[NemelChelovek]

If you reread what I wrote, you will see that I did not anywhere imply that the concept was a negative thing because of its origin in the west. So this is just a straw man.

What you said was that it was "nothing more than a western prejudice of very recent invention." Simply saying that it is a very recent prejudice would express your disdain for the concept effectively; if that (the expression of your disdain) was the primary goal, then there was no reason to even mention its western origin. However, you did mention it, which leads me to believe that you see those origins as negative. This might not have been your intent, but that's what I got out of it.

I know many people would call two non-identical desires presented in drama conflict. But this is the western prejudice that sees conflict where only life in all its multiplicity is present.

Conflict is not two non-identical desires, it is two opposing desires, wills, or forces; this doesn't mean opposite desires or forces, it means desires or forces that oppose one another.. A man needs to go pick up a cake for his son's birthday party, but the bakery misplaced his order, and now he needs to find another bakery willing to bake him a cake on short notice. That's a conflict. The man's desire/need to get the cake is in direct opposition to the fact that he can't find one, and the story will reach its conclusion when he either finds a new one or gives up, resolving the conflict. Conflict is not a negative or a positive, it just is. It is a part of "life in all its multiplicity;" no one here was claiming that it was not. Conflict is, by definition, part of a story; if there's no conflict, it's just a description, not a story. There is nothing wrong with a description, it just isn't the same thing as a story, which is what I've been trying to say. A story is a specific type of description, namely a sequence of related events that begins, has a middle, and ends. A description is simply "here's what happened at such-and-such a time," regardless of what happened. The type of game you are describing would be basically the visual equivalent of a description; things can happen, but they aren't necessarily related to each other and do not effect one another in a causal manner. The emphasis would be on the tangible rather than on the events, or so it seems to me. Nothing wrong with that, but without conflict it can't have a story, it can only have "things that happen."

Are your blood vessels and veins in conflict because they need different things?

No, and that's a false analogy. That's like saying the Empire State Building is in conflict with the managerial staff of the New York Yankees, because the Yankees need to sell tickets to their games and the Empire State Building needs to resist earthquakes and high winds. Blood vessels and veins aren't the same thing at all, and one's pursuit of things necessary to it does not hinder the other's. There's no conflict at all.