Elsewhere (Coppock 2008) I have argued that we cannot really considercomputer games as anything else but real in ontological. experiential andpragmatic terms. It is, after all, an empirical fact that players take gamesthemselves as material‐immaterial hybrid cultural artefacts, and the gameplaypossible worlds they allow them to ‘immerse’ themselves in, so seriously thatthey are willing to devote significant amounts of time, energy and money inacquiring them, setting them up and playing with them, and also in discussingthem,andtheirexperiencesofthem,withfamilyandfriends.Inthisparticularrespect, computer games represent exactly the same inherent reality, actualityand “socialness” 4 as any other hybrid cultural artefact offering experiences ofinteraction with fictional possible worlds, such as literature and cinema. Theworld market for computer games is already huge 5 , and steadily growing. In2008 sales of computer and video game industry hardware, software andperipheralstotaled$22billion, withentertainmentsoftwaresales countingforjustoverhalfthatfigure–a22.9%increaseinrelationto2007–accordingtotheEntertainmentSoftwareAssociation(ESA)Sowhatdowemeanwhenwespeakoftheenactivecharacterofourembodiedexperience of actual and possible worlds? Well, to paraphrase philsopher AlvaNoë’s characterisation of this: our subjective experience of the world, he says,isn’t merely determined by neural states set up by recurrent patterns ofenvironmental stimulation alone; the qualitative character of our perceptualexperience depends on our mastery and exercise of painstakingly learnedsensorimotorskills.Ourexperienceandunderstandingsoftheworldhavetodowiththefactthatweareconstantlylearninghowtorelatetoanddothingswith,forus,sometimes“alien”formsofothernesssaswemovearoundinitandenterintoludicorotherkindofentanglementsandengagementswithit.Intalkingaboutliterary,cinematographicorludicexperienceinenactionterms,then, we are essentially bringing into focus the empirical factuality of ourcomplex existence as physical beings with highly developed, diversified, agilebodies that allow us to actively move through, interact intentionally with andexperience one another, and all kinds of aesthetic and other objects that wecreateandexchangeinveryrichkindsofways.
Looking is one thing, touching another, walking around another, picking upanother, opening up another, taking to pieces and putting back together indifferent ways another, and so on. Indeed, all forms of cultural innovationpreciselydependoncomplexenactiveprocesseslikethisgoingonallthetimeandentanglingsynergeticallywithoneanother.Enactive interfaces facilitate multiple forms of interaction, experimentation orotherformsofcooperitionwithotherness,inwhateverguise,whereveritmaybeintheworld,orelsewhere.Thismaybeseenasapotentiallyusefuldevelopmentfor us and our societies, since it respects the fact that as human beings wecontinuallyneedtoremodelandremakeoursenseofselfandourownabilitiesandpossibilitiesthroughlive,embodiedentanglementintheprocessualflowofbeing and meaning that is constituted by our own and others’ actions in theimmediate or at‐a‐distance presence of many, many other animate andinanimate objects and beings, in other spaces and places, wherever these mayhapppentobesituatedintheworld.Inthisconnectiontoo,openorsemi‐opensocialnetworkingenvironmentswithaludicprofilesuchasFacebook,MySpaceandYouTubeseemtocaptureatleastsome of the essence of this particular way of understanding of our essentialhumanity.Therearealready,andwillcertainlycometobe,many,manymore–andifweare interested and make some eforts to do so, we will certainly be able todiscoverthesetoo…References(provisionallist)Espen Aarseth, 1997, Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature, JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Ian Bogost, Nick Montfort, 2009, Racing the Beam. The Atari Video ComputerSystem,Cambridge(MA),London:MITPress.