What makes us different? Well, I wrote this text. You read it. I have control over the content, you have control over the interpretation. I limit it to what is written, you expand it to include what you think about it.

I broadcast. You open the dialogue.

What unites us? We use public space. We seek proximity to others. We use the medium. Communication is our tool. I was free to carry on writing, you are free to carry on reading.

Given the censorship, manipulation and experience with media, it is not easy to assess. Can I attribute relevance? Who benefits from accepting this information? One question unites us, especially now. I do not want to guess your answer to that. “What does that have to do with me?” We both know our answers to that.

In some circles, Game A and Game B have been discussed for some time. Even if no one has the authority to interpret the word, there seems to be a general consensus that Game A is intended to describe the classic games that people play for power, influence, reputation, resources and dominance of opinion. Game A is a collective term for the old, classic and for the one that needs to be overcome. Game A has weaknesses, the players suffer or at least some are left behind. There are few winners and many losers. Game A describes the group of classic games.

Game B is the presumed innovation. It defines itself more by “not being like Game A” than by concrete attributions. Game B is a myth of the better, the different, and generates new word creations because its scope reaches the limits of what has been conceptualized up to now. For some, Game B is a projection, for others simply a new field to play. It assumes the influence of the game on the player. Game B does not exclude. Game B is open.

In game theory, a distinction is made between finite games (the match, the competition) and infinite games (life). Game A is the collective term for finite games, and more specifically for players who want to maximize their success in finite games in a profit-oriented manner. It is part of the demagogy to describe games as finite and to derive rights (profit-taking) from this. In the world of Game A there are losers because they believe in the comprehensiveness of the game. The social relevance is derived from the decision trees that players go through in supposed Game A games. At a certain point, so-called fair competition turns into antisocial behavior. The boundaries in the evaluation are fluid. They are set by moral concepts.

The protagonists, who think aloud about Game B and are recognized as pioneers in a good cause, now ask themselves what happens to players who realize that they have been deceived about the finiteness of their game. What does it do to players when a game has to be viewed as infinite? How does the strategy change? Is something like strategy even a meaningful term anymore?

In the age of post-factual, the committed discourse on the matter has lost ground and the morally charged value judgments simplify communication. For the delegations negotiating the Peace of Westphalia in Osnabrück (October 1648), it was clear that only those who were willing to engage in purely factual arguments in politics, beyond religious or moral categories and value judgments, would be granted access to the negotiations.

Games in the Game A category are often accompanied by dogmas, fixed rules and sanctions. The idea behind the dogmas is the attempt to optimize something that cannot be optimized. A dogma can only make sense if one assumes finiteness and there is no further after the balance sheet. If you are in an infinite game, you cannot estimate which assumptions will prove to be sensible in the future. You do not know the future.

Along with the fragmentation of society, there was also the isolation of people themselves. The counter-movement was foreseeable. Where the extended family continued to fall apart, a gap opened up. Some people set out to fill this gap and founded communities.

But even beyond the often desired exclusion, there are differences. People are not the same. And so there are the pioneers who go ahead and build the foundations where there is no house yet, but who can already see the house in their mind’s eye. The others wait and see. They can’t quite imagine it. They can use it better than the builders, but they just can’t build it.

These generations arrive one after the other in one place and sustainable communities emerge. If the first generation is not followed by a second, the prospects are not so good. Europe is littered with new and sometimes very innovative community projects. Most hope for growth and their hopes are in vain. This may be partly due to external circumstances, but often it is also due to the founders.

If they have understood the founding of a community as a finite game, they end up in the background. The word founding is borrowed from the world of Game A. It almost suggests that this founding phase will soon be over. Then growth and dynamism are the order of the day, followed by consolidation. Unfortunately, the period of decadence at the end paves the way for the decline that is necessary in order to be able to redistribute resources.

What would a community based on the idea of ​​Game B look like? Would one even be able to recognize a founding phase? Or would all phases not be present equally and at all times? Would such a community even be a community in the sense of Game A? What strategies would the members of the Game B community use if they even thought in these categories?

Anyone who draws up a will has recognized their own finiteness and also that it is a subjective personal finiteness, but not that of the game. So the game is not finite, but the player is.

In many wills, there is a hint of the hubris of wanting to regulate things after one’s death. It is somehow reassuring, and yet I still find it strange to want to subject fellow human beings in the future to my present will.

What kind of community would that be that sees itself as a player in an infinite game? Would that be a kind of “IG Farben” in the social sphere?

Or would such a community be understood more as a form of Game B, and its members would be temporary players.

A peace researcher had established the term “human family”. This includes everyone, even those who did not want to subscribe to this term. In that sense, Familiafeliz is just another name for this holistic view of potential members. Anyone who accepts their humanity, anyone who declares themselves to be part of the community, gains access, free from hierarchies and conditions.

The desired distance from the presumed core of the community remains an individual characteristic of the member. Turning towards this imaginary center is already a movement.

An entity in Game B cannot have a goal in the true sense of the word, or at most temporary goals, milestones. These are supported and promoted by those present.

What of that? What did I do yesterday do me good? What can I do today based on the knowledge of the answer? What can I prepare for tomorrow? If I see the other players as fellow players and not as opponents, what can I improve about the whole situation by giving gifts without intention? Or to put it another way: “What does that have to do with me?”