I've had this thought before.

Wearing clothing (as well as accessories, etc) is a deeply contextual act, clothing being always worn on a particular body, almost always part of an outfit (i.e., worn with other things), generally worn in a physical location.

if i think about every human activity as a conversation
perhaps a one-sided conversation, not always a dialogue but sometimes a monologue
a speaker speaks, someone or something listens

then every conversation begins because someone wants to say something
the conversation continues because of continued desires to speak
fueled perhaps by enough desire to listen but that desire to listen can only be perceived as a desire to speak back
perhaps not in the tongue of words
but body language, warmth, art, movement

a conversation of everything
not just words

then we picture
long-lasting conversations

there are rules to a conversation
each conversation is a context
for speaking and listening
listeners infer the rules and learn to speak in the language of the conversation
how to speak safely

a conversation that outlives its original speakers
a conversation that outlives its original speakers' desires to speak
a conversation that lasts too long

everyone follows its rules
nobody wants to have the conversation
but out of the desire to have some conversation, any conversation
the institution survives

sustained only by fear of a silent world.

I must admit that years ago I laughed at the absurdity and coldness of this piece. Now I think I'm going to really see what it has to offer -- it was a particular social environment, a particular mindset, a particular place in my life and in time, in which I laughed at it. I think I'm past that and may today actually learn something, and have some useful criticism to offer.

I hope to have a useful conversation.

Chris

Or getting the movers to do it

Where is this link leading you?
Into the darkness --
you are connected to someone across the aether,
through the wires.

Disconnected.

not demons that do you a favour for a cost, but a force of nature that follows rules--and if you know those rules then you can follow behaviours and use that to 'read' things the elementals can detect that you can't

find treasure, find water

A metafeeling.

It is described as "an experiential installation . . . that powerfully demonstrates how non-visual senses can transport audiences to different places or trigger different memories."

When we arrived on March 15, a little after 7PM, this space, swallowed in darkness, was full of people. It was possible to gently work your way into the circle of speakers through a narrow channel of people--this felt like a minor obstacle to be traversed, a boundary set safely outside the circle which separated the true inside from the outside.

At the center of the inside was a raised black circular platform, which felt like the inside of the inside, and it was full of people, occupied. There was another boundary... it was possible to sit safely on the outside of the circle ringed by speakers, until one felt comfortable enough to sit on (or lie on) the round platform.

There were sounds, and a scent, and a circular light above that pulsated nonrhythmically, slowly, to the swells of the sound.

I saw the art as well as others experiencing, reacting to, the art. It was an experience, a place.

partial response to rp's post in paradise, partial only

a game, progression, a game's progression
a game's progression, does it lead to a toy or to a summit? are you done or are you free to play? are you free to forget or are you free to explore the mountains? what does it mean to be free?
the purpose of a story- is the purpose of the story to be done?
i want to be done, to be free. give me a real ending, make me believe this is a real summit
give me a summit
hints of other summits- ok
hints of other summits of other flavours- even better
summits for some, summits for others
not optional summits- but imaginary summits
draw lines and boundaries. exit points. permission to leave, permission to forget

and yet also instill a drive to explore further? not to explore. instill a mastery which produces the drive to create. empower the player to create further, create new summits. a mastery which escapes the game? but a mastery also which rests within the boundaries of the game, the tool, the toy.

a real summit. a real escape. a real ending.

a further imagined summit-scape. further imagined escapes. further imagined endings.

I have been thinking about business cards recently, and my website. Who am i? What is it that i do, or aspire to do? Rather than a title, i think it is a verb or an aspiration that I'm more comfortable standing by, and this is the pseudopoetic phrase i have in mind:


Now, I'd like each line to stand on its own- the second line is beautiful, but the first is obviously a hanging fragment in want of a conclusion...

Maybe that's ok? Anyway I'm much happier with the second line, and i hope to find a whole i like as much.

"Making all the world
Systems playable"

Hmm...

"All systems playable"...

I've made a secret gameplay demo that really excites me along these lines, but I won't go into great detail yet.

The common version of this feeling is given by bullet hell games and games like... Geometry Wars, Vampire Survivor, things like that. There is a shifting mass of things which you are trying to avoid, and so you move to try and avoid them.

See also games with interesting movement mechanics and momentum, e.g. Superflight, where the obstacles are static but your movement produces a living, shifting relationship to that static obstacle-space.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a well-known game theory 'game':

Two prisoners (players) are each given the option to stay silent, or snitch on the other.
If they both stay silent, they both get 1 year in prison.
If they both snitch, they both get 5 years.
In one snitches and the other stays silent, the snitch gets off scot-free and the loyal silent one gets all 10 years.

I've been thinking of simple alternative 'payoff square'; it started while observing cars at an intersection:

Two cars (players) are each given the option to accelerate through the intersection, or slow down and wait for the other.
If they both wait, they both lose a few seconds of time. (and then they have to play another round.)
If they both accelerate, they crash and both lose hours of time to insurance, repairs, costs, and whatnot.
If one accelerates and the other slows, the fast car loses nothing, and the slower car loses a few seconds of time.

What does this look like in an environment where two (or more) collaborators have to come to an agreement together?

Two collaborators (players) are each given the option to agree with the other and support their idea, or commit to proposing their own idea.
If they both agree, they both lose some time because no idea was proposed for them to agree with. (And play again.)
If they both propose their own idea, they both lose some time because there was no consensus. (And play again.)
If one proposes an idea and the other agrees, they have come to a decision.

Obviously this is a really stripped down and silly version of how agreements are formed, but so are the prisoner's dilemma and the cars-at-an-intersection dilemma stripped down and silly versions of those real-world examples. The interesting thing here is that it describes a dynamic which gives rise to hierarchies: I've understood on an intuitive level for some time that it's useful for someone to take responsibility for a thing, to take charge, but this game makes it more clear to me exactly why that is.

~

Aside: It's easier for smaller groups with no explicit leader (or, let us say, shot-caller) because the probability shakes out better: playing this game with two players, there's a 50% chance in every randomly played round that we will come to a consensus. With three players, a 33% chance. (Or: 2 players have a 1/2 chance, 3 players have a 1/3 chance, etc.)
Also, with smaller groups, the rounds go faster, but that's not an interesting new observation: everybody knows that already.

There's no winning strategy for this game at the level of individual players. If everyone does the same thing as everyone else, the winning chance cannot get any better than those probabilities given above. The only way to develop a better winning strategy (and one is clearly available) is through communication -- and asymmetry.

...

Thinking in Systems - watchmaker quote

The Nature of Order - genes, self sufficient little things

Emergence - Discernible macrobehaviour

Thinking in Systems - defines systems in part as things that have a "function" or "purpose", same idea as Emergence's 'discernible macrobehaviour.'

I like the phrase given in Emergence even though it's a mouthful because it avoids ascribing intentionality to systems.

This is a big one. Seeing two different things as the same thing. It often feels sudden and jarring and weird. And somehow comforting and right and possible.

The Nature of Order: ornamentation and function.
~ (no link)