ignoring the subjective

[Supplanter]

Absolutely, Jim. All discussion to date has not reflected any change in my concepts about this, but rather changes in my ability to express them.

Speaking as a sim symp (though not a true simulationist), I find it a very powerful re-expression. I think the term "constructive denial" is wonderfully felicitous and rich in implications, most of which are probably outside the scope of this thread (like what it means for the sudden interest in "participatory" world-building sim).

In exactly the same way people want to believe that their political rights are "objective," people engaged in Simulationist play want to have their Dream's foundational inspiration be "objective." Whether this is actually possible (or whether, indeed, the term "objective" means anything at all) is outside the scope of my personal judgment, and I leave it up to the individual reader.

Sure. And the individual play group. Having experienced functional sim play, I know it's possible. I think a lot can be done to make functional sim more reliable. (Though I'm all about the "skewers" these days. Rather than SIM entire, I think it's more productive to talk about functional "virtual nonfiction," or "participationism" or whatever particular top-to-bottom model-piercing style one is after. But maybe that's just me.) And I think the term "constructive denial" can help to that end, at least a little.

Bes,t


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Excellent!

Quickie clarification - my final paragraph concerned the metaphysical question of whether that "objectivity" is possible, not functional play. That's what I'm saying "it's up to the reader" about. I'm not raising a debate about the possibility/reality of functional Sim play, as currently expressed.

Best,
Ron

[Nathan P.]

Thanks Ron. I was basically asking whether you had further thoughts on the "stuff" of Exploration that Mike points out, I apologize for not expressing that more clearly.

On the plus side, the last couple posts on this thread have, I think, given me a good grasp on the Big Model conception of Sim. Good times.

[Supplanter]

Excellent!

Quickie clarification - my final paragraph concerned the metaphysical question of whether that "objectivity" is possible, not functional play. That's what I'm saying "it's up to the reader" about. I'm not raising a debate about the possibility/reality of functional Sim play, as currently expressed.

Oh I see. Yes. This actually seems to be distinct from my own interest in "objective vs. subjective" in sim play, which is the question of how tacit or explicit the acknowledgement of just what is being denied in "constructive denial." (What's being denied is the "No Myth" principle, I think.) Objectively, yes, "the world" exists only insofar as we agree that it will. Subjectively, we agree to play, and to some degree think, as if it had objective existence, or at least that we had objective ways of determining what happens in it.

Setting the Wayback Machine, one of the few Origins I ever attended featured the first-ever official "Trillion-Credit Squadron" tournament for Traveller, and my friend David had entered it. The session was scheduled for four hours. The first forty-five minutes or so (I think) was set aside for verifying that contestants' fleets had been constructed according to the rules.

Does anyone remember just how much fleet a trillion credits would buy you? A lot. What that meant was that for most tables, the entire four-hour session of round one went to fleet verification and rulings from the wandering GDW staff. Actual competition had to happen outside the session, which meant that the surest way to advance was by your opponent's forfeit due to a scheduling conflict. During one of judge John Harshman's visit to our table, I said something like, "It might be better if it were 'Billion-Credit Squadron.' People could still build cool sets of ships, but it would be faster to administer." I will never forget Harshman's response:

"Maybe. But the nice thing about a trillion credits is that it's about as much money as a real Imperial Battle Squadron would cost."

Well I was gobsmacked. Nowadays it's easy to recognize that I was feeling "Gamist derail" and Harshman was feeling "Simulationist fidelity." At the time I could only stutter, to myself and later my friend Dave, "real Imperial Battle Squadron???" But at the level of line development, Harshman's constructive denial was doubtless productive (literally) for him and the GW staff. It was death for a fundamentally gamist aim (find the best fleet designer in four-hour tourney sessions) but let people with that attitude get all sorts of other stuff done, in play and design.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Jim and I aren't actually hugging and kissing in these posts.

Almost, though!

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

And I think it's time for this thread to say good night. Let's spin the no-doubt excellent fallout into new threads. Especially Actual Play ones, like you just sort of did, Jim.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

While Jim and Ron get it on in the back room, I'm still struggling with your post, Ivan.

What I was thinking about as a source of problems in Sim is when one of the participants feels that another participant's input to SIS is "wrong".

If SIS contents is an object and PCs belong to this object and the players are subjects, then anything "wrong" within SIS is subjective.

It can lead to suspicion in being non-Sim player or doing something wrong or bad - consious subjective. Such suspicions often prove to be right.

I'm going to paraphrase, and I want you to sort of give me a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.  The thing is, if it's thumbs-up -- if I'm reading your statements right -- then I think you're talking about something a little different than has been taken up thus far.

So, to paraphrase:

The contents of the SIS (including PCs) consist of a series of objects in an object-universe.  These objects are presumed, for purposes of the game in question, to affect each other solely within the logic and structure of that object-universe.

The players of the game are subjects, in the sense that they are comprehending, active intellects which seek understanding of objects.

The players are thus not part of the SIS: they are subjects and not objects.  Similarly, nothing within the SIS may be affected directly by the players: the only mode of action possible is for the players as subjects to develop a subjective understanding of what they perceive as objects in the object-universe.

If this is the case, then any disjuncture between subjective and objective knowledge must occur at the subject-level.  This is because only the subjects are capable of flexible comprehension, and thus only they can be wrong: the object-universe is what it is, objectively, and thus "right" or "wrong" are not appropriate terms for it.

Therefore, when we have a breakdown -- we as a group fail to agree about what we understand to be going on within the object-universe (SIS) -- it must be a matter of subjective failure.

This can lead to the worrying suspicion of a deliberate failure: that is, we may worry that another player has deliberately misinterpreted the object-universe in order to promote his own subjective goals.

Therefore an apparent breakdown, in which the group fails to agree about the SIS, immediately raises the suspicion of subjective manipulation for subjective (and thus intrinsically extra-SIS) motives.

Ultimately, such a conception requires that conscious subjective manipulation (as opposed to interpretation) is a violation, because it imposes a subjective barrier between subjects and the object-universe, and thus makes it more difficult successfully to understand and comprehend that object-universe (the SIS).

In other words, by this logic, deliberate extra-SIS manipulation, necessarily subjective (because it cannot be objective), can only violate the SIS (the Dream).

That's long-winded, and perhaps even less clear, but what do you say?

Chris

[jmac]

>The contents of the SIS (including PCs) consist of a series of objects in an object-universe.  These objects are presumed, for purposes of the game in question, to affect each other solely within the logic and structure of that object-universe.

yes.
they should affect each other solely with some definite and agreed upon logic and structure, at least.

>The players of the game are subjects, in the sense that they are comprehending, active intellects which seek understanding of objects.

I'm not sure that I meant it, but it's ok, I guess.
SIS is shared - if I would feel it alone - it can be wrong, but if we all feel it - it is like something real, objective.

>The players are thus not part of the SIS: they are subjects and not objects.  Similarly, nothing within the SIS may be affected directly by the players: >the only mode of action possible is for the players as subjects to develop a subjective understanding of what they perceive as objects in the object-universe.

Yes, but I'm not very sure. I don't usually develop a subjective understanding in a real world to do something or to see something.

>In other words, by this logic, deliberate extra-SIS manipulation, necessarily subjective (because it cannot be objective), can only violate the SIS (the Dream).

extra-SIS manipulation can't be objective, but it can "pass" - if done artfully it can be unnoticed.
I as a player don't care what other players are thinking, I care what they are doing. Of course, their vision of the game and their "mode" and reasons usually speak of themselfes, but it doesn't happen all the time.

>That's long-winded, and perhaps even less clear, but what do you say?

I say we should try harder to find a disagreement :)

I can't formulate a question (in topic), I need an answer for.

Ron,
I must say, that I understand that "constructive denial" thing - I was thinking about something like that.

I guess "fragile" is the key word in sim area. It is fragile and susceptible in sense of CA, and the displays of "c. d." are an addition to this.
It has to do something with coherence in sim play, I guess.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I am satisfied that the topic of this thread has been dealt with enough for readers to arrive at conclusions of their own.

That's about what we can hope for in this forum, so this thread is now, really and truly closed.

Best,
Ron