I think I've made this one before O: Gonna make it today.

Lulie's How To Argue claims that "meta drives arguments into black holes":

Quote1. Meta is off-topic.
2. Meta breeds meta.
• You can't contradict a meta statement without making another meta statement.
3. Meta engages emotions.
• Popper wants our ideas to die in our place. Meta wants to substitute us for our ideas, and less[sic] us die instead of them.
• Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being argued to attributes of the speaker or the nature of the discussion.

What if we looked at this through the lens of "Play requires acceptance"? If we think about "arguing" as a form of play and synecdochally apply Lulie's advice on avoiding meta to the entire realm of playing?

Quote1. Meta is off-topic.

When engaged in play, going 'meta', that is, asking how the playing could be different, we are no longer playing. (I need to dedicate more time to this argument.)

Quote2. Meta breeds meta.
• You can't contradict a meta statement without making another meta statement.

Once engaged in a question beyond the play, the value of the play itself is damaged. Why play anymore, now that the rules are questioned? (Magic circle.)

Quote3. Meta engages emotions.
• Popper wants our ideas to die in our place. Meta wants to substitute us for our ideas, and less[sic] us die instead of them.
• Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being argued to attributes of the speaker or the nature of the discussion.

'Meta engages emotions' is a weird downside: what about arguments about emotion? Arguments about how you feel when doing something, when thinking about something, and what that means. Of course these arguments must necessarily engage emotions! The other points are clearer and easier to discuss, without the loaded implication that engaging emotions is bad.

"Popper wants our ideas to die in our place." (Need to read more about Popper.)

Meta allows us to discredit the limitations which Ian Bogost proposes are necessary for play (need link).

Meta changes the focus from the substance of what's being played (limitations).

This barely hangs together in writing. Anyway, I'm not trying to break things down point-by-point to present an argument yet, this is just initial thoughtbreeding. Where to from here?

References
- Recognizing Play (jack, letterclub.games)
- "How does this want to be played?" (zeigfried, quote)
- Play Anything (bogost)

Suppose X

Imagine X

etc.

These are, like 'proposed theories' (or 'hypotheses' but honestly i just mean off-the-wall ideas that one takes and runs with), prompts. Invitations to play, if you know what you're looking for.

If I say X is true, we might be able to play with the idea if we agree. Or, we might disagree, and then an argument or negotiation over the truth value of X might take place, instead of play.

If I say Suppose or Imagine X is true, it's a prompt to play. Still, it's not like this form of prompt is immune. We might disagree on whether it is worth playing.

It's fun to propose theories and then ask "what if?"; the proposal of the theory itself is not play, but going with a prompt is the source of play; to take limitations and see where they take us...

Zeigfried proposed this lens. I like it. It makes me think of art as something which intentionally challenges you to enjoy it.

Rather than ask how it could be different, the question "How does this want to be played?" provides an inroad to play.

I spent too much time asking what could be different about 10 Beautiful Postcards.

Ian Bogost encourages worldfulness, in contrast to the idea that mindfulness is the solution to every problem. "By holding everything at a distance, we trap ourselves within our imperfect minds. Irony doesn't protect us; it only makes things worse."

[pingback: The Nature of Order // Book Two]

[pingback: Ugly Feelings (stuplimity)]

Maybe it's not the best idea to have a place to record and dwell upon my disagreements... I need to focus on arriving at a better place, and then communicating it clearly (for my future self, as well as to be a stronger communicator generally)

I can't put my finger on what I loved about it as a whole. There is a joy there. It bothers me that I can't describe it clearly.

It also bothers me that it doesn't work on my mac! Damn you, Apple! Damn you.

And yet... why hold 10 Beautiful Postcards to this weird standard? I can definitely see myself reacting with the un-useful negative attitude, of "Here's everything I didn't like about it". What did I love about 10 Beautiful Postcards?

- No collision

- Tiny funny storylines

- A weird living world of characters living out their lives. It really feels this way, even if it's only a world I can glide through and never be a part of.

- I love the character sprite a lot

- Invitations to play

- I ate all the paper clips and was called out for it

I've been accused of being a solipsist before. I don't mind the accusation.

I want 10 Beautiful Postcards (anything, really) to be more about me to me, than it is about itself. Fucked up if true. I want to experience my own emotional highs, to have my own story, to have my self reflected back at me...

None of this is really on 10 Beautiful Postcards but as is appropriate for the accusation, I'm making it all about myself. lol. Well, this is my 1-person forum, after all. What's it for if not this: me talking to myself about myself.

I think the form of 10BP interests me but the content is not interesting. I'm pretty choosy about content; really i just want to experience those emotional highs. Give me extremely novel peak emotions and I'll be happy. Ha ha ha. Yeah, like that's easy. But playing through 10BP has me thinking that I like an obvious strong clarity of purpose...

I don't know. I feel like there isn't a strong ending, no real beginning. what's the middle. maybe i like/care about plot more than i let on. but there are no systems, no...

okay, i don't need a plot, but perhaps plot is one thing that can compel me. but it is clear to me that my interest in the CONTENT of 10 Beautiful Postcards is quite low. nothing really clings together to tell me anything clearly that i love. but the FORM is highly interesting.

what does that mean? i duno