"Make believe" is powerful in a context that demands it.
The problem is when make believe starts encroaching into areas of objective truth. Then, rather than briging clarity, it brings confusion. The role of adults is to channel make believe into those areas that benefit from it and restrain it from entering those areas where it only serves to obscure objective truth.
"Science can help us solve problems, but it cannot tell us why we care about those problems."
I do not fully understand where you are coming from with that statement. Evolutionary biology/psychology posits many plausible answers to why we care about many of the things that are most precious to us - our friends, family, spouses, children, sex, food, work, play.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment, Henrik. Yes, of course, evolutionary biology and psychology explain well why we have acquired certain instinctive tendencies, the tendencies that promote survival and reproduction. All animals have such instinctive tendencies; if not the animals would have quickly become extinct. But I'm talking about beliefs, religions, social movements that go way beyond these and even work against them; beliefs that are cognitive, not instinctive; beliefs that can vary greatly from culture to culture and time to time. If "play" is instinctively precious, then why have we had religions that deliberately suppress it (as the work of the devil) and why do we have a society today that has largely and deliberately taken play out of children's lives? If "sex" is precious, then why do we have so many different beliefs (make-beliefs) about when it is appropriate and when not, and with whom it is appropriate or not, and even an "f" word that equates it with obscenity? I could go on and on.
I take your point, thank you for elaborating. I find the questions compelling as well.
I can only speculate, but my hunch is that there is some biological/neurological basis for a lot of these behaviors, though it becomes exponentially more complex to take apart, with the variety and caprice of human norms.
Perhaps you know of some examples of cultures or religions where things like Play and Sex are demonized wholesale, which might make this point moot, but it seems to me important that these things are only villified in certain contexts or in specific forms. i.e. specific kinds of play, or sex in the wrong context - or, which I believe is an important distinction, having sex "not in the right context". It seems to me that suppression of play or sexual urges (to stick with those examples) tends to be a biproduct of them appearing to be in opposition to other values that for whatever reason have achieved primacy. Sex might be villified for it's apparent contradiction to Purity, for instance, which plays heavily on our sensitivity to disgust. High sensitivity to disgusting stimuli turns out to be an accurate predictor of political conservativism. Purity, or again, the absence of it, has historically been, and is still being, lauded over us as the root cause of our suffering, the avoidance of which is paramount for self-evident reasons.
Perhaps semantics are making us talk past each other here, but it seems to me that science does indeed provide plausible answers as to why we want certain things, and how we also come to villify those very same things, despite them being self-evidently wonderful when uncontaminated by narrative.
As an end note: For some reason, Inhibitor Neurons come to mind here, and the works of people like Iain McGilchrist, who portray our brain as an organ whose constitutent parts are constantly bickering with each other for the right to define or color our perceptions of reality. Further inquiry into this might give us more answers as to why we can be both drawn to and shy away from primal instincts like sex and play.
By the way, Peter mentioned, possibly in one of these letters, definitely in Free to Play (p.47), the Baining Tribe of New Guinea, an outlier tribe in that they rejected the value of play, considered it shameful, and made it their motto "We are human because we work." I can only guess now that they arrived at this through an attempt to give their lives meaning, or at least, purpose.
This is wonderful and reminds me of something that the late great Terry Pratchett said: “there’s no justice, there’s just us” -- and he also pointed out that if you grind down matter to its smallest constituent parts, you won’t find love or justice or truth or peace -- because they are values that we introduce into the world. Which is obviously a good thing.
I do believe that we can infer some values and morals from our biology and how it interacts with others’ biology. Bodily integrity is important to us (this probably has its basis in biology) so rape is wrong. Our continued existence is important to us, so murder is wrong. Passing along our genes is important to us, so forced sterilization is wrong. We need to eat, so feeding the hungry is good (and making sure the community can function properly so we all survive is also a biological imperative). And so on.
You remind me the best community leaders or educators lend dignity to the present moment by leaning into play as a serious serious humanistic value. Thank you.
Viktor Frankl introduced three types of ways to create meaning: work, love and suffering. Interestingly, originally love included nature induced awe but later interpretations of his work narrowed love down to only include relationships.
"Make believe" is powerful in a context that demands it.
The problem is when make believe starts encroaching into areas of objective truth. Then, rather than briging clarity, it brings confusion. The role of adults is to channel make believe into those areas that benefit from it and restrain it from entering those areas where it only serves to obscure objective truth.
This is the crisis we find ourselves in.
Thank you!
"Science can help us solve problems, but it cannot tell us why we care about those problems."
I do not fully understand where you are coming from with that statement. Evolutionary biology/psychology posits many plausible answers to why we care about many of the things that are most precious to us - our friends, family, spouses, children, sex, food, work, play.
Or am I missing your point? Can you elaborate?
Thank you for this thoughtful comment, Henrik. Yes, of course, evolutionary biology and psychology explain well why we have acquired certain instinctive tendencies, the tendencies that promote survival and reproduction. All animals have such instinctive tendencies; if not the animals would have quickly become extinct. But I'm talking about beliefs, religions, social movements that go way beyond these and even work against them; beliefs that are cognitive, not instinctive; beliefs that can vary greatly from culture to culture and time to time. If "play" is instinctively precious, then why have we had religions that deliberately suppress it (as the work of the devil) and why do we have a society today that has largely and deliberately taken play out of children's lives? If "sex" is precious, then why do we have so many different beliefs (make-beliefs) about when it is appropriate and when not, and with whom it is appropriate or not, and even an "f" word that equates it with obscenity? I could go on and on.
I take your point, thank you for elaborating. I find the questions compelling as well.
I can only speculate, but my hunch is that there is some biological/neurological basis for a lot of these behaviors, though it becomes exponentially more complex to take apart, with the variety and caprice of human norms.
Perhaps you know of some examples of cultures or religions where things like Play and Sex are demonized wholesale, which might make this point moot, but it seems to me important that these things are only villified in certain contexts or in specific forms. i.e. specific kinds of play, or sex in the wrong context - or, which I believe is an important distinction, having sex "not in the right context". It seems to me that suppression of play or sexual urges (to stick with those examples) tends to be a biproduct of them appearing to be in opposition to other values that for whatever reason have achieved primacy. Sex might be villified for it's apparent contradiction to Purity, for instance, which plays heavily on our sensitivity to disgust. High sensitivity to disgusting stimuli turns out to be an accurate predictor of political conservativism. Purity, or again, the absence of it, has historically been, and is still being, lauded over us as the root cause of our suffering, the avoidance of which is paramount for self-evident reasons.
Perhaps semantics are making us talk past each other here, but it seems to me that science does indeed provide plausible answers as to why we want certain things, and how we also come to villify those very same things, despite them being self-evidently wonderful when uncontaminated by narrative.
As an end note: For some reason, Inhibitor Neurons come to mind here, and the works of people like Iain McGilchrist, who portray our brain as an organ whose constitutent parts are constantly bickering with each other for the right to define or color our perceptions of reality. Further inquiry into this might give us more answers as to why we can be both drawn to and shy away from primal instincts like sex and play.
It occurs to me that the meaning vs purpose distinction might be a L/R difference - with meaning having more to do with "relatability".
The Five Factor Model distinctions openness vs conscientiousness may correspond to this as well, perhaps.
My intuition is something along those lines as well, with the L/R difference.
Hadn't thought of the Openness vs Conscientiousness aspect, but that seems to line up, at first glance anyway.
By the way, Peter mentioned, possibly in one of these letters, definitely in Free to Play (p.47), the Baining Tribe of New Guinea, an outlier tribe in that they rejected the value of play, considered it shameful, and made it their motto "We are human because we work." I can only guess now that they arrived at this through an attempt to give their lives meaning, or at least, purpose.
Oh that's interesting! I will dig that up. Thanks for mentioning it.
Facts we live by make meaning, manifest and share.
This is wonderful and reminds me of something that the late great Terry Pratchett said: “there’s no justice, there’s just us” -- and he also pointed out that if you grind down matter to its smallest constituent parts, you won’t find love or justice or truth or peace -- because they are values that we introduce into the world. Which is obviously a good thing.
I do believe that we can infer some values and morals from our biology and how it interacts with others’ biology. Bodily integrity is important to us (this probably has its basis in biology) so rape is wrong. Our continued existence is important to us, so murder is wrong. Passing along our genes is important to us, so forced sterilization is wrong. We need to eat, so feeding the hungry is good (and making sure the community can function properly so we all survive is also a biological imperative). And so on.
You remind me the best community leaders or educators lend dignity to the present moment by leaning into play as a serious serious humanistic value. Thank you.
Viktor Frankl introduced three types of ways to create meaning: work, love and suffering. Interestingly, originally love included nature induced awe but later interpretations of his work narrowed love down to only include relationships.
I Love your Essays