4 ms·

Haven't thought about this book in years. For anyone who might be confused- this is not a book about mathematical game theory. :) This book was kind of life-c

Haven't thought about this book in years. For anyone who might be confused- this is not a book about mathematical game theory. :) This book was kind of life-changing for me. I probably read it at about 13, and around the same time as Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. But even at the time I was reading it I felt a bit conflicted. Almost like it's profound and deep at the same time as being full of nonsense. Would love to hear others thoughts on it

zwaps 3y ago
I bought it at some point thinking it was about applying Game Theory to life. This is not that.
- marshallward 3y ago
  What is it about?
  - arisbe__ 3y ago
    It was inspired by him, a sort of philosophically oriented professor of religious history, attending an interdisciplinary conference on game theory in which he was the token philosopher. But his book is more about play, novelty, authenticity, open-endedness, paradox and "life in general". It emphases always keeping in mind the nesting of competition and cooperation and that one should always leave open the possibility to tweak the rules to keep the game in play (reminds me of fallibilsm). I think he was influenced by Nicolas of Cusa's On Learned Ignorance hence the title oh another Carse book, The Religious Case Against Belief: > "Therefore, every inquiry proceeds by means of a comparative relation, whether an easy or a difficult one. Hence, the infinite, qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation." — Nicholas of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) Also Carse's book has footnotes but no bibliography! I actually read it through the lens of AGI but that was not his intention. Because of that it pairs well with Kenneth Stanley and Joel Lehman's Myth of the Objective.
kelseyfrog 3y ago
I feel like the rhetoric gets in the way of the content. Carse uses antimetabole and chiasmus heavily. I can't emphasize this enough. Most writers will use these rhetorical devices as salt and pepper, but Carse seemingly builds the foundation of the book on them. I tired of them quickly and they ultimately undermined the message he was trying to convey. Parent, when you mentioned the possibility of it being nonsense, I would guess it's due to antimetabole. It has a sneaky way of feeling profound yet empty at the same time.

zwaps 3y ago

I bought it at some point thinking it was about applying Game Theory to life. This is not that.

marshallward 3y ago
What is it about?
- arisbe__ 3y ago
  It was inspired by him, a sort of philosophically oriented professor of religious history, attending an interdisciplinary conference on game theory in which he was the token philosopher. But his book is more about play, novelty, authenticity, open-endedness, paradox and "life in general". It emphases always keeping in mind the nesting of competition and cooperation and that one should always leave open the possibility to tweak the rules to keep the game in play (reminds me of fallibilsm). I think he was influenced by Nicolas of Cusa's On Learned Ignorance hence the title oh another Carse book, The Religious Case Against Belief: > "Therefore, every inquiry proceeds by means of a comparative relation, whether an easy or a difficult one. Hence, the infinite, qua infinite, is unknown; for it escapes all comparative relation." — Nicholas of Cusa, De Docta Ignorantia (On Learned Ignorance) Also Carse's book has footnotes but no bibliography! I actually read it through the lens of AGI but that was not his intention. Because of that it pairs well with Kenneth Stanley and Joel Lehman's Myth of the Objective.

kelseyfrog 3y ago

I feel like the rhetoric gets in the way of the content. Carse uses antimetabole and chiasmus heavily. I can't emphasize this enough. Most writers will use these rhetorical devices as salt and pepper, but Carse seemingly builds the foundation of the book on them. I tired of them quickly and they ultimately undermined the message he was trying to convey. Parent, when you mentioned the possibility of it being nonsense, I would guess it's due to antimetabole. It has a sneaky way of feeling profound yet empty at the same time.