Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8321633" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] you seem to say that you like to think abstractly about the shared imagined space ("abstract distances and mechanics"), because that helps represent a character's mind space. While also implying that there is some other way of thinking "abstractly" about the shared imagined space that is to do with having it make sense to the player. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] I expect you see why your thought brings this on-surface contradiction into light.So... two kinds of thinking abstractedly? Can you say more about the difference you are drawing between these two kinds of abstract thinking? It can't be that at issue is being "abstract", because both are labelled with that quality. (Or the language should be disambiguated.) Are they necessarily dichotomous? How? Are you familiar with Sicart's discussion of the duality of player as subject to game and player as continued inhabitant of their society, culture, real world? (He discusses it as a motive for beliefs about ethics in games.) From an ontological perspective, I've several times emphasised that players are those external to the game, that enter into it. They are again dualistic.Are you picturing something like that going on? That player is dualistic (or pluralistic) and that there are desirable abstractions for each mode?</blockquote>