82,890
edits
Finite and Infinite Games: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{quote|Of infinite players we can also say that if they play they play freely; if they ''must'' play, they cannot ''play''.}} | {{quote|Of infinite players we can also say that if they play they play freely; if they ''must'' play, they cannot ''play''.}} | ||
Now this is important, but the book would be better — and more scrutable — had Carse taken more time to explain what he means by this. On the other hand, | Now this is important, but the book would be better — and more scrutable — had Carse taken more time to explain what he means by this. On the other hand, Carse’s theory is fundamentally [[Relativism|relativist]]; he assigns as much credit for successful communication to the imaginative construction of the listener as the intention of the speaker, and freely asserts that the two may be different: | ||
Carse’s gnomic style may be why Mr. Sinek has been able to make such hay: that is in a sense the job he has done.<ref>{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} (2019) ([https://g.co/kgs/J4Mg35 see here]).</ref> But, irony: the job of imaginatively deducing what Mr. Carse’s aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. So let us join in. | {{Quote|“The paradox of genius exposes us directly to the dynamic of open reciprocity, for if you are the genius of what you say to me, I am the genius of what I hear you say. What you say originally I can hear only originally. As you surrender the sound on your lips, I surrender the sound in my ear.”}} | ||
Mr. Carse’s gnomic — and, candidly, mildly irritating — style may be why Mr. Sinek has been able to make such hay: that is in a sense the job he has done.<ref>{{br|The Infinite Game}} by {{author|Simon Sinek}} (2019) ([https://g.co/kgs/J4Mg35 see here]).</ref> But, irony: the job of imaginatively deducing what Mr. Carse’s aphorisms is a kind of infinite game of its own — one that Mr. Sinek is playing pretty well. | |||
So let us join in. | |||
===Historic versus prospective=== | |||
Many distinctions between finite and infinite games boil down to their historical perspective: those that look backwards, concerning themselves with what has already been established and laid down — as agreed rules, formal boundaries and limited time periods for resolution necessarily do — will tend to be finite in nature; those that are open-ended, forward looking, and indeterminate — concerned with what has yet to happen, and is necessarily unknown, are infinite. | |||
Let me throw in some original research here: historically focused games in and of themselves are fine: there is no harm and much reward to be had from enjoying a game of football; but where one makes the category error of applying finite techniques — a historical view — to the resolution of forward-looking problems that finite games can | |||
===Training versus education=== | ===Training versus education=== | ||