Subject: did someone ask about games?
From: Chris Jones <ccjones-AT-ceinternet.com.au>
Date: 27 Jul 2003 14:57:23 +1000


Did someone ask about games?

Hope this may help.... Deleuze,  Logic of Sense Trans Mark Lester with
Charles Stivale, Columbia, 1990.  pp 59-65.

Not sure if below is accurate since i haven't checked it against the
text but cut and paste it anyways



There is no opposition of a minor game to a major game, nor a divine
game to a human game, both which demands winners and losers. Other
principles need to be imagined by which the game would become pure. “1)
There are no pre-existing rules. Each move invents its own rules; it
bears upon its own rule. 2) Far from dividing chance and apportioning
chance in a really distinct number of throws, all throws affirm chance
in and endlessly ramify it with each throw. 3) the throws therefore are
not really or numerically distinct. They are qualitatively distinct, but
are the qualitative forms of a single cast which is ontologically one.”
This forms a nomadic distribution for all times, not just a durational
time of reading. Such a game if applied to reality, to oppositional
political movements, for example, would produce nothing. Used in art and
thought it produces art and thought. A game with neither winners or
losers, without rules, without responsibility, a game of innocence in
which skill and chance are no longer distinguishable. The unconscious of
real thought.