Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs

[Ovinomancer]

This is most easily seen in things that are tangible. It's quite possible to believe that brick walls aren't solid. You can even make a rational argument for the physical insolidity of brick walls based on the sparce density of atoms in the space they encompass and the experience a nuetrino might have with brick walls. Yet, all that is just so many words because however much you may believe that the wall isn't solid, or whatever you may say about it, no one tries to act as if it isn't solid and if they do, they soon get a severe headache. The functional map, 'brick wall = solid', seems to work alot better than any other sort of map, and this suggests that there is some reality to their solidity.

To the nuetrino, the wall isn't solid.

 

[diaglo]

2+2=4 is not axiomatic - it is not assumed, and can be proven true within the formal system from which we get numbers. The axiom is that the empty set exists. Combine that with a definition of addition, and you construct the natural numbers, and can show that 2+2=4 as a result.

can i add though that you are right based in the formal system in which it is set. base 10

if it were set in base 3 the answer of 4 is (unpossible: internet w3rd) null and void as it is outside the system.

which at the base of the argument is the problem with different peoples approaches sometimes. we may not be in the same system even if some parts of it (re)act the same.

 

[Janx]

can i add though that you are right based in the formal system in which it is set. base 10

if it were set in base 3 the answer of 4 is (unpossible: internet w3rd) null and void as it is outside the system.

which at the base of the argument is the problem with different peoples approaches sometimes. we may not be in the same system even if some parts of it (re)act the same.

I think there's a forced lack of assumptions going on here.

The statement of 2+2=4 made in the presence of most people assumes that we are in base10, and are using a standard mathematical notation, and probably some more terms I don't know.

There's nothing wrong with assumptions. Without them, EVERY statement, including 2+2=4 would require a pile of legalistic verbiage to accompany anything anybody said, just to make it clear what your talking about that it would impede communication. We also couldn't use pronouns, as pronouns are variables and they assume that you know what I'm referring to, since they are not explicitly assigned in written or verbal speech.

Certainly, there is a line, where 2 parties do NOT have the same starting information and assumptions, and that is where miscommunication happens. However, deliberately under-assuming also undermines communication. When we choose to not attempt to understand the other party's assumptions, we are the problem.

Most of the thread arguments I see online are where one party chooses to pick an extreme interpretation of the other, just so they can argue and fail to achieve a useful dialogue.

 

[Marius Delphus]

Meanwhile, some of us who live out here in the real world, where real people process the same information and experience differing emotional reactions to that information, think this is all just so much mental calisthenics, except to no good end.

What this thread appears to come down to is this stupefyingly simple axiom: people have opinions. In fact, perfectly rational people have different opinions about the same topic.

RPGs are like music. Just to take a completely random example, some people absolutely adore John Philip Sousa -- to them, his music is the bee's knees and no rational, thinking human being should dislike his work. Despite this belief by rational, thinking human beings, there are other rational, thinking human beings out there who think that listening to a few bars of, say, "Stars and Stripes Forever" is not to be much preferred to thumbscrews.

But seriously, to whom is this news? For whom is the multi-page dissertation that invokes philosophy, religion (oh no you di'n't), and all the rest?

Personally, I'm hopeful for useful insight from this thread, but less so as it goes on.

 

[Umbran]

I thought you were posting as "Umbran"; there is nothing in your post to indicate otherwise. You certainly didn't close the thread (which makes me wonder why you would expect the thread to be "dropped"?)

Sometimes, I get this idea in my head that folks can read, think, and come to appropriate conclusions on their own without my having to put things in BIG RED TEXT.

 

[diaglo]

Sometimes, I get this idea in my head that folks can read, think, and come to appropriate conclusions on their own without my having to put things in BIG RED TEXT.

isn't that the topic of this thread?

i didn't know without the red text either if it helps.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sometimes, I get this idea in my head that folks can read, think, and come to appropriate conclusions on their own without my having to put things in BIG RED TEXT.

And, sometimes, you say things that you should not as a moderator, and you say that you are doing so as Umbran. If you expect us to know that you are talking as a moderator, you ought to indicate that you are doing so.

(Which is funny, actually, considering the thread.)

RC

EDIT: Dang. Beaten by diaglo.

 

[Umbran]

The Colored Text discussion is going here in Meta.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Colored Text discussion is going here in Meta.

Thanks. I've posted there.

RC

 

[xechnao]

Within the realm of any of the languages we have today there is no absolute objectivity apart from this premise.

This was touched by Aristotle: "The only thing I know for sure is that I do not know for sure."

This does not mean that language is faulty. It just demonstrates our recognition for its limits or our limits.

Besides we have developed tools to analyze and adapt or adjust and this seems to be our way to deal with this.