I posted this in reply to [livejournal.com profile] polydad's recent post on origin of law...

It's kinda long-winded and I haven't really posted anything like this in ages, so I figure I may as well give my adoring fans (hahahaha, yeah, whatever) something to chew on (whether it makes sense or you agree or not)

I think [livejournal.com profile] roadriverrail debated me on this issue. I think more along the usual lines of his thought processes (that is, abstract conceptualizations seem to be a waste of time. That ultimately, law is made by men... that there is no real evolution in law, but abstract concepts to reinforce the law, something along those lines... though I may very well have it wrong. It's been a while since I posted about this. And it was a very vague thing at the time. I also think he may have been misinterpreting my post at that time. Perhaps this makes more sense and goes into more detail than that prior post... I can't find it off-hand (never tagged, apparently, but I did find this other little post of mine from before, that touches on the topic).

Now onto the show (cut for all you haters out there :P)

Read more... )
So i posted about a meta-game the other day... like how would you convert a metafiction into a game... one of my favorite ideas is the author as god, this plays into the occult quite well.

But how would you add these layers?

Well as a game is "written" by a developer, I was thinking about Tron and how that was sorta Meta. As I do that, I'm doing data entry, and what name pops up right as I'm thinking the phrase "Tron 3.0" (as there was already a game called Tron 2.0 "Michael FLYNN" And we know Flynn was the coder in the movie. And I checked... That name didn't show up earlier than the moment I just saw it, so it wasn't fresh in my mind and spawned the thought of Tron.

Interesting synchronicity, no? Anyways, have a component of the game be development. Somehow, use the AI aspect (MCP: Master Control Program) as the villain in the game, but have it evolve, somehow... But also, perhaps an MMORPG type feel. (.hack?) And somehow tie this together with the coder "playing" his life, and so you can push that on the higher level for you as the gamer in your real life.

Why does this seem harder to do as a game than as a written fiction? For some reason to me, it seems qualitatively different, the interactive nature of it...

What sort of Nemesis would the AI be? A Dickian gnostic deity? How is this entity orthogonal to the player? IS the player a self-constructed AI?

I really think it would be interesting to have an evolving AI as a foe, (de)constructing the world in antithesis to you. Perhaps going through the process of development to beta testing and refinement... Making the beta-testers go mad in the process?


Jan. 10th, 2007 12:42 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
So, as I was reading the game design book the other night (which so far, is really great... I'm still on the first essay (I only read it sporadically)) Anyways, as I was reading it, I began to wonder what a metagame would be like. Not in the sense of Calvin Ball or 1000 Blank White Cards (which I so fucking wanna do sometime with a good group of people... come one people, let's do it!), but more along the lines of sci-fi novels.

Metafiction in game form. A kind of game that really takes you in and twists reality. Certain novels, comics, and films do this quite well, but there has, to my knowledge, been no game that does such a thing. Sure there are great intricate worlds such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst>Myst</a> that maybe touch on some things like this. I must admit however that I've never played it, so I'm not sure how "meta" it gets. I then tried to imagine a game that would do this, and I'm not sure where one would even begin. You can't just translate a novel into game form and expect it to work. There has to be a real connection with the interactiveness of the player as participant and as designer. A game that can induce synchronicities, that is to say, a game that induces the player to perceive connections in the world around them. (may I just add that the built in Firefox spell check doesn't properly recognize synchronicity or it's variants). A game that empowers the player to not only play a game "in there" but "out there". Inspiring in the same way a Philip K. Dick novel would be, or something like the Invisibles. You would have to work on the theory of what a game is in essence, then expand outward. In the Invisibles, one of my favorite things was the metaphors and allusions (not so subtle, necessarily) of the author as god in a universe. He explored this in a magickal way. Could you use the idea of magic(k), especially our modern "chaos" variants, and theories behind it to work on this game design? How would you go about it? I'd really like to see something like this done, but it seems like such an impossible task. When I tried to picture how it would work, I realized then why Ebert says games are not yet an artform. They are, IMO, to a degree. But at this point, there is still nothing that has really touched and drawn in the user to such a degree that novels, films and comics can and have done, and will continue to do. Where is our PKD for the game world? Our Borges? Our Kubrick? Hell, where's our Morrison? Our Alan Moore?
Original Post, my reply and other replies are here

Which was a mistaken post to my journal instead of a reply. I had received this reply and my reply is further below. Any comments are appreciated. :)

------- (Their response to my initial post) ----------
However, the biggest problem that I have with that is that it leads certain individuals (i.e. those with property) to have more rights than others (i.e. homeless people).

The state of property ownership doesn't grant you rights. You have the same natural rights whether you happen to be a billionaire or a homeless person with nothing but the clothes on your back. You have the same rights if you're living naked on a tropical island all by yourself.

Whether it is fundamentally fair that a wealthy person can obtain a prestigious and skilled attorney to escape or lessen punishments to which a homeless person would be subjected after their public defender fumbles the ball--and the even thornier question of whether we should do anything about this fundamental unfairness--is a separate issue. But it is not that the wealthy person has any mysterious "wealthy-person-only" rights that the homeless person does not.

------- (My Reply) ----------
I guess there's a few points of contention in our discussion that would need to be clarified. I have a feeling we approach things from different angles on at least two points.

1) The nature of "rights": That is to say... "What is a right?" I shall limit it in this context to the issue of privacy (which is really what I meant to say.) Privacy is not a "right" in the US Constitution, though we cherish it an awful lot. That said, assuming that we do appreciate and honor it as a right, there is still a discrepency. It naturally follows that if someone has property to live on, they have a certain amount of privacy which a homeless person, without that property, does not have. You can talk semantics and say they still have that right. But de facto denial of granted rights essentially means NO right.

It would be as if I were to give you a thousand dollars, and then told you: You just can't spend it. You can have it all you want. But what good is it if it can't be put into use? Now, seeing as how I used the term "right" instead of "privacy" you are correct. In theory we have public defenders who are supposed to be as skilled as expensive attorneys... Of course we all know that's completely not true. I'm not going to argue that with you.

2) The other issue I am curious to know about is the question of the origin of rights. If, as you say "we all have the same rights" (you use the term natural right, which appears to be taken from a more Constitutional, perhaps Libertarian (as in the party) point of view. Pleas correct me if I'm wrong.), where are these rights derived from? The founding fathers were Deists and appropriately used their reasoning to derive a set of rights based upon their philosophical premise.

I tend to follow Mao's statement that "power flows from the barrel of a gun." This is the source of "right." Not from a personal ethics (Theory) standpoint, but from a political and sociological standpoint (Praxis.) If we have different view of the origins of right, then we may never come to agreement. So be it.

3) What are these rights of which I speak? The issue of privacy, as I noted, is not guaranteed in the constitution. I add my own rights to what I perceive as sociological rights that are to be granted (ie: they are not natural, since I don't believe that they are ordained by "nature and nature's god.") These rights are the right to necessities of survival (Food, Shelter, Clothing, (clean) Water) And also the right to improve ones condition (this includes Education, Communication and Transportation. Especially the right to education, and higher education at that.)

I note that these rights are not to be construed as being equal in terms of ownership. There should be a minimum standard for all, but people don't automatically have a right to big designer name clothes, or a nice mansion.

Since my philosophy is always evolving and my knowledge is quite limited, I will not say that this is complete truth, even though I feel a moral conviction towards it's rightness. I am still working on how this applies in terms of distribution. Does a rich person have a right to better health care than a poor person? Do they have a right to make billions of dollars? My personal stance is "no." I am interested in hearing alternative POV's, but right now, I think wealth disparity and the feudalism that we still live in is quite dangerous to an individual's rights. I could also touch upon the issue of Maslow's Hierarchy, and how that it serves our corporate/feudal system to limit satisfaction of these basic needs (as animals and social creatures.) It makes more "holes" to fill.

(no subject)

Apr. 19th, 2005 11:19 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
from a reply I wrote on a friends post:

"Let us fall to the security of a universal truth that never changes."


In reference to their need for comfort in an undying truth as opposed to a living science that can change and adapt.  They need the dead, unyielding corpse of so called immutable Truth (with a capital T) to recline their souls upon, just like spiritual Ed Geins.

I choose to dwell among sprites and muses.  Amongst trees and gardens, of pleasures divine, the earth swelling with delight, and the glorious smells of the present life that's given to me.  NOT some wretched eternal thing called heaven where I've got to sit my ass down all day bowing down all the fucking time praising God just so this sadistic fuck can feed his ego.

Give me Lucifer, the light-bringer, the one who shall give knowledge and illuminate darkness.  Give me Reason, true Logos, true Word, not some false dead scripture and dogma.  The world itself is the word of god, and we are all actors in it.  We all dance, and sing, and cry and hurt, and love and hate and this is part of life.

Give me the true light of the Sun, Solar power that drives and gives all beings their energy, like the Holy Spirit itself, impregnating the womb of Mother Earth with motion.  We are the word made flesh.  We are the code of DNA incarnate.

This is part of my belief.  I choose to let the earth reveal herself to me in her own way and time.  I do not need "revealed" scripture.  It is the cause of so much misery throughout the world and it feeds the leeches with evergrowing wealth.

It does not have to be like this.  Religions exists for a need.  There is a psychological purpose for it.  But there are those who are masters at manipulating this need, and in the process of doing so, proceed to gain wealth and power.  Sure there are some good things that religion does, it would be absurd of me to say there was absolutely nothing of value in religion.  But it's damn near close in my opinion.

And by religion, I mean, more than anything, Dogma.  And this goes for Scientific Dogma as well.  I am one who believes that there are fanatic scientists as well as fanatic xians (sorry, Brent, I know you hate when I spell "christians" like that.)
quick note/idea...

it just popped in my head now, and i've not fully evaluated implications, and i'm heading to bed, but want it down, and have you add your insights to this.

privatization sucks.

most on my friends list agree with that.  some more than others.

but i'm not a big traditional "liberal," so I'm not necessarily opposed to thinking about alternative systems of things.  this includes reducing gov't waste.

i was reading something about gingrich, and for some reason, the idea popped into my head...  privatization usually means putting a service into the private MARKET which has a profit motive for it.

Now, what if there is something else.  Instead of the government providing services, and instead of turning it over to profit-based corporations, what if people can form non-profit orgs, that will deal with these issues.  However, the money will not be from individuals, there will still be a collective/tax-based system, but would this help eliminate waste???

Would this be less, more or equally (in)efficient?

Are there any good reasons for doing this, and what are the possible negative effects...

must sleep.

thanks for any insight...

P.S. my overall hunches are that this is a dumb idea, and that it's not going to either be more efficient or less complicated, that it could open the way to even more fraud(this time through the organizations) than a regular government system, but perhaps less fraud than a pure corporate system.  bah.

(no subject)

Apr. 2nd, 2005 01:06 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
ok, so pro-life cyborgs for jesus.

how was i figuring this?  so, the pope says we must take the measures to live.  isn't it hypocritical of him to deny himself extreme measures to keep him alive, even if he were to fall into the state of Terri Schiavo???  Because she's alive, and it would be wrong to kill her, so isn't it wrong to deny himself the treatment necessary for the continuation of his life?

and if it is wrong, why stop at a ventilator or feeding tube?  what about other artifical bionic means?  the 6 billion dollar pope!

wkawkakwakwa... (you know,... that 6 million dollar sound)

anyways.  if it's unjust to let someone die naturally, and you must preserve life at all costs, then won't this necessarily bring about the age of cyborgs, because by necessity people will need to extend their lives with machine technology as their organs fail and are replaced with synthetic substitutes.

so then we have pro-jesus cyborgs ready to force everyone else to become one of them.  would this explain xianity's embrace of capital (yes, I'm leaving out things like liberation theology, and even the pope's more socialistic tendencies) but overall, maybe, since the machines are required, and capitalism is efficient at producing machines, and god wants us to be cyborgs (apparently), then that's why xianity and capitalism mix...

Are the xians going to someday mix with the extropians/transhumanists?  that's just wrong!


Jan. 18th, 2005 12:46 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
philosophical materialism vs religious paternalism. already i've discussed patri vs matri, matri: root of matrix, maternal and matter.

the religious hate materialism, that which declares this "here and now" to be the supreme true reality, that which is perceived as it is, with no "other" to move it.

They hate it. I just find it interesting: Communism is a materialist philosophy(as is Atheism), etc... the linguistic root is again reflective of the hatred of the mother in these fuckers eyes...


symbioidlj: (Default)

November 2015

1 234567


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 10:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios