SIS: Beyond the Glossary (Help!)

[Silmenume]

Hey Jonathan!

I want to write more in your current thread on the SIS - but alas time...

Real quickly my take is fairly simple and is the following -

The "Shared Imagined Space" is a "fact space."  This is the arena of statements which have successfully negotiated their way through the Lumpley Principle.  They were shared and agreed upon.  That's it - that's all there is.  I tend to think of it as filled with objects.  These objects can have qualities like color or mood, but are things nonetheless.

The fact that the Lumpley Principle is indispensable to role-play implies that unlike a chess board or monopoly board there is no objective external "reality" in role-play that we can all reference - IOW we the Players must all agree to what is happening where.  Why?  Because it is each individual Player who has the responsibility for keeping the shared facts straight in their head.  We attempt to make sure this happens by making sure everyone at least agrees to what is "fact" when it is ratified - after that is someone forgets it gets a bit sticky.  Time is one quality that does not "flow" in the SIS.  Further statements and system are required to "change" things from one state to the next.

In tying in with Creative Agenda - how each individual Player interprets what the established facts mean is up to the individual.  One might see Challenge in the established fact space (SIS) another might see Premise.  The best way to make sure that everyone is looking at the facts from a similar angel is Social Contract.  We are all Gamists or Simulationists or Narrativists.  Supporting the expression of a given CA is Mechanics (game design). The point is, though, what goes on inside each Players head does not mean anything to the SIS until something is communicated/shared.  (I call what goes on inside the Player's head as a result of Exploration {the sharing, negotiating, and adding of "facts" into the SIS} the "Affect Space.")

So to me the SIS = "post Lumpley Principle facts."

Everything else (source material, mechanics, currency employment, etc.) can be mined for ideas regarding what to input and what is acceptable as input (think of Chris' Bricolage thread where he discusses "structures") - but those things are not part of the "fact space/SIS."  Every Player* has a individual representation of the SIS in their own heads that is supposed to be in sync with everyone else - actually its a big part of the reason for mechanics design.  The cool part is that mechanics perform two functions.  One essential, one aesthetic.  Essential = Lumpley Principle.  Aesthetic = facilitates and helps direct/shape CA expression.

I hope this helps you in some way.

* When I say every player I mean every player who is directly involved with the SIS at that moment. *

[Christoph Boeckle]

This is just nitpicking, but since the discussion is quite technical, I'll have a go anyway.

Jay you say that SIS is what there is in each player's mind, shared through communication, with the risk of there being different recallings later on. Source material is not part of the SIS, but might be used to feed it.

My claim is that there are parts of the SIS that are indeed in the participant's minds, but also in objective external "reality" as you put it. When our GM draws up the dungeon's map as we crawl along, that is most certainly exactly an external reflection of what we should be having in our minds (if we don't, then play wrecks up). Same with the classic: "You see this!" [GM shows a picture of a huge underground city]

As soon as this "source material" has been used to feed the SIS and the participants have acknowledged it, how could it not be part of the SIS? It will be used again session after session because it is more reliable than anybody's memory.

While I agree that source material which has not been acknowledged (explicitely or tacitly) is not part of the SIS, that which has must be part of it (as long as the participants don't agree on something which changes this fact). Of course, this depends on the participants having in mind that they should reference the dungeon map for any statement they make with a relation to it, but what they imagine from there passes through a very physical and external object before getting back, and it is most definetely shared with all the others
Furthermore this claim does not disrupt Ron's definition of SIS, since nowhere does he state that SIS is only contained in someone's mind. It's just fictional content established through play, and a dungeon map most certainly is fictional material.

[Jonathan Walton]

John, I think we're talking about the same things in different ways.  My more detailed diagramm of "Shared Imagination" was going to look like this:

Code Select Expand

6. Negotiated Narrative
   a. Common Imagination
          i. Implicit
         ii. Communicated
   b. Adjusted Imagination
   c. Unadjusted Imagination

So what happens is you have a bunch of Individual Imaginations, right?  And then you go through the Production & Reception process of negotiation.  And the outcome is this thing called SIS, which I'm calling Negotiated Narrative, just to move away from a term that doesn't mean quite what I think it does.  And Negotiated Narrative consists of:

1. the imagined bits that the players have in common including both Implicit (things that weren't communicated during play, but they still share, for whatever reason, including shared background knowledge and sheer coincidence) and Communicated (stuff that was expressed and survived the negotiation process).

2. individual imagined bits that are not shared in common but have been adjusted by the communication.  for example: Player A  declares, "my character stands triumphantly over the body of the dead ork" even though Player B was in the middle of imagining his character doing the exact same thing.  so Player B, instead, imagines his character brooding in the corner and glancing menacingly at Player A's char, even though he says nothing.  this still "happened" in my model, though on an individual not group level.  and Player B could later communicate this past event to the group, for example, by having his character say: "I can't believe you!  always hogging all the glory, like with that dead ork!  that made me so mad!"

3. individual imaginings that aren't shared at all and were not altered by the actions of the rest of the group.  for instance, you imagine that the window has tattered curtains or that you sword glows blue in the dark.  this is really a large part of the play experience, since, often times, the degree of detail that is communicated pales in comparison to player imaginations.  you're making a large part of the expeirence up on you own.  of course, this can become #2 or #3 pretty easily.  if you say, "I use the curtains as a blindfold" and the GM says, "there are no curtains," you've got #1 (There Are No Curtains).  if the GM says, "in the darkness of the cave, nothing is visible," you might be forced to shift your uncommunicated ideas about the glowing sword (#2) or say, "hey, my sword glows" (#1).

And a possible premise, at this point, is that the Anglo-American play idiom, coming from D&D, is mostly concerned with #1 there, packing in background knowledge and focusing on the stuff that gets communicated.  White Wolf and a few other forces tried to expand the focus more towards #2 & #3, but I would say they were only somewhat successful and only for certain audiences.  The Nordic larp idiom, on the other hand, is much more happy playing around with #2 & #3, with their focus on immersion and play experiences that are shared physically and socially, but where mental imaginings stay more private.

Hopefully that addresses the concerns of Simenume and Artanis too.

[John Kim]

And a possible premise, at this point, is that the Anglo-American play idiom, coming from D&D, is mostly concerned with #1 there, packing in background knowledge and focusing on the stuff that gets communicated.  White Wolf and a few other forces tried to expand the focus more towards #2 & #3, but I would say they were only somewhat successful and only for certain audiences.  The Nordic larp idiom, on the other hand, is much more happy playing around with #2 & #3, with their focus on immersion and play experiences that are shared physically and socially, but where mental imaginings stay more private.

I'm fine with your categories #1, #2, and #3.  So Shared Imagined Space = Negotiated Narrative, and that includes both things which are agreed upon in-play and things which are shared due to out-of-game overlap and/or agreement.  Is that right?

As for your premise, I'm not sure I see that mental imaginings are any more private in Nordic larp.  The physical sharing of Nordic larp is in-character -- i.e. you're physically communicating to others what your character is doing.  So the differences is between (in larp) physical and verbal performance versus (in tabletop) verbal performance and verbal narration.  These are all mental imaginings based on physically/verbally communicated information.  I see the difference as being mainly between communicating environment and communicating character.  So in a tabletop game, you may communicate more more of what you imagine the room looks like -- but you'll communicate less about what you imagine your character is doing, details of her mannerisms, and so forth. 

[Josh Roby]

While I agree that source material which has not been acknowledged (explicitely or tacitly) is not part of the SIS, that which has must be part of it.

Cristoph, I'm going to have to get more technical on you.  If SIS is assumed to be the imagined content that the players have in common, it's all insubstantial mental constructs.  That the GM pulls out a picture or draws a map will inspire in the players mental constructs that closely resemble the map, but the physical map never enters into the SIS; it's just a representation of information that is (should) be in the SIS.

Also consider a player that can't read maps, for instance; his mental construct of spatial relationships in the SIS will be different from the amatuer cartographer sitting next to him; the 'exact' relationships as described on the map will then not be common, and therefore won't be in the SIS.

Maps and props are useful and cool and provide lots of ambiance, but they aren't ever really in the imagination.

[Jonathan Walton]

Seems like we now have two conversations going on at once :)

John, I think we're good now.  Thanks for clarifying my misconceptions of Nordic-style play.  It was a tentative proposal because I haven't yet witnessed those wacky Scandinavians in practice and was basing things on hearsay.  I guess I'll leave that point out until I know better.  Also, I think I may be moving away from talking about "negotiated narrative" or narrative of any kind, and just sticking with the individual imagination in forms #1, 2, and 3.  Probably simpler that way, since I can imagine a few play styles that might be considered non-narrative, or not consistently narrative.  Don't want to create more problems for myself.

Thanks muchly, everyone!

[pekkok]

If SIS is assumed to be the imagined content that the players have in common, it's all insubstantial mental constructs.  That the GM pulls out a picture or draws a map will inspire in the players mental constructs that closely resemble the map, but the physical map never enters into the SIS; it's just a representation of information that is (should) be in the SIS.

Well, if the SiS is truly "imagined" then, of course, the map will not, and cannot, enter into it. But I think the issues of definition around SiS seem too ambiguous to rule that inclusion out. More specifically, I think the following issues should be scrutinized separately: A. What does the definition convey, as it stands? (Or definitions, as there are alternative versions.). And B. What is the element of roleplaying that SiS strives to conceptualize?

As to the definition and the term itself, I think it would be healthy to approach the term in a portioned manner: I.e if one agrees upon a term Shared Imagined Space, one should be able to specify equally why it's "shared", why it's "imagined" and why it's a "space".

For example: As you pointed out earlier, a visual map is not part of anyone's imagination - and hence cannot really be part of SiS. Yet - to be a part of SiS, by similar criterion that you use, something would equally have to be shared - and someone's imaginary representation of the map cannot really be shared. So, defining along the name SiS, as it stands, map really cannot take part in it - in any way, or any form.

Is this really what is desired?

If not, I can reason out two routes of approach (there are probably others, of course):

One could stick fast with the term and argue for a new angle on the concept of imagination: This would have to do away with most of what we know of imagination, and theories based on it, as they are rooted to understanding of imagination that is deeply personal.

In addition, one would have to explicate the workings of this shared imagination, and how it comes to be shared. It would not suffice to explain that we share communication based on our personal imaginations - for this would not be sharing imagination, but communication about it. In other words - not a particularly easy route to take.

Or, one could argue that SiS does not really strive to convey shared imagination, perhaps even a space. In light of this possibility, trying to glean a sort of general consensus for SiS (or rather the element of roleplaying it strives to bring forth), I found the following three quotes illuminating when read back-to-back: First one is the the glossary definition, second from Jay's post on this thread (I'm certainly not trying to hold his "feet to the fire" based on a paragraph of post - on the contrary, I found his way of definition interesting, by itself, and as a contrast) and third from Ralph's great post on the model to which he linked to, earlier in this thread.

Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination)

The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

The "Shared Imagined Space" is a "fact space."  This is the arena of statements which have successfully negotiated their way through the Lumpley Principle.  They were shared and agreed upon.  That's it - that's all there is.  I tend to think of it as filled with objects.  These objects can have qualities like color or mood, but are things nonetheless.

The Shared Imaginary Space (SiS) is the arena in which role-playing takes place.  It is the equivalent of the game board for play.  The SiS is simply the sum total of all knowledge about the game, game world, in game events, characters, etc that has been introduced, presented to, and agreed upon by all of the players at the table.

Unfortunately, barring mind melding abilities, the SiS can never truly be shared directly among the participants.  Rather, each participant has their own Individual Imaginary Space where the game is taking place for them.  The Shared Imaginary Space can then be seen as the theoretical construct which encompasses all of the elements that each Individual Imaginary Space has in common.  Whatever elements that are the same across individuals is then part of the SiS.

There seems to be some threads of consensus present, but, on the whole, the term Shared Imagined Space comes out fairly ambiguous, especially as a tool of definition. Jay defines SiS as "fact space" which, to me, makes more sense than the Shared Imagined Space, conceptually. But "fact space", as definition, is radically different in its emphasis; going with this definition, the term SiS would become fairly misleading - and it would also balance things differently. Also, its hard for me to see "facts" forming a space - perhaps a union or a collective... but these are not spaces, per se.

Ralph, on the other hand, likens the space to a game board. This comparison has interesting potential - but seems to clash with the next sentence defining SiS as sum of all knowledge. Its hard to see this sum as a board (more like a collective, once again) unless the board is meant metaphorically.

Ralph also recognizes the problem of sharing imagination I noted earlier - but then defines SiS as "theoretical construct which encompasses all of the elements that each Individual Imaginary Space has in common" (note the preference of the word "imaginary" instead of "imagined"). But this is problematic because the possible common element is not the Individual Imaginary Spaces, but rather communication about them - and communication, in whatever form, is not the same as imagination.

To me, the thematic problem here seems to be the lack of explication between personal-interpersonal, or similar dichotomy. Its a problem in Ralph's definition as pointed out above, and its an underlying problem in the glossary definition (which Ralph seems to recognize, and strives to take into account - but this might really be a quixotic exercise, given the problems of sharing imagination to begin with). And, its also the dominant problem with the paradoxical map scenario that this post started with.

Likewise, it seems to be an underlying problem in Jay's definition, although in this case further description might sooth out the issue, at least to an extent: What is this "space" and where is it? Are these facts meant as personal understandings, or interpersonal representations? Perhaps both? If so, how does the "space" occur between them?

But, in general, the prevalence of this problem leads me to surmise that the lack of explication of personal-interpersonal (or self-other, even subjective-objective - something along these lines anyway) dichotomy might be the source of this persistent "muddyness" of SiS, leading to paradoxes such as the example with the map, in themselves well-reasoned (its not Joshua's reasoning that builds up that paradoxical situation).

Cheers,

[Josh Roby]

Yet - to be a part of SiS, by similar criterion that you use, something would equally have to be shared - and someone's imaginary representation of the map cannot really be shared.

Replace 'map' with 'anything' and you have the reason why I abandoned the concept in my own understanding of roleplaying.

[pekkok]

Yet - to be a part of SiS, by similar criterion that you use, something would equally have to be shared - and someone's imaginary representation of the map cannot really be shared.

Replace 'map' with 'anything' and you have the reason why I abandoned the concept in my own understanding of roleplaying.

Yeah - as you can infer from my long-winded cataloguing of the concept's problems, I more or less concur with you. If one tries to stay true to its words, SiS is inherently paradoxical. If one develops a personal understanding of it, distancing oneself from the words, things tend to get muddy communicationwise.

This was one of the things I tried to concretize by quoting the definitions, back-to-back. Each makes a stab a definition - but you cannot make them concur with each other, no matter how hard you try. Moreover, none of them manages to define something that is "shared", "imagined" and a "space" - in fact, the modest successes seem to come by distancing the definition from those words. So, the problem seems to lie at the root - in the term itself.

But, on the other hand, I still think that the issue of sharing is extremely crucial to roleplaying, and hence of high importance and interest. Undoubtedly, there is sharing in some form or another; there is also some kind of commonality of knowledge - without these, there would not be, say, something like a setting, or even roleplaying in general. So personally I'm not giving up on the area - I just think that it should be defined in a way radically different from "shared imagined space".

I was actually cooking up a much longer post, in answer to yours, with a sort of rudimentary, sketched model dividing roleplaying between personal and interpersonal elements. Got it to about 70% mark, then ran out of mojo, time, brainpower... anyway, I have to finish it later.

But even based on the preliminary pieces, I would already assert that things often considered the essence of SiS (setting knowledge, information about characters etc.) ultimately rely on personal, private basis. True, we do correlative work by sharing references (words, images, other documents etc.), and through these seek commonality of knowledge and response, even though this knowledge is unavoidably personal (everyone knows which King holds the Magthingy currently, remembering to recall the Magthingy by concept into their personal considerations when that King is mentioned).

But equally, we rely on the differences of understanding. Even the knowledge we work to correlate, make common (and hence in play we talk... and talk) ultimately depends on the personal differences and private viewpoints (unexpressed, but fueling the emerging words) to make things unexpected, interesting. Without the differences they instill on common issues, there is really nothing to talk or game about. Sharing is an act, (sensual) references its tools - but the basis is always personal.

[contracycle]

IMO the SIS is a synthesis of communicated individual imaginings.  The individual imaginings will always go further than the shared SIS; negotiating that complexity is one of the things that mechanics do.

I'll illustrate by showing than Jonathans three aspects are matched perfectly by a multiple-access database.

#1 is the stuff that we all share through prior info or active communication.  Analogy: I make a change in the database, and this is reflected to all clients opening the dabatase.  It is communicated - pushed - out to the client machines from the central node in order to ensure consistency.

#2 Indicates clash about two people attempting simultaneous access to change something in the database.  This cannot be allowed for consistency reasons; therefore the system priviliges one to make a change, and only one, at a time.  Any implications of this change will come out in the use of or reference to this data.

#3 Is similar to when you make a change in your local copy of the database, but when you attempt to replicate with the central copy, you encounter a warning or problem that your change is inconsistent with someone elses change.  Again, this is a problem the database cannot solve and the users will have to negotiate as to which is correct.

Hence the SIS, like a database, is always BOTH individual and shared.  Control over the SIS is mediated BECUASE individual discrepancies necessarily exist in the "local copy".  There is a constant interaction between the local copy and the central node, an interaction that is (mostly) governed by having the permission, AKA credibility, to make changes on the central node.

Pekkok, you say:

Ralph also recognizes the problem of sharing imagination I noted earlier - but then defines SiS as "theoretical construct which encompasses all of the elements that each Individual Imaginary Space has in common" (note the preference of the word "imaginary" instead of "imagined"). But this is problematic because the possible common element is not the Individual Imaginary Spaces, but rather communication about them - and communication, in whatever form, is not the same as imagination.

No, communication is not the same as imagination, but communication is absolutely critical to the formation of a SHARED imaginary space, and that is why it has such a prominent place in the definition.  If it was not communicated, it might as well not exist... it DOES NOT exist in anyone elses imaginary space.  The act of communicaiton synchronises the various IS's; from that synthesis arises a genuine shared imaginary space that, as is pointed out above,  consists only of this imagined items the players have in common.  Without communication there can be no shared space at all, no central node, and therefore, no game.

[pekkok]

I'll illustrate by showing than Jonathans three aspects are matched perfectly by a multiple-access database.

#1 is the stuff that we all share through prior info or active communication.  Analogy: I make a change in the database, and this is reflected to all clients opening the dabatase.  It is communicated - pushed - out to the client machines from the central node in order to ensure consistency.

#2 Indicates clash about two people attempting simultaneous access to change something in the database.  This cannot be allowed for consistency reasons; therefore the system priviliges one to make a change, and only one, at a time.  Any implications of this change will come out in the use of or reference to this data.

#3 Is similar to when you make a change in your local copy of the database, but when you attempt to replicate with the central copy, you encounter a warning or problem that your change is inconsistent with someone elses change.  Again, this is a problem the database cannot solve and the users will have to negotiate as to which is correct.

Hence the SIS, like a database, is always BOTH individual and shared.  Control over the SIS is mediated BECUASE individual discrepancies necessarily exist in the "local copy".  There is a constant interaction between the local copy and the central node, an interaction that is (mostly) governed by having the permission, AKA credibility, to make changes on the central node.

But by lumping shared and personal together (referring to them as database, and its local "copy"), this example relies on the assumption that there is some shared presence I can simply copy to my head, and what I copied then "is" my imagination. If I make changes to my copy of imagination, I can upload these changes back, and they become immediately visible in a sort of totality of shared imagination, downloadable for everyone to replace their imaginations, as is.

To underline the difference between the sharing and personal understanding, let me make a small corresponding example:

I'll write (or probably speak if we are in a gaming situation) to you the following expression: "a yellow car".

As I wrote those words, I had an image of a car my head - can I "upload" this image to you using those words? Using more words? No, of course not. The image in my head includes surface patterns, shapes, the condition of wheels, a little bit of environment, weather and light conditions, etc.

And those are just the easy part: For it also has brought to my mind aesthetic judgments (I'll like the color - not "yellow" but what I see), what memories it brings with it (it's a similar model to a car that my father once had), possibilities, impressions (the car is a bit on the cheap side, and the environment seems high-class - somehow I find this humorous, but also a bit mysterious since it does not seem that humorous; in fact, this discrepancy seems to me the foremost and dominant thought as I think of that "yellow car").

I can of course try to say: "A yellow car that is a bit on the cheap side, in an environment that seems high-class - somehow this seems humorous, but also a bit mysterious since it does not seem that humorous." But what people understand and imagine, based on that expression, will vary wildly - even their sense of humour alone is probably quite different. So adding further words does not cure the problem.

What the expression in words does do is add a reference: I can later refer to it by saying "That yellow car that you saw earlier comes around the corner". The words are shared - understanding of them is not.

No, communication is not the same as imagination, but communication is absolutely critical to the formation of a SHARED imaginary space, and that is why it has such a prominent place in the definition.  If it was not communicated, it might as well not exist... it DOES NOT exist in anyone elses imaginary space.

As I've tried to concretize above, there is no reasonable way to equate what happens in the personal level, and what happens on an interpersonal level. Between these levels there's a radical difference in kind: So it does not make sense to call them both imagined spaces - one shared, others individual.

Personal level contains thought processes, memory: understanding, interpretation, imagination. It can plausibly be referred as a mental space.

But what is shared are (sensual) references: words, images, documents. But what is imagined, even understood through these is once again on a personal level.

Now, if these two very different levels, personal thoughts and interpersonal references (you could also call them signs, if you will), are lumped together under the same type, analytical problems will ensue, sooner or later. To me, they already seem fairly prevalent, given how differently people solve the problems of defining SiS.

Cheers,

[contracycle]

But by lumping shared and personal together (referring to them as database, and its local "copy"), this example relies on the assumption that there is some shared presence I can simply copy to my head, and what I copied then "is" my imagination. If I make changes to my copy of imagination, I can upload these changes back, and they become immediately visible in a sort of totality of shared imagination, downloadable for everyone to replace their imaginations, as is.

Yes, roughly.  But we need not get carry away with the issue of precision - good enough is good enough.

As I wrote those words, I had an image of a car my head - can I "upload" this image to you using those words? Using more words? No, of course not. The image in my head includes surface patterns, shapes, the condition of wheels, a little bit of environment, weather and light conditions, etc.

Right.  Theres a lot of implied, non-explicit information here.  This is related to the topic of bricolage in RPG.

I can of course try to say: "A yellow car that is a bit on the cheap side, in an environment that seems high-class - somehow this seems humorous, but also a bit mysterious since it does not seem that humorous." But what people understand and imagine, based on that expression, will vary wildly - even their sense of humour alone is probably quite different. So adding further words does not cure the problem.

Its certainly the case that a picture speaks a thousand words, and that the inherent limitation of bandwidth prevents a fully comprehensive mutuality of individual imaginations.  But, unless there is a discrepancy between STATEMENTS, it doesn't matter.  Lets say, I visualise a slightly different colour of yellow to the colour you imagine.  Does it matter?  Almost certainly not - almost certainly, agreeing on "yellow" will be sufficient for 99% of purposes.

And if there is a discrepancy, then that discrepancy will emerge in the ongoing challenge-response interaction of RPG's.  For example, we have not yet specified if its a two seater or a four seater.  However, as soon as anyone needs to take an action on that basis, they will either ask "how many seats does this car have", or they will assume one answer or the other, and whoever is in authority will either correct the assumption or endorse it.

Now, if these two very different levels, personal thoughts and interpersonal references (you could also call them signs, if you will), are lumped together under the same type, analytical problems will ensue, sooner or later. To me, they already seem fairly prevalent, given how differently people solve the problems of defining SiS.

I'm not dismissing the potential for discrepancy but I do not think it is significant.  I would say that in all practical contexts, we are aware of the partiality of information, that we do not have a direct line into the other persons head to see what they imagine.  But in practical terms this is not a blockage because we can and do communicate, and air our misunderstandings for clarification, and refine our private imaginings to the point at which they are at least not contradictory in a game-breaking way.

[C. Edwards]

I'm in agreement with Gareth.

There is an incredible amount going on 'behind the scenes' when we are imagining; bricolage, pattern recognition, extrapolation, references to our own internal logic and knowledge. Communication and game rules allow us to unify and integrate our separate imaginings. Translate imagining into a group oriented process as opposed to an individual process.

There is always going to be some noise in the signal, but like Gareth says, 99% of the time that noise is going to have no noticeable effect on play. In those instances where it does, we continue the process of communication until an acceptable likeness of the message is delivered. When communication breaks down, when a game text gives a distorted or contradictory statement of how communication should proceed or credibility should be distributed, that's where the process of creating a shared imagined space encounters the most difficulty.

-Chris

[C. Edwards]

One thing I wanted to add.

Communication IS the space. The act of sharing,attempting to communicate our own imaginings, creates a 'space' of mutual dialogue. The dialogue links our seperate minds and feelings together. And no, you can't bestow your own understanding to someone else, but you can express your ideas, mental images, and emotions for your friends to absorb and then translate into their own internal language.

-Chris

[pekkok]

There is an incredible amount going on 'behind the scenes' when we are imagining; bricolage, pattern recognition, extrapolation, references to our own internal logic and knowledge. Communication and game rules allow us to unify and integrate our separate imaginings. Translate imagining into a group oriented process as opposed to an individual process.

There is always going to be some noise in the signal, but like Gareth says, 99% of the time that noise is going to have no noticeable effect on play. In those instances where it does, we continue the process of communication until an acceptable likeness of the message is delivered. When communication breaks down, when a game text gives a distorted or contradictory statement of how communication should proceed or credibility should be distributed, that's where the process of creating a shared imagined space encounters the most difficulty.

Two quick questions:

1. What is the element that you are attributing here as "noise"? How would you describe it? From your post, the most likely candidate seems personal thought processes that you describe just before you invoke the term.

2. I know of no modern communication theory that equates communication, in the form of words for example, with sharing of imagination. In fact, for my understanding most of the scientific field explicitly denies that equation and stresses the importance of differences between the two (this is my understanding of Lévi-Strauss also, which I note since you use the concept of bricolage). On what basis you have come to the conclusion that communication can be sharing of imagination?


Cheers,