Comments on: Digital Genres: An anthropological note https://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/2003/06/02/digital-genres-an-anthropological-note/ My name is Jesper Juul, and I am a Ludologist [researcher of the design, meaning, culture, and politics of games]. This is my blog on game research and other important things. Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:39:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Gerry Gleason https://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/2003/06/02/digital-genres-an-anthropological-note/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:39:52 +0000 http://www.jesperjuul.dk/ludologist/?p=13#comment-24 Oh, and I forgot to mention. I don’t know anybody who supports the war, not even my father who is a Retired Captain of the Chicago PD, not a particularly liberal bunch. The support for Bush is razor thin, and I fully expect (hope) that he will lose the next election. I have a $10 bet with my brother in law on the election; he’s to cynical to think he will lose, but he hopes he does.

And finally, a friend that so far I only know on-line recently presented at OSCOM. He is Brittish and commented after about some of the attitudes he encountered, which was more like the link you had at the top. Depends on who you know and encounter.

]]> By: Gerry Gleason https://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/2003/06/02/digital-genres-an-anthropological-note/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Sun, 15 Jun 2003 01:20:11 +0000 http://www.jesperjuul.dk/ludologist/?p=13#comment-23 Hmmm. I get a bit lost in some of the academic jargon sometimes; it can be difficult to keep it all straight, but I get what you are saying. The article you linked about Strauss was very interesting because the characature of Strauss that he describes first and then discredits is what I fear is a somewhat accurate description of the deviant political philosophy driving some key players in Washington. The following descriptions of the real Strauss are very close to my own thinking. There is some interesting background on philosophical underpinnings of the truth in the S?derberg paper. There is a basic philisophical riddle where the objective program of science is always grounded in subjective experience, but in the end all this means is that there is a limit to scientific and objective knowledge, but it isn’t really problematic in practice.

The answer to your question is that there is no guarantee that it “works” as you say. It should be obvious by now that the battle for the future is a battle for the truth. Some optimism is justified because the truth is a powerful thing, but it can be manipulated by the powerful. I am basically optimistic because manipulating the truth can only work for so long. The danger is that it could be too late when it finally comes out.

]]>