Re: Full Submission: The Primary Distinction- Corewave Game 1 Posted by Erik@CoreWave on October 20, 1998 at 14:00:52:
In Reply to: Full Submission: The Primary Distinction- Corewave Game 1 posted by Narada on October 08, 1998 at 00:36:28:
Narada,
Thanks for an extremely creative and intriguing move. It's very nice to see someone thinking "outside the box."
You ask: "This brings up the rather urgent question for me of what is inside and what is outside the realms of acceptable material for a submission, as I think it is obviously less clear in game 2 what is supposed to be going on."
These are great questions. While I, as the Game II GM, have not specifically intended Game II and what is acceptable as a submission to be unclear, it is a function of the manner in which I have been facilitating the Game II experiment.
It has always been my intention to let the current Game aquire its own momentum and meaning. For example, the answer to the question of what is acceptable as a submission is subjective, a theme that has always been a fundamental part of our angle on Glass Bead Games. We started Game II with a core wave and a definition of the core wave, nothing else. In Game I, we started with a dozen or so moves. These moves added a great deal of clarity and direction to the first Game.
In Game II, I wanted to see less influence from the core wave team and, as a result, more influence from the rest of the players.
While I would have very much liked to have had the time to create more Inner Game pages sooner, I don't think that this will, in the end, have a detrimental effect on the Game. In fact, on a subconscious level, it reflects my intentianally hands off method.
I understand how meaningful Game I was for you. It was for me also. The creation of the fish map for Game I was an exhilarating experience. Game II has, for me, been a little less exhilarating and a little more overwhelming. The Game has, in certain ways, fallen short of my expectations (and apparently yours also) because of this. But then everything happens for a reason, and there are certainly lessons to be learned. Perhaps we can learn to temper our expectations. I know I have learned that a project like this takes discipline over time, something which is personally difficult for me.
I believe that the most important reasons for the Game proceeding as it has will be revealed to us only upon its conclusion, and I expect and hope that those reasons and Game II in general will prove beneficial and meaningful.
I very much appreciate your patience with, support for, and continued participation in Game II. This latest of your moves will certainly add very positively to the Game and, I have a sneaking suspicion, will provide a basis for the discovery of a central theme.
Cheers,
Erik J. Lundquist
Game II Facilitator