Re: Re: Games
E:
The key may be ‘pretend to.’ Why is Chess so popular, historically speaking at least? Is there any great utility contained within? The answer to this question may unpack the utility of other institutions. We often prefer the closed instead of open ended because we can claim to understand it, although there must be a greater and lesser amount of such understanding if we are to demonstrate our mastery. Perhaps the Will to Power is a simple as this in essence — and pointless. (link)
Closed games probably do have utility as tools for training people to function in open-ended real life. Chess is quite likely good mental exercise for people who have to practice power politics, arrange dynastic marriages, form alliances etc., because it requires skills such as juggling abstract pictures of swiftly changing power relations in one’s head. In a similar manner Minesweeper trains cubicle workers to perform detailed manipulation of meaningless chunks of data with a high degree of accuracy. America’s Army is a blatant example of this sort of thing.
I recently skimmed a centuries old text online which discussed the moral lessons in Chess, so it was seen as more than just a pastime by at least some. And Snakes and Ladders was originally a Hindu game designed to teach morality and the path to salvation.
Chicken-egg problem. Do cubicle workers play minesweeper because it is a continuation of their regular pattern of life — or is it a product of intelligent design — children play minesweeper in order to facilitate their transition to contented cubicle workers? Moreover, can an unconscious ‘stream of being’ be articulated which sets the orientation of the young and ultimately leads to their distribution in vocations of ‘choice’ ?
Another question: do those playing America’s Army naturally transition to soldierly occupations? Assuming yes, under what circumstances do they make good soldiers? Again, how moral is the person who takes their moral lessons from Chess?
