Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8254873" data-attributes="member: 5142">Ah, yes. I see. The qualifications of the people arguing for "the fiction" is all wrong. They come from the badwrongthink of GNS. Is that right? We all know that [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] and [USER=6993955]@Fenris-77[/USER] are both big fans of GNS. [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER], in my prior post, I have explained to you how several of the assertions you repeat here display some fundamental misunderstandings of terms, particularly in regards to 'ambiguity,' and we aren't going to get anywhere if you just repeat them for your arguments here. If you're just going to repeat those assertions again without taking time to correct your argument, then I'm going to assume that you haven't bothered reading those explanations. Any argument that relies on falling back on those sort of misunderstandings of the terms is frankly a crap one. You are talking about what is referred to as "lexical ambiguity"* or polysemy but then you (likely unintentionally) equivocate on different meanings of "ambiguity." Let's go through the equivocation process. To paraphrase: (1) "Ambiguity exists when a word has multiple meanings." -- This refers to "lexical ambiguity." There are generally two different types: polysemy or homonymy. (2) "The word 'fiction' has multiple meanings." -- Taking this assertion as true, we would need to understand what kind of lexical ambiguity we are dealing with for "fiction." -- Homonymy is when lexical ambiguity in a semantic unit derives from two words spelt the same way: e.g., bank and bank. This is obviously not the case for "fiction." -- "Fiction" is polysemous. Its meanings, despite the distinctions one can draw, are clearly interrelated conceptually and derive from a singular semantic unit or morphology. This constitutes polysemy. For the record, most words in English (if not most languages) have polysemy. Linguistic feature, not a bug. (3) "Ergo the word 'fiction' is/can be ambiguous when used in discussions (and people can/will equivocate between these meanings)." -- Herein is the problem because it's construing "lexical ambiguity" (multiple meanings exist for a word) as "semantic ambiguity" or "pragmatic ambiguity" (it's difficult to decipher which meaning is intended). This equivocates the senses of "ambiguity." This is to say, just because a word is technically lexically ambiguous (possesses polysemy) doesn't mean that its meaning or use is pragmatically ambiguous in an utterance, and context plays a key role here. Moreover, the problem exists in asserting that since ambiguity exists (in whatever form) that people will equivocate with the term. Secondly, I don't understand the problem with "fiction" applying to both what happens and the setting, because, yes, they are both aspects of the imagined fiction. I'm also not sure why or how this is a bad thing or even "sorta equivocation." I think that people such as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] have been consistent in their use of "fiction." As you will see below, even Kevin Crawford uses "fiction" in reference to the setting. * E.g., "I saw bats." There is lexical ambiguity regarding both the sense of the verb saw (i.e., saw as 'vision' or saw as 'cutting') and the object bats (i.e., bats as 'a type of flying animal' or bats as 'wooden club'). Let me read what you are saying here back to you: If I don't agree with your conclusion that the term 'fiction' is "highly equivocal" then I am just using my advanced knowledge to dismiss your conclusion without any merit. Now tell me, [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER]. How is that not utter presumptuous nonsense? Do you truly not get how insulting and dismissive your own words are here? The ability for a word to have different meanings or for people to shift between meanings does not mean that a semantic unit is "highly equivocal." It means that the word is "polysemous" or displays "polysemy." This can also mean that the word is multivalent, in the sense that it can be used in different linguistic constructions and combinations of meaning. Intentional use of polysemy occurs frequently in literature, often for purposes of subversion of expectations and humor (e.g., the character Bottom in Midsummer's Night Dream). Again, multivalency, polysemy, and lexical ambiguity are key factors in the word that is the focus of my study. It's not a "highly equivocal" word or term. It's a polysemous one that is used in a wide range of contexts and meanings. The fact that the term "fiction" includes distinct, but clearly interrelated, meanings as part of its semantic field does not mean that it's somehow "highly equivocal." That a word can be ambiguous in a hypothetical given utterance does not mean that it is inherently or always ambiguous in every utterance. It means that some further context is generally needed by interlocutors to decipher the meaning in utterances where it's difficult to decipher which sense or meaning of a word is likely intended. If my argument is a bit specious, then I welcome critique or the chance for further clarification on these terms, but simply saying that "you know enough about logic and equivocation" to claim that my argument is specious is not going to cut the mustard. It's all bark and no bite. Honestly, I think that your issue is not so much with the term "fiction," but, rather, with the term "story." I don't think that having a problem with the term "story" means that one should be forced to read "fiction" as "story" just because it exists as one possible meaning. Yes, that means you're essentially advocating for equivocating. In fighting the monster, you have become the very monster you hate. It's insisting that because "fiction" can be read as the "bad kind of fiction" (i.e., pre-authored story) and not the good kind (i.e,. emerging story*) or even the neutral sense of "imagined, invented, unreal, etc." then the term must be avoided at all costs. Obviously, I think that's a misguided approach. Honestly, IMHO, as someone who doesn't really care about GNS, I find "the fiction" to be the most natural term for well... the fiction that's created as part of play, whether that applies to the play process or setting. From what I can tell reading through the Alexandrian, he does not have any hang-ups with using the term "the fiction" to describe "the fiction" of play. I can also not find any hang-ups regarding 'fiction' from Kevin Crawford, who writes in SWN and WWN, "No matter how finely-sculpted your world or inventive your fiction, if you can’t deliver a playable bit of fun at the table then your job as a GM is not done." Maybe I missing something about why "fiction" is so problematic for these pro-sandbox people who don't seem to have problems using the term. If you have citations of the term "fiction" being problematic for sandbox gamers and the like, then I would gladly welcome reading those resources. Until then, any pushback I receive is not so much from those "other types of gamers," but, rather, with Bedrockgames himself. And from what I can tell it's mostly because Ron Edward and those other GNS people use the term "fiction" and we all know that it's badwrongthink, so the use of "fiction" is guilty by association. * This seems to be a case where you have no problem with the use of "story," or at least OSR and sandbox circles do not. I raised this point earlier, but this was never addressed. Again, I don't think that this necessarily is what is meant by "loaded" terms. Loaded language does not refer to words having different meanings. It most often refers to terms that often contain emotionally-charged associations: e.g., "freedom" (good) vs. "fascism" (bad). Or even how something more positively framed like "homeland" is often used by nationalists. I don't think that "fiction" has those sort of high-inference loaded associations, even in RPG circles. Loaded terms in RPG circles are generally terms like "railroading" and "meta-gaming" on the more negative end or "living world" and "player agency" on the more positive end.</blockquote>

Verification