Sapiens are fulfilled only in play

[coberst]

Sapiens are fulfilled only in play

 

Properly understood, Freud’s doctrine of infantile Xuality is a scientific formulation and reaffirmation of the fact that childhood innocence, as displayed in their delight with their body, remains wo/man’s indestructible unconscious goal.

 

Children on one hand pursue pleasure and on the other hand are active in that pursuit. A child’s pleasure is in the active pursuit of the life of the human body. What then are we adults to learn from the pursuits of childhood? The answer is that children play.

 

“Play is the essential character of activity governed by the pleasure-principle rather than the reality-principle. Play is ‘purposeless yet in some sense meaningful’…play is the erotic mode of activity. Play is that activity which, in the delight of life, unites man with the objects of his love, as is indeed evident from the role of play in normal adult genital activity…the ultimate essence of our being is erotic and demands activity according to the pleasure-principle.”

 

As a religious ideal childhood innocence has resisted assimilation into rational-theological tradition. Although there is a biblical statement that says something to the effect that unless you become children you cannot go to heaven, this admonition has affected primarily only mystics. However, poets have grasped this meaning in its philosophic-rational terms.

 

In his “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man” Schiller says that “Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays.” Sartre says “As soon as a man apprehends himself as free and wishes to use his freedom...then his activity is play.”

 

H. H. Brinton, modern American archaeologist, considers the essence of man is purposeful activity generated by desire. The perfect goal generated activity is play. Play expresses life in its fullest. Play as an end, as a goal, means that life itself has intrinsic value. Adam and Eve succumbed when their play became serious business.

 

Jacob Boehme, a German Christian mystic, concluded that wo/man’s perfection and bliss resided not in religion but in joyful play.

 

John Maynard Keynes noted modern economist, takes the premise that modern technology will solve wo/man’s need to work and thereby lead to a general “nervous breakdown”. He thinks we already experience a manifestation of this syndrome when we observe the unfortunate wives of wealthy men who have lost meaning in this driving and ambitious world of economic progress. He says “There is no country and no people who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without dread.”

 

From the Keynesian point of view it will be a difficult task to transfer our ambitions from acquiring wealth to that of playing. But for Freud this change is not as difficult because beneath the habits of work acquired by all wo/men lay an immortal instinct for play.

 

Huizinga, a noted anthropologist, testifies to the presence of a nonfunctional element of play in all of the basic categories of our sapient cultural activity—religion, art, law, economics, etc. He further concludes that advanced civilization has disguised this element of play and thereby dehumanized culture.

 

The author, Norman Brown, concludes that psychoanalysis have added to these expressed statements regarding the importance of “The play element in culture provides a prima facie justification for the psychoanalytic doctrine of sublimation, which views ‘higher’ cultural activities as substitutes for infantile pleasures.”

 

Quotes from “Life against Death” by Norman Brown

[hug]

I've spent much time studying and understanding play, and some time (never enough?) having fun along the way. I have some great quotes about play (Plato, Jung, etc. etc.) that I'll post when I unpack them from moving boxes. Also, I suggest that people visit the website for the "National Institute For Play" -- I can't recall the exact web address right now.

 

Although play is most pure, and is often most enjoyed, when it is done without the player feeling any specific "practical" purpose, play does play a vital role in human life and in the lives of a range of other animals. In other words, there is a very important reason that play exists from a scientific and evolutionary standpoint. We ignore and avoid play at our own peril.

 

I'll include more of my thoughts here if we can get more people participating in this thread.

 

Don't forget to play!

 

"And forget not that the earth delights to feel your bare feet and the winds long to play with your hair."

-- Kahlil Gibran

 

(From Gibran's book, The Prophet.)

[coberst]

If sapiens are fulfilled in play can this bit of knowledge provide us with some insight as to how we solve our problem defined in the thread about stewardship?

[Queso]

Are not sapiens also fulfilled in gift?

 

I've noticed a shift in Kundalini when I give, or help.

 

Sat nam,

[coberst]

Are not sapiens also fulfilled in gift?

 

I've noticed a shift in Kundalini when I give, or help.

 

Sat nam,

 

I fail to comprehend your post. Is this a bit of irony that I fail to comprehend?

[Eclogite]

The argument laid out by coberst I find wholly unconvincing. As a single refutation of the idea I refer you to the work of Maslow who posited a heirarchy of needs. These were:

 

Self Actualisation

Esteem

Love/Belonging

Safety

Physiological

 

Maslow argued that until one level was satisfied - fulfilled in coberst's terminology - little, or no attention would be paid to the next level. Clearly then fulfillment could occur at many levels. Self actualisation, the highest level, involves achieving all that you as an individual in your environment are capable of achieving. That would be the ultimate fulfillment.

 

On the basis that Maslow's concept resonates well with reality I find I must reject coberst's thesis that Sapiens are fulfilled only in play.

 

For a nice discussion of Maslow's concepts try this wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[coberst]

The argument laid out by coberst I find wholly unconvincing. As a single refutation of the idea I refer you to the work of Maslow who posited a heirarchy of needs. These were:

 

Self Actualisation

Esteem

Love/Belonging

Safety

Physiological

 

Maslow argued that until one level was satisfied - fulfilled in coberst's terminology - little, or no attention would be paid to the next level. Clearly then fulfillment could occur at many levels. Self actualisation, the highest level, involves achieving all that you as an individual in your environment are capable of achieving. That would be the ultimate fulfillment.

 

On the basis that Maslow's concept resonates well with reality I find I must reject coberst's thesis that Sapiens are fulfilled only in play.

 

For a nice discussion of Maslow's concepts try this wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

 

If I am not mistaken I think that I very recently ran across a quote from Maslow, whom I also consider to be a great thinker, that made the very same claim that I made.

 

I do not think that your interpretation of Maslow is correct. For example, our work on self-esteem is continual even when we get hungry. Also, self-actualization through self-learning is something that we can and will do continually even when our self-esteem falters. In fact I think that self-actualizing self-learning is a major asset for reaching higher levels of self-esteem.

 

I am sorry that you do not agree but I shall find solace in the fact that many other great thinkers do agree.