some fixes

3 files changed, 82 insertions, 34 deletions

diff --git a/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex b/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
index 31fe124..79f8b7a 100644
--- a/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
+++ b/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 \chapter{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs}
 
-
 We begin with the question of whether there is a realm beyond my 
-"immediate experience." Does the Empire State Building continue to exist 
+"immediate experience." Does the \textsc{Empire State Building} continue to exist 
 even when I am not looking at it? If either of these questions can be asked, 
 then there must indeed be a realm beyond my experience. If I can ask 
 whether there is a realm beyond my experience, then the answer must be 
@@ -37,15 +36,15 @@ sense and the natural language, one which judges them by reference to
 aspects of themselves. 
 
 As an example of the application of our initial result to specific 
-questions of belief, consider the question of whether the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If this question is 
+questions of belief, consider the question of whether the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If this question is 
 even meaningful, then there has to be a realm in which the nonexperienced 
-Empire State Building does or does not exist. This realm is precisely the 
-realm beyond my experience. The question of whether the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not Jooking at it depends on the very 
+\textsc{Empire State Building} does or does not exist. This realm is precisely the 
+realm beyond my experience. The question of whether the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it depends on the very 
 assertion, about the existence of a realm beyond my experience, which we 
-found to be nonsubstantive. Thus, the assertion that the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not looking at it must also be 
+found to be nonsubstantive. Thus, the assertion that the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it must also be 
 considered as nonsubstantive or meaningless, as a special case of a 
 definitional trick. 
 
@@ -62,9 +61,9 @@ Parallel to our analysis of belief-assertions or the realm beyond my
 experience, we can make an analysis of beliefs as mental acts. (We 
 understand a belief to be an assertion referring to the realm beyond my 
 experience, or to be the mental act of which the assertion is the verbal 
-formulation.) Introspectively, what do I do when I believe that the Empire 
-State Building exists even though I am not looking at it? I imagine the 
-Empire State Building, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture 
+formulation.) Introspectively, what do I do when I believe that the \textsc{Empire 
+State Building} exists even though I am not looking at it? I imagine the 
+\textsc{Empire State Building}, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture 
 that it is a perception rather than a mental picture. Let us bring out a 
 distinction we are making here. Suppose I see a table. I have a so-called 
 perception of a table, a visual table-experience. On the other hand, I may 
@@ -103,10 +102,10 @@ whether language itself exists. But we see immediately, much more
 immediately than in the case of "nonexperience," that this question is 
 caught in a trap of its own making. The question ought to be substantive. (Is 
 there a systematic relation between marks and objects, between marks and 
-nonexperiences? Is there an expression, "Empire State Building," which is 
-related to an object outside one's experience, the Empire State Building, and 
-which therefore has the same meaning whether one is looking at the Empire 
-State Building or not? ) However, it is quite obvious that if one can even ask 
+nonexperiences? Is there an expression, "\textsc{Empire State Building,}" which is 
+related to an object outside one's experience, the \textsc{Empire State Building}, and 
+which therefore has the same meaning whether one is looking at the \textsc{Empire 
+State Building} or not?) However, it is quite obvious that if one can even ask 
 whether there is language, then the answer must be affirmative. Further, the 
 distinction of language levels which is made in formal languages will not help 
 here. Before you can construct formal languages, you have to know the 
diff --git a/essays/introduction.tex b/essays/introduction.tex
index 130b2ce..73c36ef 100644
--- a/essays/introduction.tex
+++ b/essays/introduction.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 \chapter{Introduction}
 
-
 This essay is the third in a series on the rationale of my career. It 
 summarizes the results of my activities, the consistent outlook on a whole 
 range of questions which I have developed. The first essay, 
diff --git a/essays/mock_risk_games.tex b/essays/mock_risk_games.tex
index 19ffc05..491b726 100644
--- a/essays/mock_risk_games.tex
+++ b/essays/mock_risk_games.tex
@@ -153,8 +153,7 @@ spring up next to you, and you have to maneuver yourself through the
 lattice to escape them.
 \end{enumerate}
 
-\item Play Game D in situations where you have to sit and wait.
-\end{enumerate}
+\textbf{D`.} Play Game D in situations where you have to sit and wait.
 
 Note: The original version of \essaytitle{Mock Risk Games} was entitled 
 \essaytitle{Exercise Awareness-States}. It was written during April--July, 1961; and
@@ -176,7 +175,7 @@ constitute a use for the games. The games can have many uses, beginning
 with amusement; and it remains to be seen what the most significant use will
 be.
 
-\midheading{Intrusions}
+\section*{Intrusions}
 
 A noise in an adjacent room may intrude on a person playing a mock
 risk game, and affect his experience or state of being in a variety of ways.
@@ -194,19 +193,70 @@ the game is. Through how much distraction can the game hold the player's
 attention? Turning to modulations, the player can also produce them for
 himself.
 
-from blundering into a radiation beam, you have to communicate 
-pre-verbally to the other mind by every means from vocal cries to 
-pantomine, and get your-body/his-mind out of range of the radiation. When 
-the body is out, you will both be restored to normal. (The first thing to 
-anticipate is the basic shift in viewpoint by which you will be looking at 
-your own body from the other's position. There is no point in tensing your 
-muscles in preparatiton for the misfortune, because if it occurs, you will be 
-working with a strange set of muscles anyway. The next thing to prepare to 
-do is to spot the radiation beams; and then to yell, gesture, or 
-whatever--anything to get the "other" to avoid the radiation. Note finally 
-that neither player prepares for the possibility that he will be surrounded by 
-radiation. Each player prepares for the same role in an asymmetrical pas de 
-deux.) 
+More elaborate investigations require an experimenter outside a room
+where the subject is playing mock risk games. The experimenter needs a
+one-way window and an intercom to observe and talk with the subject. Here
+the effects of bogies can be studied. (The experimenter has a problem 
+though, in that after he frightens the subject, the subject will forget about
+the game and just watch out for the bogies.) Here are some sample bogies,
+for game A:
+\begin{enumerate}
+	\item Trip the subject with an invisible thread.
+	\item Cause the floor to shift.
+	\item Throw a pingpong ball at the subject from the side.
+	\item Squirt water on him from behind.
+\end{enumerate}
+The mechanics of the experiments can readily be 
+worked out by anyone interested in them. After an intrusion, the 
+experimenter should question the subject about his reaction if it is
+appropriate.
+
+\section*{Mock Risk Games for Couples (Duo Games)}
+
+In order for these games to 
+be successful,  each of you has to have confidence that the other is actually
+playing. If you lack this confidence, you forget the game and just watch out
+for intrusions created by the other.
+
+\textbf{AA.} Face each other at a distance and walk toward each other.
+\begin{enumerate}
+	\item The other's head flies off and hurtles at you like a cannonball. It can
+		swerve up or down, so that you will be hit unless you jump aside. The time
+		you have to jump is about the same no matter what your distance from the
+		other is, because the head accelerates rapidly.
+	\item Just as the other is putting his foot down to make a step, he suddenly
+		becomes so large that his foot is descending right over your head. At the 
+		same time, the mental commands of each of you to your muscles begin to be
+		transmitted to the other's muscles rather than your own, and to be executed
+		by his muscles rather than by yours. Thus, you must jerk "your" / "his" foot
+		back, rather than complete the step, in order not to "step on your own
+		head." The two of you should walk in step, right foot with right and left 
+		with left. Watch the other's feet and also watch above yourself---using your
+		vertical peripheral vision to do so. In short, if you suddenly see a giant foot
+		coming down on you, jerk "your" forward foot back.
+	\item (This misfortune is exceptionally complex, but there are good reasons for
+		the complexity, and it will repay study.) The consciousness of each of you
+		suddenly becomes located in the other's body and becomes hooked into the 
+		other's receptors and muscles. At the same time, your body, which is now
+		"outside you" and which is under the other's control, becomes surrounded
+		by slowly moving beams of tissue-destroying radiation coming from the sides
+		of the room. The radiation is invisible, but the eyes you are seeing through
+		become sensitive to it. At the same time, the other mind loses its knowledge
+		of language. In order to save your body, under the other's blind control,
+		from blundering into a radiation beam, you have to communicate 
+		pre-verbally to the other mind by every means from vocal cries to 
+		pantomine, and get your-body/his-mind out of range of the radiation. When 
+		the body is out, you will both be restored to normal. (The first thing to 
+		anticipate is the basic shift in viewpoint by which you will be looking at 
+		your own body from the other's position. There is no point in tensing your 
+		muscles in preparatiton for the misfortune, because if it occurs, you will be 
+		working with a strange set of muscles anyway. The next thing to prepare to 
+		do is to spot the radiation beams; and then to yell, gesture, or 
+		whatever--anything to get the "other" to avoid the radiation. Note finally 
+		that neither player prepares for the possibility that he will be surrounded by 
+		radiation. Each player prepares for the same role in an asymmetrical pas de 
+		deux.) 
+\end{enumerate}
 
 \emph{Asymmetry:} The two of you play a given duo game, but each prepares 
 to evade a different misfortune. 
@@ -246,7 +296,7 @@ player to create a bogy without warning, in effect acting as a saboteur. As
 soon as a game is sabotaged, though, confidence is lost, and each player just 
 watches out for the other's bogies. Here are some sample intrusions. 
 
-\begin{tabular}{ r c c c }
+\begin{tabular}{ r c c p{2in} }
 	\textsc{Game} & \textsc{Distraction} & \textsc{Bogy} & \textsc{Modulation} \\
 	AA 1. & cough & shout in other's face & each take a different drug \\
 	2. & talk and laugh \linebreak get out of step & $\rightarrow$ \linebreak (stomp hard) & \\