The Random One said:
itsthesheppy said:
I'm sorry, but this isn't an article.
Here, I'll provide a review:
I read a guy whine about a thing he didn't think was a thing that other people think is a thing. 2/10
Ha ha, yes, precisely.
And so it begins...
If it wasn't an article then it would hold that as an article that it would be equal to 0, but it was scored a 2/10... so 2=0... neat! I suspect it is not so much that it is or isn't an article it is simply that one only agreed with 1/5 of the content of said article as it related back to a self.
Not liking something is not suitable grounds for it's merits as an object, or it's proposition as having some validity. Clearly it is at least 1/5 correct, and not a 0.
What part did you agree with, what part is in error? What adjustments would it need to not be in error? On what grounds is it in error?
I am sure you will tell us... can't wait.
Couldn't of said it better myself Brando... but enough screwin around... let's get it on.
This whole fighting about what is and isn't a game is ridiculous.
Fighting has a point, it is a form of communication. However, fighting is what people do when other forms of communication break down. Often fighting is a by-product of cognitive dissonance, easier to fight than to adjust. Debate leaves open the dialog for opposing viewpoints so that through the conflict better concepts may replace old or conflicting information, the goal then is learning.
Fighting and debate are different words, one may be blue the other violet, they may appear to fall within the same spectrum of definition, but they are not the same color or wavelength or frequency.
Debate is often a learning tool. If one already "knows it all" then there is no room for debate or learning. Debate on this topic is not ridiculous objectively, for example, gamification from "Dastardly's perspective" is an important topic in the realm of education. He has made some very convincing argument on the topic and in turn I changed my mind somewhat with respect to his experience and position on the matter.
Games theory as a "personal project of hard empirical study" has assisted me tremendously in the realm of research and engineering. Had I not have debated people on this very forum and elsewhere I would of perhaps not expanded my appreciation for the arts as it relates to game studies and in turn it's relationship to applied theory. The goal as an objective is to improve my own understanding and cross link information that is useful in product development and deployment.
We learn quite a bit. Sometimes by engaging in the debate itself, by being wrong, or by further elucidating as to why we think we are right, and in that illumination sometimes we find out own internal inconsistencies. A form of didactic learning.
In considering of this first statement then, wouldn't your post be ridiculous?
No not really, but it is perhaps ironic... as you will proceed in making an argument about what a game is, just after calling such an effort ridiculous.
So let's see how you do.
Do you know what a game is? It's something people think is a game.
In an attempt to avoid a propositional fallacy you state that the definition of a "word", is whatever someone claims as or more appropriately "believes" what that "word" is. Imagination then is employed to define an object, in this case a noun "a game". Without defining "a game" what we then have is a fallacy of distraction closely resembling an enthymeme.
This avoids defining "a game" by expanding the possible set of "games" to include imaginary constructs outside of objective entities.
Going to revisit this later in this discussion.
If I understand your proposal, would I be correct in stating that according to your thesis that "it's whatever you want it to be", as such objectively undefinable.
Of course, I will have a problem with this... since you proceed to define away-anyway.
That's not a snarky response. Language works like that. Stuffy prescriptionists will tell you that everything needs to work per the rules they set, but no matter how much they say 'irregardless' isn't a word if people know what it means then it is a word.
No it's not a snarky response, but claiming it's not pejoratively may make it so inductively.
How does language work like that? I "think" I have a pretty good idea'r about how language works... comes from having of sat a couple classes of developmental studies... and having a couple kids... coupled with having of studied modern philosophers and lexical semantics... I am of the mind to say that what you are "getting at" is that language is "abused" like that.
A difference here is that poetry avoids abusing language although it does often forge and coerce interesting associations in the imagination. It may passively change the audience perspective.
Manipulation of the semiotic properties of words is an abuse of language. The goal is not to guide an audience through various undiscovered associations. Rather it's purpose seems bent on breaking down and overriding abstractions (from the material world) by reversing the imaginative property of the mind back onto it's structural abstractions. Manipulation utilizes a shifting sand approach and is generally active in it's discourse. Manipulation, as a confidence trick, has been associated with the modern notion of "he or she got (game)".
Sufficiently employed by a master manipulator in turn modifies the perception of the audience reality... generally to the ends of the speaker/actor/agency abusing the language.
We can watch this happen as someone who could be said to have been manipulated will again begin to naturally draw abstractions from the material world which will in turn not "add up" with the manipulation and abuse they have endured. This is said to be a form of cognitive dissonance.
Red hearing coupled with an abusive fallacy, then a straw man referring to an etymological fallacy, which was pretty good if I do say so myself. Although in the context of your dissertation of the "undefinable definition", I really can't say it helps your case. The word is still considered somewhat broken... for it to have made the case it would have had been a word that was one way, and is now defined another way; a history demonstrating the process. There are words out there like this but this isn't one of them.
I tend to disagree with McConnigal's views, but her definition is perfect. If you neglect to change your oil so you can deal with car repairs later, then presumably you like to deal with car repairs, so it's a game for you. (Conversely, if you don't change your oil out of laziness, you are not 'volunteering' for it so it's not.) Consider how that definition encompasses everything from Call of Duty to tag to chess to 'the floor is lava'.
This is a suppressed correlative, leading us right into what appears to be a masked man fallacy. "...the presumably you like.... so it's a game for you". Yes this definition works nicely with the propositional fallacy you started with, good job. It's whatever an observer wants to call a set of discrete objects and their cause and effect relationships. It may be true to the observer (in their imagination), but that does not necessarily satisfy a condition for "a game" state. Which has yet to have been defined.
This also eliminates the subject and the consequence of consensus, the person dealing with the car repairs and their own position on the nature of "what they like and don't like". This appears to be an affirming the consequent, another logical fallacy.
I wish this was poetry...
The main beef I have with exclusionary, prescriptive definitions of 'game' is that they are always set on leaving some stuff out, as if their presence in the same mindspace as the stuff we do like soils them somehow.
Abstract and imaginary are not the same word, really these concepts are not even close... Imaginary "meta" objects simply do not exist except in the stratum of the mind. Figments of imagination are often times the result of associations, however, as a concoction of abstractions (from real objects), they lack the necessary discrete objective form from which they could be abstracted from reality.
That is to say, one may abstract the number one, by negation of a singular object not being a multiplicity of objects. You are you because you are not everyone else.
You can abstract 1, I can abstract 1, I guess 1 is a useful abstraction.
If one adopts through imagination that they are a wizard, and attend Hogwarts, then pretend to be "Harry Potter", clearly, this is pretend. Harry Potter is a discrete object (abstracted from a work of fiction), and the individual is a discrete object (abstracted through a mirror, and not being anyone else), Harry Potter does not equal the individual.
The projection of Harry Potter as a finite identity into reality is pretend. Some people even cosplay characters. While a person may look like a character, they are clearly not that character.
Even though both Harry Potter and personal identity are both abstractions, this projection is imagination. One may believe it, but it is simply not so, as it will fail objective investigation by simply applying a proof through negation.
Who's they? I guess you mean "stuffy prescriptive folk". Who wants to be that? Gosh your soooo right!
What have they left out? You mean, they have left out someones subjective imagination as it relates to the definition of a noun? This creates a quantification fallacy.
It also begs the question, how are people supposed to account for the imaginations and whims of other people who insist on shifting sands? This is akin to blaming someone for not being a mind reader. Hardly an offense.
Is it not better to have an inclusive definition, so that innovative stuff doesn't have to, in addition to fighting for the right of being understood, also having to fight for the right of being called what it is?
An object is a discrete unit, it is what it is unto itself. The idea here in this statement seems to suggest that "innovative stuff" should not require a definition... I'm (of course) going to have a problem with this...
Innovation by definition refers to the creation of "better" objects. It cannot "be" innovation if it is not categorized as to what set of discrete objects are being innovated with respect to. Innovation is a derivative of a set of objects.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and muddy the waters by saying what I "think" you mean is that art cannot be innovative if it is hemmed in by categorization. I tend to agree with this concept, art is for art's sake.
That is, a piece or work of art is a discrete object in and of itself. Because it's origin is likely from the formulation of abstractions from the real world, it is a representation of the imagination (the re-combination) of abstractions within the artist mind. This effort called "art" then is that mind expressing that creative gene into a structured work which may be appreciated by those who examine it... as an object.
As an object the audience may draw abstractions.
When we discuss the medium, we are discussing the structured set in which that imaginary idea will be formulated into a discrete space. The medium explicitly entails the formal rule set by it's physical nature for which said art will be crafted into a manifest discrete object.
A piece of paper, a pencil, tools in which the artist skill in gradient, values, balance bring forth from the mind a "work" of art. This is craftsmanship, and is often considered a highly prized and valued skill in individuals who take the time to learn the medium.
Craftsmanship is a good metric from which to examine the skill of creation, the art in and of itself is it's own justification.
Art Games is a different topic though and one that I won't address any further than I already have.
Pre-electronic definitions of 'game' often describied it as an activity including one or more players, as without computers it was difficult to think of a way one could play a game by onself. Do you want that, one hundred years from now when concepts we can't begin to comprehend nowadays are commonplace, people look at our definition of 'games' and laugh at how their most played games of the future, squawababble and genital frisbee, are clearly not games?
Play is simply activity, as defined within "play":
"Play is often interpreted as frivolous; yet the player can be intently focused on his or her objective, particularly when play is structured and goal-oriented, as in a game."
Play "defined" by objectives with goal-oriented formal sets of rules, it follows then that rules entail consensus. A game played by an individual requires only 1 consensus, the individual, by multiple participants, multiple consensus.
Solitaire was played by oneself without the aid of a discrete calculation device, and it's a game. So no it's not hard to conceive of, there are hundreds of examples that predate computerization.
Do I want what? A hundred years from now what? It's not my concern I won't be alive, likely you won't be either. The rest just looks like some nonsense to try to wrap up some "point". Finishing with an appeal to emotion looks like... at least it was consistent...
wow... that was a lot of work... could of written The Thank You Button data miner confidence trick in less time... about 1/3 of the time... come to think of it...
