Carse distinguishes finite and infinite games in several key ways:

1. Purpose:
   • Finite games: Played to win
   • Infinite games: Played to continue playing
2. Duration:
   • Finite games: Have a definite beginning and end
   • Infinite games: Have no defined endpoint
3. Rules:
   • Finite games: Fixed rules that cannot be changed during play
   • Infinite games: Rules can change during play to keep the game going
4. Players:
   • Finite games: Known, fixed set of players
   • Infinite games: Players can join or leave at any time
5. Boundaries:
   • Finite games: Clear boundaries (spatial, temporal, or conceptual)
   • Infinite games: Boundaries are fluid and expandable
6. Outcome:
   • Finite games: Result in a winner and loser(s)
   • Infinite games: Aim for growth and evolution of all players
7. Perspective:
   • Finite games: Focus on immediate gains
   • Infinite games: Consider long-term consequences and sustainability
8. Attitude:
   • Finite games: Competitive
   • Infinite games: Cooperative (even if involving competition)

Carse argues that understanding these differences can profoundly affect how we approach life, politics, business, and interpersonal relationships.

Carse's perspective on boundaries in finite and infinite games is nuanced:

1. Finite Games:
   • Clear, fixed boundaries: Temporal, spatial, or conceptual limits are clearly defined
   • Boundaries as constraints: They limit the scope of play and define what's "in" or "out"
   • Essential for winning: Boundaries determine when and how a game ends
   • Agreed upon: All players must acknowledge the boundaries for the game to function
   • Create scarcity: Boundaries often limit resources or opportunities within the game
2. Infinite Games:
   • Fluid boundaries: Not fixed, can be moved or redefined
   • Boundaries as horizons: They represent current limits of play, but can be expanded
   • Meant to be transcended: Players in infinite games often seek to push beyond current boundaries
   • Continually negotiated: Boundaries evolve as the game progresses
   • Create possibility: Expanding boundaries opens up new areas of play and growth
3. Boundary Interactions:
   • Finite players see boundaries as real and limiting
   • Infinite players see boundaries as arbitrary and changeable
   • Conflict often arises when finite and infinite players interact around boundaries
4. Meta-boundary awareness:
   • Infinite players recognize that even the distinction between finite and infinite games is itself a boundary that can be questioned

Carse argues that our approach to boundaries fundamentally shapes our worldview and how we engage with life's challenges and opportunities.

Carse presents a distinct view of surprise in finite and infinite games:

1. Finite Games:
   • Surprise as threat: Unexpected events can disrupt strategies and threaten victory
   • Aim to minimize surprise: Players try to anticipate all possibilities
   • Scripted play: Ideal gameplay follows a predictable pattern
   • Surprise ends the game: A sufficiently large surprise can conclude the game unexpectedly
2. Infinite Games:
   • Surprise as opportunity: Unexpected events offer new possibilities for play
   • Embrace of surprise: Players welcome and adapt to new situations
   • Continuous adaptation: Gameplay evolves in response to surprises
   • Surprise continues the game: Unexpected events keep the game interesting and ongoing
3. Attitudes towards surprise:
   • Finite players: Seek to control and eliminate surprise
   • Infinite players: Remain open to and prepared for surprise
4. Sources of surprise:
   • In finite games: Often from outside the defined boundaries
   • In infinite games: Can come from anywhere, including self-generated surprises
5. Learning from surprise:
   • Finite games: Surprises are analyzed to prevent future occurrences
   • Infinite games: Surprises are integrated into expanded understanding
6. Creativity and surprise:
   • Carse suggests that true creativity in infinite play often involves self-surprise

Carse argues that our reaction to surprise - whether we see it as a threat or an opportunity - reveals much about our approach to life and our capacity for growth and adaptation.

Carse makes a crucial distinction between power and strength in his analysis of finite and infinite games:

1. Power:
   • Associated with finite games
   • Externally focused: Ability to control or influence others
   • Zero-sum: One's power often comes at the expense of others
   • Temporary: Can be lost or taken away
   • Reactive: Responds to and tries to eliminate threats
   • Seeks certainty and predictability
   • Aims to reduce options for others
2. Strength:
   • Associated with infinite games
   • Internally focused: Capacity for growth and self-transformation
   • Non-zero-sum: One's strength doesn't diminish others'
   • Sustainable: Can be cultivated and grown over time
   • Proactive: Engages with challenges as opportunities
   • Embraces uncertainty and possibility
   • Increases options for self and others
3. Relationships:
   • Power relates to winning and losing
   • Strength relates to learning and adapting
4. Vulnerability:
   • Power sees vulnerability as weakness
   • Strength sees vulnerability as openness to growth
5. Outcomes:
   • Power aims for conclusive results
   • Strength aims for continued play and development
6. Response to change:
   • Power resists change to maintain control
   • Strength welcomes change as a chance to evolve

Carse argues that understanding this distinction can profoundly affect how we approach conflicts, relationships, and personal growth. He suggests that truly effective leadership and sustainable success come from cultivating strength rather than merely accumulating power.

Carse offers a unique perspective on evil within his framework of finite and infinite games:

1. Evil in Finite Games:
   • Defined by rules: Evil is often what breaks the rules or threatens to end the game
   • Oppositional: Seen as an enemy to be defeated
   • Absolute: Clear distinction between good and evil
   • Eliminative: The goal is to eradicate evil
2. Evil in Infinite Games:
   • Not inherently existent: Evil is seen as a limited perspective rather than an absolute reality
   • Transformative potential: What appears as evil can be an opportunity for growth and understanding
   • Relative: The concept of evil is fluid and context-dependent
   • Integrative: The aim is to understand and transform rather than eliminate
3. Nature of Evil:
   • Finite perspective: Evil is a force that must be contained or destroyed
   • Infinite perspective: Evil is a result of limited vision or understanding
4. Response to Evil:
   • Finite games: Combat evil to win
   • Infinite games: Engage with apparent evil to continue play and expand understanding
5. Evil and Boundaries:
   • In finite games, evil often represents a threat to established boundaries
   • In infinite games, the very categorization of something as evil is seen as a boundary to be questioned
6. Evil and Surprise:
   • Finite games see evil as a disruptive surprise to be avoided
   • Infinite games may see apparent evil as a surprising opportunity for deeper insight
7. Personal Responsibility:
   • Finite games often externalize evil
   • Infinite games encourage examining one's own role in creating or perceiving evil

Carse suggests that our approach to evil - whether we see it as an absolute to be defeated or as a limited perspective to be understood and transformed - reveals much about our overall approach to life and our capacity for growth and compassion.