[-empyre-] benefits of practice to conventional research / could gamification save academia?
gabriel.menotti at gmail.com
Sun Feb 26 19:40:14 EST 2012
> Just kidding, but actually that's why we are
> Paidia Institute, referring to Caillois' separation
> of ludus and paidia: [LASSE SCHERFFIG]
Ha, in all my ignorance, I presumed that “paidia” was a direct
corruption of “paideia” (via Wikipedia: “to educate - means
child-rearing, education” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paideia). Now
I wonder how valid it was to (over)read a critique to pedagogical
processes in the feedback series (I was connecting them to the adage
that the most elegant gamedesign is a learning process of itself).
> Haven't decided yet, if I should include
> it [references to the artworks in the thesis]
> and if so: how? [LS]
Personally, I believe one advantage of doing so is to further
materialize the research process in its accounts, trailing one’s
inspiration and exposing the embeddedness of thought processes (which
necessarily escape/ subvert the alleged research method).
> And also the other way round: if it functions
> as a servomechanism, was it ever a game?
> (I guess here "the aspect of social agreement
> that is present in traditional gaming", mentioned
> by Heckman, comes into play). [LS]
Moving on in the exploration of the social agreements, we could even
turn this conundrum into a matter of perspective: does the game still
function as servomechanism if we consider it as a
system-within-systems (such as gaming communities or its industrial
process of manufacture)?
Em 24 de fevereiro de 2012 09:20, Lasse Scherffig <lscherff at khm.de> escreveu:
> Am 23.02.2012 10:59, schrieb Gabriel Menotti:
>> How efficient is this sort of symbolic camouflage to disentangle a
>> discipline (structures of thought, conceptual frameworks, methods)
>> from the hype (of the past)?
>>> From another perspective: should the changing of names/labels (from
>> KYB to INF?) be taken as a “superficially” administrative or as a
>> “deeply” philosophical operation? Or is it one of these cases in which
>> such separation makes no sense whatsoever?
> This game seems to complex to me for a simple answer. The shift from
> Cybernetics to computer science (and AI/cognitive science) was philosophical
> (cf. Dupuy: The Mechanization of the Mind) administrative, driven by methods
> (calculus/algebra/engineering vs. logics/language/calculation), material
> (digital computers) and due to a hype cycle. Symbolic camouflage indeed is a
> strategy to carry frameworks, methods (Kuhn's paradigms or Fleck's
> "Denkstil") from one field to the other, but I would also assume that many
> scientists using camouflage are not aware of it -- but take up paradigms
> that have been there, albeit invisible (the same holds for Wiener, who with
> Cybernetics quite successfully rephrased what happened in 1930s control
> theory, without saying so).
>> Reaching out to the other thread: should we take this rule-bending as
>> a form of institutional critique? Can it have long-term effects, or is
>> it restricted to opening space for a singular intervention?
> and Birringer:
>> One might see the humor also in the old high academy positions (Lasse, did
>> you not say that Karlsruhe has no room for practice based Phds and prefers
>> you to write a theoretical/analytical one?)
> With the KHM in Köln and the DARC people (and efforts such as News of the
> World) we the two possible strategies of fighting the gamification (or
> neo-liberal makeover/takeover) of academia that make up the subject of this
> thread: The KHM simply rejects Bologna (not issuing any Bachelor or Master's
> degrees) and sticks to the traditional (and theory based) Dr. phil. instead
> of issuing (practice based or not) PhDs. This conservative solution
> paradoxically is quite successful in opening possibilities and maintaining
> freedom. It enables me to write a science/humanities crossover dissertation
> that would not be possible at most (German) science or humanities
> departments, for instance. DARC, on the other hand, tries to bend the rules.
> I honestly hope that the latter strategy proofs valid in the long run, but
> maybe that's only my inner meta-gamer.
>> I think we need another word for the opposite of gamification [...]
> Just kidding, but actually that's why we are Paidia Institute, referring to
> Caillois' separation of ludus and paidia:
> "Caillois also places forms of play on a continuum from ludus, structured
> activities with explicit rules (games), to paidia, unstructured and
> spontaneous activities (playfulness)"
>> I’m curious whether this information remains as a form of silent
>> inspiration to the thesis, or if it is actually written down in some
>> way. Do you refer to the artworks even in passing?
> Haven't decided yet, if I should include it and if so: how?
> Lots of things to think about. Thanks.
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
More information about the empyre