The Game Loop: Part 1 Mental pipelines

[Federica]

How do you experience it when returning to such demonstrations? You say above, "possibly return to it from time to time, and that's it". But what's it? If we are returning to it from time to time, surely that's because its educational value is not being exhausted by multiple encounters. How would you characterize the difference between concentrating on the elastic circles as an imaginative symbol for our inner process, and concentrating on a Rose Cross, the vowel stream, or some other theme (in the latter case, I am assuming you would say the principle of exhausted value no longer applies)?

One may return to an essay and its demos, and benefit from running through the conceptual framework again. This may be educational, for sure, as I have already noted. It's not difficult to check that the limited educational benefit of a demo or game I’ve always been speaking of includes the occasional re-encounter. Again, what it does not include is protracted ad libitum playing.

Besides, one can surely put a personally chosen image at the center of a meditation, including an image extracted from a demo or game like the elastic circles. In that case, the educational value obviously resides not anymore in the character of the demo from which the image has been extracted, but in the meditative quality of the activity. Then, one stops playing with cursors, buttons, apertures, and related conceptual flow. One has stepped in another quality of activity that is not game.

Evidently, the difference is not between concentration on the elastic circles as an imaginative symbol and concentration on the Rose Cross. The difference is between concentrating on an imaginative symbol (why not an image of elastic circles), and playing with the game from which the image was extracted. In this latter case, one uses the brain to follow the perceptual-conceptual-emotional transformations proposed by the game rules.

[AshvinP]

How do you experience it when returning to such demonstrations? You say above, "possibly return to it from time to time, and that's it". But what's it? If we are returning to it from time to time, surely that's because its educational value is not being exhausted by multiple encounters. How would you characterize the difference between concentrating on the elastic circles as an imaginative symbol for our inner process, and concentrating on a Rose Cross, the vowel stream, or some other theme (in the latter case, I am assuming you would say the principle of exhausted value no longer applies)?

One may return to an essay and its demos, and benefit from running through the conceptual framework again. This may be educational, for sure, as I have already noted. It's not difficult to check that the limited educational benefit of a demo or game I’ve always been speaking of includes the occasional re-encounter. Again, what it does not include is protracted ad libitum playing.

Besides, one can surely put a personally chosen image at the center of a meditation, including an image extracted from a demo or game like the elastic circles. In that case, the educational value obviously resides not anymore in the character of the demo from which the image has been extracted, but in the meditative quality of the activity. Then, one stops playing with cursors, buttons, apertures, and related conceptual flow. One has stepped in another quality of activity that is not game.

Evidently, the difference is not between concentration on the elastic circles as an imaginative symbol and concentration on the Rose Cross. The difference is between concentrating on an imaginative symbol (why not an image of elastic circles), and playing with the game from which the image was extracted. In this latter case, one uses the brain to follow the perceptual-conceptual-emotional transformations proposed by the game rules.

Ok, thanks. I will simply conclude with a brief list of observations that provide a somewhat coherent image of my thinking process on this topic. I don't expect a response if there is no further interest in exploring these specific observations.

- When do we shift from educational experimenting with metaphorical-conceptual frameworks to 'protracted ad libitum playing'? I don't think we need to be concerned about establishing any rules in this domain, but rather each individual can freely assess what metaphorical frameworks stimulate expanding intuitive orientation to the inner flow (educational value) for them, and how much experimentation should be accordingly invested in them.

- If we begin to define experimentation with metaphorical-conceptual frameworks as 'playing games' in a negative sense, then we would have to include practically all spiritual efforts in that domain, including working through the essays and Steiner's lectures. I see this as an unnecessary and unhelpful way to characterize such efforts. I also see a risk of arbitrarily holding apart such efforts from what we aim to inwardly accomplish in meditation, as 'separate concerns'.

- The risk associated with experimenting in metaphorical-conceptual frameworks is no greater, and in some cases, much less than that of engaging in the ordinary life flow of activities, such as pursuing various intellectual inquiries. All of these are subject to shadowy motives that steer the flow, and that we can only become sensitive to by creating the 'low-stakes' conditions for their consistent manifestation and resistance within the imaginative rehearsal space.

- When we get a good feel for just how distracted our mental flow is during the ordinary course of life, I think we will hardly be concerned that we are spending too much time in metaphorical-conceptual experimentation, and rather, be more concerned that we spend too little time in such exercises. We will notice how we quickly start to feel bored with the former and have probably felt the heavy resistance of revisiting the 'old classics', feeling like the inner process they point attention to is already well understood, and instead spend our time mostly searching for the 'hot new releases' that provide 'brand new' insights, as we are accustomed to in sensory domains of knowledge.

- Phenomenologically speaking, metaphorical-conceptual experimentation can be experienced on an entirely continuous gradient with imaginative meditation, and our spiritual development should make these two feel more and more to coincide with one another. Working through the 'games' of the essays, Steiner's lectures, and so on, should feel increasingly akin to what we do in a meditative state.

[Federica]

Ok, thanks. I will simply conclude with a brief list of observations that provide a somewhat coherent image of my thinking process on this topic. I don't expect a response if there is no further interest in exploring these specific observations.

- When do we shift from educational experimenting with metaphorical-conceptual frameworks to 'protracted ad libitum playing'? I don't think we need to be concerned about establishing any rules in this domain, but rather each individual can freely assess what metaphorical frameworks stimulate expanding intuitive orientation to the inner flow (educational value) for them, and how much experimentation should be accordingly invested in them.

I don't think we need to establish any rules in this domain either. However, it is clear that if someone with normal cognitive capacities and no amnesia, no dissociation syndrome or other conditions, plays around with the elastic circles demo every day for years (I'm not speaking of meditation on an image inspired by the demo but of merely running the demo, trying different parameters) it's very hard - and borderline comical - to pretend that the metaphorical value of the demo is still landing, and therefore there is still educational value to extract. For every normal person, after a few tries -and safe the occasional re-encounter down the line - the metaphorical value has been integrated, and any further "expanding intuitive orientation to the inner flow" must now come from a meditative qualitive of activity that is connected to what the demo points to, but is very different in kind from playing a game or demo. How many tries are 'a few tries' can vary moderately from one person to the next.

- If we begin to define experimentation with metaphorical-conceptual frameworks as 'playing games' in a negative sense, then we would have to include practically all spiritual efforts in that domain, including working through the essays and Steiner's lectures. I see this as an unnecessary and unhelpful way to characterize such efforts. I also see a risk of arbitrarily holding apart such efforts from what we aim to inwardly accomplish in meditation, as 'separate concerns'.

I don’t think it makes sense to define experimentation with metaphorical-conceptual frameworks as 'playing games' in a negative sense. First, lectures and essays appeal to our conceptual capacity but are not “games”, as earlier discussed. Moreover, even when we are specifically engaged with games, playing them, this doesn't have to bear a negative connotation necessarily. These are distortions of the data of the discussion layered on top of my expressed points.

- The risk associated with experimenting in metaphorical-conceptual frameworks is no greater, and in some cases, much less than that of engaging in the ordinary life flow of activities, such as pursuing various intellectual inquiries. All of these are subject to shadowy motives that steer the flow, and that we can only become sensitive to by creating the 'low-stakes' conditions for their consistent manifestation and resistance within the imaginative rehearsal space.

Yeah, it wouldn't make sense to abstractly compare activities by categories. If you are assuming that for me game is bad in general, please go back to review this discussion and your deductions.

- When we get a good feel for just how distracted our mental flow is during the ordinary course of life, I think we will hardly be concerned that we are spending too much time in metaphorical-conceptual experimentation, and rather, be more concerned that we spend too little time in such exercises. We will notice how we quickly start to feel bored with the former and have probably felt the heavy resistance of revisiting the 'old classics', feeling like the inner process they point attention to is already well understood, and instead spend our time mostly searching for the 'hot new releases' that provide 'brand new' insights, as we are accustomed to in sensory domains of knowledge.

Again, if you are implying that I am concerned about spending too much time in metaphorical-conceptual experimentation, you should review this discussion. First, game does not exhaust "metaphorical-conceptual experimentation". Again, there is persistent conceptual blurring here that rows against the clarity and usefulness of the discussion. And even when we speak of games specifically, my caveats have been about MoE games on the one hand, and on being honest about the motives for playing on the other, recognizing when the educational value is exhausted and daily game playing is maintained under the incentive of other motives. Should it appear to honest self-inquiry that a certain game is played as a daily habit for motives that have much more to do with various desires of the soul, than with the desire for education specifically, then one wouldn't be allowed to count that time as time spent in "exercises" to counter distractions in the mental flow. In some cases (not all cases) games are part of the distraction itself.

In my opinion, one great way to get a good feel for how distracted the mental flow is, consists in trying to do the second subsidiary exercise "initiative in action/will" once or better twice a day, at predefined hours, but without setting any reminder or alarm. Then one can measure every day how many minutes (or hours) one has been sleeping through the exercise's time arch, in complete deficit of attention along that particular axis, despite the fact that it had been flagged and made the object of a specific intention. This is an example of old classics that provide some of the deeper insights that the new releases would not provide.

- Phenomenologically speaking, metaphorical-conceptual experimentation can be experienced on an entirely continuous gradient with imaginative meditation, and our spiritual development should make these two feel more and more to coincide with one another. Working through the 'games' of the essays, Steiner's lectures, and so on, should feel increasingly akin to what we do in a meditative state.

I have responded to this before, both in this post and previously.

[Kaje977]

My Soul motivation to play games, e.g. like certain games that require a high level of concentration, lies in the fact that I obviously improve my ability to concentrate, especially working memory and the like, because it has been terrible for me a while ago. It got better now since I fixed less on rudimentary games, but really on games that specifically are aimed to train certain aspects of your mind which are lacking within me and hinder my spiritual development. This, in turn, is also noticeably fruitful in the meditative exercises as soon as I come back to them. The crucial thing that needs to happen, in my opinion, is that there is a so-called far transfer of learning occuring, i.e. that what is learned is not only possible to be applied within the game or the same context over and over again, but in all different aspects of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_learning Waldorf schools try as far as possible to create such a far transfer of learning (unlike typical school systems), in which what is learned is not only applicable to a specific context, but is integrated deeply enough that it lives through in all areas of life with one interacts with. It really becomes a part of you, basically, like an organ. It's somewhat "vertical", metaphorically speaking. In this respect, I believe that games can certainly be developed in a way that integrate the meditative exercises, for example, in a meaningful way, but they obviously aren't the "universal solution" because, after all, there's more than just playing a game and training one's mind. In this sense, one can no longer really speak of a "game", but rather of a "demo" if it only embodies a single exercise or a specific educational aspect. If you integrate multiple mind training exercises (bottom-up (NOT top-to-bottom), like essay parts with each exercise building upon the other) as a curriculum, then it can make sense to call it "game" by then. The possible danger is that there could be no far transfer of learning happening and/or possibly becoming addicted and intent on becoming a master of the game, which then ultimately is a distraction and leads to "near transfer" of learning.

To clarify it with an example:
If I would (I didn't (yet )) decide to play chess, I wouldn't be interested in winning or being/becoming better than someone else or memorizing any chess strategies or opening strategies (unless they serve to improve my concentration and long-term memory). I'm just trying to connect my previous Soul context ("I like playing video games" and "I need a good challenge") with something spiritually meaningful that is not just served to play the game for the purpose of being entertained or "getting better" at the game itself, but also to integrate what I notice in mental development in it so that it applies to all (my) areas of life, not just the game itself. In other words, I try to not let the feedback of the game itself decide my improvement (such as winning or becoming better at applying certain chess strategies, and, statistically, outsmarting more and more of opponents with a certain ELO value), but also in what ways it integrated into my daily life. The feedback of the game alone isn't improving me, that one is what feels artifical, it is the feedback and the way how I return it into all areas of my life that decide whether I improved or not, like choosing something completely random I have no practical experience (like learning to fold origami) with and look whether I cognitively handle it the same way like I did in the video game. Similarly, that would work too with "moving mediations" and afterwards applying that practically in physical attempts, like folding origiami, as I mentioned before.

I would therefore not live out the obvious cognitive improvements in the game itself and leave it there (like a virtual, distant character, ready to switch between real life and virtual life), but also try to integrate it into my everyday life. And once a clear case of hitting a "limit" or exhaust or slow down of cognitive improvement is noticed, this is usually the sign that I'm no longer supposed to play the game and I need to move on, because there's nothing of value for me in there anymore that would help me improve and if it does, it's only slight and marginal. In this way, I apply "far transfer" in learning rather than, what's commonly happening, the "near transfer" which only makes you better at the game but still lacking in the same cognitive demands in wholly different life and situational contexts. Depending how good and fast you learn, this "far learning" can happen quite quickly, and so you'd (naturally) end up stopping to play a game even after a short period of time. But sometimes there is the (admittingly, seductive) desire of competitiveness and wanting to be at the top, which then ultimately leads you to "near transfer" of learning and you only end up becoming better at the game without really improving anymore in far transfer learning contexts.

Now it's debatable what game one really would want to choose. For example, chess is, if approached in a discovery manner, quite similar to mathematics were, in the latter, you intend to look for proof ideas to prove a theorem and solve it (which can, likewise, indeed become quite competitive or cause the desire for a good "challenge"). The main difference is that chess is still one game of only one set of fixed rules. Depending on what you improved, mentally, the exhaust could come rather quickly. In mathematics, however, is an ever-expanding field, with completely novel and unusual theories that require evermore new conscious, inner effort to navigate through it. It's basically organic, it's not fixed just on a single grounds of mathematics. E.g. if you're a badass and expert in linear algebra built upon set theory, well, you'd still end up looking completely confused and bamboozled when encountering a complete new approach such as Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT). The way to partly solve this in regards to games, while still having a "common" theme among them, would be to play variants of Chess, maybe even with entire new rules. There's things like 5D Chess (no, not a joke), for example, which I can see can also be quite helpful in integrating consciousness about Time not solely in a linear, but also in a non-linear in a playful, but still meaningful way. But by the point it is, once again, exhausted, I'd say it makes sense to move on and not being bound to it for the sake of mere entertainment or competiveness or for another challenge. But I do notice, that I have been slowly losing that desire within me, which (yet again) also shouldn't lead one to completely neglect it, because "looking for challenges" is also somewhat an egoic motor (and Ego is not to be neglected, like many Buddhist traditions, for example, believe) for development and in a certain way we do somewhat compete with eachother in regards to spiritual development. Some beings will not make it to the next cycle of spiritual evolution and, similarly to the beings of the Moon sphere, remain on former spheres. But this kind of competitiveness is not one of spite, arrogance and that of a predator like it often happens in such competitive games, but that of lawful necessity and Love, I'd say. (Correct me, if I'm wrong)

[Kaje977]

Another example: I used to play CS:GO, a first-person shooter game, a lot when I was a teenager. Apart from the ethical implications (although, contrary to what the media often used to claim in the panic, you can very well distinguish that shooting a game character, pixels of zeros and ones, is not nearly the same as committing a real murder), the game trains certain physical and cognitive skills, e.g. responsiveness, but also focus concentration and communication (social skills to be able to communicate with others, make friends, but also, for example, to become more quick-witted with toxic people and to be able to defend yourself better), teamwork (and camaraderie) and coordination with other team members (e.g. who places which bomb where (at A or B), which team members keep e.g. the counter-terrorists (who have to defuse the bomb) in check, etc. etc.), pattern recognition between the way players behave or like to stay hidden when they dare to ambush, etc. So a lot of educational value can be taken out of such a game, as long as it is somehow integrated into all other aspects of life.

I have to admit that I mainly learned repartee in communication through video games, but only because I didn't just leave these repartee skills in the video game world, but also took them with me into everyday life. As a result, I can react quite fast and repartee quickly in everyday arguments if I have to. Sure, I would certainly have learned this without video games, for example by having regular debates in everyday life, but in my case it was video games and talking in voicechats.

I believe, again, it becomes problematic or somewhat void when these aforementioned skills are already largely and properly developed, but you now start to become competitive in the same game and then try to be the absolute best, which of course automatically means that you have to spend all your valuable time playing the game. You become addicted and sit in front of the game almost half the day, with few breaks. Another problem would be if you simply start playing a new first-person shooter, such as Overwatch or Valorant, while you have already fully developed all the familiar skills that you learn in first-person shooters. Then you don't learn anything new (despite it being a different game, with different character models and the like), except perhaps a few minor subtleties, but on the whole, these have hardly any effect on everyday life, the far learning effect is almost zero.

[Federica]

Another example: I used to play CS:GO, a first-person shooter game, a lot when I was a teenager. Apart from the ethical implications (although, contrary to what the media often used to claim in the panic, you can very well distinguish that shooting a game character, pixels of zeros and ones, is not nearly the same as committing a real murder), the game trains certain physical and cognitive skills, e.g. responsiveness, but also focus concentration and communication (social skills to be able to communicate with others, make friends, but also, for example, to become more quick-witted with toxic people and to be able to defend yourself better), teamwork (and camaraderie) and coordination with other team members (e.g. who places which bomb where (at A or B), which team members keep e.g. the counter-terrorists (who have to defuse the bomb) in check, etc. etc.), pattern recognition between the way players behave or like to stay hidden when they dare to ambush, etc. So a lot of educational value can be taken out of such a game, as long as it is somehow integrated into all other aspects of life.

I have to admit that I mainly learned repartee in communication through video games, but only because I didn't just leave these repartee skills in the video game world, but also took them with me into everyday life. As a result, I can react quite fast and repartee quickly in everyday arguments if I have to. Sure, I would certainly have learned this without video games, for example by having regular debates in everyday life, but in my case it was video games and talking in voicechats.

I believe, again, it becomes problematic or somewhat void when these aforementioned skills are already largely and properly developed, but you now start to become competitive in the same game and then try to be the absolute best, which of course automatically means that you have to spend all your valuable time playing the game. You become addicted and sit in front of the game almost half the day, with few breaks. Another problem would be if you simply start playing a new first-person shooter, such as Overwatch or Valorant, while you have already fully developed all the familiar skills that you learn in first-person shooters. Then you don't learn anything new (despite it being a different game, with different character models and the like), except perhaps a few minor subtleties, but on the whole, these have hardly any effect on everyday life, the far learning effect is almost zero.

I tend to think that what you give as the educational value of first-person shooter games is more like an a-posteriori consideration, which may be incomplete. For example, you have mentioned memory difficulties. There seems to be a connection between playing such games and developing cognitive issues related to memory, among other undesirable effects.

Regarding the more targeted games that you play nowadays to improve your memory and concentration, it seems reasonable that games may enhance certain memory skills and I’m glad they are giving you that value. However, when it comes to their supposed effect on concentration, I am rather skeptical. I don’t want to be categorical since I don’t know what games are in question, and I don’t have experience of playing them, but I am skeptical that such games may improve concentration in the sense of meditative concentration for spiritual development as we intend it in this forum. Meditative concentration is difficult because the soul has to continuously sustain thinking without the stimulus of the external world and without the context or sense-bound thinking. By contrast, many video games are an exasperation of sensory stimulation. As it seems to me, the concentration they develop is more a heightened alertness and reactivity to rapid output transformation. Could you be more precise on how you think that such games are improving your spiritual development?


On” far transfer” and “near transfer” of learning - as touched upon here, there may be dangers with far transfer of learning from games to life at large. The danger is, it is felt that the game holds the keys to the larger IO flows. The game feels like a model of reality. One is led to believe that by becoming a proficient player, access is gained to both the user notice (metaphor) and the control panel (practical skills) to manage a large array of life situations - ultimately, to cover life at large. Moreover, the feelings elicited in this environment tend to reinforce a materialistic world conception, or a materialistic emotional spectrum, in any case. So there are risks and benefits. Cognitive improvements due to video game playing may not be so straightforward as they seem to be - especially if we look at spiritual education, rather than at improvement of generic skills whose spiritual value is debatable (working memory, fast decision making, repartee etc.). Moreover, the benefits have to be put in balance with the regressions of certain skills and even the medical conditions that the same games may cause at the same time.


PS: I wouldn’t say that we compete with each other for spiritual development. On the contrary, we can help each other.