Phelim,Thanks so much for responding to the mention of the work of James P. Carse again. It's such an elegant, simple, and yet profound book. Many of the simplest sentences in the book almost sound like poetry.
"A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."
Jane McGonical, author of "Reality is Broken" was aware of Carse's work and quotes his distinction between finite and infinite games. However, there are finite games where no one person has to win. Alistair Cockburn, in his book "Agile Software Development", has a chart which lists 3 categories of games:
1. finite, goal-directed games 2. finite, non-goal directed games 3. infinite games.Interestingly, in the finite goal-directed he includes software development. Because even in this realm of finite goal-directed games, there doesn't have to be a single winner. Software Development, perhaps like an Open Space Technology conference, is a *NON-ZEROSUM GAME*.
Alistair calls Software Development a "cooperative game of invention and communication". An open space conference can also be seen as a finite cooperative game. Maybe there is no goal we all can declare victory with, but there's a theme, a purpose.
Carse's work justifiably pillories the dreadful win/lose zero-sum game philosophy prevalent in society. But I don't think Carse is trying to eliminate goal seeking games. In fact, he even seems to be opposed to getting rid of evil. "Evil arises in the honored belief that history can be tidied up, brought to a sensible conclusion... Infinite players recognize the inescapable likelihood of evil. They therefore do not try to eliminate evil in others, for to do so is the very impulse of evil itself, and therefore a contradiction."
But here's the real zinger of that chapter, "Evil is not the inclusion of finite games in an infinite game, but the restriction of all play to one or another finite game."
The greater self-organizing principles and practice and philosophy of Open Space Technology solidly resides in the realm of the one infinite game, the game of life itself. And a well played Open Space conference, we'll all be infinite players, also playing a finite game and there will be many other invites to play finite games - as a butterfly that attracts a butterfly session or conversation, or as a regular session convener who announces in the circle and posts something on the wall.
Another example of a finite game serving an infinite one - we have the example of improv games. A good improv instructor brings in games to help the troupe or students advance in their infinite game of just getting better at improvisation. Yet, the games usually have a clear beginning and ending, wierd goals and objectives and rules. But the ends are always ultimately playing in the field of the infinite game. Of getting better.
Sorry to poke Jane's ideas again into this forum - but it feels so much in the spirit of Open Space to mention that one of Jane's most powerful influences is Bernie DeKoven. Bernie was involved in a sort of social movement in the seventies called the New Games movement. The purpose of that movement was to "reinvent sports to be more cooperative, more social, and more inclusive." Bernie was one of the authors in 1976 of the out of print "New Games Book". Bernie is a "leading play theorist" still today. He's very fond of cooperative non-zero sum games. The article of Bernie's that Jane read so often the page in her copy of the book is very worn is "Creating the Play Community". In many ways, Jane's book is an attempt to revive this cooperative and inclusive spirit of that New Games movement - as part of the greater infinite game of life - in the spirit and presence of community.
And this is the same infinite game of life, that Open Space Technology has contributed so elegantly and beautifully to. I'm grateful to see us starting to notice each other - us wonderful infinite players. Be it in games, agile, or open space facilitation.
Harold
On 10/23/13 2:15 PM, Phelim McDermott wrote:
Hi Paul and all....also here we come back to Carse's distinction between a finite and an infinite game.A finite game has a goal..... to win. (Our predominant culture) an infinite game is played for the pleasure of the game itself..if life were played for the infinite game as apposed to the finite game our society would be different..this is Carse's thesis as I understand it.I think when i discovered OST i realised it was the infinite game possibility that flirted with my interest.however as Carse says an infinite game can easily and often is played as a finite game..Best regards, Phelim McDermott ________________________________I generally pick up emails only at the beginning and end of the working day. I am currently aiming to respond the following day. If it is urgent please call me on 07956 187298._____________________________________ www.improbable.co.uk <http://www.improbable.co.uk> @openspacerOn 21 Oct 2013, at 22:46, paul levy <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:Or maybe goal setting is just another gorgeous example of the mystery of self-organisation ?Those who cannot hear the music think that the dancer is mad... Warm wishes Paul Levy On Monday, 21 October 2013, Harrison Owen wrote: John I like what you say... and given the (only) two conclusions I have managed to reach after all these years: A) All systems are open. B) All systems are self organizing... the devil draws me to a third conclusion. Goal seeking systems are purely a figment of our imagination created in a desperate attempt to satisfy our unending (and futile) need for control. You know the scenario. We (I) created it, We (I) set the goals, We (I) control... Lovely idea, but it never happened and never will. Of course, that is all pure speculation and heresy. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Dr. <x-apple-data-detectors://2> Potomac, MD 20854 <x-apple-data-detectors://3> USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. <x-apple-data-detectors://4> (summer) Camden, Maine 04843 <x-apple-data-detectors://5> Phone 301-365-2093 <tel:301-365-2093> (summer) 207-763-3261 <tel:207-763-3261> www.openspaceworld.com <http://www.openspaceworld.com%20> www.ho-image.com <http://www.ho-image.com%20> (Personal Website) To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org *From:*[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');>] *On Behalf Of *John Watkins *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2013 11:19 AM *To:* World wide Open Space Technology email list *Subject:* Re: [OSList] The OST Game I don't think self organizing systems are goal seeking systems. By definition, goal seeking systems are homeostatic, and not emergent or transformational. I think self organizing systems are purpose seeking systems; hence, as Peggy says, always looking for new meanings to emerge in a dialectic of emergence, but never settling into any one final "eternal return," like "strange attractors," always wobbling into new versions of themselves. I think the question of game vs. not game might be solved by saying emergent self organizing systems are systems at play, "lila" in the tantric view, "the play of the goddess," indeterminate, recursive, entangled, confounding traditional goal seeking or linear causal or probabilistic behavior. John On Oct 20, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Peggy Holman wrote: Great thread! To Paul's question what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior? Harrison referenced one of Kauffman's conditions for self-organizing -- the search for fitness. I believe that in human systems, the search for fitness looks like a search for meaning. Harrison said: You don't have a self without a world, nor do you have a world without selves. It is not one OR the other, but definitely a both/and. Dialectic, polar, all at once. Nice I always thought. Nice thing about a search for meaning. It can start as a solo act. And you may pick up friends along the way. Sometimes that evolves into a movement (Agile, Open Space, etc.). And sometimes it even disappears into a world view. Or not. Peggy Sent from my iPad 425-746-6274 <tel:425-746-6274> www.peggyholman.com <http://www.peggyholman.com/> On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:59 AM, "Harrison Owen" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dan said: : "what is the goal (if any) of self-organizing behavior?" Good question indeed. Stuart Kaufmann (Biologist) says that one of the conditions for self organization is what he calls, "The search for fitness." I take this to be a modification of Darwin's "Survival of the fittest." The idea is that self organizing systems engage in a search for ways to enhance the way they fit with the environment and fit together internally. Those most fully aligned with the environment, with all their parts engaged tend to survive. Works for me. Harrison Harrison Owen< _______________________________________________ OSList mailing listTo post send emails to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
-- Harold Shinsato [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://shinsato.com twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush>
