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.” Read the rest of this entry »