Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6732074" data-attributes="member: 3192">If Wittgenstein included the mind as part of The world in his Tractatus, I doubt it. I feel he was trying desperately to &quot;climb back into the world&quot; with his later stuff. As the references of D&amp;D are as much to imaginings of the Ref as to the board outside him/her, I don't feel there is a dichotomy. One can be the aid to the other as long as one retains a pattern identity.Bernard Suits is new to me, but looks perfectly applicable. We all own definitions. I'll agree, everyone's definitions are only true for those who share a worldview, but I too could smurf the word game into anything I want it to be. As a label it has boundless applications. All of which makes languages a balance between a wondrous utility and being mockingly useless. I feel my definition is more applicable to more games for what players historically want from games. But no philosophy is to be an absolute. That is treating it as a god. That is the problem with deliberate disinformation campaigns like Edwards'. Not only do I believe he actually believes in his extremist point of view. He has no air for anything outside it. Games are one of the things historically that required reception and manipulation. But for him, science is about inventing narratives, history is inventing narratives, politics are invented narratives, economics is invented narratives. There is no &quot;outside narrative theory&quot; in his theory. He's a Foucouldian power ethicist. A person who sees any trivia game or code breaking game or anything with an impartial referee as inherently tyrannical.&nbsp;&nbsp; So the entire practice of games as predictive enterprises is dutifully erased in a massive jumble of near incomprehensible jargon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 6732074, member: 3192"] If Wittgenstein included the mind as part of The world in his Tractatus, I doubt it. I feel he was trying desperately to "climb back into the world" with his later stuff. As the references of D&D are as much to imaginings of the Ref as to the board outside him/her, I don't feel there is a dichotomy. One can be the aid to the other as long as one retains a pattern identity. Bernard Suits is new to me, but looks perfectly applicable. We all own definitions. I'll agree, everyone's definitions are only true for those who share a worldview, but I too could smurf the word game into anything I want it to be. As a label it has boundless applications. All of which makes languages a balance between a wondrous utility and being mockingly useless. I feel my definition is more applicable to more games for what players historically want from games. But no philosophy is to be an absolute. That is treating it as a god. That is the problem with deliberate disinformation campaigns like Edwards'. Not only do I believe he actually believes in his extremist point of view. He has no air for anything outside it. Games are one of the things historically that required reception and manipulation. But for him, science is about inventing narratives, history is inventing narratives, politics are invented narratives, economics is invented narratives. There is no "outside narrative theory" in his theory. He's a Foucouldian power ethicist. A person who sees any trivia game or code breaking game or anything with an impartial referee as inherently tyrannical. So the entire practice of games as predictive enterprises is dutifully erased in a massive jumble of near incomprehensible jargon. [/QUOTE]

Verification