I neglected to keep good notes for this book, so I'll have to go back and find the things that leapt out at me. There have been several. Compared to my recent reading I am finding this book dry and obvious.. but great

EDIT: So many connections! I created a whole forum in order to better take the type of notes that were arising from its reading.

~ Discernible macrobehaviours of a system. (Avoiding teleological thinking.) ". . . a system must consist of three kinds of things: elements, interconnections, and a function or purpose"
~ Self sufficient subsystems, and evolution. "Why the Universe Is Organized into Hierarchies--a Fable"

P. 250
As [Gertrude] Stein puts it in "Poetry and Grammar,"
. . . Sentences are not emotional but paragraphs are.

I said, to some peers, that I had recently acquired the ability to consume "thousand-page nonfiction texts," and either claimed or implied or at least thought that part, a necessary part, of this was a sub-ability to "skim or skip . . . in order to better understand the whole."

I have been reluctant to do so with Ugly Feelings but I am becoming increasingly aware that it is important for me to stick to my guns, to follow my impulses, to not treat authorial linearity as so sacred.

I'm skipping to stuplimity.

Also it's been interesting reading some thoughtful negative internet takes on the writing of Glass Onion, just as it was interesting to hear a friend's thoughtful negative take on the writing of Perdido Street Station! I won't dwell on the negativity in either case, just absorb it into my being :)

I loved this movie as well as the previous one but in particular I want to shout out the glass onion thing. It's a term I found myself using to describe this stupid gameplay trailer for a particular 'self-aware' manipulate time-wasting mobile game which shall not be named here.

It's full of jokes at the expense of the type of thing which it is itself doing and being, and I found myself trying to describe that, that thing it was doing. Subtext. What does it mean for a time-waster to loudly and cheerfully say "WASTE YOUR TIME!" "NEGLECT YOUR LIFE!" ? The subtext is that you shouldn't be doing those things, and yet the game is encouraging you to do them. So is it making a point about how you shouldn't be doing those things but you can be manipulated into doing them? is it making a point about how I'm reading too far into the subtext, and in fact it's just cheerfully and refreshingly owning up to all of the things it's doing?

I felt exactly like Benoit Blanc in the moment he gave his rant, above. I was peeling back "every complex layer". "I expected complexity, I expected intelligence." It was only when I realized "it doesn't hide at all. I was staring right at it." "It hides not behind complexity, but behind mind-numbing obvious clarity."

So stupid.

It's a glass onion!

Quote from: Benoit Blanc, ~1:46:00I keep returning, in my mind, to the glass onion. Something that seems densely layered, mysterious, and inscrutable. But in fact, the center is in plain sight. . . . every complex layer, peeled back has revealed ANOTHER layer, and ANOTHER layer, and come to naught. And that was the problem, right there. You see, I expected complexity. i expected intelligence i expected a puzzle, a game. but that's not what any of this is.

It hides not behind complexity, but behind mind-numbing obvious clarity. Truth is, it doesn't hide at all. I was staring right at it.

https://thekitchengirl.com/instant-pot-mashed-potatoes/

This turned out amazing.

I have been reading this for a while.
I did not feel the need to quote anything, but . . .

It's useful to include my reading of this book here. For provenance. It's very important in my understanding of The Nature of Order.

Regarding
Ursula K. Le Guin's translation
of Lao Tzu's
"Tao Te Ching"

Oh shit! Jack also posted a followup, "Play to LIVE".

WHY COMMON FEELING?
--> Finding a general solution. The problem is the design. The player may be idiosyncratic, we must design for the common feeling . . . Common feeling as something common yet multifaceted, not scattered into untraceable pieces but part of an interconnected whole.

DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS
--> Zach Gage has written "This is the goal" but not the process, this always bothered me. Well now I know the process. Book Two, biiiitch!

THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION
--> Who is responsible? Both of us. It is a whole. However the responsibility is part of the design. What parts need to be adapted to the individual? We can discover this, we can answer this. Sicart is attempting to make decisions too soon about what is necessary. It is more fine grain than that.

COMFORTABLE WORLDS
--> Subcategory of the responsibility question? This is a particular vibe. We can solve for it. USE AS EXAMPLE OF THE ABOVE.

SALON, EXPLICIT PRESERVATION OF THOUGHTS
--> I don't feel good about my crossed-out items!  Jack interrogating the nature of puzzles and games.  Living play vs playing well.  Organic games, living games.  Semantics and ontologies.  These do fit together.

THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES
--> Is this related to PLAYING WELL? Tell me more

SEMANTIC PROBLEMS WITH "LIVING" GAMES
--> I can't answer this yet. I can see problems with the word "living", it evokes "liveliness", which is present in games aesthetically, simulation. What is life? Does it include the illusion of life? Architecture stops at the building. But we go further . . .

ONTOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
--> I don't worry too much anymore about questions of truth vs perception. It's worth saying that.

Shortening my notes upon notes.

LETTERCLUB IS A SALON.

JACK INTERROGATING THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES.
--> What are your questions? I think they can be a part of this. I am most interested in process . . . not what are puzzles but how are they born? Perhaps it folds neatly into another part?

COMFORTABLE WORLDS.
--> What is the 'play' in a comfortable world? What is the activity? What is the feeling of the activity and play?

THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION.
--> Is there a need to mention Sicart?
--> I fundamentally agree with Jack, the problem is - must be - the design not the player. Oh this connects to COMMON FEELING

"LIVING" PLAY VS PLAYING "WELL".

A RELEASE FROM SEMANTICS AND ONTOLOGIES.
--> Explicitly note the dismissal of this topic. Maybe a short conversation for the discord group.

"ORGANIC", NOT LIFE, NOT AUTHORITATIVE.
--> Explicitly agree with Jack's choice of words.

DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS
*** Jump straight into this one, because I have my answer.

COMMON FEELING, NOT A MATTER OF PREFERENCE.
--> One general solution must be found. That is part of the driving inspiration between my own desire to believe in Common Feeling. This answer's Zeigfreid's question and my question following.

Shortening my notes upon notes.
LETTERCLUB IS A SALON. this is no difficulty
JACK INTERROGATING THE NATURE OF PUZZLES AND GAMES. inquire, invite this in
COMFORTABLE WORLDS. (ah, such overlap with Alexander's architecture!)
THE RESPONSIBILITY QUESTION. it depends on the type of play, on the player's needs. does the player want responsibility? they should take it, they should be able to take it. each design has a different responsibility requirement. this must be about design. note my beef with Sicart's work. the general theory is local adaptation.
"LIVING" PLAY VS PLAYING "WELL".
A RELEASE FROM SEMANTICS AND ONTOLOGIES. meta. but useful?
"ORGANIC", NOT LIFE, NOT AUTHORITATIVE. born of a living process, organically formed
DESIGNING FOR PROBLEM SOLVERS important. so important. play-desire as latent-center. play-desire as what-must-be-preserved. "are they empowered to do that which they desire to do?" -> the way to design a game like this is to start with a desire, support it, and see what desires blossom naturally. again and again. empower the player to do more that they want to be able to do, in a way that is structure-preserving. step by step adaptation . . . the most wonderful answer to each question . . . without adding new centers, only strengthening existing ones.
COMMON FEELING, NOT A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. one solution. one general solution. if there are two cases, find the solution that marries them . . . that solution may be a larger pattern with room for local adaptation