Comment finite and infinite games (Score 1) 80
anyone interested in this distinction might appreciate the model described in finite and infinite games by james p. carse. it's a kind of convolution of the tao te ching, distilled down to:
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning. An infinite game is played for the purpose of continuing the play.
carse might say that performance-orientated people (paul) are occupied with the resulting claim - title, status, accomplishment, authority, etc - that they can make looking back on the win. those that are mastery-oriented (matt) are more concerned with developing ability to continue the play into the ("horizonal" - always in the advancing distance) future.
Surprise causes finite play to end; it is the reason for infinite play to continue.
and
To be serious is to press for a specified conclusion. To be playful is to allow for possibility, whatever the cost to oneself.
and
Because infinite players prepare themselves to be surprised by the future, they play in complete openness. It is not an openness as in candor, but an openness as in vulnerability. It is not a matter of exposing one's unchanging identity, the true self that has always been, but a way of exposing one's ceaseless growth, the dynamic self that is yet to be. The infinite player does not expect to only be amused by surprise, but to be transformed by it, for surprise does not alter some abstract past, but [by discovery of what actually happened,] one's own personal past.
(i wonder whether those interested in this kind of topic would more tend towards the mastery/infinite-play perspective?)
anyway, one of the most illuminating books i have read, along with the tao te ching (and, the one other on my paltry list, the politics of experience by r. d. laing).
ken