Redux: I’d like to game an idea entering a mind
That’s it — what say you all?
The Bjork Virus video can be found here, the Virus app-game-song can apparently be downloaded here.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
- 4 comments on this post.
That’s it — what say you all?
The Bjork Virus video can be found here, the Virus app-game-song can apparently be downloaded here.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
larrydunbar:
July 9th, 2013 at 6:47 pm
This is the first time I have seen the diagram from Edward Tufte, and it is pretty impressive.
*
I think the problem (maybe one problem) with the game you seek is that it has at least 3 domains, and, according to Howard Bloom, most humans are only able to comprehen 2, at the most.
*
First you have the physics of the game, which is really just structure. This is what you have said that you excel at, and is the most important part of all observations.
*
Structure tells the gamers if the sum of all the forces acting against the structure is zero (there is no movement) or not (movement). If there is movement, then game can begin.
*
Then you have the second domain called culture that takes the advantages (in a process that Bloom calls logic) in which gamers they “see” and create a substance )mass) that fits inside the structure observed.
*
The viruses in the video seem very equipt to handle the logic of the game. What viruses “see” is each other, and when there is enough of them in the same environment the “game” can begin.
*
Then you have the domain called ethics. This is simply that which you “get” out of the game. It’s a very important domain, because, if you don’t get anything out of the game, without ethics, there really isn’t any point in playing.
*
Perhaps ethics is more important for the young than the old, because the young want to know why waste my time playing this game, if I don’t get nothing out of it, and the old simply are glad to be still playing 🙂
Charles Cameron:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:44 am
Hi Larry:
,
Thanks. My own way into this is via Hermann Hesse’s Glass Bead Game, originally conceived by Hesse as an imagined conversation between great thinkers of different centuries, and later translated by him into a game of intersecting and overlapping ideas. My own translation of that fictitious game into HipBone, Games and their development into the games family called Sembl by Cath Sryles, suggest to me the kinds of linkage that my own personal mapping of such things would look for, and my links are qualitative and anecdotal rather than quantitative, and the balance of forces that I see accordingly is aesthetic rather than numerical. I imagine there are many other possible approaches, and I’ll be interested to see them — but that would be mine,
,
I hope to follow this post up with one drawing on Peter Neumann’s article The trouble with radicalization, currently behind a paywall. I thi nk it will provide grounding and grist for me to dig into what I’m thinking of in much greater depth and detail.
larrydunbar:
July 10th, 2013 at 5:42 pm
I guess you could call me a qualitative, only in reverse.
*
There was no “game” I could bring to the web, so I in a way, I tried to make my self un-welcomed as possible. When I started blogging, which is really just a game, I thought if I could become an expert at just any little thing on the web, I could attract followers.
*
This soon turned into a disaster as I crossed paths with Mark at Zenpundit.
*
We got into a debate about implicit and explicit rule-sets, and, after taking a good look at myself, I knew there was just too much out there to become an expert at anything. While I believe I “won”, with, to paraphrase: implicit rules never change, but explicit (written) do. It was a small win, knowing so little about it as I do, and what I have learned about it since then.
*
So I set about trying to attract as few, but important, links as possible.
*
As we have ended in the same position in the environment we are observing at this moment, I guess my strategy worked about as good as your’s did, if you are talking about gaming, and I am really as isolated as I think I am 🙂
*
Does the title of this post mean what I think it means? I think it means you want to game the input (“an idea entering the mind”) instead of output (that which has formed domains in the mind). The input is really just moving through the process (OODA loop), and doesn’t have anything to do with domains. As it gets input, the brain processes it into domains, which later ideas can shoot it out as an Action.
*
So normally you want to change the Act that comes out, through a environment with/without fear. Corporations have been doing it for years in Observation.
*
As a qual, you probably want to do it in Orientation. As you are Oriented on the Right, I suppose you need someone on the Left to play your game?
Charles Cameron:
July 10th, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Ha!
I am? I’m actually oriented to the Light as far as I can arrange things, which doesn’t seem to map Left or Right — but somehow has friends in both camps.
.
I’ll probably give you & all a better fix on my thinking in an upcoming post…