Good thoughts in a recent post by Victor Lombardi:

“I’m definitely guilty of what the skeptics of play call “play ethos,” the reflexive, unexamined belief that play is an unmitigated good with a crucial, though vaguely defined, evolutionary function.“

Victor’s post builds around ideas from Robin Marantz Henig’s recent NYT essay.

Unfortunately we can’t appeal to the intrinsic, experiential goodness of playing. We’re forced to intellectualize it for the supposed benefit of those who can’t feel it and the result is perhaps like talking about music or writing about painting.

Sorry if this reads like some kind of pretentious hack at Plato’s Ideal. What I’m trying to get over is that although we can use language and discussion to share perspective and transmit knowledge, ultimately there are defining aspects of certain things that only exist as they’re experienced. Such things defy description – they laugh in the face of academic dissection.

The utility of play might be one of those things.

[tags]Victor Lombardi, Robin Marantz Henig, Play[/tags]