Glen writes: < If people would, more often, set aside their (mostly illusory anyway) agency and focus on accepting a Pawn role in others' games, we'd see fewer fractures. >
Suppose that there are roles in others’ games that need to be filled for the game to keep going, or to improve the chances of winning the game. Why do others want to play that game and not another one? Why should the value of an individual be seen through a preconceived role? If this kind of failure of imagination is just inevitable, then accepting a Pawn role, knowing one can play it well, should indeed be a way to promote acceptance of outsiders simply by providing existence proofs. But this brings me to a concern: Why should anyone have to play a role to make up for a deficit in another person? This leads to dependence on facilitators without understanding their value, e.g. the wife that needs to anticipate an abusive husband’s mood swings to protect the children and herself. It is one thing if that person is a professional like a social worker or police officer that is suitably rewarded for the job they do. Even at the highest levels of government we see such roles being diminished (e.g. at the U.S. State department). Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
