playing with game

Dear Raph,

here are some thoughts on your presentation slides. hopefully this is a better articulation of the brief criticism I gave earlier.

---

“games are things we play”

we can think of games as: networks of signs, spaces of possibility, mechanical signifiers
games are an expression of ^the constituent parts^ within an “acceptable” range of mathematical complexity
(so say the slides)

let me propose a slight re-thinking:
games are imposed structures (yes: signs, spaces, mechanisms—also, logics (ideologies//”cultural orientations,” subject/verb/object constructions, materialism, etc)) on which we shape “play” into a rehearsal (yes: an mathematically complex expression) that reinforces or maintains the structure itself.*

so, an acceptable “rehearsal” is temporally contingent on
an ability to understand and execute a performance on command,

and the heuristics (provided or borrowed from elsewhere)
serve to functionally guess (as you said) the
complexity and formulation of the “win.”