Exploration, System, and the Lumpley Principle

[Sean]

In another thread, Silmenume wrote:

"Exploration is the process whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in its application."

Note that if you define it this way Exploration = System, by the Lumpley Principle.

There is a sort of problem here, insofar as the "imagined" in SIS implies that to some degree and in certain cases that one can't draw much of a distinction between exploring the SIS and creating/introducing things to it. (Especially because unless you believe in telepathy the sharing is accomplished externally to the imaginations of the multiple participants; there are multiple feeds out of individual imaginary space, into the shared dialogical space, and back into individual imaginary space: 'SIS' is a construct out of that. Unless you're a Heideggerian.) Which could undermine the system/exploration distinction.

So then looking at the glossary and thinking about it I'm inclined to tighten things up as follows:

exploration = individual acts of imagination, en toto

shared imaginary space = the dialogical (and visual, etc) real-world arena of the game into which all players input certain aspects of their exploration and which then feeds back into each individual player's exploration

system = all procedures for exploring via introducing elements into the SIS, defaulting in most (all?) cases to unregimented drama where not otherwise defined

Does this seem reasonable?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You guys are confusing the piss out of me. It's only by a great effort of will that I'm not immediately assuming some kind of word-salad affective disorder is going on.

The quote from Jay makes no sense to me at all. Situation is a component of Exploration. How can Exploration "not require" it? What? What?

And what's all this about "addressing?" Like "explore," when this verb is used in GNS discussions out of its usual role, the effect is simply noise - it forces me to guess what you're driving at.

Hence, "explore Premise" is an oxymoron, technically. So is "address Situation." If the two verbs are being used in some other, more casual way, then it's reasonable to ask people to find other words that don't play a jargon role in the theory, when expressing whatever thoughts they're expressing.

Best,
Ron

[Sean]

Hi Ron -

I agree that the quotation from Jay is confusing; hence my attempt to tighten things up a little. Does the tightening work (the three def.'s I offer at the end), or is that a product of glossolalia as well?

Best,

Sean

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

I ought to clarify that I don't think either you or Jay is actually making no sense at your ends of the screen.

Umm,

exploration = individual acts of imagination, en toto

shared imaginary space = the dialogical (and visual, etc) real-world arena of the game into which all players input certain aspects of their exploration and which then feeds back into each individual player's exploration

I consider Shared Imaginary Space and Exploration to be near-synonyms. Perhaps, if one is really picky, the latter is more process-like and focused on how Social Contract interactions work together, and the latter is more "transcript" like, although it does contain techniques and ephemera, hence cannot be treated only as fictional output. Again, though, treating them as synonyms is probably the best way to start, and parse in minor ways from there.

Your definitions above seem 100% compatible with my paragraph - so we're talkin' the same. So far so good.

system = all procedures for exploring via introducing elements into the SIS, defaulting in most (all?) cases to unregimented drama where not otherwise defined

This reads funky to me, but that may simply be an artifact of the "say it for yourself" differences between us. Lemme see ...

System is that aspect of Exploration which is "input" into the imaginary space, when the input pertains to imaginary events which happen. I like to say that System adds time to the SIS, in the form of events and their imaginary temporal relationship to one another, which often involves in-SIS cause.

That sort of seems like what you're saying ... how about to you?

Best,
Ron

[Sean]

Yep. I agree with what you just wrote and think I was trying to say the same thing (your gloss on "input" roughly equals what I was trying to get at with "introduction of elements"). Cool! Thanks!

[Jason Lee]

My take on this issue is in My Unified Theory of Exploration.

Exploration is the process of creating/interacting with the SIS and System is the control structure/guidelines of that process.

[Silmenume]

I am guilty of poor idea presentation via writing.  I apologize.  Believe it or not I expend a great deal of effort editing my posts before I upload them on this site.  It may not seem that way, but I do the very best I can to keep up with the standards of excellence in writing on this site.  Mea Culpa.

In another thread, Silmenume wrote:

"Exploration is the process whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in its application."

Ok.  Several issues here.  Some are my fault, some with taking the statement out of context.

Here is the full quote –

Exploration is the process whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in its application.
Exploration is limited to and must include all the elements used in this process – all the Elements of Exploration.

The whole phrase is self-contradictory, on one part it says Situation is not required in its application – HOWEVER in the very next sentence I did say that all the elements must be included in this process.

Why no one took the moment to ask what I meant especially given the context of my efforts lately, I can't answer.  Especially since anyone who has been reading my posts lately knows how ferociously I have been arguing that Situation is a critical component of Exploration.  I am not using this as a forum to argue the validity of my assertion, there are other threads that I am involved in to address that, I am saying that just plucking out a statement that is so self evidently erroneous, without considering the context or the author – ought to suggest that something else might be afoot.  Every other time I have talked about Situation and Exploration I have been going on like a broken record about its importance to Exploration.  One time I fuck up on this topic, post the opposite of what I have arguing for a while, and everything goes bananas.

Mea Culpa.
Mea Culpa.
Mea Culpa.

Allow me to phrase what I intended to say, right or wrong, just so that we are all on the same page.

Exploration is the process/event whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in every instance of Exploration's application/employment/invocation.
Exploration is limited to and must include all the elements used in this process – all the Elements of Exploration.

Because I was arguing so hard about Situation, in the context of the thread I had started, I wanted to make clear that I was not saying that Exploration only happens when Situation is being acted upon.

I would go back and edit my post if I could, because I know it is going to cause more grief, but I can't.

My fuck up.

To address Ron's response to my addled mind and to try and clear the air -
My understanding of Exploration requires the communication of imaginings.  The notion of system (aka apportionment of credibility aka the Lumpley Principle) was intended to be covered by the phrase "...must include all the elements..."  IOW the global act of Exploration is that process by which role-play happens/goes forward – by which I would gladly include your reference to time.

You may not like my phrasing as I had put it, but re-phrased the way I had intended it, it does not contradict your position.

And what's all this about "addressing?" Like "explore," when this verb is used in GNS discussions out of its usual role, the effect is simply noise - it forces me to guess what you're driving at.

Hence, "explore Premise" is an oxymoron, technically. So is "address Situation." If the two verbs are being used in some other, more casual way, then it's reasonable to ask people to find other words that don't play a jargon role in the theory, when expressing whatever thoughts they're expressing.

I searched all my postings here on the Forge and not once have I ever used the phrase "explore Premise" or "explore Challenge."  Actually, despite my mauled credibility and despite all evidence to the contrary, I do choose my verbiage with great care.  From a Sim perspective do believe players have a relationship with Situation that is handled in a fashion that is similar to a Narrativist's address of Premise.  But, as this was Sean's thread originally I will take up that issue and the phrase "address Situation" in another thread.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[iambenlehman]

In another thread, Silmenume wrote:

"Exploration is the process whereby any and all information is added to the SIS – it does not require the address of Situation in its application."

Note that if you define it this way Exploration = System, by the Lumpley Principle.

BL>  Yes.  Right.  Bang on.  I agree entirely.

"System" sounds more like a thing and "Exploration" sounds more like a process, but consider that, with regards to ritual spaces like RPGs, the line between the two gets blurred a lot.

yrs--
--Ben

[Erling Rognli]

There is a sort of problem here, insofar as the "imagined" in SIS implies that to some degree and in certain cases that one can't draw much of a distinction between exploring the SIS and creating/introducing things to it. (Especially because unless you believe in telepathy the sharing is accomplished externally to the imaginations of the multiple participants; there are multiple feeds out of individual imaginary space, into the shared dialogical space, and back into individual imaginary space: 'SIS' is a construct out of that. Unless you're a Heideggerian.) Which could undermine the system/exploration distinction.

I would recommend having a look at Markus Montolas article ?Roleplaying as interactive construction of subjective diegeses? (in ?As larp grows up?, Gade, Thorup & Sander 2003). His main  point, as I see it translated to Forge-terms, is that the SIS is a theoretical construction. Every player has a personal and subjective diegesis, or an Individual Imagined Space. These are shared through communication among the players, but as communication is imperfect they will never be identical. The higher the level of correspondence between the individual players subjective diegeses, the higher the integrity of the SIS will be, making it dependent on the quality of communication at the table.

I might be wrong, but I have gotten the impression that the Big Model in a way assumes that the content of the shared imagined space is verifiable and objective? Could someone correct my impressions, if the abovementioned is old news, or tell me to ramble on if this is interesting?

Erling

[Sean]

Proust picture: there is no SIS, just IIS and the impossibility of reaching out to anyone else.

Heidegger picture: the SIS is as 'real' as anything, insofar as 'subjective' imaginings - the Being of Dasein - always already have a social dimension. Imagining as being-with-others is qualitatively and therefore 'ontologically' (therefore is Heidegger, not me) distinct from solitary imagining. There are phenomenological distinctions between shared imagined space and private, and nothing deeper than phenomenology, so...


I provide these two lunatic pictures to contrast to what I take to be the

Common sense picture: Each of us has our own imagination while participating in dialogue with others. From out of this dialogue we form a shared imagined space as a joint input of correction and enhancement to our own individual imagined space. The SIS does not exist at all, 'really' in the way that our private imagined spaces do; rather it is a construct out of them and out of our dialogue (and the tools we use to generate and constrain and support that dialogue, ie System), which exerts feedback into each of those imaginary spaces separately. Proust's subjectivism and Heidegger's mysticism should equally be rejected.


Comments: I think this mostly agrees with Montola the way you describe it. It's also my own opinion and doesn't necessarily represent anyone else.

The Big Model is mostly silent on the psychological, phenomenological, and ontological nature of SIS as far as I can tell, but maybe one of the Elders will provide some threads with past discussion of this.

I don't think the 'integrity' of the SIS as Montola describes it in your paraphrase - and it's a good description, one I'd agree with - is as necessary or absolute a goal as one might think, although enough integrity to get by is important. (You don't imply this, I'm just ruminating.) Rather, I think what's key is that the game keeps the OUTPUTS of each person's imagined space mutually functional (and there is a consistency constraint in that 'functional', but it's not the consistency of different people's subjective imaginations, which is I think the consistency demanded by integrity) and that the game ENHANCES the experiential intensity (inasmuch as such is desired) and the enjoyment of each person's private imaginings.  Integrity might be part of that for some players in some games, but it's not a priori necessary for group enjoyment of the SIS.

[Erling Rognli]

I agree that both Proust and Heidegger are too far out. The reason I find this interesting is that acknowledging that the integrity of the SIS is dependent on clear communication shows a point of contact where the social setting will influence the SIS directly, aside from through the CAs and the social contract. This might be old news, of course, but still.

The social setting has an influence on communication. The interpretation of symbols happen within the social context. This means that issues in the social setting will directly affect the other players interpretation of a players output into the SIS. Misunderstandings reflecting different world views, semantic differences, and most importantly the fact that you will often interpret others in a way that confirms your own fears and hopes. Rather obvious of course, given some common sense. Still, I wonder if this is something the big model covers, and if not; should it?

Erling

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Erling,

To my way of thinking, the important concept that the SIS is one manifestation of Social Contract, albeit a very creative and ritualized manifestation, seems sufficient to cover the concepts you've outlined, especially the "feedback into social" process.

Best,
Ron