The Banality of Evil OR the Evil of Banality

[oxtail]

{:-]))) wrote:

> oxtal asked:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Would the game of awakening be the holy grail of game developers?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_combat
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
>>>
>>> A difference in the two may be seen.
>>>
>>> With a computer-drive game, an app,
>>> Turing Tests could be supplied and applied.
>>>
>>> If the player, the monk or nun, or wanna-be awakened so-called
>>> individual, were to think of a machine as different than a guru then a
>>> snag, burr or hang-up might arise.
>>>
>>> In you and not-you, or you and the world, mode,
>>> this potential problem does not occur.
>>
>>Is that your game plan?
>
> No. Not today.
> I don't usually play in such a way.
>
> You are you and others are others, normally.
>
> I don't tend to lump all people, places and things together and reckon
> with them as a singular not-me, world.
>
> It is as likely for me to think I am the world,
> and that you are not other than me.
>
> And that we are both as hands, eyes,
> ears and mouths of the world while being being in it.
>
> My game plan tends to have many levels and layers and lines upon lines
> to read between and among, when reading in to and out of it while
> playing.

I'm dreaming about writing a computer game
exploring the issue of evil in this world.
Today, I was pondering about the soundness
of the doctrine of the banality of evil.
http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

Then I found the criticism of the idea,
that can be called, tongue in cheek,
the evil of banality.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
the_evil_of_banality.single.html

This pervasive banality of evil like racism,
provincialism, corruption, etc. in the modern society
is probably what caused me to think
about starting on the game, in the first place.
I'm more concerned about the evil
of the unreflective lives of callous people
than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

[brian mitchell]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 01:14:30 -0000 (UTC), oxtail <oxt...@nowhere.org>
wrote:

Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do
you have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.

[oxtail]

Whatever that makes people suffer.
I don't think I need to define "game"
to start working on one.
For now, it would be more of an interactive fiction.
It would be basically about whatever that makes people suffer.
The objective would be to lessen the suffering in reality.

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n8ugjq$lck$1...@dont-email.me...

just their voluntary viewpoints.
want to stop suffering? just change
how you view things.

one man grieves a flood and yet another
man's garden down stream was nourished
by the very same flood.

[oxtail]

Case by case, always.
If I suffer a little less
while writing the game,
that would be good enough for me.
But I would like at least one other person
to suffer less by playing the game.
Even a prostitute might be
doing better than me already! ;)

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 2/3/2016 11:06 PM, oxtail wrote:
> Even a prostitute might be
> doing better than me already!;)

A whore with flatulence is a prostitoot.

--
Sanford

[djinn]

"Sanford M. Manley" wrote in message news:n8ukm8$lu$1...@dont-email.me...

and a whore with a runny nose is full.

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n8uio3$r3o$1...@dont-email.me...

```````````````````````````````````````

one's story has an infinite potential for misery.
instead of attempting to facilitate the endless
possibilities, it is much easier to just relinquish
identification with the story.

[noname]

oxtail wrote:

> I'm more concerned about the evil
> of the unreflective lives of callous people
> than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

To think those differ is a mistake imo.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

If that's the objective you'll need the game to give money away.
Easier to make the objective be the awakening of the player.
Still not an easy thing.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game
>exploring the issue of evil in this world.
>Today, I was pondering about the soundness
>of the doctrine of the banality of evil.
>http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

Can you sum it up in a sentence?
The link didn't work for me.

>Then I found the criticism of the idea,
>that can be called, tongue in cheek,
>the evil of banality.
>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
>the_evil_of_banality.single.html

What did you get out of it?
I didn't read the article.

People are a strange species of animal.
They think and act in most interesting ways.
As individuals and as groups, tribes, nations, etc.

>This pervasive banality of evil like racism,
>provincialism, corruption, etc. in the modern society
>is probably what caused me to think
>about starting on the game, in the first place.
>I'm more concerned about the evil
>of the unreflective lives of callous people
>than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.

Since there appears to me to be little to do
about practically all of the problems I find
in terms of getting terribly involved in
what I see as being terrible, I am
mostly unconcerned at large
in terms of active-action.

No matter how much I reflect
and callous I tend to be
in doing nothing.

Too much reality pains me.

And there's all too much of it
going on in reality.

Also, I'm lazy.

Looking for what's wrong on Earth,
I can find plenty of trouble. And so I ask
myself, why would I want to look for trouble?

Trying to fix the world
breaks the world.

Treating reality as sacred, as being
not-10k-things, not-two, technically,
affords me a great luxury to marvel
at what others see as evil and good.

There is m'ore than enuf
two go round.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> djinn wrote:
>> oxtail wrote
>> brian mitchell wrote:
>>
>>>

>>> Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
>>> entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
>>> callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do you
>>> have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
>>
>>>Whatever that makes people suffer.
>>
>> just their voluntary viewpoints.
>> want to stop suffering? just change how you view things.
>>
>> one man grieves a flood and yet another man's garden down stream was
>> nourished by the very same flood.

One individual sees how awful it is
when a house and home is flooded.

In the exact same situation
another individual sees an opportunity
to remodel or move to another location.

>Case by case, always.
>If I suffer a little less
>while writing the game,
>that would be good enough for me.

On the game-board, cards can be drawn.
One card is a get-out-of-suffering free card.

>But I would like at least one other person
>to suffer less by playing the game.

I have, just now! Thanks!

>Even a prostitute might be
>doing better than me already! ;)

Hopefully at least one is.

[oxtail]

There are many ways to tell the story.
Not saying anything would be one way.
But for whose benefit?
Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?

[liaM]

Haven't you noticed ?
It takes two to tango

No need to conjure benefits..
take heed you nutcase

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n8vsi4$6vo$2...@dont-email.me...

``````````````````

initially, with an awakening experience,
one wants to share with everyone their big
discovery, but oftentimes, one finds that words
cannot convey what one has found.

[oxtail]

noname wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>
>> I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
>> people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.
>
> To think those differ is a mistake imo.

Only if you wanna do nothing about them.
But talking about them is not quite doing nothing.

[oxtail]

Same difference.

[oxtail]

{:-]))) wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>
>>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
>>in this world.
>>Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
>>banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
>
> Can you sum it up in a sentence?
> The link didn't work for me.
>

Just Google for it.

>>Then I found the criticism of the idea,
>>that can be called, tongue in cheek,
>>the evil of banality.
>>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
>>the_evil_of_banality.single.html
>
> What did you get out of it?
> I didn't read the article.
>

Just read the last paragraph.

> People are a strange species of animal.
> They think and act in most interesting ways.
> As individuals and as groups, tribes, nations, etc.
>

Good point.
"Moral Man, Immoral Society".

>>This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
>>etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
>>starting on the game, in the first place.
>>I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
>>people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.
>
> Since there appears to me to be little to do about practically all of
> the problems I find in terms of getting terribly involved in what I see
> as being terrible, I am mostly unconcerned at large in terms of
> active-action.
>
> No matter how much I reflect and callous I tend to be in doing nothing.
>
> Too much reality pains me.
>
> And there's all too much of it going on in reality.
>
> Also, I'm lazy.
>
> Looking for what's wrong on Earth,
> I can find plenty of trouble. And so I ask myself, why would I want to
> look for trouble?
>
> Trying to fix the world breaks the world.

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be
a good game for some of them.

>
> Treating reality as sacred, as being not-10k-things, not-two,
> technically,
> affords me a great luxury to marvel at what others see as evil and good.
>
> There is m'ore than enuf two go round.

What "two"? ;)
Does it pain you even not to think about them?

[oxtail]

And unlike human bodies,
computer games are easily duplicated.

[oxtail]

Never wrote a diary for the benefit of others?

[oxtail]

It's natural for humans to share,
good or bad.
Nowadays, it's probably
a little too easy to share.

[brian mitchell]

oxtail wrote:

>brian mitchell wrote:
>

>>>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
>>>in this world.
>>>Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
>>>banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
>>>
>>>Then I found the criticism of the idea,
>>>that can be called, tongue in cheek,
>>>the evil of banality.
>>>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
>>>the_evil_of_banality.single.html
>>>
>>>This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
>>>etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
>>>starting on the game, in the first place.
>>>I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
>>>people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.
>>
>> Evil strikes me as a particularly Manichean concept and not one much
>> entertained by Buddhism. If a behaviour can be characaterised as
>> callous, does it say any more to go on and call it evil as well? Do you
>> have a guiding definition of evil? A game would need one.
>

>Whatever that makes people suffer...

Doesn't Buddhism say that people are the authors of their own
suffering?

I think evil is rather difficult to define. People usually invoke
specific people or incidents, such as Hitler and the Holocaust, to
indicate evil, but that doesn't define it. Given such instances,
rather than looking at effects on others, which must be variable,
perhaps consider it in terms of extreme self-elevation; the use of
others for self-gain. That way you might establish gradations, which
you may need for the purposes of a game

>I don't think I need to define "game"

>to start working on one...

I meant you would need a definition of evil to give the game some
shape and inner dynamic. For game purposes I imagine you would need
more and less, but more and less of what?

[Wilson]

On 2/4/2016 11:55 AM, oxtail wrote:
>
> If it does not pain you,
> you are off the hook.
> I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
> Talking about "doing nothing" might be
> a good game for some of them.

Do events cause suffering?

[noname]

No, they just manifest it; the cause is elsewhere.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[liaM]

On 2/4/2016 7:31 PM, Wilson wrote:
> Do events cause suffering?


Try reading some buddhism... !

[liaM]

Are you unaware how often "doing good" produces the exact opposite?
Instead, think of not doing. "Doing" means getting stuck.
"Not doing" allows movement. In movement, the agility is there to avoid
bad karmas. The converse, alas, stalled, stalling, stuck on "doing
good" attracts to itself more of the same, stultifying, mind numbing
karmas that agglutinate social phenomena such a bible belt thumpers,
the Tea Party, etc. A mind focused on "doing good" is a mind wearing
blinders.

[oxtail]

Regret having children?

[oxtail]

If you let them.

[liaM]

Regret is a negative mental state. What's going on, Oxtail? Where's
your buddhism?

[oxtail]

Playing the game might be rather like
writing your own story by the numbers,
that is by answering multiple choice questions.
To be frank, you would be gently guided
to lessen your suffering
by applying the wisdom of the east.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> djinn wrote:

>> oxtail wrote:
>>
>> There are many ways to tell the story.
>> Not saying anything would be one way.
>> But for whose benefit?
>> Why did the Buddha open his big mouth?
>>
>> ``````````````````
>>
>> initially, with an awakening experience,
>> one wants to share with everyone their big discovery, but oftentimes,
>> one finds that words cannot convey what one has found.

One time, awakening to total oneness,
one was eagar to share one's awakening.

That was until one realized
there are no others.

>It's natural for humans to share,
>good or bad.
>Nowadays, it's probably
>a little too easy to share.

I like watching some of the new kids
who have tripped into unity consciousness.

Young ladies. I've forgotten their names.

So happy to share, they are.
And quite an audience they have as wells.

http://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17

Buddha's mouth is as the Lord of the River
during flood season.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> oxtail wrote:
>>
>>>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
>>>in this world.
>>>Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
>>>banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
>>
>> Can you sum it up in a sentence?
>> The link didn't work for me.
>>
>
>Just Google for it.

I think liaM hit a nail on its head.

Whether it's just following orders
or thinking one is actually doing good.

Recently I watched a Zinn video
where he makes a great case against war.

Yet war is a common thing Earthlings do.

Each side thinks it's doing good.
Both sides are doing evil.

I'm reminded of what used to be called
the Vietnam mentality of destroying a village
in order to save it.

>>>Then I found the criticism of the idea,
>>>that can be called, tongue in cheek,
>>>the evil of banality.
>>>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
>>>the_evil_of_banality.single.html
>>
>> What did you get out of it?
>> I didn't read the article.
>>
>
>Just read the last paragraph.

It didn't make much sense to me.

I've found I am unusually powerless.

I used to think I was a metaphysician
and might actually be able to help philosophically,
until it appeared to me how people tend to have minds
which are made up and difficult if not impossible
to change or be changed.

Even, oddly, if they say they want to.

>> Treating reality as sacred, as being not-10k-things, not-two, technically,
>> affords me a great luxury to marvel at what others see as evil and good.
>>
>> There is m'ore than enuf two go round.
>
>What "two"? ;)
>Does it pain you even not to think about them?

Yes.

It can be said
that when one is damned both ways,
thinking or not thinking about them,
it's a sign there's an ego involved.

Ego, in this sense, is said to be
a fiction. An illusory hand
grasping at smoke
in a mirror.

[{:-])))]

Wilson wrote:

>Do events cause suffering?

Thinking about events may induce suffering.

A causal factor might be said to be
that without which a thing is not the thing.

Suppose a fire destroys a home,
with all of one's sentimental priceless items
and one suffers as what is called
the result of the fire.

It can be asked if the fire caused suffering.

And it may be answered, if there was no fire
then there would not have been the suffering.

One might ask of all the other factors,
which, when multiplied, produced suffering.

If one was never born,
if one did not have the home,
nor the items in the home, then
each could be cited as being a cause.

Indefinite articles might make all of the
difference between a and an
in terms of causality.

[{:-])))]

liaM wrote:
> Wilson wrote:
>
>> Do events cause suffering?
>
>
>Try reading some buddhism... !

With Buddhism, desire is suffering?

If so, then it may be asked,
what is the cause of desire?

To do away with suffering,
one might do away with desire.

Problem solved.

To get rid of causes
one could use another paradigm.

Seeing as how there is not-two,
no cause leading to an effect,
one may realize how events are.

When touching a hot stove, eventually,
one's finger may begin to burn
as the event unfolds.

It might be thought, and said, the stove
is what causes the burn, or the touch,
or someone who induced one to
touch the stove previously
was the cause.

As long as one continues to touch
the hot stove with one's finger
heat might be said to cause
what is felt as suffering.

Another paradigm may suggest
how the touching and the stove and
the heat and everything else involved
are not involved in causality at all.

There are not separate things.
There is only the one who suffers.
It was not caused. It simply was.

And is, as long as one touches
and continues to touch
a hot stove.

Now then, when
one removes one's finger and
suffering continues as the burn burns,
perhaps one has learned something.

- in the process

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> Do events cause suffering?
>
>If you let them.

Do you think everyone has an option?

If one's child dies, is it so simple
as to simply not let the grief and loss
affect one's emotions?

Ways are ways, says TTC 1.1
and yet, ... ... ... .

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> brian mitchell wrote:

>> oxtail wrote:

>>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
>>>>>in this world.
>>>

>>>Whatever that makes people suffer...
>>
>> Doesn't Buddhism say that people are the authors of their own suffering?

If there is no self, then, perhaps not.

Suffering arises. That might be a basic truth.
Suffering exists. And there may be a cure.
Maybe Buddhism says there is a cure.
One cure. Works every time.

I don't know much about Buddhism.

>> I think evil is rather difficult to define. People usually invoke
>> specific people or incidents, such as Hitler and the Holocaust, to
>> indicate evil, but that doesn't define it. Given such instances, rather
>> than looking at effects on others, which must be variable, perhaps
>> consider it in terms of extreme self-elevation; the use of others for
>> self-gain. That way you might establish gradations, which you may need
>> for the purposes of a game
>>
>>>I don't think I need to define "game"
>>>to start working on one...
>>
>> I meant you would need a definition of evil to give the game some shape
>> and inner dynamic. For game purposes I imagine you would need more and
>> less, but more and less of what?

Of what is thought to be desired.

>>>For now, it would be more of an interactive fiction.
>>>It would be basically about whatever that makes people suffer.
>>>The objective would be to lessen the suffering in reality.
>
>Playing the game might be rather like
>writing your own story by the numbers,
>that is by answering multiple choice questions.
>To be frank, you would be gently guided
>to lessen your suffering
>by applying the wisdom of the east.

You might ask the player: what do you want?
Then, evoke mindfulness: how does that feel?
Evil might equal, bad. Feels bad.
Feeling good equals good.

Good sounds good.

You might ask the player:
how bad do you want what you want?

Even if it feels good
if the player wants it bad,
then good might appear to be tainted.

Desire can be a two-sided coin.
At times a player may gain an edge.

[oxtail]

Case by case, always.
I usually seem to have many options.
If not, there might be nothing much to think about.

[oxtail]

I prefer to give at least three options.
But, though unrealistic to implement in a game,
we usually have many more options;
according to the Buddhist logic,
at least seven or so:
Either, or, neither, nor,
either or neither, not either nor neither,
non of the above.

[noname]

He's been captured by an idea. He's going to write a game that will
enlighten the world. He'll get over it after a while, but until then
he's owned by the belief that he must do good for others, whether anyone
wants it done or not. The idea that you can show others the Way, when
they cannot find it from the clues that constantly surround them, is a
strong one, it captures with the touch of a spider's web, and breaking
it requires that one become what he cannot teach others to be; it's an
opportunity, don't take it away from him, you'll just end up getting it
all over yourself. imo.

--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[noname]

Yes oxtail, I know that approach, but it does not work. Nobody can
become an impenetrable fortress against suffering, in order to become
such a thing one must desire it very strongly, which is a Catch-22.

You cannot avoid suffering by pretending, by "not letting" events bring
suffering.

You avoid suffering by not reaching out for it in the first place,
through your own desire, desire that cannot exist without the suffering
made possible by its non-fulfillment.

Some people plan their lives, they expect things to go this way or that,
and when things go otherwise they suffer disappointment. The awakened
are sometimes surprised but never disappointed.


--
noname.123...@gmail.com

[{:-])))]

Thinking, I might like to think, causes
small amounts of chemicals to be released
between nerve cells in the brain.

Some of these chemicals cause
the brain to be happy.

Thinking happy thoughts causes
chemicals to be released, synaptically,
as electricity leaps between neurons.

Electricity causes happy thoughts
to dance among neurons causing them
to be happy as happy thoughts are thought.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>I prefer to give at least three options.
>But, though unrealistic to implement in a game,
>we usually have many more options;
>according to the Buddhist logic,
>at least seven or so:
>Either, or, neither, nor,
>either or neither, not either nor neither,
>non of the above.

And, prehaps,
when not thinking
where does suffering go?

If the game offerred a distraction
and one were to become aware of how
being distracted is linked to how
one happens to suffer how
would that help how
suffering is now
gone for now
and then.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote of oxtail:

>He's been captured by an idea.

Which is better than being possessed
by an idea that possesses one.

In his game,
perhaps there is an avatar,
able to free those who choose to be.

Who are called to be chosen
by the game within the game who
have been captured
by an idea.

The player playing is able to see
others in the game who are playing
and who are not the player
obviously and yet are
only real within
the game.

Turing is one of those
who chose to test the players
to see if they could see who is real
and who is thought to be
all in the game.

Ideas, in the game, have minds
of their own and are programmed
to capture those and one knows
who they are and which are
an illusion produced within
the game within games.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> oxtail wrote:
>> Wilson wrote:

>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it does not pain you,
>>>> you are off the hook.
>>>> I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
>>>> Talking about "doing nothing" might be a good game for some of them.
>>>
>>> Do events cause suffering?
>>
>> If you let them.
>
>Yes oxtail, I know that approach, but it does not work. Nobody can
>become an impenetrable fortress against suffering, in order to become
>such a thing one must desire it very strongly, which is a Catch-22.

A surfer loves to surf.
When there is no surf, the surfer suffers.

>You cannot avoid suffering by pretending, by "not letting" events bring
>suffering.

Waves bring rides to the surf rider.
After each wave, the ride ends.

>You avoid suffering by not reaching out for it in the first place,
>through your own desire, desire that cannot exist without the suffering
>made possible by its non-fulfillment.

A surfer could avoid suffering
by simply not entering an ocean
when there are no waves.

>Some people plan their lives, they expect things to go this way or that,
>and when things go otherwise they suffer disappointment. The awakened
>are sometimes surprised but never disappointed.

Even when there are no waves,
it can be a great joy to simply sit
and be at peace, within,
a notion.

If an ocean did not exist
one would need to be invented.

Hence, skateboarding.

A sidewalk surfer loves to skate.
The city is one's ocean.

[oxtail]

noname wrote:

>
> He's been captured by an idea. He's going to write a game that will
> enlighten the world. He'll get over it after a while, but until then
> he's owned by the belief that he must do good for others, whether anyone
> wants it done or not. The idea that you can show others the Way, when
> they cannot find it from the clues that constantly surround them, is a
> strong one, it captures with the touch of a spider's web, and breaking
> it requires that one become what he cannot teach others to be; it's an
> opportunity, don't take it away from him, you'll just end up getting it
> all over yourself. imo.

Just another way of "doing nothing",
that is, of practicing just another way of
living in the way of the awakened.

Have you heard of Ren'Py?
http://www.renpy.org/

[oxtail]

Case by case, always.
I was talking about a way for him to follow.
My way would be more like
learning to enjoy suffering as it is.
Yours might be similar,
but I'm not as dogmatic as you are,
even for the way to think about the issue.
Be like water, if you can.

[oxtail]

Embrace the moment.
Don't just think about it;
but just do it.
That is, be happy,
without the need to think about it.
Good luck.

[oxtail]

Time heals everything.
Our body heals itself.
Embrace your suffering;
and doze on it when bored.

[oxtail]

There will be just a lot of questions
and multiple choice menus that gently
nudge players to the wisdom of the far east
by limiting their options.
For example, they probably cannot
choose to "kill them all"
simply because that option is not present.

[Wilson]

Ah, so it *is* personal choice that causes suffering, not events.

Good.

So if you follow that out, there is nothing to change outside of yourself.

Take that and run with it.

[oxtail]

Either or?
What happened to "neither nor",
not to mention the level of emptiness?

[brian mitchell]

oxtail wrote:


>There will be just a lot of questions
>and multiple choice menus that gently
>nudge players to the wisdom of the far east
>by limiting their options.
>For example, they probably cannot
>choose to "kill them all"
>simply because that option is not present.

Then it will surely not be a game worth playing. In fact, given your
description, hardly a game at all, more like a corporate re-training
course.

If you don't give players the option of choosing to do evil, and of
becoming identified with that choice, and with the doing of evil, what
are the stakes? Gentle nudging sounds rather ominous, and certainly
paternalistic.

Maybe you're thinking too linearly, and these multiple choice
questions are only serving as a staircase, a graduating mechanism for
ever-closer conformity to a pre-set goal? I think it would make it a
more gamey game if you thought in terms of lateral pathways, where
choices made lead to amplifying consequences from which escape becomes
ever more difficult or even impossible. There would have to be ways to
move from one stream to a better, but these cross-bridges would
diminish in number the further down the consequential trail a player
goes. Then there'd be somehting to play for and a peril in every
question.

It would still be educational...

But maybe more fun to play...

[Wilson]

Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
tell me?

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>
>>For example, they probably cannot
>>choose to "kill them all"
>>simply because that option is not present.
>
>Then it will surely not be a game worth playing.

When using the "kill them all" option
a remnant always remains.

What if the player, the end-user, although choosing to show his wrath
and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his
wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches
of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in
advance for glory ...

[oxtail]

The pathway can be not just lateral
but even be recursive.
Many people can be stuck in that rut
of unreflective routine,
just as in real life.
The whole game might not even have a way out. ;)

[oxtail]

There are no levels of emptiness;
probably just levels of understanding of emptiness.
Usually "either or" is not good enough.
A couple of cycles of dialectical maneuver might be necessary.

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n935l0$jig$3...@dont-email.me...

understanding emptiness may
just prevent you from being it

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 2/5/2016 8:22 AM, {:-]))) wrote:
> And, prehaps,
> when not thinking
> where does suffering go?

First comes the engagement ring...
Then comes the wedding ring...
Then comes the suffering :)


--
Sanford

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 2/5/2016 3:49 PM, Wilson wrote:
> Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
> tell me?

Very simple Grasshopper...

There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
In other words, IT SUCKS.

--
Sanford

[Wilson]

You're emptier than I am.

There.

Take that.

[brian mitchell]

oxtail wrote:

>brian mitchell wrote:

>> Maybe you're thinking too linearly, and these multiple choice questions
>> are only serving as a staircase, a graduating mechanism for ever-closer
>> conformity to a pre-set goal? I think it would make it a more gamey game
>> if you thought in terms of lateral pathways, where choices made lead to
>> amplifying consequences from which escape becomes ever more difficult or
>> even impossible. There would have to be ways to move from one stream to
>> a better, but these cross-bridges would diminish in number the further
>> down the consequential trail a player goes. Then there'd be somehting to
>> play for and a peril in every question.
>>
>> It would still be educational...
>>
>> But maybe more fun to play...
>
>The pathway can be not just lateral
>but even be recursive.
>Many people can be stuck in that rut
>of unreflective routine,
>just as in real life.
>The whole game might not even have a way out. ;)

A while ago I wrote a hyperlinked story about a couple, both with
failed marriages behind them, trying to negotiate their way into a
relationship. It was structured to have three levels, each level being
like a maze in reverse, where the reader either cycled round in the
layer or was ejected from the story/relationship. Only one link led to
the next level, an increase in commitment with all the attendant
anxiety and risk. The layers were non-return; no link took the reader
back to a previous layer. The third layer had the added element of
timing, whereby each page appeared on screen for barely enough time to
be taken in before shifting to another; ie., on this level the reader
has somewhat lost control and choices have to be made more quickly
with less reflection. One link led from this level to a page
describing their first year anniversay --modest wins!

I'd like to revive this piece, but it's on an obsolete,
single-platform programme. Maybe ren'Py would be a tool for doing it,
so thank you for bringing attention to it.

[oxtail]

Your story sounds perfect for Ren'Py.
Just add some public domain pictures and music.
Or ask Julian about them.
Good luck.

[brian mitchell]

I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
congregant.

[oxtail]

This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about
the evil that is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable.
But its validity is being questioned and I tend to agree that
the pure evil concerned cannot be caused by mere banality.

I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil
easily caused by the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone
down to the level of its perpetrators' misery,
unless we are fully aware of the danger.
IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.

Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
Either one's own or that of others?

[liaM]

Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so
ignorant of the buddhist canon concerning evil.
And you say you are serious about buddhism.

[Sanford M. Manley]

Now now...I don't suck unless you pay.


--
Sanford

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 2/5/2016 11:34 PM, liaM wrote:
> Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so
> ignorant of the buddhist canon concerning evil.
> And you say you are serious about buddhism.

You gotta be careful of that Buddhist cannon.
When it fires you could get hurt.

--
Sanford

[oxtail]

You just think you think clearly,
but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
You cannot decide things without understanding them.
I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
of what you think I'm doing here.

[Sanford M. Manley]

On 2/6/2016 12:05 AM, oxtail wrote:
> You just think you think clearly,
> but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
> You cannot decide things without understanding them.
> I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
> of what you think I'm doing here.

Wrong again Zippy! Trying to understand is the first mistake
in the process of understanding!

--
Sanford

[Nobody in Particular]

It's very clear what you're doing here.
You crave getting worshiped as the Great Buddhist Sage, and have no time
for those who do not cater to that craving.

[oxtail]

What a strange thing to say!
Even my wife is not interested in
what I have to say about the evil of banality.
I'm just journalizing my meager effort
to leave the world a little better than I found it.
Are you in ABSFG as well?

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> Wilson wrote:

>> oxtail wrote:
>>>
>>> Either or?
>>> What happened to "neither nor",
>>> not to mention the level of emptiness?
>>
>>
>> Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now? Why didn't no one
>> tell me?
>
>There are no levels of emptiness;
>probably just levels of understanding of emptiness.
>Usually "either or" is not good enough.
>A couple of cycles of dialectical maneuver might be necessary.

Between me and you there is

a form of emptiness.

Between the above lines there

is a form, which is a layer.

Between me and the screen is

an emptiness in the room.

Above the desk, where

I sit is the ceiling of the room above

which there is an emptiness in

the yard my house was built on.

The land was empty at the time in a way
yet sitting on the land was sand
from the mountain and
so it was not empty.

The land, the sand and the mountain
were not-three different forms
of emptiness and yet there they were
all being in emptiness.

Earth spins and has spun its way through.
So they may say who think in terms of emptiness.

[{:-])))]

Sanford wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>> And, prehaps,
>> when not thinking
>> where does suffering go?
>
>First comes the engagement ring...
>Then comes the wedding ring...
>Then comes the suffering :)

In a boxing ring of truth square
corners are found around.

Round after round the boxers box
their forms of truth until the boxes reach
above the ropes and touch the sky high
in the present as it unfolds itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_zirconia

Cubic zirconia in the ears ring
but some prefer zing of diamonds bright
reflections during a fight night.

[{:-])))]

Wilson wrote:

> Sanford wrote:
>> Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Whoa! Are we categorizing levels of emptiness now?
>>> Why didn't no one tell me?
>>
>> Very simple Grasshopper...
>>
>> There is emptiness... then there is MORE empty than emptiness.
>> In other words, IT SUCKS.
>
>You're emptier than I am.
>
>There.
>
>Take that.

Empty words on an empty screen.

An empty screen appears
out of and on an even emptier one
that was before it appeared to be
in front of one's gaze as one grazes
the surfaces of emptiness.

A boat floats on an empty ocean
while within the sea fish swim at ease
through its emptiness without a notion.

Air is empty to birds in flight.
Tao are empty for those with sight
to see things in different ways.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

>I do think that power over others shifts what might otherwise just be
>social transgression into the realm of evil. Not just political power,
>but the power of the adult over the child, or the priest over the
>congregant.

I agree.
At various points lines exist.

An asteroid or tsunami may destroy
numbers of people or species
without lifting a finger
and isn't evil.

A wild animal, a bear or a lion,
a rogue elephant or a shark, may kill
and might not be considered as evil.

Various species are cannibalistic
yet it might be thought only natural.

As natural as it is for some people
to be as evil as evil can be, evil
might only apply to people.

As individuals, families, groups,
tribes, nations, and other forms
of mythological creation
are taken as fact.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>This doctrine of the banality of evil is concerned about
>the evil that is clearly so bad as to be universally condemnable.
>But its validity is being questioned and I tend to agree that
>the pure evil concerned cannot be caused by mere banality.
>
>I'm more interested in the mundane or incipient evil
>easily caused by the banality like indifference, callousness, etc.
>It might not cause genocide but it would drag everyone
>down to the level of its perpetrators' misery,
>unless we are fully aware of the danger.
>IMHO it is an integral part of being awakened.
>
>Have you seen a life ruined by the mere banality?
>Either one's own or that of others?

Now days,
owning slaves is out of fashion.
And working children in factories out of season.
Women are not viewed as property
by so-called enlightened men.

I tend to view zoos as evil.
And scientific experiments even worse.

Yet fish kept in aquarium tanks,
and horses with bits in their mouths, kicked
and raced around tracks as people place bets,
birds in cages and dogs on leashes are
very common, and not seen as evil
being perpetrated by people.

How many lives of cetaceans are ruined
by those banal enough to go to a show
to see sea creatures at a sea world?

How many bugs are destroyed
when people mow their lawns each day?

Do you care?
Does it matter?
How much? What to do?

[oxtail]

Julian wrote:

> Serious about destroying it with his rotten morality. He's always
> sounded, to me, like the worst sort of pontificating god squad. He
> probably, at this moment,
> waiting outside an abortion clinic with a gun. If not you'll find him
> loitering, with bad intent, outside some school gates with a bag of
> candy.

Never at present?
No vows?
Whatever happened to your mantra?

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> liaM wrote:
>
>>>
>> Here again I wonder about you, Oxtail, seemingly so ignorant of the
>> buddhist canon concerning evil. And you say you are serious about
>> buddhism.
>
>You just think you think clearly,
>but Chan/Seon/Zen is much bigger than you think.
>You cannot decide things without understanding them.
>I will be ignoring you until you start with exposition
>of what you think I'm doing here.

Self-immolation fires me up at times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-immolation

"Self-immolation is tolerated
by some elements of Mahayana Buddhism ...
... The act of sacrificing one's own body, ... is ... found in the
ancient Buddhist ... which, according to Buddhist tradition, gives
accounts of past incarnations of the Buddha. ... "

Some Buddhists are more tolerant
than others in terms of Buddhism, eh?

[oxtail]

Good for you,
but don't worry too much
about things you cannot change.
Keep on changing your viewpoints
until you find one you can doze on.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> Nobody in Particular wrote:
>
>>
>> It's very clear what you're doing here.
>> You crave getting worshiped as the Great Buddhist Sage, and have no time
>> for those who do not cater to that craving.
>
>What a strange thing to say!

To understand what others say,
and why and how they say it,
can be the beginning of what others.

>Even my wife is not interested in
>what I have to say about the evil of banality.
>I'm just journalizing my meager effort
>to leave the world a little better than I found it.
>Are you in ABSFG as well?

Trying to leave winter
and make spring a better spring
might be a strange thing.

Between all summers and autumns
an equinox can be the line drawn.

Each season better than the next.
And the next better than all the rest.

A sacred world is left untouched.
It cannot be improved.

No footprints found in sands of time
when eternity abounds.

Here and now.

The present unfolds itself.
Bright eyes see the container.
And all the wrapping, paper.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

> don't worry too much
>about things you cannot change.
>Keep on changing your viewpoints
>until you find one you can doze on.

Wisdom knows the difference in a serenity
prayer prayed for courage.

When acting spontaneously
the game is a foot.

Inch by inch, progress is made.

Mile after mile, the player moves.

Eventually, one wins.

The world is made
a better place, perhaps.

If there is yinyang, balance,
at what cost does winning win?

Standards of living go up, up, up.
Rain forests go down the drain.

How can you be sure what is better
for you and your world is really better
when all things are taken in
to consideration?

How sure is sure enough?

[Kitty P]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n8vvq4$6vo$6...@dont-email.me...

{:-]))) wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>

>>I'm dreaming about writing a computer game exploring the issue of evil
>>in this world.
>>Today, I was pondering about the soundness of the doctrine of the
>>banality of evil. http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The
>
> Can you sum it up in a sentence?
> The link didn't work for me.
>

Just Google for it.

>>Then I found the criticism of the idea,
>>that can be called, tongue in cheek,
>>the evil of banality.
>>http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_spectator/2009/10/
>>the_evil_of_banality.single.html
>
> What did you get out of it?
> I didn't read the article.
>

Just read the last paragraph.

> People are a strange species of animal.
> They think and act in most interesting ways.
> As individuals and as groups, tribes, nations, etc.
>

Good point.
"Moral Man, Immoral Society".

>>This pervasive banality of evil like racism, provincialism, corruption,
>>etc. in the modern society is probably what caused me to think about
>>starting on the game, in the first place.
>>I'm more concerned about the evil of the unreflective lives of callous
>>people than the evil perpetrated by diabolical schemers.
>
> Since there appears to me to be little to do about practically all of
> the problems I find in terms of getting terribly involved in what I see
> as being terrible, I am mostly unconcerned at large in terms of
> active-action.
>
> No matter how much I reflect and callous I tend to be in doing nothing.
>
> Too much reality pains me.
>
> And there's all too much of it going on in reality.
>
> Also, I'm lazy.
>
> Looking for what's wrong on Earth,
> I can find plenty of trouble. And so I ask myself, why would I want to
> look for trouble?
>
> Trying to fix the world breaks the world.

If it does not pain you,
you are off the hook.
I'm here concerned with the suffering mass.
Talking about "doing nothing" might be
a good game for some of them.

>
> Treating reality as sacred, as being not-10k-things, not-two,
> technically,
> affords me a great luxury to marvel at what others see as evil and good.
>
> There is m'ore than enuf two go round.

What "two"? ;)
Does it pain you even not to think about them?
---------------

I read this whole thread and think that your game is a delightful idea. It
has already sparked no end of insights for some (or should if they looked
closely at what they wrote) just talking about it.
The creative process does that when it's successful.

This probably won't help - but it's about creating. I created a game (in
this case a board game) for one of my graduate final thesis projects, to
explain a complex process that needed an easier way to teach how to
incorporate creative subjectivity and objective concepts. It was a lot of
fun and easy to defend since I just had the committee play the game. It's a
perfect way to get concepts across - and nudging the creative side of the
brain is probably something people who are rigid in their Buddhist
practices could use.

Since I feel that evil is just a concept name we put on things we don't
understand, I think your game would be something useful for me to question
my own concepts.

[liaM]

An interesting challenge, as presently I have only suppositions
concerning your intentions here. I'll be watching. (My bet is
you will depart this newsgroup within 3-4 weeks, as presently
absfg or alt.zen is bereft of the type of correspondents you liked to
chew on in the past.)

A+

[John W Kennedy]

On 2016-02-06 14:12:09 +0000, {:-]))) said:
> An asteroid or tsunami may destroy
> numbers of people or species
> without lifting a finger
> and isn't evil.

That depends on your definition of "evil".

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson

[oxtail]

Misguided compassion.
Or guilty as hell of something banal.

[oxtail]

Never underestimate the power of self-rationalization.

[oxtail]

Suddenly clueless?
Moment by moment,
case by case, always.
Don't worry about the universal truth;
just be honest with yourself,
once in a while.

[oxtail]

Thanks.
There are so many ways I can follow.
The easiest way would be to hang the whole game
on a sensational crime story.
But knowing myself, I would go on and on,
with inept generalizations as valid choices,
until most players get bored enough to give up.
I'm most interested in the mechanisms of self-rationalization
most decent people use to cover up their banality.
I believe the Buddha knew all about them.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> oxtail wrote:
>>
>>> don't worry too much
>>>about things you cannot change. Keep on changing your viewpoints until
>>>you find one you can doze on.
>>

>> ...

>> When acting spontaneously the game is a foot.

>> ...
>> ...

>> How sure is sure enough?
>
>Suddenly clueless?
>Moment by moment,
>case by case, always.
>Don't worry about the universal truth;
>just be honest with yourself,
>once in a while.

In that case, the old farmer story,
when his horse ran away, and returned,
and his son went for a ride and broke a leg,
but then didn't go to war, instead of him saying
maybe, maybe, maybe it was bad, good, bad,
he might have agreed with the neighbors,
that each instance was, bad, good,
bad, good, if he felt that way.

Except, maybe he didn't.

[oxtail]

Can you be ever happy
if you killed someone by DUI?

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>Can you be ever happy
>if you killed someone by DUI?

As long as I didn't remember it,
it's probably possible.

When I think about killing cows,
chickens, pigs, heads of lettuce,
pulling up carrots, as well as other
killings I'm involved with, I'm not happy.

Sometimes even when nothing is wrong
I don't remember to be happy.

When I look at good things, blessings,
that might help. And when I forgive myself
and others that can also help
me to be happy.

Recently I ate some shrimp
but first had to pull their heads off.
That did not make me happy.
And yet, I love shrimp.

- and beer

[oxtail]

Can a butcher be happy?
How about "the Butcher of Auschwitz"?
What would be the mechanism of their rationalization?

[oxtail]

Kitty P wrote:

> "noname" wrote in message news:n97atn$q96$1...@dont-email.me...

> "To Arendt’s mind, Eichmann willingly did his part to organize the
> Holocaust — and an instrumental part it was — out of neither anti-
> semitism nor pure malice, but out of a non-ideological, entirely more
> prosaic combination of careerism and obedience."
> http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/
hannah_arendts_original_articles_on_the_banality_of_evil_in_the_inew_yorkeri_archive.html
>
> "Banality refers to Eichmann as a character: his way of speaking, his
> use of clichés and stock phrases applicable to any situation and
> supported by the Amtsprache (officialese), which he still admitted in
> 1961 was the only language he knew. Secondly, his motives were also
> banal: ordinary, trite and intrinsically non-criminal. That is, he was
> ready to do anything to advance in the Nazi bureaucratic grades."
> http://www.massviolence.org/Banality-of-Evil-The

>
>> I'm most interested in the mechanisms of self-rationalization most
>> decent people use to cover up their banality.
>> I believe the Buddha knew all about them.
>

> If the Buddha didn't know all about them there was some amazing shit
> going on, because the mechanisms are simple and obvious and it's all
> about desire.
>
> The motor that drives banal evil is the faulty belief that material
> reality is all there is.
>
> Every part of banal evil derives from that belief, because given that
> belief, humankind lives in a box of fixed size and the rats must combat
> one another for the limited supply of food, more viciously as population
> increases, more subtly as technology increases. Sufficiently starved
> rats will do anything for food, and sufficiently oppressed humans will
> follow any orders, no matter how insane, if they promise survival and
> hint at surplus.
>
> Nobody reading this has ever spent two instants in the same universe.
>
> Every choice we make steers us through the multiverse and lands us in
> the universe we have chosen, the "next" universe, the universe of the
> next instant.
>
> If our choices are driven by the desire to be upwardly mobile and
> succeed in the eyes of those in power over us, the next universe may be
> one that includes being the guest of honor at a war-crimes trial.
>
> If, instead of doing the accepted expedient thing to remain on the fast
> path to power and more food, we do what is right, the next universe may
> be one in which the war for power has been lost and we are freed from
> the death box.
>
> The multiverse is not fixed, it is self-inventing. Right-action invents
> right universes, and the converse remains as an exercise for the
> student.
>
> It is as though some God decreed, "do right, or eat shit and die", and
> made that a basic law of the universe.
>
> People choose, it's easy; choose, people.
> noname.123...@gmail.com ---------------------
>
> I think evil is about desire as well - but also sometimes about
> neurological issues in the brain. For instance, someone without
> conscience is described in psychological terms, but it's probably just a
> difference in brain function. In those cases, I would be fascinated to
> see if something like a game could be effective in changing those
> patterns or help in some way develop a new function not unlike some of
> the new technologies that most likely are developing new neuron paths
> around ones that are self or outwardly destructive.
>
> I like the idea of a crime for a game though. But since I don't think
> evil exists in a vacuum I would have a structure that I don't think is
> where you (oxtail) are going. If I did it, there could be a crime for
> each different kinds of evil to not get bogged down with trying to
> investigate a wide variety of things in one story. If trying to
> communicate with folks who grew up in a Judeo-Christian heritage, one
> crime for each of the 7 deadly sins might make an interesting structure
> that would be flexible enough to have questions that are more like
> koans. (pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth with the
> definition of failing to act when one should)
>
> But Banality is my middle name sometimes heh Kitty

What is clear is that
I'm not going for a murder mystery,
in spite of Dostoevsky and Agatha Christie.
I do need to utilize some generalizations and structures
to maintain a semblance of playability.
But my main objective is to help myself and players
to awaken to the banality of our existence.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>Can a butcher be happy?

Cook Ting was very satisfied.
He danced as if he was quite pleased.

>How about "the Butcher of Auschwitz"?
>What would be the mechanism of their rationalization?

A job worth doing is worth doing well.

Dehumanizing people is often a game plan.

The other group, tribe, nation, species
is seen as not being on the same par,
they are faceless, even with faces.

Once the so-called other is othered,
then it's easy to treat the other as other.

Until your daughter or son falls in love
with someone on the other side of
the tracks of your trians of
thoughts in your mind
that you love.

A fish has a face
but is kept in an fish bowl
by those who don't see fish
as being human.

Zz said, look. See the fish,
how happy they are. They are
not in a bowl nor a tank and swim free.

Huizi asked Zz how he knew.
Zz said he knew by looking at them.

He could see it in their eyes.

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>my main objective is to help myself and players
>to awaken to the banality of our existence.

Imagine if you will
that you have a superduper computer
and it's running your game on a solar
system-wide scale.

You want, in your game plan, to have
various revolutions take place over eras.

One of them is an industrial revolution.

In order to make this happen, you need
carbon. Coal and oil will do well enough.

So you make dinosaurs.
And a carboniferous era.

Then, you wipe them all out, with an asteroid,
in order to make room for your mammals.

You might like triceratops and stegosaurus.
And brotosaurus never did any harm.

But, they've all got to go.
You've got automobile factories to run.

You tell yourself, all forms of life are CHONPS.

In the game, it's all nano bot-like molecules,
with bits and bytes of information at play.

[oxtail]

Humans have evolved to eat and digest meat.
We also have evolved out of eating other humans.
If someone is not sure about that,
he deserves to perish, one way or another.
Some people might have evolved to have enough empathy
to know whether fish are happy or not.
But probably not enough for shrimps. ;)

[oxtail]

You are thinking like a scientist.
I'm not even into psychology.
I would rather do a game for ethicists.

[oxtail]

noname wrote:

> oxtail wrote:
>
>> noname wrote:
>>
>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>
>>>> noname wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> oxtail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you be ever happy if you killed someone by DUI?
>>>>>

>>>>> You ask too many questions. What if this? What if that?
>>>>>
>>>>> When this happens, deal with it.
>>>>> When that happens, deal with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't even deal with what has already happened, or you wouldn't
>>>>> be suffering through this, don't go borrowing trouble, only the ones
>>>>> that you need to happen have any possibility of happening, and you
>>>>> can't avoid those anyway. Read it again if you have to until you
>>>>> get it.
>>>>
>>>> You are running away.
>>>> I just sit and ponder.
>>>> I even doze off several times a day.
>>>> Stop chopping water, please.
>>>
>>> I'm not running away, you're backpedaling; stop measuring pride.
>>
>> You are nothing without memories.
>> You are nothing without dreams.
>> "Doing nothing" is not what you think it is.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> I think memories are less important than most people think they are.
>
> Context is much more important than memories; context plus understanding
> give you all the same answers that memory can when it's correct, so you
> only really need to hang onto the memories that have nostalgic value.
>

You probably need to talk to a person with Alzheimer's.


> Context is analogous to program-state, if you're serious about that game
> idea (which I've pondered off and on for a very long time now) you'll
> need to be able to actually implement it. To make it truly useful to
> the player, it needs to work like the real world, but in exaggerated
> fashion to make the workings clear. To make it most useful you can
> increase the subtlety as the game progresses, maybe end up with a few
> awakened players.
>
> Then you need to make it actually available to people, people running
> Windows, or Mac, or Android, because its' a big wide mix out there
> today.
>

All done for you by the developers of Ren'Py.


> It'll take you a while to figure out how to present the game so that
> it's not so much lamer than other games that nobody wants to play it.
> Maybe let the player choose the game type (adventure, romance, comedy,
> etc) and make up his own character (explorer, detective, bystander,
> victim) then run the game on those parameters.
>
> Have fun with it, or don't do it at all, would be my suggestion;
> everybody needs a hobby, which is just a really good job you don't get
> paid for. <g>
>
> Having a hobby, or a job if you must, is protective. It keeps you
> occupied enough with trivial issues that there is conversation between
> you and the world. If you just sit in a cave doing nothing, the
> loudness of your conversation partner kind of increases until you can
> hear what's being said. No point causing a lot of fuss when you can
> decrease it instead, mountain life can be quite peaceful, for a while.

I usually think visually.
But I don't particularly care for video games.
Nowadays most popular games appear to be shallow video games,
even though some might pretend to have deep meanings.
I like to have a deep thinking game with complex concepts,
like the banality of evil or the radical evil.
For now, it would be just an interactive fiction,
hopefully with enough flexibility to be useful
for victims, perpetrators, investigators, etc.,
and yes even for ethicists!

[Kitty P]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:n97vq7$7mt$6...@dont-email.me...

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

It's a great concept. Some of us are lucky enough to have sangha members
who just tell us heh