Especially competitive ones. The goal most of the times is to have more than others, stronger than others, have as much money, be above others in score etc.
It feels as if this is the reality some STS entities would like to live. Controlling others with power and experience, eliminating those who oppose you. And of course being famous and looked upon.
Now I know video games are just fun to play and no harm. But let's speak outside the box.
I think it's a rather harmless expression/outlet of lower chakra energies. Yes, wanting to dominate others isn't the highest expression of ourselves. But games are willing competition where all parties are agreeing, and much more in the "thought realm" of actions. Of course, we likely all know the bitter pain of being defeated one-on-one in a computer game match, and it doesn't feel good!
I think it's possible to play competitive type games without exacerbating blockages. If you can play to enjoy the game without a huge desire to win or lose, I think it can be balanced.
The way I see it many forms of entertainment are just outlets for orange ray energy that is being diverted from yellow ray.
Pertinent Ra quote:
Quote:41.14 Questioner: Is this energy center, then, on a very small scale related to the orange energy center in man?
Ra: I am Ra. The true color is precisely the same. However, the consciousness of the second-density beginning is primitive and the use of orange ray limited to the expression of self which may be seen to be movement and survival.
In third density, at this time, those clinging to orange ray have a much more complex system of distortions through which orange ray is manifested. This is somewhat complicated. We shall endeavor to simplify.
The appropriate true color for third density is, as you have ascertained, yellow. However, the influences of the true color, green, acting upon yellow-ray entities have caused many entities to revert to the consideration of self rather than the stepping forward into consideration of other-self or green ray. This may not be seen to be of a negatively polarized nature, as the negatively polarized entity is working very intensively with the deepest manifestations of yellow-ray group energies, especially the manipulations of other-self for service to self. Those reverting to orange ray, and we may add these are many upon your plane at this time, are those who feel the vibrations of true color green and, therefore, respond by rejecting governmental and societal activities as such and seek once more the self.
However, not having developed the yellow ray properly so that it balances the personal vibratory rates of the entity, the entity then is faced with the task of further activation and balancing of the self in relation to the self, thus the orange-ray manifestations at this space/time nexus.
Thus true color orange is that which it is, without difference. However, the manifestations of this or any ray may be seen to be most various depending upon the vibratory levels and balances of the mind/body or mind/body/spirit complexes which are expressing these energies.
Quote:We have found it to be inappropriate in the extreme to encourage the overcoming of any desires, except to suggest the imagination rather than the carrying out in the physical plane, as you call it, of those desires not consonant with the Law of One; this preserving the primal distortion of free will.
This quote pretty much sums up my thoughts. Video games are a great way to mentally explore desires without actually hurting anyone (pride and ego aside) and so I think they are actually therapeutic in many cases, allowing for blue-ray emotional outlets. For myself it's a great way to harmlessly release some anger yelling at the game. Better than yelling at people, yeah?
(05-10-2016, 11:53 AM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]For myself it's a great way to harmlessly release some anger yelling at the game. Better than yelling at people, yeah?
lol I feel this. Especially with Dark souls III
I stopped playing online games because I find the struggle petty and tiresome as of now, can't find motivation anymore.
I blame SSB4, which took away any warrior spirit I had with the intensiveness of the game. So tiresome to beat down people who struggle too hard to win against you.
Personally, I find really big "open world" style games to be fascinating because, in some ways, they mirror the incarnative process. Someone could live a half-dozen lives or more in Skyrim or Fallout, and even if some of the same events occurred, the way the player could respond might vary entirely every time. It's like exploring the quantum decision-making web in a scale model. Plus, so many lessons to potentially be learned by looking at different reactions and how they impact the player and the game world. (Fallout even goes so far as to explicitly describe the long-term impact of the player's actions, and Fallout New Vegas is especially detailed.)
Or, while I do sometimes use them to blow off steam as well, I also have a love of running around in GTA IV and V without causing mayhem. There's something very interesting about being in a true consequence-free situation where I'm ostensibly able to behave as poorly as I like without any significant penalty... and choosing to just drive around safely and go shopping instead. There's definitely some lessons one could learn there about patience and self-control.
Even competitive games can be useful in one's own development. Mario Kart has been a great teacher of anger management and acceptance of the chaotic nature of life. The same basic thing goes for Rocket League, for that matter. One might even be able to use them in the same way older masters used to use martial arts to bring greater mental clarity and unification between mind and action. (The Wu-Wei of Mario Kart?)
Which is all to say, in a more general sense, there are plenty of ways one can use video games as opportunities to expand the mind, at least games which are beyond a certain threshold of complexity.
(05-10-2016, 03:43 AM)Papercut Wrote: [ -> ]Especially competitive ones. The goal most of the times is to have more than others, stronger than others, have as much money, be above others in score etc.
It feels as if this is the reality some STS entities would like to live. Controlling others with power and experience, eliminating those who oppose you. And of course being famous and looked upon.
if you have a hierarchy, like many of these leaderboards, there's a strong implication of 'higher worth' and ability. From there, it's only a sidewise step to notions of
superiority ... which automatically includes the notion of '
inferiority'. One does not always have to draw that conclusion (for oneself), as obviously the Universe and the Creation is filled with individuals of differing abilities and talents, and when we look at any
one skill, of course some individuals are going to be more experienced and adept at it. So it's fine to recognise inherent ability, and that it differs depending on which skillset you look at. The issue comes about when you attribute something like a 'leaderboard of worth', or in more practical terms, a 'pecking order', or more institutionalised form 'military chain of command', and then the inequality is seen as something to be emphasised, and becomes the basis for social ordering.
My feeling is that many of these competitive shooters definitely play into these feelings of superiority and dominance; and the avenue of 'getting good' is just the means to express such feelings over 'noobs' and other selves.
'Superiority' is something that is also implicity cultivated in our school systems, with comparative testing being done week-in, week-out, instead of focussing on the learning process, and celebrating each new understanding, irregardless of a 'score'.
/ /
side-related quotes on 'superiority'.
Quote:18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?
Ra: The ones of Yahweh were attempting to create an understanding of the Law of One by creating mind/body complexes capable of grasping the Law of One. The experiment was a decided failure from the view of the desired distortions due to the fact that rather than assimilating the Law of One, it was a great temptation to consider the so-called social complex or subcomplex as elite or different and better than other-selves, this one of the techniques of service to self.
and:
Quote:18.25 Questioner: Can you tell me specifically what allowed the most serious of these inroads to be made by the Orion group?
Ra: I am Ra. This will be the final full question.
Specifically those who are strong, intelligent, etc., have a temptation to feel different from those who are less intelligent and less strong. This is a distorted perception of oneness with other-selves. It allowed the Orion group to form the concept of the holy war, as you may call it. This is a seriously distorted perception. There were many of these wars of a destructive nature.
I actually don't see anything STS at all about wanting to excel at something or even wanting to be better at something than others. I think this is a really, really twisted view of STS whereby any sort of self-excellence is only acceptable when it is not acknowledged by the individual (what is usually called 'humility' but which isn't actually so, imo).
The key aspect of any true STS motivation is that of the use of deception for the sake of advantage. So, if you have someone who is cheating, using codes or a hack as a way to be superior, then I would venture to say the person is actually using STS tactics. Someone who just practices, plays a lot and gets really good is, imo, perfectly deserving of the confidence and pride which comes with the achievement of that skill. As such, gloating, boasting and arrogance are not, imo, at all STS in and of themselves and would only be so if the claims were not in fact true and thus deception would then come in to play.
So while such a person is obviously still just hanging out in the orange and yellow, I think it's silly to suggest such self-centeredness as being true STS polarization.
I think the core of my point was around notions of 'superiority', and how the self feels in relation to other selves.
Excellence is definitely appreciated; it's when it is used as a wedge over lesser skilled individuals, that it then becomes a negative tactic.
Think of different types of teaching: you have ones where the 'teacher' approaches it from the point of view of an equal, and regarding the student as the (future) adept, and that it is just facilitating an 'unfoldment'.
or the type of 'teacher' who sees their students as something to be moulded into an image of themselves, and is not really interested in individual and unique differences.
As always, it's the attitude with which you approach something
in relation to other-selves that determines it's nature.
/ /
(05-11-2016, 04:49 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]The key aspect of any true STS motivation is that of the use of deception for the sake of advantage. So, if you have someone who is cheating, using codes or a hack as a way to be superior, then I would venture to say the person is actually using STS tactics. Someone who just practices, plays a lot and gets really good is, imo, perfectly deserving of the confidence and pride which comes with the achievement of that skill. As such, gloating, boasting and arrogance are not, imo, at all STS in and of themselves and would only be so if the claims were not in fact true and thus deception would then come in to play.
So while such a person is obviously still just hanging out in the orange and yellow, I think it's silly to suggest such self-centeredness as being true STS polarization.
I get your point here.
But I also think 'deception' is used when outright force is not available. If one has outright might, then why even the need for deception? In some cases, it might be more 'efficient' to use deception, I can see that, but again, this is just the 'method' which is most readily available, and able to be deployed for a specific use.
Have you ever felt superior to anyone else or had a sense of pride?
I wonder if watching horror movies like SAW are STS.
Does watching this type of bloody gore hurt us spiritually?
I don't get excited by it, but I was just curious to watch all the sequels.
It is neutral at best, I am sure. Although, I'm sure those experiences could be used to polarize I don't think the sheer act of watching something like that is polarizing.
If I lose to a human I'm like "Damn, this guy/girl is good!". If I lose to a computer I rage and want to break things. Maybe need to work on my insecurity towards robots being superior at things.
I think the dividing line between competition being positive versus negative is whether you have to be THE BEST, or if you are simply enjoying the process of evolution of becoming a more skilled player.
At the end of the day are you really competing against others, or are you competing against yourself? That is the dividing line from my perspective. One is about ego, the other is about growth. One is developing self for selfish reasons, the other is doing it for the sheer joy of the skill.
Isn't that a total bias on your part though? What's wrong with wanting to be the best? Is that an invalid desire?
I understand where you are coming from in a sort of philosophical sense, kind of, but "just doing it for the sheer joy" doesn't seem any less selfish than for wanting to feel like the best, which may just be what brings that person joy. What if someone really is super skilled, say at chess which is competitive by design, and they aspire to be a world champion? This drive is maybe ultimately allows them to succeed in that goal and they feel joy at accomplishing their goal. Why is that a lesser joy than "just because"?
Seems to me that is more just a preference than any real expression of polarity. The bias towards a more passive mode of existence doesn't at all mean one is polarizing, imo. Maybe you have a certain romantic view of what the positive path is and so it will always have the favorable explanation in your expressions?
I think video games will most likely be a representation of your expression of your polarity but it is not polarizing in itself.
(05-12-2016, 01:12 AM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't that a total bias on your part though? What's wrong with wanting to be the best? Is that an invalid desire?
Never said it was a invalid desire. Why would it be invalid? And there is nothing "wrong" with it, but deriving your sense of self worth from crushing others is different than deriving a sense of self worth by simply doing better than you did last time. Competing with yourself, versus competing against others can look on the surface exactly the same, but the charge is different.
(05-12-2016, 01:12 AM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]I understand where you are coming from in a sort of philosophical sense, kind of, but "just doing it for the sheer joy" doesn't seem any less selfish than for wanting to feel like the best, which may just be what brings that person joy. What if someone really is super skilled, say at chess which is competitive by design, and they aspire to be a world champion? This drive is maybe ultimately allows them to succeed in that goal and they feel joy at accomplishing their goal. Why is that a lesser joy than "just because"?
Not all self exploration is negative. That is part of my point. You can explore self pleasure that isn't derived from taking from others, in a competitive sense, and I would call it positive self exploration rather than negative self exploration. Again, not in a moral sense, but in a polarity sense. And it isn't "lesser", just differently charged. You seem to equate "negative" with lesser for some reason. To me, the charge is the charge, and the strength of the charge is an entirely different matter altogether.
(05-12-2016, 01:12 AM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]Seems to me that is more just a preference than any real expression of polarity. The bias towards a more passive mode of existence doesn't at all mean one is polarizing, imo. Maybe you have a certain romantic view of what the positive path is and so it will always have the favorable explanation in your expressions?
First off, I don't think videogames are very polarizing to begin with. The catalyst is too mellow in most cases for it to significantly polarize (not saying there aren't exceptions). And where do you get that one is favorable in my post? I simply think one is more STS and one is more STO, I'm not saying one is favorable over the other. Oftentimes, crushing opponents is a *lot* more fun in video games, but that doesn't mean my description is wrong, and it is not always more fun. Competing against yourself isn't "more passive" in the slightest. It can be just as serious or not serious as competing against others (it can look exactly the same on the outside). It is very engaged and directed action designed to build on previous skill (personal growth). The only real difference is internal where the sense of pleasure is derived. It is derived from the joy of the action (and possibly cooperation with teammates) rather than the conquering/crushing of the enemies. In most circumstances there is going to a mixture of both of these -- yet another reason why it isn't going to significantly affect polarization.
In other words, it's some good harmless fun.
Competition is the meat and potatoes of duality/polarity/separation, and in direct contradiction to unity. I'm not pointing fingers or passing judgements because frankly, we all engage in competition, all have, and all likely will in the future. It's entirely natural for our brains to want to do this. But, if you have any desire to be "better than" another in a formal way, I think this is treading a line. It's all about -domination-. Are you actively trying to be better than someone else so that you can lord that over them? Or be superior, or elite in some way? I mean, that's basically what most video games are about.
It's really subtle and I think indicative of how we have to be more aware of our thoughts regarding reality as we shift into 4D more than our specific actions. To act like nothing we do in a video game matters because it's a game or none of it is that serious is being disingenuous. There is a big difference going into a match and thinking, "I want to be beat this person" and thinking "I want both of us to have fun no matter what."
If you are dominating someone, or if you feel elite, these aren't STO emotions. I'm not saying someone's going to go all the way to -4D playing Halo, but whenever we feed the beast, it gets bigger.
Quote:89.31 Questioner: What techniques did the two negatively harvested entities use for negative polarization on such a positively polarized planet?
Ra: I am Ra. The technique of control over others and domination unto the physical death was used in both cases.
I mean, it's visceral. Video games cause emotional reactions. A common one is fear, fear for the temporary life of the characters we're playing. Fear makes us act in the lower chakras.
I think if you are playing video games, and you want to polarize, you must take it into the context of polarity, as with everything else you do in your daily rounds.
I also don't think that the negative polarity requires deception to operate. I think brute force works just as well if not better for domination as lies or half-truths.
Lol lol, alright..... nothing left to do here.
I've always been greatly interested in this topic. A couple of threads I've created on the matter:
Shadow and Responsibility in Video Games
2006.03.28 - Q'uo on Online Gaming
Also, we recently talked about competitive sports on the podcast, which has a lot of relevant themes to video games. And I relied on my knowledge of competitive gaming (since I'm a doofus when it comes to sports) to offer my reply:
Episode #32
In simple words, I would say that competitive video are not innately polarizing for service to self. I tend to agree with Jade that it does involve actions, desires, and feelings that are service to self in nature. In competitive gaming, we are engaging a particular skill in order to outperform or subdue another person. Speaking from personal experience, the sheer rush of being the best at a game and consistently winning over others is a sort of
power high. I feel powerful and dominant, primal feelings.
But engaging these things through video games isn't polarizing in a service-to-self sense, I don't think. I see two primary ways in which this affects us:
1) Engaging these feelings may be coming from a place of indifference, a lack of consciousness of what we are truly doing or experiencing. There is a sort of sleepy feedback loop where we have these desires and experiences of power and dominance, but they're not fully brought forward to the conscious mind and processed and analyzed.
2) We may engage these feelings in a more conscious manner, exploring these aspects of our psyche and determining how we may relate to them. We are, as Ra would put it, "investigating the feelings of power."
I think the former is much more common, but there is great potential for self-discovery and evolution in the latter. An investigation of these things, especially when played out in such a safe and regulated outlet such as video games, can be a part of the path of the positive entity. If we were investigating these feelings of power over others through real violence or real warfare, then I do think the consequences on our polarity would be much greater. But as a society, we realize that these things are a part of human nature, yet not something that we should allow to run out of control and cause harm on other people. It's something that needs an outlet to be explored, otherwise it would stay repressed and likely express itself in much less healthy ways.
I do think that at a certain point, a conscious recognition of the feelings of power over others can grow to a more healthy compassionate competition, and comradery can grow between opponents. People competing against each other may see the others as less of an enemy and more as a friend who is helping them to grow in their passion, helping them to express their feeling of power not necessarily over others, but a power of inspiration that comes when you do something you love. But, I do think it can go the other direction as well. A person may be indulgent in the feeling of dominating others through power in their gaming and taste the negative polarity as well.
Not that being good at video games and indulging in feelings of dominance is necessarily polarizing to the point of harvestability to the negative entity. I think that if a person experienced these feelings and decided to pursue them as a means of personal evolution, they would likely grow far beyond video games in how they decide to dominate others. I really can't accurately speculate at how common this is, but I doubt it's common at all.
I do want to say that it's possible and perfectly acceptable for a positively polarizing individual to engage in video games as a manner of "sleep," as in number one above. Even if we aren't diligent in examining the catalyst we receive from games, playing games as a means of feeling power over others doesn't cancel out all other positive work one may do in life. And it's possible for the feeling of dominance to begin and end all within the video game, with a person maintaining a realization that the people they are playing against are deserving of the love and sovereignty of the Creator. I don't think it is at all detrimental. But I do think it is relying on our "lower nature" as a means of exciting the self.
(05-11-2016, 08:14 PM)earth_spirit Wrote: [ -> ]Some would have you believe that competition is inherently negative. I find this a compelling proposition, but nevertheless would be shy of casting such a judgement.
I mostly prefer competitive shooters that reward quick thinking / inventive tactics instead of only quick reflexes / experience. In best competitive games there are layers on top of layers of possibilities such as feint attacks, giving your assailant a false sense of security by pretending to escape, obfuscating your play style and such which makes it a thrilling experience for me.. Almost a guilty pleasure I would say.
That being said, I have lost many fights against quite talented players who left me with nothing but feelings of admiration. No hard feelings whatsoever.
Not to mention such games are fertile grounds for catalyst. Not just regarding other-selves but the perceived imperfections of the self as well.
It should not be particularly difficult to love your opponent when you consider that the game would not take place without competing players.. and even easier if you're one of the few who penetrate the veil enough to know that all is one. Doing your best to match wits or brawn with a consenting opponent within a frame of courtesy and sportsmanship can be interpreted as a loving service.
I would agree here, for you are that very competitor in a sense right now.
This thread reflects the aspects of STS I prefer over STO. Which is a more truthful exploration of the potential that self holds. When different people with the same desires experience this together, the most skilled ones become an inspiration for others and playing with stronger oponents that strive to be better, forces you to excell more yourself and give your all to it and strive for something you could never achieve without this shared mindset.
Sometimes 4D STO seems like epitome of boring. No wonder it lead to the creation of a veil so that more vivid things could be experienced.
Video games are pretty much a virtualization of the real illusion that we all partake in. To the video game player, the character and the match is what an incarnation is to the higherself. The feeling of pleasure and self worth and the polarity obtained through the game is just like it is in your incarnation, it is virtual. If your incarnation turns STS it is not much change for the higherself. It is not much change to the player either. The thing though is that illusion feels real when you are experiencing it. So you think you have fun, you think your self worth increase but it stops as soon as the game ends. Just as it does with the incarnation. It dies. It may be best to consider that they are different time/space and that based on the fact that the incarnation last longer it will have more benefits looking for fun and worthiness in real life because it will feel more real and last longer. But eventually it's all just a video game and the game ends the same way. I guess video games can be seen as teaching tools or target practice for the real illusion depending on which game you play. I think people that plays lots of videogames are attracted to the kind of games that let them express their true polarity but it will neither increase it or decrease it unless there is a will to do so. Video games are as polarizing as the player puts intention on it. To most of them it is a game to have fun and share a time/space with people and some use differently. Ultimately unless you know the person really well, you can't really tell the polarity involved just like you can't tell the polarity of someone else just by interacting a little.
(05-11-2016, 08:14 PM)earth_spirit Wrote: [ -> ]That being said, I have lost many fights against quite talented players who left me with nothing but feelings of admiration. No hard feelings whatsoever.
Not to mention such games are fertile grounds for catalyst. Not just regarding other-selves but the perceived imperfections of the self as well.
It should not be particularly difficult to love your opponent when you consider that the game would not take place without competing players.. and even easier if you're one of the few who penetrate the veil enough to know that all is one. Doing your best to match wits or brawn with a consenting opponent within a frame of courtesy and sportsmanship can be interpreted as a loving service.
This very much reminds me of when Ra are discussing Franklin D Roosevelt's life patterns, and as this thread has broadened into the study of competition in general, I don't feel it is necessary to create a new one.
I will bold the parts that I wish to elaborate on...
Quote:35.1 Questioner:...I was making a list here and the first I thought we might possibly hit the high points on as to the effect of catalyst of the individual’s working life would be the one we know as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Could you say something about that entity?
Ra: I am Ra. It is to be noted that in discussing those who are well-known among your peoples there is the possibility that information may be seen to be specific to one entity whereas in actuality the great design of experience is much the same for each entity. It is with this in mind that we would discuss the experiential forces which offered catalyst to an individual.
It is further to be noted that in the case of those entities lately incarnate upon your plane much distortion may have taken place in regard to misinformation and misinterpretation of an entity’s thoughts or behaviors.
We shall now proceed to, shall we say, speak of the basic parameters of the one known as Franklin. When any entity comes into third-density incarnation, each of its energy centers is potentiated but must be activated by the self using experience.
The one known as Franklin developed very quickly up through red, orange, yellow, and green and began to work in the blue-ray energy center at a tender age, as you would say. This rapid growth was due, firstly, to previous achievements in the activation of these rays; secondly, to the relative comfort and leisure of its early existence; thirdly, due to the strong desire upon the part of the entity to progress. This entity mated with an entity whose blue-ray vibrations were of a strength more than equal to its own thus acquiring catalyst for further growth in that area that was to persist throughout the incarnation.
This entity had some difficulty with continued green-ray activity due to the excessive energy which was put into the activities regarding other-selves in the distortion towards acquiring power. This was to have its toll upon the physical vehicle, as you may call it. The limitation of the non-movement of a portion of the physical vehicle opened once again, for this entity, the opportunity for concentration upon the more, shall we say, universal or idealistic aspects of power; that is, the non-abusive use of power. Thus at the outset of a bellicose action this entity had lost some positive polarity due to excessive use of the orange- and yellow-ray energies at the expense of green- and blue-ray energies, then had regained the polarity due to the catalytic effects of a painful limitation upon the physical complex.
This entity was not of a bellicose nature but rather during the conflict continued to vibrate in green ray working with the blue-ray energies. The entity who was the one known as Franklin’s teacher also functioned greatly during this period as blue-ray activator, not only for its mate but also in a more universal expression. This entity polarized continuously in a positive fashion in the universal sense while, in a less universal sense, developing a pattern of what may be called karma; this karma having to do with inharmonious relationship distortions with the mate/teacher.
So the first, 2 bolded parts infer to me that (the entity known as) FDR already had an STO bias/polarity prior to his incarnation, as FDR. So even a seemingly negative individual (i.e. preparing to nuke the Jananese)
does not give an accurate reflection of their sum vibratory identity.
Politics is treated as a game by most politicians that are ambitious to effect change, and so just like gaming, or sports, they are seeking to win. That said, to assume that gaming is about "acquiring power" over others is as reliable as trying to judge the polarity of FDR by studying his external behaviours, as Ra have noted in the above quote. Its waaaaaaaay too subjective.
So here is the point I wanted to make with the remainder of the bolded bits. "the opportunity for concentration" on "... the non-abusive use of power", was due to Franklin having the opportunity to do some inner work, that being contemplation. Conversely, spending too much time
competing, in the game of politics proved unhelpful in his overall goal to polarise, or as Ra termed it, "...strong desire on the part of the entity to progress".
So what Ra are saying here, so far as I can tell, is that Franklin's opportunity to contemplate on the ideals of human leadership, via his physical handicap, caused him to continue working from his heart centre, with inspiration coming from his wife's throat centre. Thus a non-abusive attitude towards gaming can only be positive in its effects. Such ideas as no cheating or lying in order to win (I come across this catalyst all the time when I play casual football and golf), and not seeing your competitor as the bar in which needs jumping (the very catalyst that has manifest as sporting injuries with regards to my playing football,) but reviewing the ways in which we can improve by using our competitor as a blind spot reflector (similar to viewing negative greetings). But most important to me (which incorporates the above) is an
even playing field. This can be expressed simply in the weight categories, or league categories in boxing and sport overall. And perhaps more technically in revealing our own playing cards, before play begins!
Also, Austin provides us with a great quote from Quo in the mentioned podcast above,
here (11 minutes in), and its really worth listening to everything he has to say in this discussion imo. He talks about his own experience with gaming, as well
Finally, as my own "mate/teacher" put it to me while writing this post. I told her I was busy talking about competition on bring4th, so she said "No it's about having fun and taking part, not winning, that's wrong"
So my partner is referring to the communal aspect of playing games or sport, and that the gain lies in interacting with others rather than trying to beat others. Which is the very motive for me playing golf!
I don't think any competition is infringing or STS when all individuals have agreed to the competition. When you go online to play against other people you have agreed to the competition and the conditions of the competition by your participation. There is the pre-knowledge that there will be a 'winner' (such as the person with the most points) in the game, so if you go in without this awareness or in denial of this basic aspect then you have really just deceived yourself as to what it is you are participating in.
If you don't care about how it turns out that is perfectly fine, but as soon as you enter the 'arena' I say you have accepted all the conditions of the competition and so if someone beats you there is no infringement.
That's basically like entering the 3D veil arena.
(05-13-2016, 12:38 PM)Aion Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think any competition is infringing or STS when all individuals have agreed to the competition. When you go online to play against other people you have agreed to the competition and the conditions of the competition by your participation. There is the pre-knowledge that there will be a 'winner' (such as the person with the most points) in the game, so if you go in without this awareness or in denial of this basic aspect then you have really just deceived yourself as to what it is you are participating in.
If you don't care about how it turns out that is perfectly fine, but as soon as you enter the 'arena' I say you have accepted all the conditions of the competition and so if someone beats you there is no infringement.
Is that not exactly what negative densities would be, in regards to the negative entities relating to one another?
What is the end-result emotion felt by the HUMAN whose avatar's head you blew off with an uzi?