George,
I realize that my reticence to engage Rick may be perceived as supersensitivity. Nah.
My undergraduate degree is in philosophy. I will argue with anyone about anything I deem worth discussing for hours. It's a game. But there's a catch. I do not argue to argue, but to convince the other of the validity of my position. As James Carse said in his book Finite and Infinite Games (and I paraphrase): The essence of a finite game is not just that there are rules, but that there are criteria that decide who has won the game. If a game cannot be won (or lost), it cannot be played as a game. We know who won the Great War, but who won the French Revolution? Most players will not knowingly participate in a game if they cannot tell if or when anyone has won, or if for some reason, no one can win, but also cannot definitely lose.
One cannot win or lose when the object of the game is to keep the game in play. This is an infinite game, one in which the object of the game is to continually rediscover and reinvent the rules. However, for such a game to be valid, the participants must realize that it is an infinite game they are playing. When only one person is playing an infinite game, it ceases to become a game at all. And that is why I do not choose to engage Rick.
Steve |
