I got my copy of Homo Ludens yesterday, and have started reading it (thanks to Benjamin Duranske's post). I got up to the Foreword, at which point I had to put it down - something I will probably explain briefly when I add it to the stack of book reviews. But it deserves more than a brief explanation.

Play is an important part of my world, though my definition varies. Maybe it is my personality type (INTJ), maybe it is the way that I grew up - mainly alone - or maybe I'm just not quite right in the head. Likely, it is all of those and more. But 'play' means something very different to me.

Physiology

In some ways, I see it as a physiological aspect of development for the young, which is something Homo Ludens doesn't cover. Fair enough, but when a child is still forming myelium sheaths around its nerves, it wiggles its appendages alot. This makes them look somewhat cute to people, which of course serves the interest of the child - but it also causes spastic movement that exercises muscles and creates muscle mass. It does serve a purpose, if even accidentally so. An active baby is a good sign. As their nerves become insulated, they begin motor control refinement and movement. Movement requires the muscles built up in the prior stage. Welcome to the next level.

But we do not see the baby as doing anything but 'playing'. Active. Most sports played by children, before the advent of the game console, exercised certain muscles. Culturally, they were used to demonstrate (in smart cultures, without too much bloodshed) who was more physically dominant in periods where physical ability was much more important. Cultures have always admired physically capable people, or at least an appearance of such.

Mental

I remember the day I mentally quit at Honeywell. We got a new manager in the department, a grizzled veteran of lots of projects and renowned pragmatism that was of importance. He came to me, asking me to look at something, and I said, "I'll play with it later". His response was, "We do not 'play' with things here. We work on them." My resume was out immediately after that discussion, because I knew I could not be in that atmosphere and be productive. Everything I do is 'playing'. Writing software, building a desk, repairing a coffeemaker and negotiating relative time with a test of a navigation system are all... playing for me.

In schools, they tried to force me to 'work'. I never did well at the 'work'. When a problem is 'work', I cannot solve it. When a problem is a toy, I can solve it. Over the years, I have learned to mask this into something that looks like 'work' to the outside world, but I play with these problems. What is the difference? Attitude. They tried to make me sit still and do math problems in classrooms - it didn't work. But when the teacher - I remember him well - game me calculus problems to take home and 'play' with, everything fell into place. That story includes a dream where a 3d graph came alive, and I woke up and solved a bear of a problem.

It is play for me. But unlike other people, I take my play seriously.

And all that play has allowed me to play with larger and more complicated toys as my life has unfolded. I have charged into 'work' problems where engineers were afraid to work. One day, this came to coalesce itself in words. It, too, happened at Honeywell. Someone asked me how my problem was going... and I said, "I do not have a problem. The project does." I solved the problem by approaching it playfully. By looking at it as a new toy, something to play with - not some boring object that I had to make do something. And, oddly, I seem to remember things better that way.

Spare me your rote and lash. Let me play.

That Homo Ludens says it doesn't cover that sort of stuff interests me more. I will enjoy playing with this book, I think.