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

9. A World
aliveness as a lens for . . . "what makes a space something we connect with, something inviting, and rewarding, and staying?"

QuoteI want to get past this question of responsibility – is the game's design going to reveal life to any player?

^of course not, it can't! life . . . is not revealed . . . it is highlighted . . . hmm. maybe it is revealed. 'reveal' is a nice word.

QuoteOr is the player going to create life from any game? Or should we hope for something in the middle? [..] Perhaps it is just a matter of preference.

^I am adamant for some reason that it is not . . . something in the middle, or a matter of preference. There is a clear answer.

QuoteThere are times and places for games that take responsibility, and times and places for players to take responsibility. Then the question becomes: which are we primarily interested in, at this moment, in this quest to understand aliveness? Aliveness in play, or aliveness in games ______ ?

^There is one answer that captures all of this. If we allow for a split like this into 'kinds', we will . . . not truly solve anything. That is my uncomfortably strong feeling. I am looking for something like a general theory of physics.

8. aliveness. jack says "i want it to be something inherent to design, rather than something created by any number of human players". i agree. this is actually the thing that rubs me the wrong way about sicart's writing. he essentially seems to say that the design of the game does not matter, and that the responsibility and focus lies, and should lie, entirely on the players and their actions and their play. but no, this is a built environment! agree. agree agree agree with jack.

jack talks about some things from Rules of Play. perhaps just semantics games with the word play? probably worth considering seriously at least once.

Quotewe use the word 'play' to refer to the action of a button on a remote.

to put something into 'play'. Push over the first domino.

Watching a domino chain fall is a single player game that is alive.

The dominoes are alive while they are falling.

QuoteBut, I suppose there is an extra weight that comes not from simply being in action, like a tape player, or a chain reaction, but instead actively reinforcing itself within a larger ecosystem of change.

^emergence, emergentness? not from being in action like a tape player . . . actively reinforcing itself . . . is jack saying that the dominoes are actively reinforcing themselves? i'm not sure i understand

Quotethe ball is 'in play' vs. the ball is 'out of bounds'. When it is 'in play', the game, the simulation, is evolving, transforming. To me, this aliveness is simultaneously enough and not enough to satisfy our understanding of this feeling.

^simultaneously enough and not enough. i'm not satisfied with this construction! what does that mean?

Quote[the game, the simulation] is a transforming process, but what is it preserving? Is it up to the player to identify what is preserved? Or is it up to the game?

^hmm. what is it preserving. it must be preserving the centers of play . . .

Quote from: droqenSomething that respects the player's living process, as opposed to a game which boils play down to a number (e.g. a high score)

QuoteIsn't chasing a high score a very alive activity? Or is it not enough to simply be an instrument of life? Is aliveness something more?

^aliveness is about building-up . . . interesting . . . you build the environment to support the play, the play of chasing a high score. i was wrong to say that a high score does not respect the player's living process. what if the player's living process is perfectly served by that number? think: what does the player want, why is the player doing what they're doing? are they wanting for more.

are they empowered to build their world.

7. gage's talk. i have specific thoughts about this - it is about development. the questions that arise. the 'latent centers', weak, the things that come up naturally in the common feelings. you develop the game according to these desires. if the feeling 'i want to play with this' arises, that is a weak latent center . . . you strengthen it. wow i can't believe i didn't include this in the post! but i must talk about it. i must.

oh no page break

6. organic. already discussed above. perhaps consider the word 'organic' rather than 'living'? not sure.