Cleric,
I’ve decided to start over from scratch and begin the essay series anew this time, right from the beginning. Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the Tarot card “The Fool” and how it describes the "sacrifice of intellect" (the abstract-thinking mode). With that in mind, I’d like to try again from the very beginning.
After reading through the first essay (again), I’ll try to briefly express (in my own words) what I’ve understood:
Basically, this is about placing the game metaphor, with its loop, in relation to real-life experiences. This means that the inputs (i.e., what is within my immediate control) are relayed "to the world", and these inputs expand the world, or rather, the world provides feedback in the process. At least, that’s the usual worldview. Now, however, a contrast emerges: The inputs I provide do not seem to be limited to specific outputs; rather, there are also certain outputs that appear to come to us without our intervention, and to which we can likewise respond with new inputs. Within the game metaphor, this would be comparable as follows: My game character can move in all directions, interact with NPCs, use and pick up items, etc. At the same time, however, activities seem to take place within the game that, "at first glance", occur independently of the player. For example, we see NPCs wandering aimlessly or moving in a certain way or pattern long before we interact with them.
If we were to take a philosopher tasked with investigating this phenomenon, he would (through "common sense") arrive at the idea that there are two distinct worlds: First, the player's world, with their game state, through which they receive feedback from the output; and simultaneously, another, mysterious game state that appears to be even higher and more comprehensive than the game state one seems to know immediately at first glance. A kind of dualism emerges: on the one hand, the game world as seen by the player, and on the other, the seemingly independent game world over which the player appears to have no influence or access. The problem: Ultimately, one could conceivably imagine a meta-state for the meta-state, and so on. And ultimately, all of these are equivalent, so that the entire state could be broken down into a single loop. But this loop would no longer have any meaning.
Have I understood the problem fully and correctly overall? If not, where is my mistake or misunderstanding? Don't sugar coat anything. Be as honest as possible. I really want to make and be sure that I fully understand the problem thoroughly.