Finite and Infinite Games (1986) [pdf]
wtf.tw
wtf.tw
“There is a contradiction here: If the prize for winning finite play is life, then the players are not properly alive. They are competing for life. Life, then, is not play, but the outcome of play. Finite players play to live; they do not live their playing. Life is therefore deserved, bestowed, possessed, won. It is not lived.” that was posted in this blog post recently https://www.youngmoney.co/p/infinite-games
For me the difference in what game you choose to play is a result of your mindset - are you seeing people you play with in life, or do you se objects/ obstacles that you have to win over.
That difference makes a huge difference in your behaviour, a person is treated with respect and love - an object is pushed, beaten, removed.
So, i ask myself, how would I like to treated, like a person or an object?
It seemingly makes sense, because, we contort the narrative to squeeze meaning out of it. But a skeptical eye sees no coherence.
For example, this passage:
"We grow, we heal, we are reborn. Nothing is impossible. The galaxy is bursting with chaos-driven reactions. You and I are storytellers of the world."
Surely, all of us can squeeze meaning out of this passage, but it is actually produced by this BS generator: https://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
If there is anything that should be taught in schools, it is the triumph of the reason in the forms of math/science thinking - over all the BS narratives that abound - only because, that kind of thinking is unnatural, whereas stream of consciousness BS comes naturally to us.
Actually, I think philosophy should be taught more in schools. Learning to understand, evaluate, and critique complex arguments is just as important, if not more important, than learning to solve equations or do empirical science.
some philosophy (plato's dialogues) establish the underpinnings of reasoning and meaning - in that everything can be critiqued and debated.
and some other philosophy (spinoza's emmendations of the intellect / ethics) attempt an axiomatic approach..
however, much of philosophy/psychology is just a narrative with lot of words but little coherence.
It is a common source of confusion.
But his book is more about play, novelty, authenticity, open-endedness, paradox and "life in general".
It emphases always keeping in mind the nesting of competition and cooperation and that one should always leave open the possibility to tweak the rules to keep the game in play (reminds me of fallibilsm).
I think he was influenced by Nicolas of Cusa's On Learned Ignorance hence the title oh another Carse book, The Religious Case Against Belief:
> "Therefore, every inquiry proceeds by means of a comparative relation, whether an easy or a difficult one. Hence, the infinite, qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation." — Nicholas of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance)
Also Carse's book has footnotes but no bibliography!
I actually read it through the lens of AGI but that was not his intention. Because of that it pairs well with Kenneth Stanley and Joel Lehman's Myth of the Objective.
Most writers will use these rhetorical devices as salt and pepper, but Carse seemingly builds the foundation of the book on them. I tired of them quickly and they ultimately undermined the message he was trying to convey.
Parent, when you mentioned the possibility of it being nonsense, I would guess it's due to antimetabole. It has a sneaky way of feeling profound yet empty at the same time.
Noë is an analytic philosopher whose work deals largely with the nature of perception. He’s also a big baseball fan and has written quite a few articles for different sites on the intersection of the two. The first chapter describes how, in his view, baseball is really an infinite game.
Even if you are not a baseball fan, I think the book is an interesting read. A lot of his observations are not about the sport itself and therefore does not require detailed knowledge of the sport. Instead, they are musings on how we engage with the sport and what we get out of the sport, and those ideas can be generalized to many other activities.
‘Meanwhile technologist Kevin Kelly praised it for "alter[ing] my thinking about life, the universe, and everything."’
But more importantly to interpret the competitive behavior of others and identify where its not even necessary to compete at all. Because you can choose to play a different level of game than those around you. (Hint: its usually people playing too small finite win/lose games that you’d like to not engage with wherever possible)