[Back to Q/T MAIN page] [^^UP to IconoPlexPlanet's HOME page]
Q/T: Game Play: Cards, Spinners, Roles, etc
See also: -[Resource Lists and Stuff]- (tools, books, etc)
-[Q/T: ESC (Earth/Sea/Sky - Terra Thinking)]-
Game Play: Cards, Spinners, Roles, etc
On this page: {Intro}
{Pods/Groups}
{Teams/Roles}
{Spinners}
{Cards}
{Actions}
{Collage!}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{}
{Bibliography}
{Links}
Intro
Each person *is* who they are. Part of this (as pertaing to the game) is
that they are a member of a group - we will use the term "pod" (as in
dolphin-speek).
For example, among other things i'm a member of the pod commonly knowns
as geeks/nerds as well as the pod known as "those crazy artists" - we all
wear many hats.
In addition in interacting with others (esp in terms of trying to solve
problems), we form teams and within each team we assume various roles.
A common example is the baseball team. While i make a fair to middling
hitter (role within the team) there is almost no sense in even considering
me a pitcher; and these days: much of a runner.
In general "the play" is to solve or create something or do something.
In the group dymanic, we get the over-lap of many minds operating
(hope-fully) in co-hesion and thus enhancing and optimising the things
achieved.
Inherent in any process is that of learning by doing; viz (see) from
Confucious:
If i hear of something, then i know (about it).
If i see something, then i remember.
If i do, then i understand.
Also, one of the many other hats that we all must wear is learner/teacher
- in a sense, we wear ALL of the hats of ALL roles; viz from Einstein:
Everyman is my equal in that i may learn from him.
Are there any rules? Are there any absolutes?
Mostly to have fun. As modern Q/T (Quantum Thinking) researchers are beginning
to find out part of our nature as humans is to CREATE. And for many of them
they see the act of creating (not just biologically or in terms of a job)
but in the pure process of creating things of (often) an in-tangible nature,
we are driven - as much as to breath.
Also, an important thing is the idea of TOOL MAKING. Once a tool has been
created, it can then be used by many people and thus make their job/life/etc
easier. Tools are AMPLIFIERS; viz from Archimedes
Give me a place to stand, and i will move the world.
(speaking of the lever and fulcrum)
The ultimate AMPLIFIER is imagination, the computer comes close since it
can connect the mind to so many possible ideas. Ideas are the fuel of
the imagination.
Don't forget the "map" "zix"
z^i^x
z (raised to the)
i power (raised to the)
x power
z = creativity
i = imagination
x = the unknown - the future discovered? the past uncovered? the .... ?
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- P O D S / G R O U P S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Pods
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- T E A M S / R O L E S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Teams/Roles
A good starting set of teams (seems to me) to be.... (also see notes, just below!)
In this section: {Intro}
{Team: CONSTRUCTORS / DESTRUCTORS}
{Team: }
{Team: LEARNERS / TEACHERS }
{Team: }
{Team: }
{Team: }
{Team: }
{Team: }
{Team: PAKS}
{Team: TRANSLATORS}
Also note: Spinners, Cards, etc are described below in detail (next major sections)
NOTA BENE (note well) - Librarians/Documenters - each team should have at least one,
TEAM PAKS is resp for ALL librarians
and the LIBRARIAL PROCESS.
Team: CONSTRUCTORS/DESTRUCTORS
"I began to play a few musical airs which
I myself had invented...
"All of my troubles stemmed from there."
-- Erik Satie, Recoins de ma vie.
(??wd:Recollections?? of my life)
Translated by Steward Spencer.
An important aspect of the constructors is the permanence of
the construction; ie, how easy is it to recycle it
and/or
it it to extend/preserve it?
From Chriso|Jean-Claude's art works (eg, "The Gates",
"Several Florida Islands Wrapped", etc) we find the concept
of purposefully created im-permanence. And (possibly much
to his chagrin?) Smithson's art work: "Spiral Jetty" still
exists.
Contrast this with the concept of the sand paintings of
(eg) the Narajo shaman who paints into the very surface
of the earth a "balancing/healing" painting that is then
allowed to be carried by the winds, rains, etc into the
rest of the world - thus, invovling the painter (CONTSTRUCTOR)
and the earth elements (DESTRUCTOR - via RE-STURCTURE-ER).
And of course (in the same vein) the comment by the artist
George Luks "I can paint with a piece of string and cooking
lard" (not an exact quote; src: Barbar Rose) - gives museum
curators night-mares in preserving the art works.
Thus, the constructors/desstructors (constructors for short ;),
not only design and figure out if it is feasible to make something,
but also are aware of its "final" disposition.
In many cases constructions are to a point: Eg, make a bridge
across a lake to an island so that the Roman Imeperator can
march out on it to the island, look around, and then walk back
to the mainland, and then the bridge is completely dis-assembled:
The point being: You savages - you have NO idea who I am and what
I represent.
In other cases, it is simple enough to construct a "fake" that
is "taken as read". Thus, in game play, if the constructors can
show "POC" - Proof of Concept - that somethng could be made
and these would be its properties. Then, in game play all that
needs to be done is to write the word "OUTLINE" on a piece of
paper (tips towel to Keeno) and the piece of paper is (very
Bertolt Brechtian here, as Dr. Riccio pointed out):
The piece of paper with the word "OUTLINE" written
on it - IS the outline.
And in good faith (in the Sartre'ian sense) all should treat it
as such. Again this goes back to the Navajo concept of creating
art: In many cases it is sufficient to show how a pattern on
an vase or urn might be carried to conclusion and then left
UN-FINISHED. Naturally, this is a pariticularly difficult
thing to over-come in the Western Reductionist Tradition.
Constructor/Destructor: The Whatness
In the same manner that a brain-storming session doesn't necessarily
tie down *every* detail, the construction can either be to the
completion (actual building) of the object(s) or to the point
where the main-scaffolding is up. For example, in the third
sequeln in Star Wars ("The Empire Strikes Back" film (1982)),
the "Death Star" is un-finished and fragmentary in its construction,
and yet it still poses a threat, as such "The Rebel Alliance" decides
to attack and destroy it, rather than waiting for it to be finished.
Thus, in many cases the dot-to-dot from the basic idea to something
that will work adequately (not necessarily perfectly or flawlessly)
will be the goal in construction.
By the same token, the DESTRUCION of an item (in and of itself a part
of CONSTRUCTION as Picasso reminds us: Every act of creation is
also an act of destruction; eg, once Leonardo makes THE "Mona Lisa",
then all other Mona Lisas become secondary to it. A point mead
by Marcel Duchamp's "LOOHQ" (The Mona Lisa with the Moustace).
Thus, it may be enough to simple disconnect ONE wire to dis-arm a
bomb (films (various)).
Again, since construction/destruction projects often include many
people working on them, it is important for the design process that
under-pins the thing to be clear to all involved - including the
user(s).
Hierarchical vs Fractal
In many cases a "top-down" (combined often with a "bottom up") approach
is needed to create the various components of the the thing. On the
other hand, a fractal approach might be taken where-in, small bits
and pieces of the thing are "drawn" into place, and then they are
expanded outward to meet/over-lap with the other parts. Once at
least one path is possible from any part to any other part - the
item is considered "minimally constructed".
It is interesting to note that EVERY constructed thing is at first
(at least to some extent) *minimally constructed*. The changes/improvements
(eg, making a self-starter for an automobile) come after the initial
POC (Proof of Concept) is demonstrated by the making of a "minimal"
auto.
In many cases a combination of Hierarchical vs Fractal will be use.
Evolutionary Approaches
In the same way that all self-propetating systems tend to evolve (either
by random chance or by directed design) and change - it is NOT necessary
to re-invent the wheel. A wheel (your basic "caveman" design), is
re-made in plastic and metal. It is meticulously made as round as possible.
A number of small holes are made around its periphery (but NOT all the
way thru), is is mounted on a ball-bearing spindle in the middle. And
voila! The Roulette wheel!
It is important to rmemeber that as a thing evolves to various end uses,
design dicissions are made along the way that are determined by the GOAL
of the design/construction. If we go back on (eg) the history of the
wheel (as directed for transport) we discard along the way requirements;
eg:
Wheel for transport ---> Roulette Wheel
1) It doesn't need to be bump/flat proof; we're aren't driving our
roulette wheel on the AutoBahn or on a country road.
2) It doesn't need to be so stout; it only has to support a tiny
metal/ivory/etc ball.
3) But: The whole in the middle needs to totally balanced; ie,
unlike a modern car tyre we can't add "weights" to make as
stable as possible at high speed. We *could* do that, but our
protestations about "the appropriateness of engineering conerns
at high rotational speeds and their impact on non-linear effects
in the moment of rotational inertia" - would probabaly fall on
deaf ears of the the gaming commisioners ;)
etc.
The howness
These concerns go back to basic engineering principles (derived via
common practice and real-world experience from physical properties
of the (possible) materials invovled) - all lead to the exact
HOW-ness of our construction/destruction.
Materials or non-materials (a mathematical proof is constructed
radically different from a wheel)
Maintainability (one-time use may turn out to be a maintenance
night-mare)
Toolability (what tools do we have? which will need to be refined?
which technologies invented/modied/extended? etc)
Side effects (in printing a copy of Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"
- the temperature at which book paper burns - a copy
was printed on Asbsetos Paper so that that it (at least
that copy) couldn't be burned; but what about asbestos'
effect on the lungs?)
Team:
Team:
Team: LEARNERS/TEACHERS
Team: PAKS
(note the concept of the super-super-human "pak"
is due to sf writer/futurist Larry Niven)
Note PAKS are usually operating outside of ALL rules (even their own),
as they can enter or exit all other teams.
"With tremendous power, comes tremendous responsibility."
-- "SpiderMan" (film (2002). Written by: Stan Lee and Steve Ditko)
"Abuse leads to the destruction of all"; refer to the Tau t'Ching, etc.
PAKS: Team Creation/Destruction/Mutation
Team PAKS is the only team that can create a NEW team (it can destroy any team
as well, but this must be by concensus of all - work it out: Remember, evolution
goes sideways, but nothingness is N non for ever!)
In general a team can destroy itself by voting to do so, if is so decided the
team can then split up. In most cases Team PAKS is responsible for preventing
this.
Some suggested new teams are:
GOAL, MONO, POC
New Team: GOAL
Team GOAL is a team that has a specific task and does it. In most cases the
team disolves after it reaches its goal. Team PAKS monitors and controls this.
A GOAL team might be set the task: "Create a textured landscape that represents
the world of Peter Pan". Or, "clean the gymansium". Note: Everyone should help
clean the gymnasium!
New Team: MONO
Team MONO is a team that consists of team members of ONLY one type. They are
usually directed to become experts in something (SUPER LEARNER/TEACHER). In
many cases (since they are a spontaneously created team), the ideas, products,
things taht they create will *not* probably be of high value. One way to
think of Team MONO is a super-brainstorming, super-constructing, etc team.
A MONO team might consist of ONLY artists (eg, clay sculptors), or of ONLY
scientists (eg, biologists specialising on the evolution of Salt Water Barnicles), etc.
New Team: POC
(Proof of Concept)
Team POC is a team that sees if "can it actually be done"
- that is: Is it reacable within the lifetime of the universe? humans? neutrons?
Team POC roles include:
"costers" - can it be done feasibly?
"modelers" - mock-ups, what-if presentations,
Team:
Team: TRANSLATORS
Team:
Team:
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- S P I N N E R S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Spinners, Dice, Cards, etc
What we bring to the table as sentient beings, is the ability to reason
thru a number of options, create new ideas, etc.
But.
The random element can always enhance any game "strategy".....
Spinners
(see also: {Arbitrary Spinners} - below)
Here are a list of spinners that seem like a good mix (5 possible things per)
Spinner: Aesthetics
Art
Danse
Music/Auds/
Theatre/Vids
Writing - including all languages, reading, spoken, poetry, story, etc..
Spinner: Biz
Advertising, packaging air, etc
Design
Manufacturing
Marketing
Sales/Support
Spinner:
Spinner: Humans
Archaeology
Antrhopology
Now/Then/Style/The Moderne'
Psychology
Sociology
Spinner: Infinity
Catastrophe Theory
Chaos
Fractals
NM: Newtonian Mechanics, Classical, etc
QM: Quantum Mechanics, Q/Reality, Q/Thinking
Spinner:
Spinner: Maths
Algebra
Analysis - including calculus
Arithmetic
Sets
Geometry
Spinner:
Spinner: Science
Biology
Chemistry
Engineering
Geology
Physics
Spinner: Space
Micro
Macro
Mega
Living/Ecology/Universe - Terra: Earth/Sea/Sky ; see -[ESC]-
Universe(S)
Spinner: Time
History
HerStory
TheirStory
Philo
Religion
Spinner:
Spinner:
Spinner:
Spinner:
Spinner:
Arbitrary Spinners
Naturally spinners can (probably *must*) be created as the game/project goes
forward (backward? sideways? wonka-ways?)
Spinner: Naturalists
Rachel Carson
Emily Dickinson
Langston Hughes
John Muir
Walt Whitman
Spinner: Sci Skeptics
Isaac Asimov
Richard Dawkins
Robert Ingersol
James Randi
Carl Sagan
Spinner: SciFi Writers
Philip K. Dick
Gordon R. Dickson
Ursula K. Le Guin
Larry Niven & Jerry Pournell
James White
Spinner:
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- C A R D S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Cards
Note: Magic cards (because they are so powerful) are usually in
the hands of TEAM PAKS and should be used cautiously.
Magic Cards
Note: Magic cards contain themselves, and almost always all variations (including
opposites within them); eg, Evolve! contains de-evolve (devo!) as well, etc.
Magic: EVOLVE!!
Magic: INVERT!
Magic: NEWS EVENT!
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- A C T I O N S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Actions
Encapsulation
Fragmentation
Puzzle Making
Puzzle Solving
Puzzle Un-solving
Outline
CUt out
Fill In
Movement / Staying Still
Reduction / Expansion
Still Frame
Tracking Shot
Long Shot
Close Up
Opening / Closing
Covering / Un-covering
Translation
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- C O L L A G E ! ! ! -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Collage!
At any time, collage can happen.
Collages can be used as game boards as well.
Several types of collage are/can/will exist:
1) Thematic. The collage is constructed in a *directed*
manner - usually by a single KEYWORD; eg,
"go!" or "think!" or "death" etc.
2) Linking. All collage is of course linking, but the
conscious/sub-/super-/qt- effort of creating
a specifically linking collage.
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
{----- -----}
{----- N O T E S -----}
{----- -----}
{----------------------------------------------------------}
Notes
(this section only)
[1]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[2]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[3]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[4]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[5]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[6]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
[7]
{Back to the TEXT, above}
Bibliography
Links
Some good places to start:
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
Links
Some good places to start:
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-
-[]-