Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4883302" data-attributes="member: 54707">This is purely an assumption on my part since I haven't read the thing, but it seems to me that what Wick is implying, based upon your brief presentation of his ideas, is not that you need a stat for hope, but that you need a concrete way of measuring what you mean by saying "hope."That is to say one can express the answer of the question, "what is your game about?" as hope, but what does that mean? Absolutely nothing in reality, or rather perhaps dozens of different things depending upon who is addressing their own assumptions about what the answer means, and how it is properly defined.So it strikes me that what Wick is really saying is, "have some concrete formulation in mind, something that can be measured and analyzed and used for comparative purposes" to see if the answer of hope is really being addressed, and in what exact way.You can't really have a hope stat. It's like saying you have a stat for thought (versus an IQ), or love (versus a display of affection), or courage (versus an act of bravery), or whatever intangible ideal. What you can do however is develop a way of thinking about, measuring, addressing, and analyzing the elements, or constituent parts, or behaviors, or components of hope to see if enough of these things are being addressed that one may say more or less conclusively, "yes, that is indeed a game about hope."For instance if a scientist wanted to measure "love" he cannot of course measure "love." What he must do instead is measure the elements of love, those behaviors, traits, and expressions normally associated with "love." This is not to say love does not exist, it is to say love is beyond the normal methods of analytical control and measurement. But what you can do is measure those things which constitute the various definitional elements we claim when normally speaking about the ideal of "love." Same thing for hope. If I said to you, "I have hope in my heart, my ideals are all about hope," what does that in fact mean other than a purely subjectively linguistic expression? Suppose you behaved in a depressed, cynical, despondent way most of the time but every someone asked you how you felt you said, "I am absolutely hopeful." Does the language define the ideal or the ideal the language?What is the real measure of the ideal? (Personally I'd never say my game is about hope. That is in my opinion not a what question but a why question. Hope deepens not upon the "what of things," - after all anyone can be hopeful under the proper what conditions  - everything goes your way, you face little friction, you prosper -  but rather hope is a question of the why of things. Are you hopeful despite opposition, despite failure, despite setback, and if so, then despite the immediate evidence of events, why...?)In any case I think Wick is trying to dissuade from the idea that purposeful creation or even purposeful expression of an ideal requires nothing more than a vague generality or conception open to multiple interpretations of possible definition. Rather it requires a venue, a vector, a path of progress, motion, or movement. Yes, one wants to go to the City of Hope. But hope is not a plan, hope is the destination.Therefore Wick is encouraging, obversely, that to achieve an aim one must have a navigational route. Methods, procedures, tools, maps, plans, and that these things are not to be confused with the goal, but they are necessary to the goal, for without the method there is no good chance of achievement of the goal. The point is not to stat Hope, but rather to gain  concrete idea of what constitutes hope, and that it is in many cases possible to stat such things as compositional elements, if by statting a thing you mean objectifying, measuring, and testing those same elements.It's like saying "I'd like to be Happy." But that's not a question or even the question, or an enlightening path towards achievement. Because happy is the goal. And therefore the goal is not in question, and never really has been, once you first conceive of it. The real question revolves around the problem, "what must I do to be happy?"  Or rich, or famous, or moral, or good, or successful, or happy, or holy, or whatever the case may be. The goal is already known, it is the course that must be properly charted. What you don't know about the goal is not the goal itself, but the what, when, where, how, and why of the goal. How to navigate it. How to chart and measure it. And the charts must of course, for this is the goal, lead closer towards the detonation, but the destination is not a description of method. the goal is the intention, the method is the instrument.Therefore, in my opinion, if you want to follow Wick's advice, develop methods to match your madness.General discussion of theory and ideal is fine, but it never drew a map of the Amazon. And it most assuredly never actually explored it. Anywho, that's my story and I'm stickin to it.</blockquote>

Verification