Posted one of these in a recent thread and now very interested to know everyone's answers. It's a kind of thought experiment.

Would life/the game be more interesting to you IF it involved:

1. Moving toward a better state of affairs?

2. An ending/death?

3. Highly challenging opponents/problems?

4. Free agency?

5. Strong differences between good and bad?

I'd say yes to all five.

It doesn't already contain all these?

1. It is.

2. It does. (More than one)

3. It does.

4. It does.

5. As long as what is good and what is bad isn't being decided by egomaniacs, maybe. I'm simply satisfied enough doing what I think is correct.

Speaking of life's games-whatever the plants are playing I want in.

Like another round of pinball?

I have just one dollar to play for.

The free section of life's changes is fairly comprehensive.

Would you want it to?

Yes to all five, I see.

My next question is:

What do you consider as a "better state of affairs", if not the end of death, the solution to the highly challenging societal problems, the substitution of free agency for ultimate altruism and justice/hive-mindedness, and the weakening of the distinction between good and bad?

"What matters creative endless toil, when, at snatch, oblivion ends the coil?" - Wolfgang von Goethe

Affairs are made from circumstances and people? And better is a reasonable way to agree to even the best state of affairs because a lasting best state of affairs may even be better than simply the best.

"Would life/the game be more interesting to you IF it involved:"
ahh a subjective question! I happen to be an expert.
"IMSO"(in my subjective opinion); Interesting- "is the space in which I believe the solution is unique to my proclivities."

from there:
1. "Moving toward a better state of affairs?"
A will. Simply put. applicable to all that move.

2. "An ending/death?"
A will. Simply put. Procrastination is the first respondent; without a clock it may be the last...

3. Highly challenging opponents/problems?
A source of motivation I concede. We can tie this into - "Moving toward a better state of affairs?" - in my subjective experience I seem content until smug competition presents itself. *I am probably less aware when I am the smug one.

4. free wat? When "I" type this message "I' have no confusion when "I" use the term "I". Digging deeper than that doesn't lend much; use, enlightenment, or much else.. I welcome arguments to the contrary though,,

5. Politics? Good and bad should be removed from the dictionary in my opinion - lest us forget about consequences and intentions. Some might redefine the words to include those other words... way too messy at this point..

Thread was titled questions of interest and me and my last IPA were interested in questions..

*as a lesson; being smug seems to be a great way to motivate someone to action

So - yes - to 4 out of 5?

You care little about good and bad - as commonly defined?

Arguable.

A lasting - best state of affairs - is without distinction. What about the low lows?

A lasting high high is a medium.

The situations revolve around having enough. One is going to discover having enough is vital whenever a situation warrants having enough to be done for consideration of the best.

However, while one can make the best from having enough, enough is best. For example "You/I have enough to endure to lowest lows, may as well make the best of it".

And while making the best from enough is an available choice, it lasts as long as the opportunity to have choice. For any decider, that is good enough. Which maybe the best and appears to last.

1. Moving towards a better state of affairs is a fantasy. Satisfy one need and another takes its place. Carrot and stick.

2. I just really hope death is final.

3. Again, solve a problem results in a temporary satisfaction, but another problem takes its place.

4.

5. Good and bad relate to well being and pain. Too deep a question for a one liner: deserves its own thread. Actually we had a good argument on this subject, in my opinion, way back before i assumed this alias.

Good answers.

1. The fantasy is mighty convincing. Just let Masque tell you all about it.

2. If I can only know the knowable and if non-experience is unknowable then I can only know experience/there is no end to experience.

3. Sure, but if the problems are highly challenging does that make the game more interesting or less interesting to you?

4. ?

5. They're all deep questions to me.

.....
The "zest" (interest being our frame) that propagates morality, I don't think is this strict obvious black and white tablet. Rather I think - in my case(to be safe) - that I am the designer of my own moral nuance... very much like I am the designer of my own opinions, and my own forum posts.

edit: Whats missing is this common ground "agreement of sorts" (basis of all discussion) - we want to be playing the same game. Maybe it's a game in its own right - that game being; deciding on the rules?

Well, it's true that you determine whether the differences between good and bad are strong or weak. If I'm understanding you correctly then, have you decided that they are strong or weak? or in-between? I'm referring to all the good and all the bad in the world, as a collective. If that's difficult to conceptualise, I apologise.

I determine it is strong or weak because I have a particular baseline from which to judge, as far as making a generalized statement; that is far past my scope?? but this is obvious right?
What can be added?
Is this another statement toward balance...

"What can be added" is the question of particular importance - as I feel is the crux.

1. Define better!
2. It already does.
3. Nope.
4. It already does.
5. It already does.

1. Whatever you subjectively consider to be a "better state of affairs". Keeping it broad on purpose.
3. The difficulty level is too high for you?

I would argue an empty nothing and no thing would be a better state of affairs.

Why would anyone want to make anything more difficult (so you can show off your brilliance?) When I play poker I don't want to be placed in difficult situations. I want all my decisions to be easy even if I lose in the end.

Sure. So that's a yes.

Further to that....would it be better to move from something to nothing? or to start and end with nothing (although that's meaningless)?

A harder game is a more rewarding/enjoyable game?

Why do you believe a harder game is more rewarding? I'll never understand that! Have you seen a Zen Monk? He literally stands there in joy regardless of what is happening around him. There is no striving for anything, there is nothing to prove, there is no struggle, there is no feeling of trying to control everything, no need to play stupid games of one-up man ship and I would argue nothing to do.