John Cooper (at KEI) wrote:
> Sim-earth was always more attractive, but
> only during the middle of the game, when the beastie tiles are doing
> their own advanced C.Life thing. Later on, the goal seems to drift into
> just keeping the world alive, which gets tedious after a few games.

I've never played Sim-earth, but it *did* always sound a little tedious
to me.

> Possible exceptions for this are some MOO-type MUDS on the net. [...]

Yes; I've never played these either.  There's also Ultima Online, which
(judging by magazine reviews and player feedback on Usenet) is not quite
the ultimate "choose-your-own-goal" game some people thought it would
be.  Unless your goal is to spend hours and hours chopping down virtual
trees.  <g>

> > (Hey, we all got a right to have a religion, and "Desire-To-Be-God-ism"
> > happens to be mine, so back off, ok buddy?  ;)
>
> Some day I'll tell you how I met Odin.

Months and months from now, right out of the blue when you least expect
it, I'll ask you what the hell you meant by this.  <g>

> Yeh, but even if there is a behavioral explaination for creative urges,
> there's no immediate reason to rebel against those urges

For some reason I always feel vaguely disheartened when I get a whiff
of, shall we say, "biological" motives behind my most cherished ideals. 
However, it's not easy at all to explain, in precise terms, why I'm
disheartened.  I think it has something to do with wanting my values to
be *mine*, and not those of my genes, but I'm not even convinced that
idea makes any sense, philosophically.  (Warning: Free Will vs.
Determinism containment seal breached.  Abort paragraph.  I repeat,
ABORT PARAGRAPH

Ok. I do believe that it isn't simply wanton anthropomorphism (but *is*,
perhaps, more shadowy than cold, unambiguous fact) to view my genetic
code as something that has "values" which are (or can be) distinct from
my own.  My DNA isn't an "entity" in the sense I think of the term; it
isn't conscious, and it doesn't act in the same time-frame that I do. 
It exerts all its control (and manifests its "values") by *building me a
certain way*.  It values certain things, so it builds certain values
right into me.  However, once I'm built, I become an autonomous
"value-er" in my own right, and there's nothing incoherent about the
idea that my values may diverge from, or even become diametrically
opposed to, those of my "builder".  (I'm convinced that I'll be spending
the rest of my life attempting to work out the implications of this
fact.  <g>)

There's definitely a feeling of being "controlled" to some extent; maybe
that's what bothers me.  It's as if I want to strip away DNA's values
completely, uncovering my True Self - as if I'm saying "I want to choose
and determine my *own* values".  But something seems deeply wrong with
this; choices and determinations are made *based* on pre-existing
values, and where do *those* come from?  There's a sense here of wanting
to ground in oneself, to be self-caused, an unmoved mover, (sound
familiar?  These are privileges of the gods ;) the snake that bites its
own tail, blah blah blah.  Man, the threads of an organized religion
that could make me a lot of money are all here, I just know it.

> I've often thought that the
> chromosomal creators in this world are a little narrow-minded. Much of
> our society seems to be bent on literal children as a path to
> immortality, while practically ignoring creations in general. But why
> limit yourself to physical reality when the creation goal itself
> (becoming a god, gaining immortality, or leaving some of yourself
> behind) is really metaphysical? In my view, ideas and art and inventions
> go just as far as the physical graffitti of biological procreation --
> sometimes even farther. Who knows whether or how much of Shakespeare's
> dregs of DNA are still around? Yet his poems and plays live on, and have
> had many child-poems through the inspiration of other creators. (I'm
> probably preaching to the choir, but hey, it's fun to vent.)

Preach it, brother!

There's no question that creativity in general is my primary mover, the
one thing in life that really turns me on (suppressing for the moment
all thoughts of evil DNA programming :)  I also lean heavily toward, er,
"non-biological" creation; I certainly feel a drive to create that
rivals my more obvious physical procreative urges.  (In fact, at this
point in my life I fantasize about being a writer (or doing other
creative things) quite a bit more than I fantasize about having a wife
and kids.)

> Per your thoughts - it
> is the *combination* of these plays that make the Game-O-Life a good
> one. If it didn't *seem* like there was some goal in this game (is there
> one? perhaps the goal is "find the goal"? --more likely we are fancy
> manifestations of the emergent system fooling ourselves...)
> nevertheless, if we didn't feel driven, life wouldn't be exactly
> special. And if some of us didn't get silly once in a while, the game
> would be gray. To quote you in a different context: "This game is the
> most fun when at least half of the people aren't playing to win at all -
> they're just making up the wittiest/stupiest definitions they can.  Yet
> somehow it wouldn't be nearly as fun if the winning conditions weren't
> there."  Order and Chaos, dancing together. I love it.

Wow. Yes. Though life sometimes presents us with kinds of pain that have
no real analogies in games (at least, not the kinds of games I play ;) 
I'm not sure where to plug that into this game-view of life (which I
share, BTW).  I think I have a real love/hate relationship with life on
this level; though maybe that's all part of the dance.  Love and Hate,
dancing together.  I... uh... lovehate it?

> Here's a good Dictionary twist that I heard of: after you play a few
> rounds of "classic" Dictionary, play some more rounds where players vote
> for who wrote each definition. You get points for guessing right, and
> points for fooling others. Double and triple bluffing galore, and lots
> of silly definitions, if there are ANY silly players.

Heh.  That's *cool*.  Players trying to write silly definitions in the
style of *other players*.  Love and Hate exchanging clothing.  Dogs and
cats sleeping together.  Mass hysteria!

> Oh, and while I'm on twists, try this Arcana scoring variation: players
> count points for *every* card their pieces occupy, even if occupied by
> other players' pieces. This can make for weird alliances.

Damn, I don't even have people to play the *standard* game with right
now.  (The people who learned it with me live 3 hours away.)

> Have *you* any games (or other creations) to show?

Sigh.  Nothing as cool as Arcana, I'm afraid.  I'm one of those pitiable
souls who spend too much of their time time *thinking* about creating
and not enough time actually creating.  As I continue to age at a
constant rate 1.03 days per day (don't ask), this growing sense of panic
is beginning to whip up to a fever pitch.  Man, I've wasted *years*. 
This is serious; I have to do something soon.

So ok, my current project is a text-based computer game, which is
something I've always wanted to do, and, damn it, I'm gonna finish this
one.  Shooting for end of spring.  If you like this kind of thing, I can
keep you posted.  If not... well, if Plotkin hasn't hooked you with his
games, then I'm certainly not going to be able to with mine.  :)

After that, I've got to get serious about this writing thing; try some
SF, which is really what I want to do.  I've got a handful of
(unpublished) short stories, rambling philosophical essays, and a few
poems that might turn into a children's book, if I can ever get my butt
in gear.  That's about all I've got to show for 27 years of hard
thinking.  (Along with teething and spitting-up in the early years.)

> Thanks; speaking of which, if you are not submitting articles to
> magazines (ANY magazines), you should start, because you're a good
> writer.

Wow. Thanks for the unsolicited compliment! (I usually solicit them
myself, but you're way ahead of me. Good job.)  Seriously, your comment
touches a (good) nerve (are there such things as good nerves?) -
writing's always been the thing I *really* wanted to do.  Thanks for the
encouragement.  Do you write for magazines (fiction or non-fiction)? 
What's the market like?  I don't know much about it.  How hard is it to
make a living?

(I also think about writing philosophy a lot, but I don't have the
credentials to publish anything serious.  A friend and I are kicking
around the idea of writing up a bunch essays for a web page; we figure
if we get something like that going, it might encourage us to write
more.)

> Can't always write back, but I'll read your ramblings any time.

Appreciated.  And yes, replies are not required, though be aware that
your silence may imply your acquiescence to any and all points made in
said ramblings.

> BLT - I am sending this stuff to Andy Looney, another game-designer
> (full time even! the lucky so-and-so...:-)) He enjoyed other parts of
> this discussion.

Great!  I ordered some stuff from the Looney's recently; I love the
concept of their company.  The other day (while taking a road trip to
play our first game of Arcana ;), my friend and I had a long
conversation about the many different possible lifestyles, and alternate
ways of surviving (other than selling our souls to Silicon Valley).  The
conversation was sparked by me telling him about Looney Labs.  I'd love
to hear Andy's thoughts about this alternate way of life, and how to
pursue it; guess I should ask him about it.  Also, I'm jealous, and may
need to punch him in the mouth at some point.

Ok, time for bed.  Take it easy, John -  ;)

--
Kory Heath
kheath@1connect.com