How To Argue (How To Play)

[droqen]

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

1. 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?

1. 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.)

2. 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.)

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.

'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?