There is a sense of “symbolically mandated act” as ritual is used here. Yet for some reason a think that waving a white flag is not meant to be in the category.
Consider Zendo, effectively having a very narrow meaning range (binary) communication channel to convey pretty fancy and detailed meanings. It also seems that “the core phenomena” are about installing new symbolical functionality. For most games you learn to rules in order to play the game, but it seems tempting that the special thing here is a game where you play the game in order to learn its rules. I do not think that goals as the payload is particularly important, but conveying things that the receiver does not have any infastructural capacity to support. That is, speaking a language that the listener does not know. Then the line where this trick becomes important is rather what can be communicated that has already been established, than a special kind of knowledge being incompatible with the transmission medium. If you can just say it, say it. But if you can’t just “say it” the game is not yet fully lost.
If you are trying to think why ooglabooga does himfimpy when near lotvabob, the solution might be of the form “because yiline always himfimpy lotvabob and ooglabooga is a yiline”. It helps this puzzle if all the clues about it are from within this magic circle. But if you have instead “Why ooglabooga spins near lotvabob?” the spin meanings are likely to just be red herrings. We can’t have meaning because we are starting it from scratch. There is also the game that gets called “pointing” and I am wondering whether this has a connection. People that are “in” this new symbolic level or infrastructure possibly can use the more mundane channels to talk about the “island of meaning” but few that are not on the island can ever bridge there by talking. Communities also tend to continually renew, so there is always some member that is ripe for a once-in-a-lifetime installation. So a teaching tool does not need to “accomplish” anything.
While it might be easier to think of meaning islands that would be totally sandboxed away, the real systems probably also want to link to others games / outer world. Maybe sacrifice has connections to feelings of loss? So if you have something non-straightforward to say about loss, that migth not be a contaminant but part of the payload structure.
a game that is played in order to learn its rules could also be called an experiment. If the mechanics of the game come strictly from social dynamics (althougth social sits on top a stack of emergence) this makes it most easy to see a particular regularity about the social. (a mode where no intentional setup: “lurk more”?). There is quite a bit of normativity about “interpreting” data points (ie p-hacking is bad).
Then a weird thing might come about when the experience is mainly produced to add to the common knowledge of the group. No collapse problem if the experience is the experiencer.
There is a sense of “symbolically mandated act” as ritual is used here. Yet for some reason a think that waving a white flag is not meant to be in the category.
Consider Zendo, effectively having a very narrow meaning range (binary) communication channel to convey pretty fancy and detailed meanings. It also seems that “the core phenomena” are about installing new symbolical functionality. For most games you learn to rules in order to play the game, but it seems tempting that the special thing here is a game where you play the game in order to learn its rules. I do not think that goals as the payload is particularly important, but conveying things that the receiver does not have any infastructural capacity to support. That is, speaking a language that the listener does not know. Then the line where this trick becomes important is rather what can be communicated that has already been established, than a special kind of knowledge being incompatible with the transmission medium. If you can just say it, say it. But if you can’t just “say it” the game is not yet fully lost.
If you are trying to think why ooglabooga does himfimpy when near lotvabob, the solution might be of the form “because yiline always himfimpy lotvabob and ooglabooga is a yiline”. It helps this puzzle if all the clues about it are from within this magic circle. But if you have instead “Why ooglabooga spins near lotvabob?” the spin meanings are likely to just be red herrings. We can’t have meaning because we are starting it from scratch. There is also the game that gets called “pointing” and I am wondering whether this has a connection. People that are “in” this new symbolic level or infrastructure possibly can use the more mundane channels to talk about the “island of meaning” but few that are not on the island can ever bridge there by talking. Communities also tend to continually renew, so there is always some member that is ripe for a once-in-a-lifetime installation. So a teaching tool does not need to “accomplish” anything.
While it might be easier to think of meaning islands that would be totally sandboxed away, the real systems probably also want to link to others games / outer world. Maybe sacrifice has connections to feelings of loss? So if you have something non-straightforward to say about loss, that migth not be a contaminant but part of the payload structure.
a game that is played in order to learn its rules could also be called an experiment. If the mechanics of the game come strictly from social dynamics (althougth social sits on top a stack of emergence) this makes it most easy to see a particular regularity about the social. (a mode where no intentional setup: “lurk more”?). There is quite a bit of normativity about “interpreting” data points (ie p-hacking is bad).
Then a weird thing might come about when the experience is mainly produced to add to the common knowledge of the group. No collapse problem if the experience is the experiencer.