Someone got back to me on my techniques article with some questions. Rather than listing them here, I'm going to distill them and discuss them here.

It was pointed out, and I agree with this, that "internal cause" and extremely plausible consistency was held as a priority over Address of Premise in my play-style.

If one or the other had to go, it would be the premise. This was inferred by the fact that my appreciation of premise-ful play was secondary to my responsibility for most-plausible events (dramatic timing aside since it didn't apply to premise in either of our oppinions).

But I don't believe that that prioritizing internal cause over premise constitutes the sort of barrier to Narrativism that would shut it down in any reliable or important way.

So I concluded that "Everything must happen in the most likely manner" cannot be the "point" of a Sim game because that rule, IMO/IME, does not represent a premise-killer.

-Marco

Hi Marco,

"If one or the other had to go..." can be a misleading determinant because it makes a difference whether you're talking about an instance of play as defined in the Big Model, or about some smaller unit of play such as an individual event.

I've been using the following example to illustrate this difficulty: It's February 13th, I'm madly in love with my sweetheart, and I want to express that emotion in a form suitable for presentation on Valentine's Day. I decide to write a love sonnet, a poem in which the verses must rhyme in a particular way.

I now have two concerns to deal with simultaneously: expressing my feelings, and making the words rhyme. If you observed me as I wrote, you would likely see me, probably several times, jotting down verses or phrases that perfectly express my feelings, and then rejecting them because they don't fit the rhyme scheme. From this you might infer that rhyming was a higher priority for me than expressing my feelings. In other words, "if one or the other had to go," when it comes to an individual word, phrase, or verse, the one to go would be the (momentarily best) expression of my feelings.

But if it's getting toward the wee hours of February 14th, and I've for some reason failed to express my feelings adequately in a sonnet, that's a different case of "one or the other has to go." If you'd concluded that sonnet-rhyming was my highest priority, you might expect me to switch to a sonnet about an easier subject, such as a happy turtle named Splashy. But of course what would actually "go" is the sonnet form, and I'd settle for expressing my feelings in a different form, such as free verse or prose, indicating what my real priorities were all along.

And -- here's the important new part of this example -- such a revealing crisis (running out of time and failing to write an adequate sonnet) is very unlikely to actually happen. Because my decision to use the sonnet form in the first place is based on my being pretty certain that I WILL be able to express my feelings in sonnet form. In fact, I believe that the constraints of using the sonnet form will help me to express my feelings better, because it forces me to reject some ideas (including most of my usual habitual ways of expressing things) and cast about for others that I might not otherwise have thought of. So even when I appear to be prioritizing rhyme over expression, when the context is understood, the rhyming turns out to be supporting my expression, in a more subtle way, all along.

Similarly, you hold that "internal cause" and extremely plausible consistency had priority over Address of Premise in your play style. That's true at the level of individual decsions, due to your explicitly stated commitment to plausibility, just as once one commits to writing a sonnet, rhyming has priority over expression when it comes to individual verses. But suppose you discovered that because of the characteristics of the system, the players, and/or the imagined space you started out with, adhering to internal cause made it impossible for Premise-ful play to occur? Would you continue playing that way for a whole session? (In the analogy, that would be like settling for the sonnet about a happy turtle named Splashy.) For four sessions? Which one would "have to go" then? More to the point, you probably don't think such a conflict would be likely in the first place, given the system, players, and techniques you chose. In other words, you probably started out expecting that you could maintain consistency and still expect Address of Premise to arise over the course of play, and made decisions about play (including the commitment to internal cause) consistent with allowing that to happen. Can you see that from that viewpoint, over the entire instance of play, it's reasonable to say that Address of Premise was prioritized? That your commitment to internal cause and plausibility might be seen as a supporting priority to that?

So, when you say "prioritizing internal cause over premise constitutes the sort of barrier to Narrativism that would shut it down in any reliable or important way" I agree completely, provided you're talking about individual decisions in play. But a commitment to prioritizing internal cause as the main focus of interest or meaning in play, over an instance of play, would be Simulationism and would tend to conflict with those same big-picture Narrativist priorities.

Applying this "sonnet paradox" analogy to role playing has led me to believe that inferring Creative Agenda from individual decisions in play is problematic, not just because decisions can be congruent or because priorities can shift from moment to moment on a small scale, but also because the apparent "agenda" of an individual decision, or even of an extended series of similar decisions, can be completely misleading.

- Walt

What Walt said.

Atomic single-decision analysis will not help much with identifying Creative Agenda.

However, it is an interesting topic in its own right and justly takes its place in things like Ephemera and sometimes Techniques.

And furthermore, I do not think that this point forces one to take a bogus loosey-goosey, "know it when you see it," totally holistic view toward identifying Creative Agendas. It is instead a matter of knowing what scale and what type of variables to look for.

Best,
Ron

As I understand Narrativism, and the content of your posting, I would disagree with you on the claim that prioritzing the integrity of internal cause will not severely hamper the adressing of premise. Which was more or less what you meant, right?

In my grasp of the big model, the defining feature of narrativism lies in the absence of reference points within the SIS for making choices at crucial instances of play. Playing gamistically the reference point for choosing would be the maximally effective tactic in the relevant situation. In a simulationistic context it would be what best maintains internal cause and consistency. In narrativist play the only such point of reference is within the player. There is no answer or guidance given within the SIS, which is the very point and attraction of narrativism. While it is possible to make tactical misjudgements, and to be out of touch with the dream, contributing inadvertedly disruptive input, the premise has no right or wrong adress. You can only fail to adress it, by letting som intra-SIS factor, such as internal cause, decide the course of action which would otherwise have been adressing the premise.

(And just as a side note, I am not spelling this out in such relative detail in an attempt to lecture or anything, but in hopes of getting some feedback on my understanding of the model.)

My point of disagrement is therefore that I believe the social contract clause of "Everything must happen in the most likely manner" indeed will severely hamper narrativist play, because it represents an intra-SIS point of reference for any choice made about character actions.

-Erling

Hi Erling,

I think that's a pretty good way to state the idea. I didn't really think of it in those terms myself, because to me, "most likely" is one of those after-the-fact things that people project into fictional accounts and doesn't play much role in the process of constructing them.

(which is why it's so problematic in role-playing procedures and always has been - what the hell does "71%" with a sword mean, anyway?)

Best,
Ron

Walt,
I don't know how long I'd last in the situation where I can't address premise because of internal consistency. Can you give me an example of how that could happen?

But let's turn it around: For four sessions in order to address premise, I have to abandon causuality ... that wouldn't make me happy either.

For maximal enjoyment, both have to line up in the ways I stated it. In the glitch-event that it's one or the other, usually premise goes (speaking as a GM). There are several things you might mean by internal-cause prevents address of premise so let me explain my general case (and you can construct an example that fits the bill):

1. I don't consider character hijack disadvantages to be "internal cause" any more than I consider hit-location to be internal-cause (or damage effect). It's an artifact of mechanics but is not related directly to situation, IMO.

2. I don't consider an "internal cause" driven game to have the GM say something like: "No one ever beats the galactic empire--and because I know this, some logical event will occurr to prevent a PC plan from working because the tactical geniuses at GE-Command already thought of their plan of attack."

3. I don't consider being (more or less literally) stuck in a box (or in a jail cell) where nothing interesting is happening gamable for a variety of reasons. I wouldn't play 10 games in a jail cell with nothing doing. I'm not sure if that's related to anything but it seems to have come up in this forum once in a while.

Ron,
I don't think this viewpoint forces anything specific in regard to Creative Agendas. I do think that it leads to a lot of misunderstanding though. For example: I see many posts that say the crucial singularity--the decision point where one CA is upheld over another is the distinguishing event that makes GNS analysis possible.

After all, if there are not single discisions then how do we analyze masses of congruent play?

I'm not saying that anything is inconsistent--just that I didn't see holding causuality on a point by point basis over "let's get this premise situation front and center" didn't seem to have a negative effect on premise over all.

Erling,
The idea that Narrativism is incompatible with with prioritizing internal cause is certainly, IMO, a logical conclusion from some of what I've seen posted. What is your analysis of my play and technique?

-Marco

Marco wrote:
After all, if there are not single discisions then how do we analyze masses of congruent play?

ErrathofKosh wrote:

Marco wrote:
After all, if there are not single discisions then how do we analyze masses of congruent play?

It's like calculus, you can't...

You can tell what the slope of the line is at a point, but that slope may not coincide with the average slope of the line. Too often, IMO, people are search for the equation that gives all points on the line.

CA's are like the average slope, not the equation.

Cheers
Jonathan

Hello,

Speaking for myself, I just let everyone take care of himself or herself regarding that particular point. It seems to be something that one can work out over time, and then realize it doesn't really need to be a debate topic.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

Speaking for myself, I just let everyone take care of himself or herself regarding that particular point. It seems to be something that one can work out over time, and then realize it doesn't really need to be a debate topic.

Best,
Ron

So check this out:

I, for a long time, identified my play style in the same way that Marco has done in the past: "Well, its Sim, because its all about just having this situation and letting people run around in it, and mostly it's just me unfolding the situation as it would happen, so Sim, right?" Well, wrong. We had this whole discussion of front-loaded Narrativism and Actor stance and so on. In the end, I sort of went "Oh, that's Nar? I've been doing that all along." And so I was.

But the point here is that even while doing that, and even though I would now say that I prioritize meaningful decision over internal cause, it isn't like internal cause doesn't figure into it, right? Because it totally does.

It's not like I have this scene where I might need to stress the internal cause to push a meaningful decision, and I say "Well, I'm a Narrativist, so I have to push the meaningful decision no matter what." I'm doing this thing where if I need to break the internal causality *a lot* then I won't do it, especially if it is not-that-cool of a meaningful decision. I mean, actually, I'm just winging it on the fly, but that seems to be what's going on when I look back at it.

I think everyone does this. I certainly see Marco doing it when he says that, like, sitting in a box is not cool enough so let's do something else. A little bit of a push to make the situation a good bit more meaningful.

Everyone has different priorities, but that doesn't mean that they only care about one thing.

yrs--
--Ben

Marco wrote:

1. I don't like comparisons of RPG theory to calculus and physics--I think that it creates more confusion than it clears up and it reads to me* as condescending (look Marco, it's like Calculus--well, if it is, then it is. If maybe it's not then it isn't like calculus). It also advances the idea that this is a universal, physical or mathematical phenomena that can simply be proven (like with a science experiment that proves sound travels slower than light)--and I don't agree with that either. You can make an argument but very little that gets said here seems to me to be indispuatbly true (and that goes for what I say as well).

Marco wrote:
2. I don't think that how GNS analysis is done is relevant to this thread. Walt's question, IMO, did not hinge on analyzing a single decision. I never said "my play is Sim because I prioritize internal cause over premise at a given juncture."

What I said was "doing so doesn't seem to be antithetical to Nar play."

After all, if there are not single discisions then how do we analyze masses of congruent play?

Marco wrote: Erling,
The idea that Narrativism is incompatible with with prioritizing internal cause is certainly, IMO, a logical conclusion from some of what I've seen posted. What is your analysis of my play and technique?

I can confirm that most of what I wrote was, and was intended to be, in agreement with Marco's original observations, especially, that attention paid to internal cause does not preclude or interfere with Narrativism. My only dispute was with his characterization of the play he referred to as "prioritizing internal cause over premise" (emphasis added).

Really prioritizing internal cause over premise, over an instance of play (as Big Model theory demands play be analyzed and understood), would be Simulationism and would preclude or interfere with Narrativism. My point is that acting based on internal cause while paying little attention to premise, in any number of individual decisions, does not necessarily add up to prioritizing internal cause over premise at the level of an instance of play.

Marco wrote: I don't know how long I'd last in the situation where I can't address premise because of internal consistency. Can you give me an example of how that could happen?

Hi guys, a few things (I'm about to get clobbered by Hurricane Frances so I may not be available for a while).

Ben,
Understood. I think. I have seen things similarly to the way you did and do.

Jonathan,
I'm sorry if I jumped on you--there's a long history of analogies behind yours that you didn't do--and it was the cumulative effect that led to my response. That, and the fact, that I have seen a counter theory advanced and be accepted.

I agree that if Internal Causuality dictates your response to premise that could be antithetical to Nar play. IMO that's not the case--yes, for some character hijack disads a case could be made for it. Yes, a player who says "Well, this is what my character would do" could be said to be employing that form of play.

But mostly, IME, Virtuality/Internal-Cause is the purvew of the GM and my use of it as a player is simply Actor Stance.

I believe that fits both defintions resonably well and, IMO, doesn't interfere with Narrativism.

Erling,
I thought the character's answer to premise was most specifically hilighted in Corey's showdown with the Church of the Few and her decision not to throw in with them. I thought that Stephanie's was less clear--but there was a point where she decided she was going to pursue rationality over mysticism (that included making a pretty rational argument to the Indians and trying a failed rational argument with the Mayor).

In both cases these climaxes were relevant to the player's relationship with NPC's.

But at any rate, even leaving that bit out, I do agree that the action "unfolded." You say that's a key term--but I don't fully grasp what the alternative is.

I'm supposing that it would mean that the players "guided" the outcome. If that's true then consider this: to guide the development of a story as a player in a traditional game you must not be facing much hidden knowledge (i.e. you must understand the majority of the situation). Is it your continention that hidden knowledge is antithetical to Nar (would you conclude that?).

Walt,
I need a longer time to answer ...

Take care,
-Marco

The confusion arises from failure to distinguish "internal causality" or "verisimilitude" as an almost indispensible technique in simulationism versus as the definitional factor in simulationism.

I think I can credit Ralph for really bringing that into focus. Simulationists are out to learn something. Whether it's by experimentation or experience, they want to know what it would be like. In order for that result to be valid (or, as Mike would have it, to seem valid), all other variables must be held constant--and that means that the rules must apply consistently at all times, whatever those rules are, so that the actions we take can be adjudicated by those rules.

That doesn't mean that internal causality equals simulationism. It means that simulationism relies more heavily on internal causality than narrativism or gamism.

Note, however, that the dial has to be pretty high for gamism, too. The player can only really organize his tactics and strategies based on the assumption that the rules are going to be consistent. It doesn't matter what the rules are, as long as they are reliable. For example, players in a D&D world can't create gunpowder; but they might attempt to create a highly flammable refined oil, contain it in sealed pottery spheres with adequate air for oxidation and a wick, and attempt to use these as explosives. If it's possible for a barrel of oil to forcibly explode when fired, then it must also be possible to use such an explosion tactically; if it is not possible to create such an explosion, then it can't happen by accident. Thus the gamist is within his rights to expect that exploding barrels of oil provide a tactical weapon if they are a hazard in any other context. That's exactly because he expects a certain level on the "internal causality/verisimilitude" dial.

Narrativism is not different in this regard, really. Most narrativists require a certain minimum level on that dial. There may be more variation from group to group regarding what is the acceptable level, but whether it's high or low is not what defines whether it's narrativist. It doesn't become simulationist because of high internal causality. Internal causality is a dial, and one of the adjustable restraints within which play occurs. That it almost always must be high for simulationist discovery to occur does not mean that simulationist discovery is always the player agendum when it's high.

That's a standard confusion. I hope this clarifies it.

--M. J. Young

Walt Freitag wrote:

Marco wrote: I don't know how long I'd last in the situation where I can't address premise because of internal consistency. Can you give me an example of how that could happen?

With the wrong system (in the Lumpley Principle sense) it could. The key antagonist driving the moral conflict could contract a fatal disease as a result of a mandatory weekly health check roll and die, trivially resolving the conflict, for instance. Or the player-characters could, as a result of a chain of plausible consequences for their actions, all end up in those jail cells you mentioned, and the players expect to then start playing out prison life, for all that you regard it as unplayable.

In my experience, there are certainly varied opinions about exactly how close to "most" plausible we have to hew - and those preferences will matter in terms of game-enjoyment. But at a fundamental level, even the most "restrictive" plausibility-filter allows, as I think John points out, for an almost limitless number of variations.

In CA terms, the question is where does the enjoyment of play come from? It might be just from that art of sifting through the plausability-possibilities and bringing into existence the one that feels right, just (just) because it feels right (given all the givens that you gave for the game at hand). Does everyone turn to each other and smile "My God, we're going to jail. For a long, long time." Sure, it sucks for the characters, sure it leaves the game kinda lost as to what comes next - but dammit, that's what makes sense, that's the way things would work, and aren't we all just incredibly clever upright apes for having figured that out. Real useful thing, this figuring-it-out stuff. Glad we didn't muddy it up with too much attention to things like how tough we are or how meaningfull it all is.

Or is that just kind of a foundation, and what really matters is what all this means. We look at each other and go "Man. we're going to jail - I can work with that. Prison drama, here we come." Or "Now we're gonna be ex-cons. That's got to add an edge to our future interactions - how am I going to use this?" Not just "What kind of person is this going to make my character," but "How can I use this to continue/alter the point I was developing about [say] authority and rebellion with this character?" Sure, now you have to include prison in your plans, and some players may get upset over that. But that's what negotiation (pre-, post-, and intra-game) is all about, right? How neat, whatever me and my fellow culture-forming primates come up with, we can find ways to make it mean things. Glad we're using that figure-it-out tool for something, and not getting too far into that "I, I Will Survive" stuff.

(Gamism discussion left out, 'cause hopefully the reader gets the idea by now. And of course, the point is not that people actually think or say these comments and questions (though they might), but that they demonstrate their attention to such things as play continues.)

Seems to me that "most plausible" and premise can be compatible - in fact, they usually are. Sometimes they can get in each others' way, but certainly not as a matter of definition. Therefore I think I'm with Walt in mostly agreeing with Marco, but a little concerned about the way he phrases his conclusion. Yes, "Everything must happen in the most likely manner" cannot be the "point" of a Sim game because that rule does not represent a premise-killer." But if where the juice is coming from is the fact that things do happen in the most likely manner, that means it's not coming from the premise. Which is a problem for the premise-lovers (perverts - loving a premise! What kind of sick, twisted - oh, a premise is an idea? Never mind.)

So - the interference arises when "most probable outcome" becomes the point of play, rather than just something we do (with variations as to what we mean by "most") on the way to premise. Not because you can't do most-probable and address premise - you can. But you can't have both be the point of play.

Marco, is that compatible with your conclusions? I'm thinking it might be . . .

Gordon
[EDIT for minor typos]

But hang on, the starting position is, as I understand it, that the GM can build setting/situation such that it is premise-laden, and the players cannot help but provide some kind of answer to that premise through their actions.

In that case, a character who is to provide such response is offed before sufficient of the exposition can be carried out, then they cannot provide any answer, surely.

I was going to respond to the general case as follows, however. It may be true that if the GM has a premise in mind, they will interpret the actions of the players as providing an answer, much like the viewer of a movie will see those characters provide an answer. But this is occurring only in the GM's mind, it seems to me, and the players need not and will not likely be aware of this, nor respond to it in any meaningful sense. Thus, I don't see this construction as being important - only the GM cares about the premise. The players will be wholly oblivious, and I don't think it can be said to constitute a significant part of play.

MJ,
My problem with this:

[Snip]
Simulationists are out to learn something.
[Snip]

That's a standard confusion. I hope this clarifies it.

Marco wrote: MJ,
My problem with this:

[Snip]
Simulationists are out to learn something.
[Snip]

That's a standard confusion. I hope this clarifies it.

Is that I'm not sure that's a standard answer. I.e. You might be right about that--but, then again, you might not. My interpertation from Ron's post in the other thread says that Sim is "definitionally" defined by some kind of gating-factor to play. Like, if we're doing star trek by the TV-show rules then we exclude input that draws us away from that.

Marco - I'd peg what's missing as simply involvement (emotional or otherwise) in answering the question, as opposed to "emotional involvement in the game." If that changes the meaning too much for you, let me know - I'm not trying to rephrase your statement to "force" you to agree with me, I'm rephrasing to see IF you agree with me. Because other than that, I think I'm with you. What we'd try and look at when your 5%-escaping NPC pulled his trick is was that (and other situations in the game) a chance to go "cool, that could happen - we pegged it right, applied the system, and now we'll keep ridin' the wave and see where it goes!", or was it an occassion to explore a premise about (say) the nature of heroism - are our efforts to free said NPC less heroic because he freed himself? Let's consider that - and use the further imagined adventures to develop/reveal those considerations (usual warning: "consider" might seem to imply it only counts if you're conscious/intentional/whatever about those points, but I do not mean to imply that. What matters is if you demonstrate attention to Story Now or The Dream, not that you are "thinking" one or the other).

Note that both sides (and Gamism, too) are always there, in the situation, regardless of which CA priority applies. Going Sim doesn't mean we don't even notice that something about heroism might be implied by the way events ocurred, and going Nar doesn't mean we have no awareness of or satisfaction in the way System brought about the situation.

As far as what "out to learn" means - well, I used the phrase that's been working for me lately in my previous post. I consider Sim to be using our "figure-it-out" muscle, in a very pure way (even though we can be very baroque in all the details we're stipulating about the nature of the "it" we are figuring out in this particular case). Nar is the "make-it-mean-things" muscle, which requires figure-it-out but doesn't stay with it. Game is the I-can-prove-something muscle, again requiring figure-it-out but using the tool in a different way. Others may not find "out to learn" and my use of "figure-it-out" synonomous, but for me, they pretty much are.

M.J., excellent point on defintional as opposed to supportive or obstructing. I think the way I've said it is "System Matters; it does not Determine." And I'd only add the same, usual caveat that "trying to get from play" is defined as which of three basic, quite "naturally" used muscles is being primarily engaged, not that there has to be something which the player is directly thinking "I want to get this out of play." In fact, that's why I don't like taking what (to me) look like Techniques that people are directly thinking they want (in Virtuality, "I want in-game cause") and making them the same as a CA.

Now, I do think such things are very important, we should talk about 'em more, and that something like Virtuality (also maybe Dramatism?) need some development as Techniques within the Big Theory. But I fear that unless we keep that different kind of thing called a CA in mind, we lose many of the benefits that identifying those three CA's gained us. They are not the whole story, by any means, but they are an important piece, that is pervasive across any and all Techniques/Ephemera in use, whereas Techniques (I'm thinking at the moment) don't have the same . . . crepping, oozing "stickyness" of influence that CA does.

Longer than I thought - hope I stayed on-subject,

Gordon

Gordon,

I understand your modification: game to "answering the premise question" and unfortunately, I can't agree. If I could, it would make things simple: the idea of player emotional engagement is right there in the essay.

But I can't. Here's why:

1. Ask Johanathan--a single event is unsuitable for determination of CA. If I could see player enthausiam for an action and know that it was answering the premise question then, hey, I have everything I need for Narrativist CA in one tidy atomic action.

But the fact is, I can't know. I don't know. I don't even know if the player was excited (I know I was--I really think the player was--but I have *no conclusive way to tell.*) And even beyond knowing if the player was excited period, I can say that I've no idea whether the player was excited about premise, or figuring out something, or "winning."

Or all three--it was all right there. If I could tell you the answer, I could atomically determine CA and all would be good with me.

2. The example was to prove that random events could happen in a Nar game. Now, Walt hypothosises a major villain dying from a failed sickness roll as possibly bad for Premise, right?

Well, if such a thing is bad for premise (and I find the proposition reasonable on the face of it), then I don't think a captured character, facing the practical consequences of her sacrafice (the character sacraficed herself to the villain in order to facilitate the rescue of an NPC), is all that different.

So, that might mean we were "playing Sim" since, indeed, it seems such things could--and did--happen in my game. But on closer examination, I don't think so. I think that in a game where everyone makes health-checks all the time, a major villain dying of disease won't interfere with premise. I think that a game that ends with everyone going to jail would probably be considered a downer, but a risk that any Virtualist-Narrativist would be willing to take: because the rewards are worth it (in their opinion).

-Marco

M. J. Young wrote:

Techniques can never be definitional of agendum; they are only supportive or impeding.

--M. J. Young

Marco,

I'm short on time, but . . . understood. I'm not sure that stuff is an absolute barrier to agreement - I think I can say a little about *possibly* threatening to premise as opposed to a flat-out "bad for premise", and I think the point of not being sure of CA based on one event/reaction is that you become sure (or at least, more sure) as events accumulate - but I thought there might be problems with the rephrasing. That's why I asked. I'll get back to it as soon as I can,

Gordon

Marco wrote:
1. The situation has premise.
2. No input is rejected by the players.
3. The question is answered.
4. It's not Narrativism.

What's missing? I think what's missing is emotional involvement in the game.

Enough.

Let me worry about who's rude and arrogant. (All on cue now: "You should know!!!" thanks guys)

It's very easy to insert, as a reader, the necessary phrase "emotional involvement of this particular kind" into Marco's point. In fact, we're obliged to do that, otherwise this entire forum will be nothing but a big mass of "but I meant" and "but I meant you meant."

Best,
Ron

But Ron, the point was that Marco's points do NOT rule out emotional engagement. They only rule out emotional engagement with PREMISE, specifically, and that does not rule out emotional engagement of all varieties.

Then make your point cleanly without slinging around judgments about who's rude and arrogant.

I'm gonna name names: Marco, Raven (greyorm), and Gareth (contracycle) - you three are so determined to discover sub-sets of points and then create controversies about those, right in the middle of larger-scale discussions of the first points, that you gum up threads constantly. And almost inevitably these mini-discussions get all wrapped up in who was a dick to whom at some point.

When any one or two of you is behaving nicely, one of the others is guaranteed to bring in this effect. I have no idea why.

Knock it off. Think like sixth-graders working on a logic problem: here is the issue, here are the parts, how does it fit together. Quit taking the parts apart, or rather, take that issue to another thread later. Much later, after the current discussion is concluded.

Best,
Ron

Gareth,

I think that step-on-up is distinct from emotional empathy or resonance that one gets from engaging with literature and theme. I don't expect you to agree, nor do I have any objective way to prove that to you--however, I am not the first, nor only one to say it here.

If you can't see a distinction (yes, sportsmen are moved to tears during high-stakes, emotionally charged play--I do not doubt that) then, well, okay--I can't convince you of that.

But I will note that you've told me you've little use for drama or fiction on an emotional level so perhaps your strong preferences account for your difference of opinion.

I state for the record that I presently believe that what creates emotional resonance in humans experiencing fictional dramas is, essentially, what Egri calls Premise. Whether one is "creating it" or simply "experiencing it" may make little difference in terms of it's depth or actuality--but I think this is distinct from step-on-up engagement (the wish to win or simply intellectual engagement) or intellectual interest in ideas.

Not that this is on-topic for this thread. Gareth, if you feel like responding or think I'm "taking the last word" I'm okay with that. Gordon, if you have more to add, I'd like to hear it.

But failing that, I'd like to consider this thread closed.

-Marco

Hello,

Seconded on the closing, although I don't wanna stop anyone from getting in a last post.

Marco, I've tried to say it myself a buncha times about the "emotional involvement" thing and am often stymied. That's my last word, weenie as it is ...

Best,
Ron

Edited: deleted due to cross-posting with the request for thread closing.

- Walt

Marco wrote: I think that step-on-up is distinct from emotional empathy or resonance that one gets from engaging with literature and theme.

contracycle wrote:
Ron, as far as I can tell, Marco's purpose here is to play semantic games with the jargon. I am only trying to disentangle them, and seeing as explaining things to Marco only gives him more argumentation to manipulate, the short and to-the-point response is best.

Closed for sure.

[sigh] Everyone, let the moderator moderate, don't sic him on one another, please.

Best,
Ron