Infinite resilience - a profound shift in thinking
On playing finite and infinite games
What if we could reframe our thinking around the way the world works and open the door to a deep and enduring sense of resilience? I’ve been listening to Simon Sinek and Ian McGilchrist (chatting to
) recently and find much of value in their perspectives. I believe their work offers us the opportunity for us to sustain the kind of resilience that endures far beyond the everyday ups and downs of working in a complex creative industry and living in uncertain, perilous times.In Simon Sinek’s The Infinite Game, Sinek discusses the problem of finite thinking in an infinite world. Sinek invites us to see that, thanks to the current set-up of our capitalist culture, we are conditioned to play to win, whether in business or life. All those with wholly finite mindsets are constantly distracted by competitors, therefore businesses get caught up in finite games where they look to beat the opposition (Sinek cites the battle between Apple and Microsoft as a prime example, outlining how Apple came out on top because they focused on their product and processes rather than their competition). Our leaders constantly talk about and look to winning, and we’ve designed many aspects of society to present the mirage of winning as all-important, but while we can win at certain limited, finite activities in life, such as sports competitions and elections, these wins are temporary, and there will always be another game. In the publishing industry, authors might ‘win’ at bestseller lists for a week, a month or even a year, but eventually someone else will always come along and take top position.
Conversely, there are many things in life that we just can’t win at: friendship, marriage, education, world peace, inner peace. There’s no leaderboard for us to climb: these are ongoing journeys (‘infinite games’) that don’t ever have a winner, but instead the primary aim is to help the ‘game’ continue, and to leave things for the next generation in better shape than we found them. Therefore, while finite games ask those who play them to try to win again and again (always seeking winners at the expense of losers, i.e. playing a zero sum game), in infinite games there are no metrics around success and failure: only an ongoing exploration of the different meanings, depths and possibilities of our experience and potential. And although there’s nothing wrong with playing certain games to win – particularly when we know the difference between finite and infinite games – there is something very wrong if we forget the larger, essential context of the infinite games of life. Then the desire to win begins to dominate, becoming grossly money- or power-centric, addictive and destructive, as we see all too clearly in the terrible divides in US culture at this very moment, the devastation in the Middle East and the precariousness of our climate.
Sinek’s work dovetails really well with that of Iain McGilchrist, who was interviewed recently on one of Sarah Wilson’s brilliant podcasts to discuss the difference between left-brain and right-brain thinking. McGilchrist explains that we are now a world dominated by left-brain short-term literal thinking: besieged by the part of the brain that was developed to ensure our short-term survival by being able to seek out and secure food, shelter, etc. (except now we’re securing endless unnecessary ‘stuff’). The left hemisphere seeks to ‘control and manipulate the world’, and thinks it knows far more than it does, while the right hemisphere – the place of wonder, imagination, timeless wisdom, big picture thinking – is in danger of shutting down. McGilchrist pulls no punches about what this means, saying on his website that in a world dominated by illusions of power, ‘I believe we are engaged in committing suicide: intellectual suicide, moral suicide and physical suicide. If there is anything as important as stopping us poisoning our seas and destroying our forests, it is stopping us poisoning our minds and destroying our souls.’ This is all sobering and a little bit terrifying, but when you listen to McGilchrist talk it’s far more comforting than you might imagine. I love the incredulous pitch of his voice in his chat with Sarah Wilson, when he talks about the absurdity of us thinking that machines can solve all our problems – and how he would never want a machine to comfort him in his darkest moments. With moving conviction, McGilchrist reminds us that we must stop seeing relationships in terms of power, because however we are situated materially, we all have much of value that we can exercise; and he reminds us of the importance of pursuing timeless, ancient wisdoms, such as: What is beautiful? What is good? What is true?
So, as well as the appeal to our shared humanity, where are the takeaways for authors and creators in this approach? For me, it’s that the process of developing and publishing our work is finite: we finish our books (eventually – ha!), send them out into the world, hope they do well, and move on. However, the ideas and stories inside them are not finite: they take on an endless journey within the minds of others, and readers absorb little pieces of what they love or need from them. Our creative expression thus becomes interwoven into other lives, sometimes in ways we can recognise, but also in an ongoing process that’s too small and intricate for us to ever discern. But it matters. It contributes. And our artistic journey – the joy of creative play and wonder that we can explore throughout our lives – is not a finite game either, but one in which we can continue to evolve and offer worth to our shared culture, and seek to inspire others, and all this will be woven into the eternally shifting fabric of the universe, continuing to have resonance long after we have gone.
What do you think? I highly recommend Sinek’s book and the
podcast (I’m off to find the McGilchrist book too), and I hope these ideas offer you some value and a sense of calm in the same way as they have comforted and inspired me.