[TROM1] win/lose versus overt/motivator and more
metaperl.fz101 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 15 09:53:12 UTC 2008
on p.4 we read:
The difference between win/lose and overt/motivator is a very fine
one, and is determined solely by the considered value of the game. If
the game is relatively trivial, then win/lose is applied; if the game
is serious ( important ) then overt/motivator is applied.
In that the winning of a game brings about the end of the game - and
thus the loss of the game itself - winning and losing are junior
considerations to the actual playing of the game.
So the preceding states that "winning and losing are junior
considerations to the actual playing of the game." -- but it does not
say that overt/motivator are junior to playing a game.
* Can we make the distinction that winning and losing are junior to
playing but that overt/motivator are senior to playing? In a sense we
cannot because _all_ games are played for fun.
* Is chess a game by the definition of conflicting postulates?
* If someone murders someone else, what does that have to do with
postulates? In other words, how did the person who was murdered get
convinced of the opponents postulates in this case?
How does lowering one's level to match an opponent enforce a loss?
More information about the Trom