Katie Dickison

LBST 330

Sean Ashley/Josema Zamorano

October 15, 2018                                           

                                                                 Reading Response 

In watching “Being in the World” and reading “Gadamer and the Game of Understanding” I can reflect back on both of them and come to the conclusion that, like the previous reading assignment, the common theme seems to be how in fact we perceive the world that we live in and how we get a better understanding of what is going on around us. In particular with Vilhaur’s “Game of Understanding,” a lot of what the essay focuses on is this dialogue of play that we have, not only with other people through living speech, but also with art, text, and tradition. This dialogue of play is an interaction between the players of the game and reaches beyond the behavior or consciousness of the individual player; it is to become a life and meaning all of its own that emerges from the back and forth between players. However, it’s more complicated than it seems. For this to happen you have to be a good player, to have a better understanding, you must commit. You must be involved so much so that you can find meaning in whatever form appears in front of you and to do so you need to remain open. To not close yourself off and limit the information that tests your previous beliefs; allow yourself to find new meaning.

In Ruspoli’s film, this concept of understanding is presented to us through specific cases of people who are, in a sense, a master of their craft; individuals who have reached a greater level of understanding. In those particular cases, it seems to me that they have become so open in their engagement and dialogue of play that they created this understanding through the interaction with their craft. Just as was mentioned in the film, meaning does not come from you – something pushed back that allowed for the creation of a new understanding. When you begin engaging in something new you always come with preconceived baseline knowledge, for that is what sparked your interest in the first place. Most people go in hoping to learn something new, to have a better understanding, but what they sometimes forget is that their previous knowledge may be questioned. Therefore they must be open to the possibility of change. Ultimately, to me, the connection between both of the materials lies in the fact that the film almost acts as an example of what can happen when you follow the dialogue of play; when you’re able to truly open up that’s when you allow, for what can be considered as, the greatest understanding of all. To become a master of any craft means that you have achieved the ultimate understanding.

In terms of my research project, a big takeaway from the reading and the film that I may incorporate into how I go about my research will be to not close myself off. In coming up with topics for tutorials and my grad project I already have an idea of what direction I want to go in and in coming up with a hypothesis it means that I somewhat have an idea of what the outcome will be without doing the research. So with that being said, I’ll have to keep in mind that I cannot hold back if what I find does not support my hypothesis. Or hold back for the fear that I could change my mind. A lot of the materials that I will be looking at will be literary articles, scholarly texts, and artwork so with that being said it’s very important for me to see beyond the page and to question what I’m reading rather than taking it at face value. When you question the materials it allows for an understanding to be formed out of that interaction and that dialogue of play, as was mentioned in Vilhaur’s essay. But for that to happen it is very important that I really get involved with the subject matter and really have the willingness to learn something new and be “affected by the new meaning”(78)