Talk:Finite and Infinite Games

Comment

No idea how to do it, but this should probably be marked as a book review. (maybe if I did more than "drive-by" editing?) -maxnort--76.161.193.126 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Finite+and+Infinite+Games%22+carse

Cited 3 or 4 times in "Indra's Postmodern Net", David Loy; Philosophy East and West, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 481-510 (University of Hawai'i Press; http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399579 ).

There apparently was a review in Publisher's Weekly, though my access doesn't go back far enough, and a review in Brain/Mind Bulletin (though that may not be a significant source).

Here's a New York Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/12/books/machines-are-out-gardens-are-in.html It's a rubbish review - even someone who dislikes Carse's work can see it's a hatchet job - but it's in the NYT and so confers Notability... (This is the same as the New York Times Book Review review.)

--Gwern (contribs) 23:11 29 September 2009 (GMT)

There's also apparently a review of it by Stewart Brand in the Whole Earth Catalog, if anyone knows where to find it. --Gwern (contribs) 16:49 3 October 2009 (GMT)

This book and the ideas articulated in it by James Carse have great relevance to all of us, and I think this article or one like it should remain on Wikipedia.

I see Carse's ideas a little differently, and, I think, in a more simple light, and as soon as I know more about how to use this software, I'd like to make a contribution to this subject.

In the meantime, Finite Players play within the rules in order to win at the end of the game, and Infinite players play WITH the rules, meaning, Infinite Players change the rules in order to NOT win, and thus keep the game going indefinitely, or infinitely.

I had a little Staffordshire Bull Terrier once who loved to play children's games with children, and, although he could have won the game at any time, he chose not to win so that he could keep playing the game with the children...a little dog but an Infinite Player.Cohabitor (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This thing survived a nomination for deletion?

This article would not have bothered me on the old wikipedia of ~2004 or so. Back then Wikipedia was an awesome site of genuine but random patchwork writings about everything. I would have read this and been confused but just shrugged and kept going. In 2012s modern Wikipedia, with all it's serious encyclopedic notability requirements and deletionists, I am frankly surprised that this page exists. This page is a vague book review of some guy's random musings about how life is just a game. I don't get a sense of what this article or book is trying to describe at all. Why is there a category of "Infinite games" if there is only one infinite game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.219.32 (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the pdf excerpt, this part of the article is wrong: "He describes human pursuits as either dramatic (requiring participation) or theatrical (participation is optional)." In the excerpt, dramatic is in fact used to mean open-ended, while theatrical is used to me having an established script. Also: if all activities are games, and all games are optional, then being forced to work down a salt mine is also a game, and optional; and compulsion doesn't exist, and "optional" and "coercion" and all related terms are redundant. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Levels of competence links here. I don't know what message that link was intended to convey.  Card Zero  (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The book is really a very extended metaphor. Describing bits of it just doesn't convey the message; I've probably read it a dozen times over the decades and have given up trying. A used paperback might cost a dollar; try it. htom (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, the infinite game (life) is called voluntary, but life is not voluntary, as inmates under suicide watch can tell you.