In the previous post, we arrived at the transition between temporary shared-reality states of ⟁. Instead of explaining how this particular game works as a linear process within infinite play, we can enter that transition and treat concepts, constructs, and aesthetics as equally negotiable positions until we feel more agency in discerning and refining how each observed element is being categorized (deconstruction and reconstruction). Suppose we think through questions without relying on an order of importance or a measurement of answers until we rearrange the elements and re-measure the difference. Let’s ask the following questions through examples and provisional answers:

  • How does a player discern and refine a motif into a projection that may be received as noise by another player?
    • What strategic atonal additions can we add to this song?
    • When does the repeated atonal addition become recognizable as a pattern?
    • Is the initial atonality mixed with tonality a pattern recognizable as a motif?
  • Does the receiving player need repeated rounds of discernment and refinement to recognize the projected motif, or can one intense encounter generate recognition?
    • If we dance in this direction and swing our arms up and down while the majority are dancing in the other direction swinging their arms down and up, will the majority notice our asynchronicity?
    • If some do notice, most may find it jarring, but there is a probability that a few will find the disturbance interesting enough to integrate into their own motif networks.
  • Can the same projection become a motif for one receiving player while remaining noise for another observer?
    • If we can relate to the above examples, then we can propose that some observers in the distribution will receive it as noise while others will not.
  • Does an interpreted motif have to enter a shared state before it counts as a motif?
    • If we agree on the above rules, then no: a motif can become recognizable within a player’s own motif network before it enters a shared state. Interoceptive and exteroceptive observations can contribute to its formation through association and repetition, including movement toward or away from an assumed equilibrium, while handshaking determines how much pattern-matching or synchronicity becomes observable between players.
  • Does the instigator’s original intention still matter after the receiver has refined their own interpretation?
    • If we agree on the boundaries of this game up to this point, then the original intention matters to how the projection is formed, but it does not determine the receiver’s interpretation or complete the observation on its own.

These questions return us to the transition:

⟁ᵢⱼ(t) ─ε→ ⟁ᵢⱼ(t + 1) ↻

The later ⟁ᵢⱼ(t + 1) does not mean complete synchronicity, only that the next temporary shared-reality state might preserve more or less inferred alignment between the players. The question within this game is what happens between ε and recognition: when does a disruption begin to recur, become distinguishable, and become available within another player’s motif network as a motif? What processes of discernment and refinement become active in each player as they instigate, receive, observe, and return feedback? From this position, we can propose conditions of play.

Working Conditions

For a projection that functions as noise for player j to become discernible as a motif, the following conditions need to remain possible:

  • The projection registers as a disturbance for player j without immediately ending the observed game.
  • A fingerprint of the projection persists across external repetitions or cycles internally through memory, depending on players i and j and their current synchronicities.
  • Player j can discern a possible pattern within the projection through Mⱼ, whether the pattern matches an existing motif or begins forming a new association.
  • Another observation or return remains possible.

The projection may occupy a position in the long tail within the broader distribution, but agreement on that position is not required between players i and j. Its position remains dependent on who is observing and within which game.

Failure States

If the projection is not discernible as a possible motif by an observer, we can consider it an unacknowledged or failed motif-recognition state rather than a failed interaction altogether. The projection might not register, it might register without leaving a persistent fingerprint, or it might persist without the observer discerning a pattern within it.

Another possibility is that a pattern becomes recognizable within Mⱼ but is never returned. This succeeds as private motif formation while remaining unavailable to motif handshaking. The disruption could also terminate the game before another observation becomes possible, or the receiver could recognize and return an entirely different motif than the instigator intended.

Recursive Return

If a recognizable pattern from the projection becomes available within Mⱼ and player j responds to the instigator with a reconstructed motif of their own, then the return opens another round of feedback. We can represent this continuation through ↻, but the return does not guarantee that the instigator’s intended motif was preserved or that motif handshaking will succeed.

Once what was formerly received as noise can be anticipated, reconstructed, or returned by player j, it may no longer function as ε from that player’s position. It could still remain noise for another player k. Through continued handshaking, the once-disruptive pattern can become part of the game’s familiar grammar, moving the infinite player to search again for another edge from which to continue play.