randomness amplifies whatever values the system already holds.

X. The Fragile Transmission of Gestural Democracy

Unlike verbal rules, these games rely on physical transmission. They live in muscle, not manuscript. If not practiced, they vanish—not just the gestures, but the intelligence embedded in them.

Their disappearance marks a kind of somatic cultural amnesia. Apps may simulate rules, but they cannot encode muscular consensus.

Their fragility may be part of their wisdom. They survive not through institutions, but through play. Each generation must physically rediscover them. Their resilience lies in lived repetition.

XI. Toward Embodied Civic Wisdom

These games may be our first training ground for democratic gesture—for fair process, rhythmic commitment, and embodied consent.

Voting too is a form of choosing by gesture—private, synchronized, irrevocable. But it lacks the somatic feedback of these playground rituals.

What would it mean to re-embody democracy? To design political processes that engage not just cognition, but muscular integrity and rhythmic participation?

These games suggest that fairness is not merely a value—it is a skill. One that must be practiced, maintained, transmitted.

The real question isn’t only “How do we choose fairly?” but:
“How do we train our bodies to be part of fairness?”

In the end, these ancient mechanisms require not just observation but vigilance. Fairness is not a static structure, but a choreography we must keep dancing, together.

---

Appendix: Global Choosing Rituals

✦ Overview of Ritual Forms

Name	Culture/Origin	Description	Modality	Function
Jan-Ken	Japan	Rock–Paper–Scissors variant with triadic logic	Hand gesture	Symbolic balance, playful primacy
Mushi-Ken	Japan (from China)	Slug–Snake–Frog triadic ecology	Hand gesture	Cyclic predation logic
Morra	Italy, Greece	Players guess combined hand total	Finger count + voice	Bluffing and anticipation
Muk-Jji-Ppa	Korea	Reflex-driven Jan-Ken extension	Hand gesture	Rhythmic extension of dominance
Eeny Meeny	Global	Counting-out rhyme	Spoken chant	Deflects choice responsibility
Plouf Plouf	France	Elimination rhyme	Spoken chant	Group rhythm, random selection
Odd or Even	India, China	Guess parity of shown fingers	Hand gesture	Probabilistic reasoning
Nose Goes	Global	Last to touch nose 'loses'	Gesture game	Spontaneous exclusion
Coin Toss	Global	Heads or tails	Object throw	Binary chance, neutral authority
Straw Draw	Global	Shortest stick loses	Object draw	Random fate simulation
Staring Contest	Global	First to blink loses	Eye contact	Composure as arbiter
Shell Casting	Africa, Polynesia	Spiritualized lot drawing	Object casting	Fate + divination

✧ Use & Context

This index collects gesture-based, rhythm-based, and object-based rituals for nonviolent primacy—ways in which individuals or groups decide who acts first without resorting to force or assertion.

→ Related concept: symbolic fairness through externalized agency.