/lit/ - Literature

>>9818342
>I make stupid decisions, like spending $20 on a Steam game for the very low chance at enjoying it, when I could be focusing on lucid dreaming, which practically guarantees pleasure given a little bit of effort.
You see how that doesn't solve anything at all? Sure, you could be lucid dreaming, but what's the point? You'd still be chained to something. And your time is still going to go anyway. It's just a patch. How can you suffer like this for a patch?

>every minor problem
>every potential source of suffering
Why do you talk about it like this? Is being like this really different? Isn't this the problem?

>I've thought about keeping a record of my diet and how my days at work go, to begin with.
That's good.

>>9727878
Getting a daoist PoV is sort of like playing Dark Souls: that fucking up is both acceptable and inevitable only gives more meaning to trying to do things "right".

But in the meantime, you can shake in your boots all you feel like.

>>8838045
I think the article you linked succinctly puts up what really is that distinguished spectacle from sport:
>[Wrestling] simply embraces as its soul what most other sports seek develop through accident: drama.

It's this sense of personal stake that characterizes the world as will, against the world as representation. This need, urge, lack and fight. Sport in its pure form doesn't have this. In a competition you're to leave behind personal motives and be "fair". Now it's interesting to think what the purpose of this fairness is. If it were a through equality then the whole endeavour would be pointless and amount to nothing but gambling--as the article details, it's precisely this luck element that fomented wrestling over boxing. So really luck isn't "fair". Without luck and without any inequality, then, sport is pointless. What then, is its point? Sports care for *specific* characteristics. This is best seen in the Olympics:
https://youtu.be/PE-vSJh0N_A

So what happens in sports is non-retributive. It's not supposed to be "fair" in the sense that everyone gets gold, but "fair" in the sense that both sides get to play a part necessary for there to be any achievement. The winners win, but they can't win without the loser. They have both contributed to the development or purification of their discipline. There's no apocalytic narrative in which the bad guys are eliminated and the score is settled. It's very close to Confucian amorality. It's about learning, dicovering and disciplining oneself into a Form.

Of course that this is often used by fans or states to measure each other. But this is beside the point.

Now if we're dealing with videogames we have what appears like something between sport and spectacle. Can we regard videogames as art in the classical sense? Well, what videogames are we talking about? Videogames are vastly different from one one another. Are videogame performances art? There's nothing much to distinguish them from theater acting. Things like tool assisted let's-plays are even more "static" than the stage: they're completely predisposed routes which follow the most efficient path in a game; theoritically they exist in their present form from the moment the game hits the market. But then, theoretically, this could also be said about the whole of existence.

I think where Schopenhauer's take on art presents a problem is that Art is non-participatory. It presupposes the attitude of the world as representation to be inherently non-participatory. But in sport, as well as artistry, taking the world as will is impossible--there simply is no time to do it, one has to, of necessity, forget about one's history and focus on the goal. So the only one's that are ever encouraged to take it as that are the spectators. It's a whole reversal. Activity becomes representation and contemplation, will. So there's no reason why we can't take the world as representation at all times. I think it was the whole point Laozi was trying to make.