I observe that people don’t stop playing as they get older, they just change games. When people think of play as childish its really just certain kinds of play to which they refer, namely childish play. Then of course there are those that mistake their own sensibilities for maturity and erroneously label certain play as childish.
An example of that last point would be cosplay at a comic convention. This is a often viewed as childish where as something like wearing a jersey or painting your naked torso with team colours at a sports game is not. Clearly an error is being made cuz that shit is the same thing.
Our play simply get more complex, but they do not go away.

The Chinese Game Paradox

Recently, the Chinese government set down restrictions on (video) games, probably by limiting access to gaming platforms. However, this is where it gets interesting, it has, I believe, instituted a social credit system for its citizens which, in my book, is gamy gamy.

"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King." ~Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2

"Fantasy" [ ... ] is indispensable for thinking – the greater part of which is ex post facto confabulation (e.g. Nietzsche, Lakoff, Kahneman, Metzinger). But "fantasy" can be, at its best, playing with counterfactuals (i.e. "what if?" daydreams – gedankenexperiments) ... — 180 Proof

Selections from my ludic library:
• Finite and Infinite Games, by James P. Carse
• Homo Ludens, by Johan Huizinga
• Skin in the Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
• Play Unsafe, Graham Walmsley

"Spirit" (breath) is rhythm & melody (dancing & singing), child's play (laughter) ... ecstatic (i.e. self sans ego (how unbounded immanence feels) ... — 180 Proof

"Don’t play what’s there; play what’s not there."
~Miles Davis

The interesting thing is that I think it can be merely an attitude, and an attitude where, for example, you could see you own life as a game, or conversely, regard a game too seriously and it no longer be enjoyable.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

Whatever else play may be, it has to be completely spontaneous. It has to come from inside each in accordance with our true nature. If it's of "deadly importance" it's not play. If it can be classified as good, better, or best, it's not play.

Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Robert Frost. "Two Tramps at Mud Time"

ludic — 180 Proof

New word. Thanks.

"Fantasy" [ ... ] is indispensable for thinking – the greater part of which is ex post facto confabulation (e.g. Nietzsche, Lakoff, Kahneman, Metzinger). But "fantasy" can be, at its best, playing with counterfactuals (i.e. "what if?" daydreams – gedankenexperiments) ... — 180 Proof

Let’s not forget Derrida. “ To pretend, I actually do the thing: I have therefore only pretended to pretend.”

“ Writing is irresponsibility itself, the orphanage of a wandering and playful sign. Writing is not only a drug, it is a game…”

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

I think play is living in the moment. Sometimes, but not always, that moment is fantasy. Nature might view play as practice, and serious business. Play, as natural, might agree. Play, as fantasy, might also agree. But let's not worry about such things. Let's play. This is serious business.

Let's play. This is serious business. — James Riley

:up: :party:

Let’s not forget Derrida. — Joshs

Oh no, let's forget Derrida (& his "traces" ...)

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good?

I think play is living in the moment. — James Riley

Yes, that might be another way of expressing the same concept. Goal-directedness is always thinking of a future state. And to achieve anything, one needs to do the right things one thing after another, serially, seriously.

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

I think both work and play can be executed in the moment, and both can be considered, before and after the fact, as goal-directed or otherwise. The question is, can the consideration itself be work and/or play in the moment? I suppose thinking about the past or the future, considering the past of the future, could itself be work or play in moment. Hmmm. I'd need to rethink some of my thoughts. :lol:

care to expand on that with your own take away on what you’ve read?

I play with a toy.
I play with a Roy.
I play.
I slay.

There’s a difference between pretending you’re a lion, and pretending you’re really a lion.

From Ruth Krauss. I think it’s in A Hole is to Dig but it might be Open House for Butterflies.

This is serious business. — James Riley

Serious play. Probably the place where I am most playful is with words. Playful language can be very serious. From "Romeo and Juliet:"

No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but ’tis enough. ’Twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man.

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

Yes. I think this is a good way of thinking about it.

There’s a difference between pretending you’re a lion, and pretending you’re really a lion.”

Is that like pretending you’re a president , and pretending you’re really a president?

This is a topic I'd like to hear a broad response to in whatever way tickles anyone's fancy.

I think play is something that we are generally taught to vie was 'childish' yet in maturity and adult development I believe recapturing our ability to play is of deadly importance - for cognitive development in general.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

What a wonderful topic. I love playing Scrabble. It was my school teacher grandmother who taught me to play the game. Winning is not my priority, because for me, playing Scrabble is about enjoying time with a child or a friend. There are many challenges besides winning, and one of them can be helping the other person to win as long as that is not too obvious. Or people can work together to cover all the red triple the word score squares. That is very hard to do.

I played Scrabble with a man who had dementia and my challenge was to give him plenty of places to make 4 letter words and then it was plenty of places to make 2 letter words as his dementia advanced. I hope you can see the joy we had in accomplishing using up all the tiles. We did not keep score for obvious reasons. It was about being friends and meeting our own challenges, not winning. :smile:

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for many of the jobs people do, so an employer needs to think of other ways to make the job enjoyable. Because they do not, I have volunteered most of my life instead of working for money.

I remember being isolated at home with my children and I could hardly wait for them to get in school so I could have a job with other adults and accomplish something in the adult world. I was horrified by how horrible many employers are. I am rather enjoying this moment in time when employers are struggling to get employees. Might they discover considering the happiness of the employees is a good policy?

I think both work and play can be executed in the moment, and both can be considered, before and after the fact, as goal-directed or otherwise. The question is, can the consideration itself be work and/or play in the moment? I suppose thinking about the past or the future, considering the past of the future, could itself be work or play in moment. Hmmm. I'd need to rethink some of my thoughts. :lol: — James Riley

Yeah! Absolutely! The democratic model for industry takes the social and accomplishment needs of the employees into consideration. We modeled our industry after England's autocracy back in the day when people were treated worse than animals. So many bad things are happening now, but maybe so many good things are happening? The need to treat people better is certainly in the news.

I think I have. What others make of those books will very much depend on what they bring to reading them. I'll say this in brief:

I conceive of Play as one of five ecstatic practices whereby a person (yoga-like) suspends her ego briefly, in effect, 'standing outside' of her quotidian, anxious & bored, self with more (sudden) awareness of others (i.e. more-than-herself). These five ecstasies are Sleeping, Playing, Praying, Meditating & Contemplating. Of interest here, Playing (to seek catharsis / distraction) consists of pretending, arts & crafts, games & sports, socializing & parties, love affairs, ... many aspects of social life. I think Play, along with Work (Arendt), socializes, edifies, even indoctrinates human beings. (Huizinga).

NB: Play, no doubt, is exhibited among all (at least) mammalian species and therefore, like Sleep, also has a primary biological function (or functions); with regard to humans, however, Play seems to be an indispensible driver of our cultural and cognitive development.

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for many of the jobs people do, so an employer needs to think of other ways to make the job enjoyable. Because they do not, I have volunteered most of my life instead of working for money. — Athena

Everything you say is true, except the things you identify are not play. They're something else, something good, but not play.

Might they discover considering the happiness of the employees is a good policy? — Athena

I've been thinking that any long-term change will not be in the employers, but the employees. I think, maybe, a lot of people have seen that there is a better way to live. There's at least a 50% chance that's a pipe dream.

The need to treat people better is certainly in the news. — Athena

My hope is with the younger generation and women. Sure, they have their 10%, but generally they are better than what's been the dominant paradigm.

Skin in the Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb — 180 Proof

What suits you think of this?

What?

Sorry, on my phone and it autocorrected and I didn't double check. I meant, what did you think of that book?

It's good stuff, mostly rehash/summary of significant points (especially for me e.g. the conceptual role "ludic fallacy" & "asymmetry" play in assessing risk vs uncertainty) Taleb makes the case throughout the previous four books in his Incerto series. It's been a while since I read it (mostly on planes, IIRC)

Cartoonists/artists can make anything into a cartoon, including and not limited to Mohammed the prophet (PBUH); this at the risk of a fatwa from the grand ayatollah of Iran, something that will turn your world upside down no doubt - a crick in your neck from constantly having to look over your shoulders for assassins will be the least of your worries.

Is, therefore, everything a cartoon?