Philosophy of Gaming

Illusions

2008-01-28T21:15:00.000-08:00

Illusions as part of Chaos

Something which isn't seen is not there unless it is made aware to us in one of our senses. Chaos plays mind tricks, it captures the imagination. It allows what is KNOWN to be applied to the ideals of what is not known. Illness is perpetuated by the idea of illusions.

The best case and worst case upon which a doctor can perpetuate in a patient gives them hope; and fear. An idea of what could happen pushes the mind, while it takes more to give the good news more thought. For the majority of humans it is a difficult action to kick out the bad ideas, and thus the illustrations being presented to them happen to be of the worst case.

Building

Building is a process becoming aware of something which is not necessarily known too us. Ghosts are not something that is typicaly able to be aware of from a young age. Had not a single individual told of the idea of Ghosts then there would be no imagination to perpetuate the idea of Ghosts.

This idea is built from the ground up into a consistent state in the mind. It is not something that nags, but it sits there; and all the stories associated with the idea are sitting in the same status. Ergo when an individual is in a dark room and hear a creaking noise they may end up thinking about what is associated with that noise; and how they've been built to respond too it.

Without this the idea is nonexistent. With in all items of the mind and universe however it is purely random. The idea is like any other idea, made up of a bunch of stories mixed into one; or randomly thought of. It is built through culture which determines how it will be treated.

Goals

Why perpetuate something which is made up? Most of the time it is just habit and culture perpetuating the ideas which can be considered an Illusions. Without looking at the ideas and reasons behind a so called illusion; we are left at the understanding of having absolutely no path to finding why it existed. For the basis of an illusion must be in its goals.

Goals are the reasons why some kind of illusion is perpetuated. In the most part this is done in order to offset something in the mind. For example; faith knows no name at birth. Instead it is taught for a specific reason. Faith is an illusion with a clear goal.

Life as an Illusion

Reason is supposed to dominate modern life versus faith. However faith and reason are in the end illusions and thus opinionated. We can not look far beyond this idea to gain the fundamental truths with in society. This can only be done through a mathematic principle as both Science and Humanities is unable to answer this in a successful method.

The best path to understanding the universe is through mathematic principles. For life its understanding where illusions come from and identifiying the past and present goals. None of these goals are invalid, and none are correct; instead they are stands, and something solid which can be made out of a young philosopher.

Economics and Reasoning : Entertainment

2007-11-02T22:42:00.000-07:00

What does working in a hobby store teach you about the economics of gaming?

Mark-Up

One of the virtues of the board game is simple; you sit face to face with your opponents and get the rouse of personly backstabbing them. It gives you a highly personal expierence over other similar experiences. For example :

Playing a video game is almost a solo activity if done over Xbox Live or the sort of items.
Watching TV/Movies is pretty much solo IF you want to hear it :).

Video Game Economics
But lets look at the economics of the above. For one a video game costs millions of dollars to produce, they provide an limited gaming expierence and cost $50 when they are first produced. However they are reduced usally down to about $10 after a few months. The COST of the item has been paid for by this situation; thus the logic says it most likely will not sell. At least in the video game industry.

TV/Movie Economics
TV/Movies last about thirty minutes to two hours and are not highly repeatable. Yet they tend to cost $10-80 depending on what one is looking for. They cost millions to produce but are distrubted in a fashion where the cost is easily distrubted.

Boardgame Economics
Yet a boardgame, an object that takes more close design then the above. Is produced for much less, and provides more entertainment in the long term costs more $ to make. A game will be sold from the publisher for almost $25-30 per game; a good price. To the production side this will give them a more or less a double amount back profit wise. The components and royalities on a game will usally not equal a high cost. This has many reasons; for example most games are created in a less formal environment, handed off to a company and then designed. Given the average amount of items on a game board compared to the average items in a video game however, plus the less specific art style shows that most people would spend less time; and thus less money in production. H

The Problem
A solution to our problem is simple; distribution. In a 10 mile area there will most likely be a 4-1 distrubition of board game sellers to other entertainment designers (Wal-Mart/Kmart etc sells boardgames so this makes up for a LOT of this estimate.) Since its harder to find a good deal of these items in the stores they continue to get hidden away. Economies of scale usally walk up on the idea of board games, it also builds upon the idea of the economies of scale being more or less misproportioned to the amount of mechanimes required to send a game from point X to point YU.

-Alex

Faith and Reason : Democracy

2007-08-23T05:07:00.000-07:00

Faith and Reason : Look #1 Democracy

In science we are supposed to look at the world in a reasonable way. We take rational evidence for the support of an item, and take a hard look at the suggestions of others in terms of improving experiments or possibly discrediting our own ideas. Yet when faith and reason is applied to governmental systems it seems more and more like people have been living in a faith based government instead of one based on reason.

Foundations
How a democracy forms has some meaning in its future functions. Thats not to say that democracies can not change, this is to mention that democracies are usually formed under some kind of pretense, a revolution, a toppling, or possibly a need of change. For the most part however a small number of individuals will find a larger issue in a government which they currently live in.

With in the United States this was wealthier individuals, or the ones with higher stakes or money to earn.
In France it was people losing out to poor economic conditions set forth, having an effect on a higher class of individual pushing them to action.
Iraq was formed (Democracy and formerly) out of the pretensions of a few people for a large amount.

By looking at this we can find a lot of faith with in the starts of a revolution. For example almost every reason for fighting a war is usually a play on some rational thought. People can look at it, and expierment. There are NO foul proof rational thoughts though, people in the US choose on faith to support the US, British, or None of the above. When this happened it was a subjective understanding of rational thought; this has no position in true science. As its either fact or its not fact, and if its not fact then its simply a act of faith which those who fight put their ideals in.

Advancing from Revolutionary Ideas

Since faith changes with the ideals of the generations do ideas of founders still hold true, or should they be held true? In a simple sense no they shouldn't hold true, the ideas should change to relatively adopt to the times. Nothing is perfect and for the most part due to a faith based government individuals need to live in the ways which it has evolved. In a rational environment this would still hold true. As times advanced individuals could reasonably look at the ideas behind their own government and determine if it was still logical or not. This is a manner of experimenting with laws and other items in order to, 'Get government right.' The line though is drawn at the subjective and objective realm.

Changing core ideals
And or modifying the constitution.

The fact that most constitutions can be modified shows that society is ruled by a concept of rationalism and faith. For one thing a rationalist can see that people are expiernmenting with the ideas of society and fitting them where they need be. Faith wise people are putting ideals where they 'feel' right to their own morals etc. This however becomes clouded and puts the majority of democracies at risk. Modern systems of governments even with checks and balances fail to take a truly rationalist approach to the ruling of a nation. Instead the parties of all major nations look at the world in a manner which is almost purely subjective. "How will this make ME, and my district feel?" "How will this affect MY poll numbers?" Yet even looking at this from a purely rationalistic view point shows that a democratic government is always in transition and can never stop changing. With faith in it however it can never be made into a true rationalist democracy because individuals will still look at it through a tainted perspective.

Pros/Cons of Rationalist Democracy
Pros

Always changing to fit the logical needs of a society.
Able to fit practical data into the system in order to meet the need of society, world affairs
Data as is.

Cons

A tendency to constantly play with things that may not be broken in order to find little flaws in the system.
Above leads to faith based problems.
Repeat!

Pros/Cons of Faith Democracy
Pros

Ability to adjust the best to the needs of the people.
Feeling is chief, allowing for a quick response and no need for imperical data, in some means this is good, in wartime etc.

Cons

Unable to adjust to the larger demands of the people, looks only at the personal ramifications.
No need to take data as is, always looking for ways to spin it towards their causes.

Art Philosophies

2007-07-23T00:26:00.000-07:00

Art has been talked about as a function of a number of different aspects of the overall group. For the most part this can be brought back towards a cultural existence with in the society itself; or the overall complete group expierence of history. Some groups disregard their old methods of art and move towards new ones because of different reasons.

Personal Conflict

I do consider myself to be an artist. I do not consider myself a talented artist, however I struggle with questions about WHAT I should draw. For the past four or five months I have been at a stalemate in artistic development. I question where I should move next and why I should move in that direction; and of course why I choose to be creative at all!

My Two Schools of Thought

Order

Order is basically chaos but with a recognizable pattern. For the most part all art falls into an orderly form after the first of its type has been made. Drip paintings are orderly once you've seen more then one. Even if you take a paint bucket and throw it at a wall this is order in some minute since of the word. Order is just a way of patternizing objects even if the object seems unpatterned at the start.
This said Order can also be looked at in a more traditional way. Order is symbolic. Order is simplicity, order is safe, and order gives us ease in design. All of these have been something which I have focused on in the last years. Patterns are interesting to me; I look at chaos in general for patterns and thus beg the question, "Where is the order?" For many years I have worked off a canon of paper models which are in all forms orderly. However I find it hard to sometimes find purpose in this art. Is it merely commercial or am I gaining some higher level of existence from it?

Chaos

Yet Chaos attracts me. Ignoring patterns is interesting, albeit difficult. Can we combine the two? Yes but it will look like predestined chaos. How can we exemplify the perfect artistic aesthetic of chaos? Is a drip painting chaos, or is it a brand new style of looking at the world even if that happens to turn out looking realistic?

Wondering where I go from the two conflicting aspects brings me to a stall in any drawing. I have done both; deviantart is my source for Chaos; juniorgeneral for order. These two aspects are conflicting and finding the solution on which is best will plauge me for a while.

Functions of the Group : Prayer

2007-07-04T00:52:00.000-07:00

Does Prayer Work?
No. That is rather blunt and unappealing isn't it? But examine the idea of a group and you notice that prayer quickly becomes the placebo effect of the saying, 'Everything is going to be all right.'

Prayer is just a function of a group. This being an action a particular group takes part in to identify itself from other groups or to release the stress of any type of pressure. I pick on prayer but this is a lot of things in a lot of different groups. A soccer club may go out and drink after a loss to relave the stress of losing; even if they consider it, 'all fun and bloody games.'

I guess where prayer is different is that it is so heavily tested and usually turns out to be in the same function as I described. Simply put it doesn't work in the way that it is supposed to. And this once again goes back to radical groupism.

When someone prayed to Zues, Juipter or another god they would somehow know that it worked! Of course it worked for they were the GODS! So why wouldn't it? Even if things got worse after praying it would work in a situation in favor or them; 'Thats how the gods wanted it I guess.' 'Can not heed all prayers.' The truth about this is that the group uses this as an affermation of their commitment to the organization as a whole.

This puts everyone in a situation where they follow or be put outside the group; thus forcing the individual to be isolated. This isolated individual will somehow come BACK to the group; or just go form a new group. That said they will most likely use the same methods, prayer in a religious aspect for example, as it has just been passed down and down.

Functions are thus the way in which groups reaffirm their strengths in a large scale society. Today is the 4th of July. Each party is reaffirming the idea of Freedom; false; in the mind of the group of all of us Americans.

Symbology

2007-07-02T01:11:00.000-07:00

A look at the pride of a group
If we look at any symbol in the world we can find a specific history or relationship to a group of people behind it. There is no doubt that the massive amount of symbols which are created are attributed to a large group of well groups :).

There is not just one person randomly waving their own flag out in the middle of no where. Instead we gain a lot of people waving a lot of flags. Even when we HAVE an individual standing in a crowd with their own made sign or symbol it usually is due to a counter protest; and as mentioned before this is just an outlook of the sign from the group! :)

Major Importance
Symbology gives a direct reference to the adherence to the idea of Radical Groupism. With a symbol a lot of information can be quickly given with out further explaination. Why? Its because that group already understands the symbol.

Contradiction?
What if you are wearing a Manchester United Jersey in the middle of a bunch of Redskin Fans? Well it is clear you are not being an individual! Even though these redskin fans do not FIND this symbol manful someone does. Ergo the symbol has a group behind it. In order to understand this relationship and mean fullness we must remove a few things from the equation.

First geographic location - It does not matter where someone is located. If a symbol is reminds them of some kind of group pride it is thus an idea of the group. Counter culture of a symbol; a smoking symbol with a ? behind it for example, could demonstrate a clear example of a sub culture which in itself! Is nothing but another group.

A good example is in the photo to the left. Who are the SCREAMING EAGLES? WELL! A D.C. United... wait who the hell are they? A US based pro soccer team fan club. They have their own symbols as they are a group with a prospective goal! Thus if you showed this symbol at say a Redskins game it would not have the same meaning or purpose.

Second subjectivity - People can misinterpret signs. But for simplicity the subjective nature should be removed from the equation. Most people IGNORE the signs around them. A T-Shirt or phrase will be ignored as it does not matter to their group thought. While others may be an important aspect of the group, and thus not ignored. However to understand the whole idea behind symbolical the subjective nature of symbols in a different location or major cultural group must be ignored. Failure to do so will bring about only the thinking of the major group; and thus a poor understanding of symbols.

In Summary
Symbols show the relationship and pride between a piece of art work and a group or organization. This helps secure the idea of Radical groupism by showing how items which mean NOTHING can be brought into a mainstream understanding by the work of a large body (and not an individual.)

A Square Root of life?

2007-05-28T23:28:00.000-07:00

Can we find the square root of all life, and does this some how determine it?

Of course we can; but what the hell is the point?

Randomness is key
Nothing really seems to be ordered, things which are are ordered in our minds and our socities. Even the ideas of Radical Groupism tends to be an over justification of dependent social functions. For the most part things seem to be an extension of chaos. As said in the previous post our idea of order is simply a way of organizing the world.

Everything thus sees the world different. A bird will organize the world much differently then a ant; for example ant sees a tree what does it define it as? But an Bird sees a tree and defines it much differently. The group ideal takes over what is to be thought; in this sense it can be considered evolutionary. The Bird is seeing a tree as it should because otherwise they may run in to it; or nest some where poorly. Humans do not come with this same sense as it seems. Some things may be genetic, such as how to feed when young. Yet this too can be considered part of the 'Human Group.'

Finding a Key
There is no one way to find the answer to the square root of life. Each organized item in the world would have a different finite number which it could look too. For this I always like to look at Douglas Adams and his idea of #42 in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. As simple as the number sounds it is as close as we can get to really determining the totality of the universe. Others have tried of course; Descartes tried to assign numbers to things; leading to the Binary system. In the end the task was so enormous that he never completed it in the beginning sense; finding an ethical path. Utilitarianism tries; but where it fails is where any look at happiness fails it works on a subjective path.

So what is the problem? We can never objectively determine a mathematical idea of WHAT we are as we being pack members of different groups will ALWAYS allow our subjective thoughts into the process. Even scientists who are supposed to be objective get bogged down with subjectivity of their background. Early scientists were bogged down with the idea of God. It is not because God may or may not exist it is instead attributed to the prominent position of the church during the time period.

So even those who doubted everything (Descartes) lost sight of the fact that the interior thoughts of our groups make up our thought processes. His conclusion on GOD demonstrates this hypothesis. Even though he doubted EVERYTHING other then that he thinked he could still find the world via god. This begs the question; not to mention that the idea of 'I' comes not from his mind but from the cultural surroundings he was in thus in order to doubt everything one must not start from the process of thinking; but instead the deconstruction of the entire human race! As mentioned before this is quite useless.

Algorithms of Life

2007-05-28T00:25:00.000-07:00

Algorithms of Life

How much of the world is our imagination?
When we look at the world around us we make patterns. This has been in almost every philosophy since the start of philosophizing! Think about the allegory of the cave and etc. We make patterns to make things simple for us. But are patterns just our imagination at work?

As I said before groups control almost everything that we have come to understand in our thought processes. Thus nothing can logically be true to the individual, and everything is subjectively gained through a group thought. Ergo the world is simply an organized imagination of a large group.

Proof
A Basic Logical Proof :

Groups are the basis of all of our thought processes.
Groups build patterns to make the world make sense according to how they see the world.
We accept these patterns as basic reality.
Thus patterns are formed from groups, and not from nature.
Patterns are imaginary.

What does this leave us?
It leaves us at a point where we have really nothing in the world. All that there is is chaos and randomness. The patterns which we find and use to organize life are thus useful for everyone, and is just another reason why we will never be actualized individuals.

Turn the world on it's side

2007-05-18T00:23:00.000-07:00

Super Paper Mario for the Wii is an interesting look at the philosophical paths which can be taken in life. For Mario sees not just the current world; but one which is deeper. He is enlightened to another side of the world. It makes one wonder what would of happened had Mario just looked at the world differently in all his other games!

Dualism?
Is Mario's' world dualistic? In a way it is. Some people can not see the trueness of the world in his view. For example both Peach and Browser can not flip the world on its side to view the more complicated aspects underneath. Mario though can, is this a way of viewing Mario as a Faux-Socrates? Kind of.

Mario as Philosopher King
Princess may be the queen of the kingdom, but it is Mario's questioning which shows according to The Republic that he should actually lead. Which is kind of an interesting view on the whole situation. Not to read TOO far into the background of the game world, but it is Mario who is questioning while not really earning anything in return. Sure he gets coins and mushrooms but do they ever really help him? Only for a short time I would argue.

In many ways this puts him as an enlightened person with in the society which he functions. Mario is et al the King of Kings in the Mushroom kingdom. In questioning its 2D existence and switching it on its side he is looking at a different perspective. This is something which individuals have been attempting to do for thousands of years, and in many ways the game helps explain away philosophy with out actually putting the player in the DEBATE about philosophy!

Philogameblog Score - 5 / 5 Socrates (Judging from philosophical interactions, and not on graphics or game play.)

Blurring the Lines

2007-05-13T23:22:00.000-07:00

Evil
As mentioned before we can see evil as being inefficient. It is portrayed as such in a number of different games, media, and movies (etc). War is highly subjective in this manner. One side will see the other as evil and vice versa. It is a reason why a good number of games are not made about CURRENT conflicts, but of conflicts past.

So where can we figure out a way to balance this in gaming?

Blur the line
If one can it is easier to come up with two powers which have no bearing in the real world. The Gumberdoors fight the Alsfiefdtofs. Who cares about their backgrounds they are just fighting. To further fix the idea of inefficiency of evil both sides could be given a background of what we consider evil. The Nazis fighting an imperialist military force of some sort. Of course not with the same weapons but with the same idea. That is of course if one has to build their fictious nations off of real ones (we usually do because we need a basic idea of what is going on in a social political area.)

Through this the end result comes back to be what is subjectivly understood about the soldiers who you are using to fight with. Instead of forcing the player to take an stand they gain an understanding of the soldiers through the battle. That is not to say one should not make historical games. We have seen through games however that historical games tend to be one sided; victor orientated and thus less fun then when both sides are balanced.

Question about Efficiency

2007-05-13T01:17:00.000-07:00

From Nick : What do you make of games like mageknight or gurps, which are point based? In theory, each player has the exact same number of points, and is thus equally matched. MK: is it better to have 100 1 point soldiers or 2 50pt behemoths? Why do some people prefer 50 pt gurps horror, others 100pt fantasy, others 250pt modern spy-ops, and others 500 pt supers?

Usually I would just answer this in the email he sent to me but it is interesting to look at this in the context which we were discussing before.

On Mage Knight
For Mage Knight we can look at two factors :

Limited Availability
Personal Preference

Limited Availability
In 1 we can see a lack of models. While people may prefer the 1 100 point model sometimes they are unavailable to get it. Due to the fact that we must buy these figures individually we must find a way to maximize army effectiveness while building a successful army.

For us to understand this we must remember that it is expensive to get in to any hobby in the world. In most it takes a considerable amount of money to get the perfect army. Just like it is hard to get a great deck in Magic the Gathering. There are only so many rares; uncommon that are gained in a pack.

What this basically boils down to is how much one can spend on a hobby, and the pieces they get out of it. While it is getting cheaper to get into some hobbies (You can buy 250 Mage Knight figures for about 20$ now in their packages.) Even in this situation though the units one would gain is limited to an extreme.

Personal Preference
We must also look at how WE want to build an army. This can come in many forms; do we want an army which is large with weaker units, or the maximized hard to kill soldier who is less supported?

With this in mind we take into account the expierence of the person building an army. An expierenced player may pick a 4 25 point soldiers because he/she knows how to use them. Yet a new player may pick that 1 high powered rare figure that they bought off Ebay. What happens in the end is that the latter may get a few kills but it is the individual with expierence and personal preference who has the advantage.

By building this path it is fun to look at the way people look at the world culturally to how they build their armies/decks. I have not been involved to much in Mage Knight outside inner home games, but I can explain it from a MtG perspective.

MtG has plenty of items which allow the players to build an almost unlimited amount of decks. When playing and building decks players must try to take in to account the huge number of options that their enemies could posses. Beyond this comes their own background however. Since it is about gaining happiness through a hobby; I'll concede to utilitarianism on this point; people will tend to pick the EASIEST option that is open to them.

Easiest option?
Yep, people already see the world as is, and the way that they decide to express this through their play decisions. People will tend to play the styles in which their lives reflect. This is kind of psychology in a way. When you see someone using an ultra rare army they usually value the highest valued good. But if you see someone using a bulk army they may show a frugalness.

On Gurps
It is interesting to look at gurps because in a role playing context there is really no reason to worry about the start point amount (to a point.) What matters more or less is the idea of the power of the character after creation. People will tend to pick up skills in RPG's which are specific to the campaign world and are USEFUL to them. Of course some people enjoy the role playing aspect greater then power gaming as it is called. In which case they will choose their points based on an idea of a character.

As for the sizes of scores based on background. This generally is made at the GM/DM level based on how they want to play a game. I guess some of this can be linked back towards groupism. Say an individual views Iraqi's as cowards and you are playing a campaign in which each individual is an Iraqi soldier. In this case the group thinking will influence the DM/GM to a location where you may only get 10-20 points, where civilians of another nation may get 40-50 points. This is a dangerous side of the theory of Utilitarianism. But it is something that is still held in every nation in the world.

Modern Game Design Philosophy

2007-05-11T23:50:00.000-07:00

Well we have talked a lot about philosophy but not a lot about how it is incorporated into gaming. In many ways the way we look at the world is reflected almost directly into how we interupt a specific subject and ergo turn it into a game.

Many game designers tend to look at designing as a way to express a period or an idea. The modern idea is simplicity; and efficiency (check the below post on evil and efficiency.) In some ways this can be linked to the idea of Utilitarianism. Some thing which I personally reject; but apply in some of my own games. The idea can be summed up in a path in which people gain happiness from objects or from other people; and how you can maximize 'utils' (though that is kind of Archaic; Economics classes still teach about marginal utils which are actually very useful in thought.)

This said how does it actually apply to games? How do we gain happiness out of a game? Well from the basic start we are happy TO BE PLAYING a game. Most people are begrudged to play the majority of board games. But some will always enjoy the occasional game of Risk or Monopoly or something simple such as that. Board gaming sadly is kind of a lost art going away in favor of computer and console gaming. This is not bad but there is a uniqueness that is not replicated with a console.

However people also gain happiness by the selection of their units and what their units do. People will enjoy a lvl 5 paladin more then a weak lvl 1 ogre. Or a strong US Marine regiment to a weak insurgent force in regular combat. This brings us some happiness. It seems that even to the aspect of Role playing games we are always attempting to gain that higher statistic to get us more and more. This mirrors life; and even those who say you roleplay for that aspect will admit that in the end you end up finding a use for statistics or money you gain on the way!

Thus we have a foundation for the modern design. The most unique thing that one can do is challenge this in some way; which I hope to do! Otherwise this will continue to go on.

It kind of makes it a little gruesome to think of people gaining happiness from conflict. But it happens, and I think a deeper understanding is needed for people looking from the outside in on this sort of subject. That said there are still individuals who GAIN pleasure from real world conflict and want to make wars just for the sheer joy of it; unfourtantly that also proves the above subject correct also.

So how does one go about building a game through this subject? It helps by viewing the world as how many points one gains from a unit. Look at a game design such as Mage Knight where people can build their armies based on POINTS. The better units cost more points, thus they gain more happiness from using better units.

A sketch of possibilities

2007-05-08T00:48:00.000-07:00

Should anyone really lose any great ideas anymore? As of late it seems like I need a good notebook near by to keep ideas. I am even thinking about getting a cellphone in order to keep a to think list :).

People do less thinking now. It is important for society for there to be less thinking in some ways. The important ideas seem so confined to rigid academic areas. Even the internet is failing to bring cool ideas out into the open and allow people to work on them. We can have contradictions of course, sourceforge.org freshmeat.net both offer opportunities to build on cool source code. Yet for the most part a lot of the ideas are protected just because people want to work on them for their selves.

For many reasons this leads into the notebook/cellphone idea. People need to write down their cool ideas! I wish there was a website where people could just post them. The majority of individuals fail to realize their goal or great idea. Yet this leaves SOCIETY at a downside. Maybe it is better for people to just recognize that they can think; but not necessarily follow through with a complete project (for any number of reasons.)

Can society really be free in an area where people put economic interests before ground breaking intellectual ideas? What if some random individual with no expierence in a field just came up with an idea. "Hmm why couldn't rockets do this?" Who would they tell? What would they do? Nothing. The truth is that no one would know about this individuals idea and it would die off. Give them a common ground that is respected however and that idea may explode and be looked at in the field.

Science is just starting, and we need every mind that is functional to give ideas.

Putting Us in Groupism

2007-05-07T00:59:00.000-07:00

So where do we fit in in an idea of groupism? Recall that this idea mentioned below said that as individuals we have no thoughts which are unique; and have no real freedom. As we are guided by the social communities and groups which make up our background.

A question arises from this however. When we study history we see individuals at the forefront; and not the groups. We see George Washington; but rarely all the soldiers who fought under him. We recall Hitler, Napoleon, or Stalin but we do not recall the groups which fought under their direct orders. This has to do with two factors :

1)History tends to favor the view of the majority. If individualism is popular then the writings will be about individualism.

2)Simplicity - It is simpler to hold the idea of one name, instead of understanding something as deep as intergroup dynamics between colonial troops in a certain battle.

In some ways this is NOT a big problem. To teach the fundamentals of history it is great for people to understand the fundamentals. However to advance beyond that view of history we must look at the radical nature which surrounded people in the time period. To this I offer the four levels of 'us.' While I dislike labeling people as philosophical categories it seemed evident that I needed a classification system to show the levels of members in a group.

Loner - An unachievable state. No one can ever truely be a loner. A loner is unattainable in realistic human society. To be a loner one must be completely isolated from ANY contact from the time they are born. As said this is mostly impossible. But the loner will have absolutely no true group influences; and thus be the most free and individualistic person on the planet.
Isolationist - A member of a group that feels, or is being isolated from the group or groups which they are in. This can lead to positive or negative behaviors which are attention getting and attempt to get them back to a productive member of the group. Isolationists are the ones who tend to act out and do things which seem extreme to a few; but to those with in the same situation may seem logical.
Groupie - A normal individual. Thinking based directly on their collective group influences. Fitting into society and doing nothing to really challenge it. 99.9% of individuals are Groupies.
Escapists - The highest level of society is made up of Escapists. People who have left their mainstream groups in order to form their own groups. They are who we consider our leaders, the people who excel in society. While not always forming a personality cult they may in a way be the ideal figure for the group which is formed. Yet it is usually someone who just tends to think in a manner that is different then all of those around them. That said even Escapists will derive their ideas and new group culture from past culture. It is all recycled.

Inefficient Evil

2007-05-04T23:04:00.000-07:00

Today I was watching my brother play the new Super Mario game. Paper Mario or something of the sort. It kind of brought me back to my own thoughts on our traditional view of evil in society.

Evil as inefficient
If we watch the bad guys in movies we notice that they are always inefficient. They may have created a space ship that can lift them into space, but they never launch it at the right time. The good guys always have that 10 seconds to save the earth. Something about this shows an inefficiency and an insight into the capitalistic system in which we as Americans live.

Being inefficient is considered bad. We see working hard as getting ahead of other people who well; are lazy. When a bad guy in a movie is about to do something they always seem to have some slight time delay. A delay which I admit could also be for the story line, but a time delay which teaches something to the people watching the movies.

Good guys are effective and efficient in almost everything they do. Somehow the capitalistic way of view will result in a positive outcome. Yet if we look at real life this is not always true; and of course this becomes muddled in subjectivity. Being good is inefficient. In fact being moral and perfect demands more from us and thus is something that we would rather not do if we can in some way get past it.

Media as Reinforcement
It is interesting to look at the Media not as a creative force but as a reinforcement to the core value aforementioned. By showing moral people as being efficient they are showing quite the opposite. It is easier to be immoral and evil because in the end this will bring us more pleasure and happiness. The moral guidelines that keep us in check our are own; check the group thinking idea.

It takes reinforcement to push these values on individuals as a whole. A pause before shooting is acceptable to most people when watching a movie. It would seem less realistic to people if someone pauses before they shot someone else. This is of course not how it happens in real life. Even military training says shoot first and ask questions later. In doing so however we can see a very distinctive view about how the world SHOULD be. The good guy will sometimes mutter something for dramatic effect, but the good guy never builds a space ship and gets ten seconds to fulfill his goals :). He shoots and he scores! Bad guy is gone and everyone is just happy. This is a maximization of efficiency in a system that is purely utilitarian/capitalistic.

Want to explore this a little more? Watch movies like Sin City vs pretty much any James Bond movie pre-Casino Royal.

Gaming
It takes someone with an objective look at history to take on who we consider the bad guys in history. Fighting as the Nazi's vs an American side can be hard for people who are overly subjective about the teams they play as. Sometimes I have seen this in individuals who were raised in such a patriotic environment that they feel sick to examine all sides of history. This is not to condone the actions; but it takes a careful eye to view all sides of a conflict in an OBJECTIVE PATH in order to get down to what really happened; and thus learn from history.

In gaming we gain a good perspective on this. We can take on the roles of the bad guys and realize that, "Hey I want to win this freaken battle!" At that stance we forget the subjective feeling about the war and look across the table at our opponent and think about how to win. In doing so we are reexamining the values which popped up during the study of the subject in a rather objective environment. Taking this to heart one can find that in war; as with in any group conflict; there really is very little ideology at heart. Instead we can see it as a sick and twisted game; where people are trying to outplay the others for the pure love of it. Why did the Germans not retreat? Why would they, they thought they were right; but most importantly they thought they could win!

Sports
A great example can also be derived from any sporting event in which one attends. The idea of good and bad is subjective to the fans of the game. There is always that one person standing up who has the other teams jersey on at home. He is isolated; and looks inefficient. At one hockey game I can recall the opposing person doing a contest with someone with the home jersey on; at the end they hit the person with the other jersey on with a pie. Root for the home team indeed.

But gain a new perspective on this and we see that both sides have their reasons to be there and to try to win. They are there to win. The people who root for that team want them to win because they are there to win. In doing so they hope that the other side hesitates and is inefficient. They draw on that conclusion from the media; bad guys are slow and inefficient; and in doing so will yell at bad calls that were not in their favor, or throw things at the other team who have done things in a way which is predictable to most; but unheard of to those in a subjective trance! Attend a sporting event which is not local; a soccer/football game such as Mexico vs Hungary or some teams which have no bearing in the nation which you are in. And look at the fans act and play on the calls. With no overwhelming support from either side who is the bad guys? The good guys? And what can we consider objective? Does this idea continue onto the real world? Absolutely, people will not hesitate to shoot that 3 pointer even if they are surrounded by a crowd of angry fans. They do it to win; they do it for sport; and most importantly they do it because they were taught to.

Conclusion
Next time you are watching a movie or playing a game watch the enemies you fight. Do they hesitate? Do they stand around giving the good guy time to think; and ergo be more efficient? The most realistic movies seem to be those which are able to show life as what it is; gritty and inefficient for both sides. Where people are not lagging in order to show a moral quality but maximizing their effectiveness in a way which was taught to them through their own cultural standards! Yes, ergo we are to blame for our own murder rates.

Exploring Radical Groupism

2007-05-02T23:52:00.000-07:00

Game Philosophy of Radical Groupism
Last nights post talked about a little theory that I have viewed in society called Radical Groupism. In this idea all groups commit to our individual perspective on life; and in reality they make up who we are. Since this is a blog about gaming and philosophy I fell it prudent to write a single player game that can be used to show examples in this.

Failure of Nietzsche to Recognize the power of groups
Nietzsche talked about a re-evaluation of values with in his writing. This was looking at values through a historical perspective depending on who they came from and where. This was contrasted for example in Romans/Christians to view master and slave mentality and all other sort of fun things. However insightful Nietzsche was he failed to view these conflicting groups as what they were; two groups. Of course he would be unable to view them in any truthful way under his own philosophy; but to evaluate an group takes an objective lenses untainted by subjectivity. For this reason writing games using the idea of Radical Groupism is an extremely difficult process.

Pitting Groups against each other
What happens when two groups rub up against each other? This depends greatly on the size and scope of the group; not to mention the current political situation in which the group is currently involved in. Yet we can sit back and generalize about the factors involved in two groups by picking out two. Let us find a specific point in time, a specific moment such as a conflict between two groups. For this we will pick the United States and Britain during the year of 1812.

Background
As the French were fighting almost all of Europe under the rule of Napoleon. The United States began an exploration, more like a fun little attempt at land grabbing of British positions. This was due to a few external reasons. First the US really supported neither side in the large war going on in Europe at the time; but none the less British and French ships would still take US ships and more importantly sailors hostage. This would in turn force the sailors to fight for the nation which was taken over. Well this lead to a large disagreement about maritime rights. The US wanted their sailors to stop being taken over and forced into working for either side. Having just won their independence from the British they saw the period as a prime opportunity to pounce upon the overstretched forces. The US expedition into Canada (British Provence) was a horrible failure, which only brought more war to the shores of the US. By the end of the war Washington D.C. had been burned; a new poem coined which Americans now call the Star Spangled Banner, and of course a horrible defeat for the British in a port city called New Orleans.

Upon the Aft of the Finest

The Game
Groups will influence other groups in ways which is important to understand. In this game three groups will play a role. The US, French, and the United Kingdom.

Goal
Make sure that the nation you choose fullfills its goals, by either :
US : -Do not get engaged with in the war. Make sure that ships are not taken. For each ship taken remove one point from your score. The United States starts with 10 points. Us National Point Bonus : -1
British : - Stop US/French Supplying to the French. For each ship taken add one point to your score. The British start the game with 7 points. British National Point Bonus : +2
French : - Stop US/British Ships from supplying the British. For each ship taken add one point to your score. The French start the game with 8 points. French National Point Bonus : +0

End Game
At the end of the game, 5 or 10 turns, who ever has the fewest points wins the game. For the US the difficulty is in reducing their influence with other groups in society to a point where they are not inciting violence. With the British and French however it is important for them to take ships, but also not inflame the situation by pushing other nations to war because of maritime disputes.

Requirements : 1d6/Pen and Paper/Rules

Start
Draw four lines on a piece of paper. Then split these into 15 boxes. Set the starting of these to the start of each of the nations as aforementioned in the goals.

Phases of a Turn
1)US Shipping Roll
2)British Shipping Roll
3)French Shipping Roll

Individual Phases
Roll 1d6 this is who the ship is being affected to or by.;

American (If American Roll Again)
American (If American Roll Again)
French (If French Roll Again)
French (If French Roll Again)
British (If British Roll Again)
British (If British Roll Again)

Next roll on the following table to decide what the action for the turn by rolling 1d6 :

None
None
Your nations ship attacks another nations ship. Roll 1d6+National Bonus for each side involved. If the US takes a ship add a point. If the British or French take a ship subtract a point.
Your nations ship attacks another nations ship. Roll 1d6+National Bonus for each side involved. If the US takes a ship add a point. If the British or French take a ship subtract a point.
Enemy crew taken hostage, add a point to the group who takes the hostages.
Cargo taken from a ship; roll 1d6 + modifiers and if it is greater or equal to 4 then this succeeds. Subtract a point.

Complete this phase 5 or 10 times depending on your preference to find out the end result of the war. Who ever has the fewest points is the nation who less impacted the other groups with in the game.

Educational Goal

Show the impact of one group on another group.
Show how mathematical formulas could be added into the mix of radical groupism.
Demonstrate the fine line that the groups in society live in.

Radical Groupism

2007-05-02T01:49:00.000-07:00

Radical Groupism

Groups dominate our lives. They are the core functions of society and are what are used to refer back to when anything in life begins getting bad. A group can range in size of course; a family of two is a group, while an entire culture could also be considered a group. The most important feature of a group however is that it has a selective culture which can be considered at least partially unique.

We can view ourselves as a large school of fish. Always turning left or right on instinct alone. Sometimes we do not even need a leader in this society; it helps; but it isn't always nesscary. This is because people know their role with in the collective group and find a way to fit in. Sometimes there are other people who 'swim away' forming new groups or who turn the wrong way and get lost; or get stronger.

With this in mind it should be noted that there are of course millions upon millions of groups with in society past and present. History is not the rule of individuals but the groups who followed those individuals. George Washington was useless without the thousands of soldiers who fought at his side during the American Revolution. Whats this mean? It means that groups are the core of all idealism, thinking, and most important personal identity.

Idealism
Idealism comes from the basic concept of a group. An idealist will come to accept the ideal features of the group or groups from which they grew up in. There is in no sense an individual in these terms, but idealism defines who shines and who falls back into the group. Some people take the idea of their group as a maximization of their time. At work they may just perform to get by to support another group. Meanwhile another individual will work their collective ass off to get noticed. This in many ways is a form of radical groupism in my own opinion. The individual who works hard to look good to the group actually is doing nothing more then following classical patterns. It is this idealist structure which allows groups to grow from two people to large sizes; and it is this sense of being the ideal member of a group which drives the individual to stay, and more importantly participate to a maximum level.

This can be seen in many examples. The whole idea of a rag to riches story revolves around the idea that individuals will persue the ideal in order to get noticed. What is money without the fame behind it? Being able to be recognized as a rich person in the culture/group helps show that the person who attained the area has actually attained a position of the ideal. In this sense OTHER people are also attempting to attain this ideal; and in doing so will either fail or succeed. Yet the most important part of this is the basic understanding that idealism drives other idealism, and success will be overemphasis with in the group, while failures will be brushed under the table to the public eye.

Thinking
Collectively we have no individual thoughts. Instead most thoughts are influenced by who and what we were introduced too while younger or through the groups we decide or are forced to participate in. To understand this one must look at how people talk about themselves. Very few people use the idea of I, or me. Instead individuals will find themselves talking about how their group finds society; "We RED BLOODED AMERICANS believe in killing deer with 50mm sniper rifles." Of course this is not logical in a number of senses. It is something that has been influenced by the thinking of the group on the thinking of an individual. This would not however be the common term of, "group think!" Group think is much different in a number of ways.

Individuals with in a group may still raise objections and critically view their relationships with others. They will not always agree on what is said. This said arguing with in a group is almost like arguing with in ones self. There are no external feelings or arguments which interrupt the thinking process. In doing so no new ideas come in; but once again this is ideal. Since individuals are complex and deal with the world in a number of ways they will be part of a large number of groups. In doing so the individual has the chance to think in a unique way due to the combination of groups which they exist in. However they are not in anyway acting in a way where they have freedom or an individual process.

Personal Identity
The personal identity of a human being is defined by which groups he or she is apart of. People will never find their own identity on their own. Instead they must go through groups; be it large or small, few or many, in order to find their way in society. By viewing how this process goes about one can look at a child being born into an affluent family. Their only interaction with their group could be said to be a nanny and their family members. Given this situation the child may go to school with a very arrogant view of the world, "You mean not everyone has nannies, and two parents who stay at home?" This is of course the idealism of the group speaking out in the arrogance of youth. However the shaping of an individuals personal identity becomes complicated to track and understand once they begin interacting with the world as a whole. So much so that it is almost useless to bother working out the personal groups an individual has been part of. Even without being able to find every group that a person has been part of one can still trace their own personal identities to the groups which they accepted or completely rejected (for other groups.) A righteous person may pull away from a group of atheists at school because their personal identity is so different for example. In many ways this shapes their own identity. By finding that they do not associate with a certain group they are usually conforming to a specific set of standards which are usually labeled and outlined by a more powerful group in their life.

Radical Groupism is more then just this idea. It is instead a deep view about how humans interact and misunderstand each other in the realm of large groups of people. In many ways this can be studied in a sociological perspective, but it is also important to view the world in a philosophical and ideal path which can help some individuals better understand the world; or so their group says :).

A sunrise unto the blog.

2007-05-02T01:37:00.000-07:00

My goal for this blog is to really express some ideas that I had in the realm of philosophy. It is also being made to create an area to put my own theories about how the world is; and exists, at least from my perspective!

If everything works out correctly I would like to offer differnt paths to game design based on famous philosophers. This could be easy for some of course; harder for some of the other philosophers. Either path it should be an interesting look at how one can apply knowledge learned from a class into a hobby.

So I hope you enjoy and attack the writings which I put on this blog. For it would be very little fun at all if everyone agreed with everything which I wrote here! Although I would like to think people agree with me on everything; that is of course an illusion due to arrogance :).