We never play by ANY rules, even when stayed. Take the dreamscape actions we decide upon, are we IN a Dream, or OF the dream, and it’s chaotic chorse and collapsing narrative? Is schema at best periphial or even just added on after the fact, and we determine how reasonable it is from perception and willingness to engadge?
Even when we add strict rules of objective, third party arbitrators, such as a referee, are we still playing by the rules? Why are they so very frequently broken then, and open up to debate by angry players and coaches doing chicken dances on the field?
What we call rules, are they a means or a end? How well are we accepting of them on a unconscious level, and what does this say about the nature of ontology and telelogy? What does it say about who we are as a species? What did it evolve out of? Our ability to track a projectile? To organize a hunt? Do we actually believe cavemen had open enrollment and posted rules for their caves? Was JSS presumption remotely correct here:
Isn’t science just a presumptive side effect of parallel processes like play, descended from a awareness we can privledge focus on aspects and yet disregard other aspects of thought? Is science just another form of Homo Ludens at play, a sub classification of a much larger activity we all engadge in, but insist must be different? It really isn’t that different in many areas of thinking, and it isn’t the rules that determine the remaining operations of desiderata, but rather identity and social justification that what we do here is worthy of pay and relaxation, but there is fun and games. It is all the dialectic in the end, we’re just primates thinking, manipulating with our hands and thoughts, screwing around. Most mental operations aren’t aware of “the rules”.