The Aesthetics of Existence, the Will to Art, and ERE

[chenda]

I think Islam and Christianity have the same metaphysics, a radical separation of deity and humanity.

Islam actually has a long non-dualistic tradition, such as the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud. Neoplatonism was very influential on Islamic philosophy, although largely developed in a panentheistic rather than pantheistic way.

Unitarians rejected the trinity, but still could hold a dualistic creator / createe distinction which is indeed how most Muslims would likely perceive their faith. Jesus is seen by Muslims as a prophet (one of many) unitarians see him as a God-inspired individual. The non dualism tended to be an elite preoccupation for the educated and not the masses.

[jacob]

I'm really leaning in to this idea of aesthetics as having to do with the quality of an experience, rather than my old colloquial understand of aesthetics as 'how something looks' or 'the style/fashion of a thing'. My old understanding led me to only understand "aesthetics" as something that had necessarily to do with other people: I might have restricted my understanding/thinking of aesthetics as either something one does FOR someone else's consumption/experience. It would not have made sense to me to think of an experience as aesthetic if I were the only one participating in the experience.

This speaks to the importance of -isms as adding in religion by other forumites suggest. It is these isms that provide the lens for the aesthetic experience. For example, for modernism or science with its focus on "reliable objective understanding" (a 1-1 correspondence with a model), the aesthetic is that of elegance (elegant formula, elegant code, elegant experiment). Elegance is often associated with parsimony and symmetry. Presumably the experience an elegant idea is that of "surprisingly easy and useful to think about it that [elegant] way". What makes it so is its ability to simplify by using symmetric chunking or sensible abstractions.

Focusing on the subjective, as Alexander suggests, is postmodernism. Traditional religion is an intersubjective experience. In that regard, someone suggesting that we "fix the metacrisis" by "inventing a new religion" is a pretty regular fantasy (I even made a modest attempt at writing some kind of bible back in my early twenties---since then long deleted).

Ditto the "purpose of the universe" or "the purpose of humans in the universe". The idea that the highest purpose of humans is to become one with the universe by understanding is neoplatonism, ultimately expressed (pinnacle?) by Plotinus. For a more modern expression, see Teilhard de Chardin. IIRC, Ken Wilber is a big fan of Plotinus. Of course, Christianity offers a much easier path to God than spending a lifetime understanding what makes the universe tick. Just ask forgiveness or somesuch. I figure the more religiously inclined/educated can offer deeper insight than what I did here.

Both of these are in a big sense a focus on performance over substance ... or form over function. Modernism is more the other way around and at least modernism puts food on the table and roof over the head. Unfortunately, modernism has been perverted to the point of finding purpose in "putting stuff in the closests" or "shopping like your life depends on it". It almost functions too well. But this overfunction is what makes it possible to waste the excess of form. OTOH, how many people have repeatedly failed to feed themselves with their permaculture attempts? Just sayin'

My take is that whatever anyone comes up with is unlikely to be universally attractive. You might already detect a slight resistance from me when anyone mentions the word "art". Ditto "worship". I'm just not temperamentally inclined to go for either. I would not count on coming up with something that effectively 100% of humans would "go for" on their own volition, capacity, ...

[AxelHeyst]

My take is that whatever anyone comes up with is unlikely to be universally attractive. You might already detect a slight resistance from me when anyone mentions the word "art". Ditto "worship". I'm just not temperamentally inclined to go for either. I would not count on coming up with something that effectively 100% of humans would "go for" on their own volition, capacity, ...

Universal attraction and/or the project of coming up with something that effectively 100% of humans would go for is quite antithetical to my aesthetics and ethics, and is at odds with my understanding of objective reality. Coming up with a metaphysically-based sense of purpose of the universe *that everyone will or ought to agree with/be attracted to* makes as much sense to me as a square circle and feels ugly in the same way 1980's office buildings are.

[jacob]

@AH - So when you're talking about "the Will to Art" and "The Aesthetics of Existence" you're mostly talking about artists/people into art (perhaps including elders crafting at the senior center or finger painting school children) and not necessarily a fundamental lens/guiding framework for everyone to use and follow? Because that's where I thought you/Alexander were going with this?

[daylen]

A square becomes a circle in the limit.

Probably at least a little wrong, but I think there is some sense in which humans are aligned given shared universal constraints (i.e. STEM). Agent forms of any kind, be it human, animal, or ai, tend to adapt with these constrains else become too costly to maintain/reproduce. Alternative universes can be imagined that would impose radically different constraints (like a ground inversion where agents walk on the inside of a large sphere looking across to see any other traversable point in the sphere with perhaps some central light/star). Causality could be tweaked for some truly bizarre universes.

It does perhaps seem like this universe is fine-tuned or selected in some sense to have a rather impressive depth of dynamic patterns. The likes of which are surprisingly well described or simulated by formal systems of symbolic manipulation. This has the ongoing potential to provide a solid ground to stand on that we can be confident will last the test of time, albeit undergoing substantial evolution. Perhaps supporting metaphysical variety in a marketplace of cultures where attention is the currency.

This topic strikes me as quite timely given that I suspect AI to change how that STEM foundation is [self]-constructed. Digital mediums are practically perfect for storing, preserving, and operating on information. How do organic mediums adapt with this sharpening advantage? I suppose it has something to do with how isms schism. What ties it all together? How to prevent excessive knotting?

[AxelHeyst]

@AH - So when you're talking about "the Will to Art" and "The Aesthetics of Existence" you're mostly talking about artists/people into art (perhaps including elders crafting at the senior center or finger painting school children) and not necessarily a fundamental lens/guiding framework for everyone to use and follow? Because that's where I thought you/Alexander were going with this?

I am not talking about artists/people into art. I am talking about a subjective lens/guiding framework for ANYone who digs it to use and follow, not EVERYone. For those who do not dig it, cool, I'm not trying to evangelize/convince anyone that they 'ought' to see the world in this way. "The purpose of the universe is beauty" is, to me, a story, not a fact claim, with similar utility as myth. I do believe Alexander uses the term 'mythopoetics' in his framing of his essays although I'll have to double back and confirm where he was going with that.

When I first became aware of this 'aesthetics of existence' idea it resonated and I thought it was a neat way of thinking about the world and my life in it, and wished I'd run across it earlier as it seems really useful/interesting/delightful to my brain. With that in mind my purpose for starting this thread is to

a) Get the idea more exposure, so more people can run across it and decide if they dig it or not, and
b) Flesh out Alexander's ideas in a group setting, and
c) Flesh out the intersection of Alexander's ideas with ERE praxis, because that seems fun/obvious considering how into voluntary simplicity Alexander is and the WL8 project of self-actualization. Just to give the horse one more kick: I am NOT suggesting that all ERE folk should/ought to begin thinking of ERE/WL8 in terms of the Will to Art. This is just an invitation to consider/add/reflect upon another unique lens.

Maybe Alexander thinks EVERYone should adopt his aesthetics of existence perspective, but based on what I've read of him so far I doubt he'd claim that. I suspect he sees it close to how I am, as a potentially useful choice one could take wrt how they perceive the world. A mythopoetical device.

Anyone who finds this stuff distasteful is welcome to not participate, with my assurance that they won't be badgered by me to think/feel/emote any differently than they already do.

[7Wannabe5]

OTOH, how many people have repeatedly failed to feed themselves with their permaculture attempts?

I haven't experienced more difficulty feeding myself with permaculture project vs. conventional/modern backyard method. If anything, it is easier since allows/requires engagement with community efforts and foraging in "the wilderness." For example, if there is an untended pear tree in your next door neighbor's backyard, permaculture philosophy/practice would be towards talking to your neighbor about helping to harvest her pears rather than pretending like there is a wall between your properties and planting your own pear tree. And 'the wilderness" in an urban setting could even include dumpster diving or scavenging for berries as you also collect returnable bottles along the poorly maintained due to no-funding path next to the river. And the grazing zone could even include a practice such as gleaning the fields of a nearby larger project or farm.

You probably just don't grok how aesthetics actually directly contribute to the productivity of a garden; it's not about making it look pretty for a photo or sidewalk traffic, although it will also often have that effect for some deep evolution-of-life-on-Earth reasons. Simple example would be that the color of ripe fruit often causes it to "pop" out in the visual field, and this is sensually/aesthetically pleasurable for humans, because we are evolved from frugivorous species not all that long ago in evolutionary scale, and the fruiting species of plant is motivated to "display" its fruit to us in order for its seeds to be dispersed. Similarly, it is not at all coincidental that external female human genitalia somewhat resembles flower petals while human male genitalia somewhat resembles a stamen. Anybody who practices permaculture and studies the purposes of the patterns and artistry of nature and how energy flows through living systems is going to be much more food resilient in any situation where modern supply lines fail.

[jacob]

I haven't experienced more difficulty feeding myself with permaculture project vs. conventional/modern backyard method.

My point was more about whether anyone or how many have actually managed to feed themselves; not which method was relatively less of a failure when they both/all failed. I'm looking for "good enough", not "best failure". Basically, a passing grade.

Let me ask another way: What fraction of those attempting permaculture actually manage to feed themselves 100% (or lets just say consistently at 90%+ to avoid gotcha-arguments) of their calories from their own garden? I presume this success percentage is very low just like the success percentage of self-sufficient conventional gardeners is low. IOW, the majority remain reliant [in substance and sustenance] on the modernist approach of turning fossil fuels into calories.

I've been trying to google around on various [permaculture] threads on the internet and statements like "I'm feeding myself entirely from my plot" are exceedingly rare. It's possible that I'm not looking in the correct places. Usually it's more something like "I bought a plot and cleaned the brush. I have plans to ..." or "I grow all my own vegetables" (implying that the majority of calories are bought and brought in from the outside), ... and so on.

When it comes to general recommendations I'm somewhat of a stickler for the robustness of the recommendation. Do people have a reasonable guarantee that the proposed system actually brings about the promised results? As far as I can tell, anyone attempting to feed themselves on a small (0.25-0.50 acre) plot while enjoying something beyond a 17th century lifestyle will most likely fail no matter what method they use.

It could be argued that the system is legit and the main explanation for why people fail is their lack of execution. In this case, it's important to look into why people suck at execution. Is the system too hard or too difficult to execute for mere mortals? This is important to know for practical reasons.

This is probably where I'm too much of a hard ass to appreciate aesthetic differences (yet). It doesn't matter to me if a tomato or potato was particularly pretty insofar there weren't enough of them to keep me alive. Once there are ... then we can talk about how good looking they are.

[AxelHeyst]

It doesn't matter to me if a tomato or potato was particularly pretty insofar there weren't enough of them to keep me alive. Once there are ... then we can talk about how good looking they are.

The strawman aside, I think your point here dovetails nicely with Alexander's point that a "politics of art"/aesthetics must necessarily involve *freedom* for individuals to pursue/embody their Will to Art. In other words, yeah, nobody's going to be terribly concerned with the aesthetics of existence on an empty stomach.

Which is why ERE is so brilliant, because hey presto despite the increasing precarity of 21st century logistics it still is evidently a superior praxis for getting one's basic needs met and opening up space in people's lives to consider/ponder/experiment with further experiments and explorations in lifestyle fulfillment (hat tip towards all the work JnG is doing in his journal right now unpacking need fulfillment wrt the process of actualization).

---

A point that Alexander makes that I'm contemplating is that it isn't the case that there is a vacuum of aesthetics and he is proposing adding a new dimension. I think he's arguing that there does currently exist an aesthetics, it's just the aesthetics of consumer capitalism/industrial western civilization/etc. A major failing of previous attempts to get e.g. voluntary simplicity and post-consumerist attitudes adopted could be that no attempt was ever even made to address the aesthetic ether in which they operated. I'm not saying something as trite as "they didn't make their stuff pretty" - I'm saying they were blind to the aesthetic dimensions in which everyone knowingly or unknowingly already operates, and as such failed to land. I think there are ways of unpacking this idea that don't involve the word aesthetics at all, but this is a thread about aesthetics of existence, so.

The purpose is to show that transcending consumerism and the growth economy may well depend on first overcoming various aesthetic obstacles, practices, and tastes. These obstacles include the stories and myths we tell about ourselves and societies; the ways we shape our identities and communicate through consumption; the disaffection and alienation that evidently is widely experienced in consumer societies, even by those who have achieved high consumption lifestyles; and the way dominant conceptions of taste and social legitimation regarding material living standards entrench materialistic conceptions of the good life.

[7Wannabe5]

What fraction of those attempting permaculture actually manage to feed themselves 100% (or lets just say consistently at 90%+ to avoid gotcha-arguments) of their calories from their own garden?

Well, according to the Wheaton Eco-Scale, growing 90% of your own food is Level 5, and about 100,000 humans would be at that level, and Level 3 where you just have an organic garden and mostly buy organic at the store would be 10 million humans, and Level 4 (1 million humans)you are growing around 40% of your own food and studying permaculture. So, the fraction would be somewhere between 1/100 and 1/10.

It's also the case that not everybody who is into permaculture is dead focused on food self-sufficiency as a metric. For example, Eric Toensmeier, author of "Paradise Lot: Two Plant Geeks, One-Tenth of an Acre, and the Making of an Edible Garden Oasis in the City" and "Edible Forest Gardens" was striving for plant diversity rather than food self-sufficiency with his "Paradise Garden" project. However, one interesting thing that happened with that project, which I have also observed, is that the productivity of the not-ideal-in-many-ways tenth acre improved a great deal and in unexpected ways when the diversity of the humans contributing to the project went up after he and his co-author/project-partner Jonathan Bates acquired female partners. Similarly, my second permaculture project on northern near-dune forestland was only aimed at food self-sufficiency at around one level beyond the human-functioning-like-a-bear level; mostly I ate stuff like pancakes and coffee cooked over open fire while at that site, with not infrequent trips to town with my partner to eat at the diner with lots of taxidermy on the walls.

In terms of my other two permaculture fails, I would say the core reason they failed was that I was ridiculously over-optimistic about my ability to also include free or extremely cheap shelter in my permaculture design. IOW, I was attempting to make my permaculture project cover majority of my possible expenses, not just my usually quite low otherwise food expenses. IOW, you could say my fails were largely due to attempting to succeed at FIRE and Permaculture simultaneously with less than $10,000 total investment in either project. However, you must admit that it would have been quite the coup if I had managed to pull it off. (I know, I know, Tortoise and the Hare...blah, blah, blah.)

Anyways, focus on aesthetics was not the problem. I am fairly certain that if I had $100,000 to invest in another independently owned permaculture project, and I was returned to the state of health I enjoyed 6 years ago, and I situated the project in a location with fairly relaxed code/regulations, 90% feeding and sheltering myself on the site of the project could be accomplished. However, I am far from a purist in any of my pursuits, so I almost certainly would be buying some foodstuffs I wasn't/couldn't produce myself and also taking the occasional trip to the diner or fancy restaurant in the city after an evening of pure sensual aesthetic enjoyment of a musical theater production.

[jacob]

A point that Alexander makes that I'm contemplating is that it isn't the case that there is a vacuum of aesthetics and he is proposing adding a new dimension. I think he's arguing that there does currently exist an aesthetics, it's just the aesthetics of consumer capitalism/industrial western civilization/etc. A major failing of previous attempts to get e.g. voluntary simplicity and post-consumerist attitudes adopted could be that no attempt was ever even made to address the aesthetic ether in which they operated. I'm not saying something as trite as "they didn't make their stuff pretty" - I'm saying they were blind to the aesthetic dimensions in which everyone knowingly or unknowingly already operates, and as such failed to land. I think there are ways of unpacking this idea that don't involve the word aesthetics at all, but this is a thread about aesthetics of existence, so.

In that sense---to translate/generalize a bit---there has been in the ERE movement, the FIRE movement, as various other movements (perhaps especially the SD:Green/postmodern-inspired ones) been too much focus on freedom-from and/or critiquing/protesting the existing order and not nearly enough focus if much of any focus at all on the freedom-to and/or practical alternatives.

I mean, for a period I pretty much had to beg people to reached FIRE from basically leaving the forum shortly after the reached their number because it would be interesting/important for others to know "what happened after".

The "aesthetic" in that regard would be to demonstrate and provide examples for others to Copy (then Compare, Compile, ... and so on) that are outside Plato's Cave. Lacking that, those who are still chained inside may wish to stay there simply due to not knowing anything beyond that some people escaped never to be heard from again: So be careful, there are probably dragons out there beyond the horizon.

It's not hard to find examples of other movements where demonstrating the aesthetics is easier; perhaps so easy that the movement even leads with it. For example, the zero-waste movement definitely has one. Contemporary minimalism also has one in the form of "screaming beige & brand name iThings". Silicon Valley people started wearing hoodies and sneakers to demonstrate they were not beholden to the suits. This worked because they all wore the same. Likely wouldn't have worked if they all wore whatever they personally felt like.

Whereas neither ERE, permaculture, Deep Adaptation, ... seems to have one---at least not one that's immediately recognizable.

A fundamental problem with more complex philosophies as opposed to simple ones like zero waste or minimalism is that there's more to learn and know before one has an idea or even a "philosophy for what looks good". IOW, it takes quite a bit of mathematical education and experience in order to form and have an opinion on whether a theorem is beautiful. If I walk into my lair and look at my stuff, my impression is that "wow, there's some competent free-thinking going on here" whereas if Joe Average walked in, his impression would be more like "Why do you have tools in your room and what's will all this junk?"

[AxelHeyst]

In that sense---to translate/generalize a bit---there has been in the ERE movement, the FIRE movement, as various other movements (perhaps especially the SD:Green/postmodern-inspired ones) been too much focus on freedom-from and/or critiquing/protesting the existing order and not nearly enough focus if much of any focus at all on the freedom-to and/or practical alternatives.

*snaps fingers* preach.

This is kind of an ironic example because not perfectly aligned with voluntary simplicity poet-farmer solarpunk vibes, but my decision last year to get and ride a moto to Alaska was explicitly an aesthetic move. And not in the shallow sense that I think I look cool in motorcycle jackets (I think I actually cut a rather doofy figure on bikes) but in the sense that going on a long journey to a faraway northern land with 'danger' (scare quotes because very tame 1st-world-danger ) to see a love interest had a certain kind of sensual vibe to it that just flying up there didn't. And to emphasize this point I keep hammering, it was purely about MY experience of the aesthetics of it, not about what it looked like to others. *I* wanted the sense of being on a romantic quest, and so I made decisions to facilitate that aesthetic experience for myself.

A lot of people plan for a year or more to do a ride like that, and they spend an ungodly amount of money on high-performance gear for their 7.5day trip. I just decided I wanted to do it and made it happen in less than two weeks, using pcord and road-score ratchet straps to affix bags I already had. The speed of it was part of the aesthetics too.

I partly relate this to keep hammering the point that visuals are but one small aspect of aesthetics.

[daylen]

I'm curious if danger seeking is linked to truth seeking in that the danger presents a stark contrast between two possible realites or existences (putting skin in the game so to speak). The potential for catastrophic harm presents a test or experiment towards better understanding of our limits. Combining truth with beauty (and perhaps goodness to the extent that minimal harm comes of other agents).

This goes along neatly with the thought experiment concerning increasingly immersive virtual experiences. What if the "truth" can be experienced risk-free with a realistic virtual world, VR headset, stationary motorcycle, haptics, wind tunnel, variable candles mimicking scents, etc.? Can this experience share a similar aesthetic?

A bit of a reductionistic line of thought but perhaps still worth considering. Goes even further if considering an approach that more directly influences the brain/body matrix style.

[AxelHeyst]

A specific range and flavor of 'real' risk is certainly a component of my personal aesthetic taste. A risk-free VR climbing or motorcycle experience could have a certain kind of aesthetic tonality to it, certainly, but it would not fulfil that particular element of my aesthetic desire. I presume that the knowledge that real danger exists is prerequisite for the full sensation.

Kind of on a tangent now, but one of the aesthetic pleasures (for me) of 'risky' activity is the aftereffects - the touch of lightness and pleasurable disconnect/amusement it gives to the rest of my daily non-risky activities. I first noticed this effect after coming back to my day job in the city after a sketchy weekend in the mountains, being in a meeting where Something Very Important had Gone Sideways and People were Upset About It, and I realized that it just did! not! matter! and wasn't it all wonderful?

Not the same thing, but perhaps more to the topic of the Aesthetics of Existence + ERE praxis, I'm now considering the aesthetic experience of riding a permanent portfolio + 5years cash buffer + subJAFI COL into a turbulent stock market kerfuffle. We'll see what experience I'm having in 0.5-3years from now, but at this moment I'm having a not-unpleasant experience of the information I'm processing (with respect to my own situation! I'm not stoked for all the people sweating bullets and being objectively negatively impacted by the kerfuffle).

[7Wannabe5]

At the level of post-modern*, I would add the aesthetic of the ridiculous in alignment with the aesthetic of the risky. I believe the aesthetic of the ridiculous involves taking a risk with your narrative, its underlying meaning, or your role within it. You thought you were the hero, oops, now you are the clown. You were playing at being the big cheese with your investments, suddenly the market plunges, but instead of jumping off a building you wander into an alley and hand a bum the last of your cash and your cell phone. Two years later you wake up next to a cocktail waitress named Dinah and the morning sun rising over the desert thrums you into yet another day.

*I think there is an early thread of the post-modern in the picaresque. Robinson Crusoe reduced may serve to illustrate individualistic Econ 101, but Defoe also gave us Moll Flanders. How can we make sense of a world in which rascals prosper and "White Painting" is valued in the millions? Aaaah, maybe it isn't the art, maybe it is our frame? Which way, how do we look when we imagine ourselves standing in the work of artistry or tenet of faith which is the entrance or the exit from the cave ?

[Henry]

You were playing at being the big cheese with your investments, suddenly the market plunges, but instead of jumping off a building you wander into an alley and hand a bum the last of your cash and your cell phone. Two years later you wake up next to a cocktail waitress named Dinah and the morning sun rising over the desert thrums you into yet another day.

I'll spend my days on peyote being the God of the geckos.

[jacob]

This goes along neatly with the thought experiment concerning increasingly immersive virtual experiences. What if the "truth" can be experienced risk-free with a realistic virtual world, VR headset, stationary motorcycle, haptics, wind tunnel, variable candles mimicking scents, etc.? Can this experience share a similar aesthetic?

Apparently so, see https://store.steampowered.com/app/5171 ... xperience/ There are enough youtube videos of people freaking out and almost pissing their pants that I don't think the vids were produced by filming hundreds of people and picking the three worst. I'm somewhat tempted to buy the "game" just to find out as I normally have an issue with "high places w/o rails" (I'm NEVER going climbing with you guys ).

Add: I think this review answers your question: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/765 ... ed/517160/

As the nausea from VR thread shows, VR may require a suspension of belief. For example, I can clearly see the pixels in my VR display, so I know it's not real. However, my more reptilian senses are not as smart. I still got nausea (thankfully not anymore) and I still get sweaty palms from particularly intense battles. Thus, even if I know it's not real, at least some [of the experience] feels real.

Danger poses an interesting question. I play mostly flight sims (and space flight sims) in VR and there are two schools of thought on how to play. You can pretend it's real (and VR makes that a lot easier than using pancake vision... much like how looking at a mountain in person looks more real than looking at a picture or video of a mountain) OR you can just treat it as a game. If you pretend it's real, you fly your missions in a way as if game-death matters. If you die, that's it. No mulligans or restarts. If not, you probably take a lot more stupid (or brave) chances. I try to fly as if it's real and this definitely results in a greater (more nuanced) experience than the "meh, idc"-lens.

For example, many WWII warbirds lack artificial horizon instruments (IIRC, only the US tended to have them?) and with VR you don't have a sense of gravity to tell up from down. Thus flying into a cloud (which happened for the first time for me a few days ago) can be a very scary experience because you might end up dead.

Unfortunately for me I actually cheated on my "rule" by doing a mulligan when a freak-bullet from an enemy fighter hit me (the pilot). I restarted the mission and finished it no problem. This did change the experience because "cheaters play a different game". Thus, having a some kind of stake does change the experience. This is also clear when we compare trading with real money (of consequence) to trading with paper money in a game. Typically this results in very different trading behaviors. There are ways to increase risk in games. You can put (real) money at stake or you can put time or effort at stake. E.g. let a plane cost $1000 and lost if destroyed. You'd have to pay to buy a new one. That would change how people play for sure. People can also pay in time (e.g. you'll be "dead" for 100 hours before getting revived) or effort (you have to "collect these items" before you're ready to go on a mission). For better or worse, this is generally not in the interest of devs or most gamers.

It is not just a VR or game thing either. Imagine how a fencing match would change if the protective gear was removed or that it was a duel to the death or even first blood. It would be quite different "aesthetically" to the point that experiences might not even overlap. Having read a bunch of samurai writings as it pertains to the Meiji restoration when warrior culture was rapidly changing, fighters would go to each others schools and challenge other fighters to see who was "best". Some of the old guard weren't interested unless sharp blades were involved because they realized that eliminating danger changed both the fighting, the fight, and the fighters completely. Similarly, the view from a mountaintop depends on whether you hiked/climbed all the way up or you took the cable car up. To bring it back to ERE a bit: Sitting at a table you made yourself (or acquired through some fancy trade) is different than sitting at a table that was bought in a store. And so on.

[zbigi]

This is also clear when we compare trading with real money (of consequence) to trading with paper money in a game. Typically this results in very different trading behaviors. There are ways to increase risk in games. You can put (real) money at stake or you can put time or effort at stake. E.g. let a plane cost $1000 and lost if destroyed. You'd have to pay to buy a new one. That would change how people play for sure. People can also pay in time (e.g. you'll be "dead" for 100 hours before getting revived) or effort (you have to "collect these items" before you're ready to go on a mission). For better or worse, this is generally not in the interest of devs or most gamers.

I don't know many games nowadays, but in online Magic: the Gathering (both MTGO and MtG: Arena) people end playing seriously ("to win"), because participations costs in-game currency. You get that currency if you win, so if your win-rate is not high enough, you need to suplement via buying it with real money. There's also an option to grind the in-game currency in free tier games (and how much you win there also affects your grind returns). So, you're either good enough at the game, or you have to pay with money or time. That's one of the factors that makes the game so compelling - you play against real people who are motivated - that's better and more interesting than playing against AI or unmotivated humans. Magic is similar to poker in that regard, but has the advantage over poker in that it's uncomparably more complex and varied.

I think this approach may be viable only for truly unique, once-in-a-generation games, that have wide fan bases who simply see no substition for it - such as M:tG. With the rest of the games, (e.g. games that are merely good), people will balk at having to pay to continue playing, and will switch to some other comparable game.

[7Wannabe5]

Now I'm trying to imagine if I might enjoy riding on the back of my BF's virtual motorcycle? In real life it can be a fairly varied sensual/aesthetic experience. For example, one ride with one BF I remember quite well was very mellow. Warm sun, no hurry, big solid bike, jazz on the speakers, out of the gritty city into the green countryside, stop for an ice cream cone...yeah, it's not going to work for me until they've got that virtual ice cream working.

[daylen]

Where I was kinda getting at is that aesthetics are actually extremely sensitive to subtle changes of internal perception. Even if you had a fully immersive matrix style setup with populations of humans living out their entire lives.. a rabbit hole of clues could lead you to question it all and choose the red pill to, I suppose, get closer to the "truth" or "base reality". It can also go the other way in that a diet of high risk, high reward red pills could be complimented with blue pills that imitate "truth". This is like practicing, gaming, or modeling before diving in skin first. Putting truth in quotation marks as its never that black and white. Plus, it seems that conscious experience is already virtual in that it acts as a control layer onto the cells that can be toggled off.