Practical cognition

[madrush (Marco V Morelli)]

@marielle.hasselblad

A person not engaged with the lifedrive will see progress to reach the end of the task, the deathdrive. This is also what “winning” is, a deathdrive not a lifedrive.

That is an interesting observation, and reminds me of the book Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse, previously quoted here: An ideal world: Who's up for a(n ontological) quest? - #11 by patanswer

@patanswer

The rules of the finite game may not change; the rules of an infinite game must change. Finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play with the boundaries. The finite player aims for eternal life. The infinite player aims for eternal birth.

Infinite play is inherently paradoxical, just as finite play is inherently contradictory. Because it is the purpose of infinite players to continue the play, they do not play for themselves. The contradiction of finite play is that the players desire to bring play to an end for themselves. The paradox of infinite play is that the players desire to continue the play in others. The paradox is precisely that they play only when others go on with the game.

Infinite players play best when they become least necessary to the continuation of play. It is for this reason they play as mortals.

The joyfulness of infinite play, its laughter, lies in learning to start something we cannot finish.

I am attracted to the idea of refining the lifedrive through evolutionary curiosity—however, I think it is important that we don’t absolutize one drive and condemn the other. It is good to complete tasks and “put things to rest,” for without our ‘death drive’ moving us to do so, our ‘life drive’ would have no fresh, clear space in which to create and grow.

The finite and the infinite thus need each other and seek dynamic balance through our willing submission.