Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5079868" data-attributes="member: 59082">This is a followup from a conversation in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/271560-what-defines-edition-war-why-participants-moderators-opposed-them-3.html" target="_blank">this thread</a> (which was, for some inexplicable reason, closed). The relevant conversation is quoted below.Howandwhy99, I would say that what you are talking about is not "objectivity," but "inter-subjectivity." As Raven Crowking points out, the very act of perception is inherently subjective, which is always representative of the object but not the object itself (although some may argue that it is the "internal domain" of the object). But the point is, subjectivity is never an exact match of the object (and even if it could be, it would still be a subjective perspective; i.e. my perspective on a banana is not the banana itself).This is where organized religions and other "isms" can be accused of "One True Wayism" because they inflate and confuse their inter-subjective belief systems with objective reality. Some of the more subtly philosophical belief systems are aware of this and recognize that their perspective is just that, a perspective on a reality that is forever beyond our full comprehension or definition. I would say that Buddhism, or certain streams within Buddhism, is a great example of this; although Buddhists are just as able to confuse their belief structures with reality as anyone else.How does this relate to Edition Wars and RPG discourse in general? We can all recognize that we have our own personal opinion which is inherently subjective and not to be confused with "objective reality" (Or at least I hope we can!). But it is a bit trickier differentiating various inter-subjective agreements which are themselves contextual and not inherently, or objectively "true." Any community or relationship, no matter how large or small, has a shared inter-subjective domain of agreements, whether implied or explicitly stated (or usually both). It doesn't make them less meaningful; actually, it points out that meaning largely arises through inter-subjectivity, that the meaning is in and from the people involved. We can look at morality and such: are there moral laws built into the very fabric of reality as absolute, Platonic truths? We have no way to really prove that, but we can say that we all have subjective moral standards and inter-subjective moral agreements or ethics, which are no more or less meaningful by not necessarily being "objective."But I think the point in this context is that we have to be able to question these inter-subjective beliefs, not only because they are many and varied and often conflicting, but because they--like our own subjective viewpoints--are subject to change and evolution. What we see as "wrong" now may not be so in 20 or 200 years; in the 1950s it wasn't "wrong" (to most people) to call African Americans "negroes"; now, in the intersubjective domain, it is. For many Americans, homosexuality is "wrong" and, unfortunately, it is mainly those Americans that are not able to differentiate between their own (inter-subjective) belief structures and objective reality. This is not to pick on the "Religious Right", but to point out just how problematic it can become when we are "fused" to our own perspective as absolute truth; that is, when we cannot be self-critical.Engaging in civil discussion or debate on "hot", although relatively tame in the larger scheme of things, topics like editions of D&D is an opportunity to not only be self-critical, but to open to different perspectives and (hopefully!) evolve one's own. It is pretty useless to bash heads over editions of a game, but where it gets interesting is when different views are presented and we try to enter into the viewpoint of another, to really "try it on" and see how it may relate with our subjectivity, and even how it may change our own opinion. I personally like hearing different views on editions of D&D because it helps me not only better understand the different iteration of the game, but expand my own RPG sensibilities and even evolve the way I experience the game.To put it another way, if two spouses always agreed on everything, nothing would ever change; things would be fine, but there'd be no evolution, not movement towards something greater. If they always fought, they'd be miserable and/or separate; but if they are to discuss differences and be open to the other, they potential is there for not only individual growth but a dynamic relationship of complementary polarities.</blockquote>

Verification