Multi-Disciplinary Reading – Book Reviews

Finite and Infinite Games, James P. Carse, 1986 – Books like these are rare. It is filled with big ideas, warped perspectives, incredible clarity of thought conveyed through a beautiful language. Carse distills Hegel, Locke and several philosophers and other thinkers and brings in his own clarity and depth to write one of the most profound books I have ever read. It can be a bit like abstract art and incoherent rambling in parts but I think its the product of a very, very fertile mind

My notes –

• A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play

• Finite games end when one of the players has won. Players must agree decisively on who has won. There’s no finite game unless the players “choose” to play it. No one can be forced to play

• Finite games aren’t played alone. There must be an opponent, in most cases teammates and spatial boundaries. (No one can be a doctor by their individual choice – potential colleagues, competitors and governing body must agree and confer the title)

• Not all finite games have only winners, some can have rankings too

• Infinite games dont have a visible end. Its not bound by time. Only purpose of the game is to prevent it from ending

• No spacial or numerical boundaries exist in infinite games. There’s no eligibility criteria and anyone can play.

• Finite games are externally defined while infinite games are internally defined

• Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but an infinite game cannot be played within a finite game

• Finite games establish rules of play – its the rules that define the game. Rules are not laws (considerable room for choice within restraints). By agreeing to the game’s rules, players validate them

• Rules of a finite game (like rules of debate) doesn’t change during course of play while an infinite game’s rules (like rules of grammar) must change in course of play (its objective is continuation of game and bringing in as many players into the game).

• Finite players play within boundaries while infinite players play with boundaries

• Finite games prizes may look indispensable, that without them life is meaningless or even impossible

• Finite games are voluntary and players have freedom to step off the field of play, but they seldom do

• To be serious is to press for a specified conclusion. To be playful is to allow for possibility

• Finite games are theatrical (scripted, performed for an audience), infinite games are dramatic. Its the difference between choosing the role of a mother vs being a mother

• Surprise is a crucial element in most finite games. A finite player wins likely by surprising the opponent. Infinite players expect to be surprised. Surprise causes finite games to end and causes infinite games to continue

• Finite players are deceptive (they hide their moves with the intention to surprise and win), infinite players are open and make themselves vulnerable

• To be prepared against surprise is to be “trained”. To be prepared for surprise is to be “educated”. Training repeats a completed past in the future. Education continues an unfinished past into the future

• Finite game wins yield a “title”. Titles are public. Effectiveness of a title depends on its visibility and noticeability to others (worn as badges, nailed in nameplates). Principle function of society is to validate titles and assure their recognition

• Finite players assume the prize for winning is life. Life then, is not play, but the outcome of play. It is therefore bestowed, deserved, won. It is not lived. Finite play for life is serious, infinite play of life joyous.

• Finite games are contradictory (players desire to bring play to end for themselves) as infinite ones are paradoxical (they play to continue playing).

• Mode, content of address and manner of behavior towards titled persons are to indicate where they are no longer in competition (Captain, Mrs, Lord, Professor, Comrade, Father, Admiral, Attorney, Holy Mother etc.). The titles are powerful and others are expected to “yield” in the arena in which title was won

• Power is always in relation to others. (How much resistance can I displace determines my power). One does not win by being powerful, one wins “to be” powerful

• If we defer to titled winners, it is only because we regard ourselves as losers (And so take part in the theater of power)

• The finite player plays to be powerful, the infinite player plays with strength. Power is concerned with what has already happened, strength with what is yet to happen. Power is limited to a few but anyone can be strong. (Infinite players seek strength, not power)

• Only that which can change can continue (principle followed by infinite players)

• Wars are lost when audience for it is lost (wow)

• Large bureaucracies grow out of the need to verify entitlements of citizens of that society

• A society has a wide variety of games intricately connected to produce a societal ranking. Families become competetive units. Power in a society is guaranteed by power of a society. Its in the interest of society to organize large number of finite games and establish prizes and winners. To defend their power, the winners will defend the society itself against competitors

• To protect titles and preserve their property (again ‘titles’ to their property), men will unite into commonwealths and put themselves under government (Locke)

• We display the success of what we have done by not having to do anything. The more powerful we consider persons to be, the less we expect them to do.

• Titles are passed across time through passing of estates to future generations and erection of monuments and great buildings in their name

• When soldiers find no audience for their prizes, they have no reason to fight for them

• Society is defined by its boundaries, culture is defined by its horizon (culture is infinite, so is language, grammar, art as they undergo constant change and preserve themselves)

• Patriots must create enemies before we can require protection from them. They can fluorish only where boundaries are well-defined, hostile and dangerous

• One cannot be free by opposing another. My freedom does not depend on your loss of freedom. Since its freedom for society and not freedom from society, my freedom inherently affirms yours

• If a state has no enemies, it has no boundaries. To keep its definitions clear, a state must stimulate danger to itself. War isn’t necessary for self-protection, its essential for self-identification

• The more we are recognized as winners, the more we know ourselves to be losers for we must prove repeatedly and the script must be played over and over again

• An infinite player does not fill a period of time with work but fills work with time

• For a finite player freedom is a function of time. We must have time to be free. For an infinite player time is a function of freedom. A finite player puts play into time. An infinite player puts time into play

• A prediction is an explanation in advance (Has something of a David Deutsch in it)

• What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning (Heisenberg)

• A garden is where growth is found. It does not end with harvest. One does not bring change to a garden, but comes to a garden prepared for change and therefore prepared to change. Parenting thus must happen not in a preferred pattern with scripted stages but with parents growing and changing with their children (brilliant thought)

• The only true voyage would be not to travel through hundred different lands with same pair of eyes, but to see the same land through a hundred different pair of eyes (Proust)

This is such a short book but was so packed with gems that I took forever to finish it. I realise one of the biggest, highly rewarding changes I have made to my life is stopping most finite games and switching to infinite games over time. However, this book is bound to shock and offend people in parts as it goes at the very structure of the way we live our lives. A good book must make us think and question and this one does it amply well. Highly recommended to anyone who likes abstract thought process, reasoning and philosophy. This is possibly the ‘tao te ching’ of our times. 11/10