our play was invented by nature

Posted by Jim Andrews | Sun Sep 30th 2007 7:30 a.m.

play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
rules of the game not always the hard way.

cheating is an advanced form of play.

a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
play.

many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
reinforced. play survives.

ja
http://vispo.com
  • Dirk Vekemans | Sun Sep 30th 2007 9:53 a.m.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Jim Andrews
    Sent: zondag 30 september 2007 12:31
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: our play was invented by nature

    play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
    learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
    rules of the game not always the hard way.

    cheating is an advanced form of play.

    a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
    in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
    play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
    play.

    many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
    reinforced. play survives.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
    [dv:---]

    Invented would assume intelligence within nature which has a few nasty rings
    to my ear but otherwise I do like the sound of this Jim, having it uncut I
    mean instead of wrapped in a rather pointless opposition of humanly crafted
    against the supposedly uncorrupt nature, a pastoral illusion for all I know

    Besides the cheating part resonates fairly well with a text I just wrote,
    here at

    http://nkdee.blogspot.com/2007/09/mock-up-and-cheating-at-writing.html

    Intended more for a strictly literary oriented audience perhaps, this is a
    test-run for a kind of rhetoric that would be more suitable to our present
    condition than the waving of terms like modernism or avant-garde or even
    cult, alternative what-have-you, things that surprisingly enough are still
    widely used, even and especially among the literary gifted who should know
    better by now, one would think.

    It still surprises me everyday how little the established world of
    literature cares about the radically changes aspects of writing, and if they
    do start to care they revert to these silly ideas about avant-gardism,
    battle and victory of Truth over Darkness, which _finally_ debases every
    reader into a thickheaded swallower or follower of the one and only Big
    Guide to Salvation. On the other hand the tradition of well crafted
    literature isn't something you'd want to altogether throw away, or even
    tamper with more than was required, I mean who needs any normative rhetorics
    anyway.

    Still I believe some kind of adapted rhetorical play ought to be inited at
    this point replacing the old answers to the need for clarity in the minds of
    readers, common or uncommon. Without the need for progress to some Glorious
    End we still need to _progress_, proceed I mean in an inspiring and joyous
    manner, or we might just all end up in smelly muddy waters yelling I'm the
    man to each other.

    But then, to end on a more pessimistic note, perhaps it is still way too
    difficult to read onscreen what is altogether much too easy to write away,
    safe for further linking to a any nearly non-existent reader, or to the
    uncaring Reader of All.
    So that we're just running our head off into a future that is comfortably
    writing itself. Anyway if our play was in any way invented for us (we could
    also fool ourselves into believing just that as a required suspension of
    disbelief), I'd say it's our turn to make a move just about ...

    now. But then, isn't it always?

    Dirk Vekemans
    Belgium

    www.vilt.net/nkdee
    www.viltdigitalvision.com
  • Jim Andrews | Sun Sep 30th 2007 5:16 p.m.
    > Invented would assume intelligence within nature which has a few
    > nasty rings
    > to my ear

    yes. i agree. do we say, then, that our play has no inventor? no
    'intelligent designer', not 'intelligent' in any conventional sense other
    than perhaps some taoist notion where the tao is the way of water that
    follows the path of gravity. not so much 'intelligent' as 'processual'?

    am reading 'the blind watchmaker' at the mo by richard dawkins. written in
    the eighties. very well done. it purports to explain how some biological
    wonders --that are so seeminly 'well-designed' (such as eyes and bat
    sonar)--can have evolved with no 'intelligent designer'. he's doing an
    admirable job of it, so far.

    > but otherwise I do like the sound of this Jim, having it uncut I
    > mean instead of wrapped in a rather pointless opposition of
    > humanly crafted
    > against the supposedly uncorrupt nature, a pastoral illusion for
    > all I know
    >
    > Besides the cheating part resonates fairly well with a text I just wrote,
    > here at
    >
    > http://nkdee.blogspot.com/2007/09/mock-up-and-cheating-at-writing.html
    >
    >
    > Intended more for a strictly literary oriented audience perhaps,
    > this is a
    > test-run for a kind of rhetoric that would be more suitable to our present
    > condition than the waving of terms like modernism or avant-garde or even
    > cult, alternative what-have-you, things that surprisingly enough are still
    > widely used, even and especially among the literary gifted who should know
    > better by now, one would think.

    interesting. i've read several people saying that there is no avant garde
    now. in the sense that the term 'avant garde' typically describes art that
    is primarily reactive against a status quo of art. the idea being that there
    is no status quo of art now.

    it's an interesting argument, but i'm not so sure it holds. first, i don't
    think of the avant garde as existing primarily as reactive against the
    status quo. it can have a more positive primary direction/motivation, which
    may or may not be in conflict with the general trends of society at the
    moment. and that is to experiment with the content and materials at hand
    towards art with relevance and strength. sometimes such art makes it to a
    wider audience, sometimes it doesn't.

    > It still surprises me everyday how little the established world of
    > literature cares about the radically changes aspects of writing,
    > and if they
    > do start to care they revert to these silly ideas about avant-gardism,
    > battle and victory of Truth over Darkness, which _finally_ debases every
    > reader into a thickheaded swallower or follower of the one and only Big
    > Guide to Salvation. On the other hand the tradition of well crafted
    > literature isn't something you'd want to altogether throw away, or even
    > tamper with more than was required, I mean who needs any
    > normative rhetorics
    > anyway.
    >
    > Still I believe some kind of adapted rhetorical play ought to be
    > inited at
    > this point replacing the old answers to the need for clarity in
    > the minds of
    > readers, common or uncommon. Without the need for progress to
    > some Glorious
    > End we still need to _progress_, proceed I mean in an inspiring and joyous
    > manner, or we might just all end up in smelly muddy waters
    > yelling I'm the
    > man to each other.
    >
    > But then, to end on a more pessimistic note, perhaps it is still way too
    > difficult to read onscreen what is altogether much too easy to write away,
    > safe for further linking to a any nearly non-existent reader, or to the
    > uncaring Reader of All.
    > So that we're just running our head off into a future that is comfortably
    > writing itself. Anyway if our play was in any way invented for us
    > (we could
    > also fool ourselves into believing just that as a required suspension of
    > disbelief), I'd say it's our turn to make a move just about ...
    >
    >
    > now. But then, isn't it always?
    >
    > Dirk Vekemans
    > Belgium

    Ha. Yes.

    The notion that eyes and bat sonar and the countless other truly uplifting,
    amazing 'designs' of nature are created without an intelligent designer, or
    even a designer at all, are important not only to science and evolutionary
    biology, but to art in the sense that we are at a point where we need to
    understand how this can be. Not just intellectually understand it, but
    understand it intuitively and through art. Generative art. Algorithmic art.
    Where the beauty is mainly in the emergent behavior.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Jim Andrews | Mon Oct 1st 2007 2:43 a.m.
    play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
    learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
    rules of the game not always the hard way.

    cheating is an advanced form of play.

    a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
    in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
    play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
    play.

    many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
    reinforced. play survives.

    --------------------

    no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
    evolved.

    when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
    needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
    body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
    that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
    what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.

    put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
    designer.

    ja
    http://vispo.com
  • Dirk Vekemans | Mon Oct 1st 2007 5:54 a.m.
    Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
    Code running within running code levels out to code (running).

    Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
    established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
    takes energy.
    A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.

    The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
    generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
    calculated (Shannon).

    Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.

    The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
    The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
    The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.

    Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
    to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).

    But (any) growth is fragile.
    And time is running out.

    -dv
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Jim Andrews
    Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature

    play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
    learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
    rules of the game not always the hard way.

    cheating is an advanced form of play.

    a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
    in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
    play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
    play.

    many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
    reinforced. play survives.

    --------------------

    no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
    evolved.

    when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
    needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
    body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
    that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
    what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.

    put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
    designer.

    ja
    http://vispo.com

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
  • Rhizomer | Mon Oct 1st 2007 10:15 a.m.
    even impliccations about theories with numbers...yes b is impossible
    35 years,35 million for books yes every body loves 35 those what a fuck is it?i know 35 bonus appears 3 million then it is which is impossible.Bonus is affective theory

    three nfor affective theot is impossible

    Dirk Vekemans <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
    Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
    Code running within running code levels out to code (running).

    Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
    established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
    takes energy.
    A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.

    The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
    generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
    calculated (Shannon).

    Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.

    The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
    The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
    The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.

    Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
    to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).

    But (any) growth is fragile.
    And time is running out.

    -dv
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Jim Andrews
    Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature

    play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
    learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
    rules of the game not always the hard way.

    cheating is an advanced form of play.

    a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
    in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
    play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
    play.

    many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
    reinforced. play survives.

    --------------------

    no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
    evolved.

    when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
    needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
    body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
    that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
    what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.

    put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
    designer.

    ja
    http://vispo.com

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
  • Rhizomer | Mon Oct 1st 2007 10:15 a.m.
    even impliccations about theories with numbers...yes b is impossible
    35 years,35 million for books yes every body loves 35 those what a fuck is it?i know 35 bonus appears 3 million then it is which is impossible.Bonus is affective theory

    three nfor affective theot is impossible

    Dirk Vekemans <dv@vilt.net> wrote:
    Likewise play within the growth has no levels.
    Code running within running code levels out to code (running).

    Valorizing any plane of consistency within there (assuming it has
    established itself as an 'in') as 'art' or any other economic category
    takes energy.
    A whole lot of energy. The model is exemplified by SL.

    The ratio is the amount of money (the people, the play, the horror) spent to
    generate one dollar for Mr. Lynden. In information science this can be
    calculated (Shannon).

    Within growth there is time for play, but time is part of growth.

    The dichotomy human-machine is a human one.
    The dichotomy machine-nature is a human one.
    The dichotomy human-nature is a human one.

    Within growth there is time for play (excess of the Real). There is no need
    to focus on the lack (a fiction applied within the Real).

    But (any) growth is fragile.
    And time is running out.

    -dv
    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf Of
    Jim Andrews
    Sent: maandag 1 oktober 2007 7:45
    To: list@rhizome.org
    Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: re: our play was invented by nature

    play--our play--was invented by nature. to strengthen and train the body. to
    learn survival skills. to learn the social order. to learn or play by the
    rules of the game not always the hard way.

    cheating is an advanced form of play.

    a sense of justice is yet more advanced. it does not arise simply from play,
    in the way cheating does, but from awareness of the larger contexts of the
    play, the drama, and a multi-perspectival approach to fairness, or fair
    play.

    many animals play, for the above sorts of reasons. play works. play is
    reinforced. play survives.

    --------------------

    no. it wasn't invented by nature. it was invented by anyone or anything. it
    evolved.

    when you exercise, you find what feels good. what has the feel your body
    needs. like when you stretch, when you're tired. your body needs that. your
    body wants that. the body needs movement in those ways. play evolves like
    that, as though out of the needs of growth and maintenance of the body, of
    what you were made to do. but even that suggests a designer.

    put on to do list: understand the emergent. understand the emergent without
    designer.

    ja
    http://vispo.com

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    +
    -> post: list@rhizome.org
    -> questions: info@rhizome.org
    -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
    -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
    +
    Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
    Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Your Reply