I find that the only way to get through an astonishingly bleak scenario is to laugh your way through it.

The rebellious nature of laughter in the face of abject horror grants us temporary invincibility

Yesterday, I sat down with the idea in mind to write an article about the transformative context of language due to generational shifts in video games, which sounded like a super fun premise to run with that I was incredibly fond of. Sure enough, my article ended up having absolutely nothing to do with that by the time I was done typing, and I instead swerved into a different topic entirely, and ended up covering the idea of our dystopic future involving AI adoption. I love when that stuff happens, as it reminds me about how marvelously mysterious the human mind is, in this particular example, I didn’t even have an inclination one iota about what I was to elaborate upon. Sometimes, I find it a fun challenge to push myself to elaborate upon a scant minimum premise, just to see how much value I can extrapolate out of the barest bone of detail. There are other times, however, like the time I elaborated upon why I refuse to write about doing Diddy (Kong) justice, and how that notion brought into focus a pivotal truth, in that I don’t just like to bullshit for bullshit sake, and that part of my mission statement in earnest is attempting to inspire thought, in the spirit of sharing in a possible moment of potentially shared self-actualization…though I’ll happily settle for simply just a cool idea if push comes to shove.

That reminded me of another posit I had, back when I was writing about Gex, and how I conjured up some insanity, as I discussed the inherently amorphous value nostalgia had, being not unlike the idea of “north of”, as a technical non-location in the world, and yet a descriptor of a very real place in theory, just one in relative value to another thing. Though in the case of nostalgia, cryptic and familiar in the same moment, as it’s this vaguely distinct feeling of reminiscence that rekindles sparks of youth, even though the memory is both unclear but sharply vivid in yet one more moment of breathtaking paradox.

Though, on another level, it is also quite calculated at the same time, which is part of the point, and brings into focus whether or not if everything is predetermined, if it holds the exact same kind of value, or if being led by the nose to the inevitable, or even being forced into the scenario with absolutely no say in whether or not it happens, robs the moment of emotional value or qualitative content. We have video games as an example of detailing some insight into this philosophical curiosity, as video games are essentially…you know, a simulated reality (doi), and all that follows suit begs the question of what the difference between what exactly is “real” and what is “simulated”, another idea I’ve touched on briefly before. When you boil it down, and consider some designer probably custom engineered a “lucky and unique, once in a lifetime experience” to happen and it does, an infinite number of times, predictably so, and to a theoretically endless number of people, looking back on it, how many of the individuals involved do you think would feel short changed knowing that a million other people shared the exact same “winning lotto ticket” experience? I’m not sure I have a laser focused point in terms of having a conclusive answer, more so just contemplating aloud, as the existentialist within me wriggles, thrashes, and writhes in indefatigable whimsy as a response to quantifying the universe and everything within it.

I’ve had conversations with people about what freewill is, and I get the notion that some people feel that if life were totally predictable or predetermined, it would take all of the fun out of living. But if you flip that on its head, and detail how a totally arranged day custom designed to essentially prompt a person to have fun ended up happening, as it often can with a gaming binge, does that mean the experience is still hollow, or does an authenticity remain? Of course it happened, and the feelings they felt were real, but is the fact that it was all setup make the experience feel any less real by comparison to totally unpredictable chaos in the grand scheme of things? And if we are talking about predetermination, is there truly a thing such as unpredictable chaos in the first place?

Kind of a queer abstractica when considering notions like the idea of a “great designer”, aka a developer that worked on the game vs some wild thought experiment involving a theory regarding all of reality as a simulation, or even more simply, even if not a simulation, simply something designed, and whether or not then all manner of “fun” was decided upon before it even happened, maybe through the simple pretense of atomic movement and universally scaled mathematics. It’s a similar thought experiment to the idea behind morality and freewill philosophers have, in that if we have no control over our actions, are we morally culpable for what we do, as we ended up not having a choice in doing it? Obviously, visions of Bioshock dance through our heads in considering this reality, and one man’s gamer is another man’s slave, in borrowing from the Bioshock scenario of metacontrol over someone interacting with a system, while it’s someone else who has their hand on the wheel, though it appears the other person is “driving the decision”, as it were.

I usually like to hold myself accountable, for examining why this thing over here is “okay”, but this thing over here that does something similar is “not okay”. I think one good example that springs to mind is my current posit, about whether or not inherent value still exists in relation to authenticity if everything is preordained/programmed. Well, to kind of further my point, I’m reminded of reading about how in Pixar films, the behind the scenes work in eliciting sadness/tears/sorrow from the audience is obviously calculated and heightened (I.E. codified) into the experience so that a lot of people end up crying when the story demands. Obviously, not all the time and not everyone, but overall, it would generate that reaction in people. Is this moment, too, totally genuine in the tears it draws out, and do those tears carry the same weight as other, genuinely created/non-prompted tears? Not in a literal sense of weight, of course, but the “metaphysical weight” of the tear itself…do all tears carry the same value of sadness, or are all tears not created equal?

Maybe that is more so what I’m getting at, kind of the intangible value behind the act, the unsealed moment of emotional standard, or the joy of play which somehow varies and differs between players and games, that is all individualistic on one level, but then in a weird way, unified in the concept of being shared by so many in a similar, intentionally designed fashioned, that generates a millions different contexts at the same time. I think this line of thought, and the ideas of deconstructing emotional pretense thereafter, has the knock on effect of reminding us to observe and appreciate just how radically different a nature vs nuture consideration can end up producing, and how both genes and memes can combine in so many different unique ways, and yet still produce a unifying result at days end, with a further irony that the “heaviest weights” imaginable can’t even be measured by a physical scale, as they bear heavy relevance in the realm of the metaphysical, and are thus beyond the ideas of tangibility, and yet create the heaviest sensation of burdening emotion one can imagine.

You’re gonna carry that weight

-Pashford