Behind the Curtains

[*01]

Alluding to what has been established in the previous 'Behind the Curtain' call (and what is presented in Contention 1.05), the Anti-Comallodianist worldview doesn't rely on first causes, prime movers, or original substances. What we yearn for and strive to come into possession of - our Wilde Jagd, if you will - are relations, ambiences and referents. The choice of tools we deploy in their pursuit is more or less incidental: there shall be no dogmatic, irrational or emotional attachments on the Anti-Comallodianist agent's part to the tools that are made use of. What works is retained and perfected and what doesn't should be discarded.

The knife was chosen for its archetypal connection to the mathematical operation of division, which - if understood correctly - can be said to make up "half" of all things, whereas the other half, naturally, would be multiplication. Conceptually, we can basically make use of any and almost every object in this act of division - provided that the object in question is sufficiently enough sharpened and hardened to permit this creative act. Even concepts could be used to divide other concepts; this is what Contention 1.06 is primarily about: dividing or penetrating our categorizations further with other categorizations which we analyzed from a common source: the knife. What we're trying to accomplish with this endeavour is creating a terminological arsenal for manipulating our phenomenological situations to our liking, albeit not in an arbitrary manner: our purpose is the intensification of lived life, and nothing more.

At any rate, this particular statement can be understood at least in two different ways: firstly, in similar fashion to the open-ended play of children where the focus of the activity is placed on to the process itself and the experiences that it presents to its partakers - dissimilar to close-ended activites where the focus is put more heavily on to the conclusion - , in the first stage of the philosophy of knife there are no right or wrong answers, uses or conclusions for its application. The reason for this is twofold:

a) for a significant portion of the contemporary scientific fields it holds true that what will and will not work can be determined only in practice (or, more accurately, through experiments) - this is even truer for arts -, and for this reason it is more or less inane to judge an idea's worth before one has had the chance of thinking it through properly - at which point it has already been manifested as a real thing regardless of what your actual intentions were or (after going through the process) presently are; thereafter it is merely a matter of finding in yourself the sense (and subsequently demanded strength of will/desire) for its fulfillment, realization or manifestation.

b) in the future Contentions we will be presenting the category of "phenomenologicals" - among which the phase of open-ended play is also included -, whose most essential characteristic is that of contextualization or structuralization: of projecting a metaphysical structure out into or on top of the real world, which, if understood, internalized and established properly, will lead to a specific kind of meaning-ladenness of perception - in layman's terms, you will start to experience the surrounding world as a game world. The point being made here isn't so much "rational" in the strict sense of the terms, as it is "pragmatic" and conducive to life. The reason why this is important is:

i) [redacted for the purposes of avoiding the possible evisceration of its wanted effects], but also for added benefits of

ii) lowering the threshold for pursuing creative efforts and engendering meaningful real-life actions, and

iii)

Secondly, mikäli veitsen filosofian kolme funktiota käsitetään kattavan lähes puolet kaikesta sellaisesta, joiden kanssa se koheroi, niin tällöin avoin leikki näkyy siinä mikä näistä syistä valitaan – tällöin se on ideoiden leikkisää kilvoittelua. Mutta tällöin voitaisiin sanoa, että se menee ristin vakavan ja singulaarisen, tarkoituksellisen objektiivin täyttämisen kanssa. Mutta eikö leikki voi muka olla [samaan aikaan vakavaa, vaikka vain leikkiä?]

The following philosophical short-essay titled "Life Through a Game Metaphor" is meant to indicate something of the desire kind of understanding being sought in the second point of the first meaning:

Although the (anti-comallodianist) manner by which we're approaching and presenting our subjects and thoughts might seem "harsh" and "overtly serious", this isn't to say that the ideology (or the creative impulse behind it) weren't ultimately playful in nature.

Life Through a Game Metaphor

Life is a journey... - or, should I more preferably say that it's more like a game? In a game there are rules to which you must abide by, whilst on a journey pretty much anything can happen - given that the concept of a ''journey'' hasn't been specified to any meaningful extent (that is, playing on the assumption of the vagueness of the the term ''journey'', which doesn't rule out the possibility of a ''magical'' type of journey). Take, for instance, gravity or the laws of causality to demonstrate the ''gameness'' of life. You can't take flight anytime you so will; you must obey the laws set up for the game of life which you are playing. Otherwise you would be breaking the rules, which isn't acceptable.

In other words, you can't have something the nanosecond you want that specific something. You have to *do* something to gain something. And not just do any something (in any way you want) - you must also play by the rules of the game of life. This is all in accordance with the definition of ''play'' provided by Bernard Suits, which goes as follows. Playing of a game is ''the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles''. Naturally, this doesn't fit our general understanding of life. But, let us assume - just for the sake of argument - that you're the game-designer for the game of life. In simple terms, I'm saying that you're God. Now, if you'd want to play a game (just to pass the time) wouldn't you want to make it as interesting as possible for yourself - why else would you engage yourself in such a frivolous thing as God?

So - to make things interesting - in the game of life you must take these (gravity, causality, and many other laws) into account when making a move in the said game. Of course, life won't provide you with a rule-book to get you started /acquaintant with/ in the said game - you have to discover what those rules are for yourself. In normal circumstances most of these basic, preliminary rules are pretty intuitive; you don't *have to* know how you breath, you just do (!). Likewise, you don't have to know how to walk or eat (among other things) - you've been instructed in those things in the tutorial run, which is your toddlerhood/childhood. And if you haven't, well it just sucks to be you then, I guess.

But - unlike in a game - you've never been asked if you *want to* play the game, or which race, gender or specialization (that is, which ''stats'') you're going to play with. These are assigned for/to you beforehand. From a game-designer perspective this is actually quite interesting a take on games in general: (as a player) if you don't know which combination of race, gender, specialization etc. are ''superior'' to all the other players for the game, you cannot intentionally play the ultimate combination in it and - as a result - climb to the top 3 ranking with ease and breeze. Moreover, if you aren't forced to play the game then why bother with the game to begin with, since you could have your hearth's desire at any time you so desire outside the game? And, if you can have your hearth's desire, why couldn't everyone else also have it that way? So, if we're going to play a game, the same rules have to apply to all participants universally and equally.

In addition to you having to play the game itself AND having to learn for yourself what the rules of the games are, you ALSO have to recognize what are the type of rules by which you are playing at the moment - i.e. are they permanent or temporary? If they are temporary, they are most likely man-made and, as a result, subject to change. Of course, most of us aren't ready to alter the (temporary) rules of the game. Necessarily it isn't a bad thing in itself to play by the rules set up by others. However, when you let someone else determine which game you're playing, you're inadvertently letting them determine... [work in progress]