Playfulness as a state-of-mind...

I woke up this morning thinking about Heidegger - I have now completed the reading the first section of Being and Time. I will record more detailed thoughts on these two chapters later, but I have to get some stuff out now!

It seems to me that in Heidegger's construct playfulness can be equal and complementary to 'anxiety' as a state-of-mind. If 'anxiety' is a window to one's authentic being, then playfulness can be awareness of the possibilities for that 'authentic Being'. This does not mean that playfulness is secondary to 'anxiety'. I don't think that playfulness requires 'anxiety' as a precursor. Playfulness can also spawn 'anxiety' - where anxiety is uncomfortable juxtaposition between 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' Being.

This is a big call and will require further reflection, investigation and understanding. Whatever happens, it feels like a worthy inquiry. Is that feeling the opposite of 'anxiety'? Is that feeling part of playfulness? (omg)

Without revisiting Sartre (his work is still in the mail to the USA), this adds a new dimension to his work. I wonder whether my ideas will stand up when I reread Being and Nothingness?

I also like the idea of relating authentic shared Being to playfulness, but that is a bit cloudy at the moment.

There is session of the course on Being and Time is on today, it will be interesting to see what I think after that. I can't wait!

The "They"

The latest chapter of Being and Time that I have read deals with being with others and the impact others' being has on us. Some aspects of Heidegger's philosophies feel as though they are starting to crystallise in my mind. I don't expect I will be able to convey these in an easily understandable way for others yet - but what I write is gaining significance for me.

As usual, some quotes:

Is it then obvious that a priori that access to Dasein must be gained by mere reflective awareness of the 'I' of actions? (p. 116)

If the 'I' is an essential characteristic of Dasein, then it is one that must be Interpreted existentially. (p. 152)

Being-with is an existential characteristic of Dasein when factually no Other is present-at-hand or perceived. Even Dasein's Being-alone is Being-with in the world. (p. 156-7)

...those entities towards which Dasein as Being -with comports itself... ...are themselves Dasein. These entities are not objects of concern, but rather solicitude. (p. 157)

Everyday Being-with-one-another maintains itself between the two extremes of positive solicitude - that which leaps in and dominates, and that which leaps forth and liberates. It brings numerous mixed forms to maturity; to describe these and classify them would take us beyond the limits of this investigation. (p. 159)

Being with Others belongs to the Being of Dasein, which is an issue for Dasein in its very being. (p. 160)

Being-with-one-another must follow special routes of its own in order to come close to Others, or even to 'see through them'. (p161)

'Empathy' does not first constitute Being-with; only on the Basis of Being-with does 'empathy' become possible: it gets its motivation from the unsociability of the dominant modes of Being-with. (p. 162)

The "they", which is nothing definite, and which all are, though not as the sum, prescribes the kind of Being of everydayness. (p. 164)

In Dasein's everydayness the agency through which most things come about is one of which we must say that "it was no one". (p. 165)

And because the "they" constantly accommodates the particular Dasein by disburdening it of its Being, the "they" retains and enhances its stubborn dominion. (p. 165)

The Self of everyday Dasein is the they-self, which we distinguish from the authentic Self - that is, from the Self which has been taken hold of in its own way. As they-self, the particular Dasein has been dispersed into the "they", and must first find itself. (p. 167)

Freedom, Being with, authenticity - which makes me think more about playfulness as a state-of-mind and how that can be shared authentically with others.

I feel that the two extremes of positive solicitude lacks something in explaining the complexities of being-with others, but it is a more than useful illustration and Heidegger himself stops himself short on elaborating.

I will not have this luxury, as being-with others is central to shared playfulness and learning. I think this is an important line of thought for my study. 

freedom, playfulness and worldhood

Reflecting on Being and Time is helping to clarify freedom and playfulness for me. A couple of quotes that represent what has helped me to understand are:

Every entity that is to 'to hand' has a different closeness, which is not to be ascertained by measuring distances. (p. 135)

The objective distances of Things present-at-hand do not coincide with the remoteness and closeness of what is ready-to-hand within-the-world. (p. 141)

The homogeneous space of Nature shows itself only when the entities we encounter are discovered in such a way that the worldly character of the ready-to-hand gets specifically deprived of its worldhood. (p. 147)

In the phenomenon of space the primary ontological character of the Being of entities within-the-world is not to be found, either as unique or as one among others. Still less does space constitute the phenomenon of the world. Unless we go back to the world, space cannot be percieved. (p. 148)

This brought into focus some insight into freedom and playfulness in our world.

Playfulness, whether it is a state of mind (Dewey, How We Think), a personality trait (see previous blog entry 'Evaluating Playfulness') or however I can concieve it, does not have a place within-the-world. Playfulness, whether shared or not, seems very much within our world and never 'ready-to-hand' and is appears always 'present-at-hand'.

Does that lead to the possibility of empowerment to anyone participating in playfulness?

Even in a world 'deprived of its worldhood' freedom (or lack of it) could be very visible. Physical freedoms, the freedom from others actions and the freedom to act would broadly seem to fit into this category. We could think if these as 'ready-to-hand', apparent or possible freedoms.

What of 'present-to-hand' freedoms - which may or may not be associated with 'ready-to-hand' ones?

There are lots of examples of individuals deprived of almost all of their 'ready-to-hand' freedoms and maintaining their 'presence-to-hand' freedom. eg. Wole Soyinka. Hopefully we can't find too many analogies with this circumstance to educational practice (although...).

I am particularly interested in why people feel a lack of freedom to learn in the process of their education. Note: the implicit assumption that everybody wants, needs and is learning - I'll have to tackle that later, but it is one of my assumptions.

I was listening to an interview with Dorothy Rowe about depression the other day that resonated with me along those lines.

Here are a couple of quotes:

So I was an outsider and then all sorts of incidental things happened, and also I was always questioning what we were being taught at school because it was a very rigid sort of syllabus that we had.

But of course the outsider sees things more clearly, when you're on the inside there's a lot you don't see. So I don't mind being an outsider.

....when you're depressed you're inside a prison. That's what depressed people talk about, being in that prison and you can't get out of it. You treat yourself horribly so that you're the prisoner in isolation and the cruel jailor.

Now when you speak of emotions, emotions are meanings, you know fear is the meaning 'something terrible is happening that is a threat to me'. Anxiety is the meaning 'something terrible is about to happen'. Anger is a wonderful emotion because it brings out our personal pride, anger is 'how dare this happen to me' and we fight back. Or we should, but nicely though.

You know the more you hate yourself the more frightened you are of other people. Because if they see how bad you are they will punish you. In that way you cut yourself off from every aspect of your life and that's the prison of depression.

But the pattern of thought that leads people to be depressed is so well practised, the steps in it, they don't have to think it consciously. Because first of all the only people who get depressed are good people.

So how do you get out of that prison? Oh I can tell you very easily, it's very simple for me to say but it's hard to do because you have to change ideas that go right back to when you were a very small child. And the first thing is that you come to realise that it isn't a matter of struggling to be good all the time, that, you know, you set yourself some reasonable standards, if you've got a job then you want to do a reasonable job, you don't have to do a perfect job.

The freedom to learn appears to have some parallels with freedom from depression and is possibly less 'within-the-world' than 'being-in-the-world'.

Freedom and Play (paper)

Catalysts for creativity

John F. Feldhusen and Sandra K. Hobson (Dec. 1972)

This is a really refreshing paper, that manages to capture the enthusiasm and possibility that can be engendered by playfulness and freedom.

To quote them:

Freedom is important in creative thinking... Torrance suggested that two kind of freedom are necessary ingredients for a creative atmosphere: freedom from threat of evaluation and freedom from inhibiting sets or directions. Sets are internalized predispositions that operate subconsciously to inhibit or facilitate behaviour... ...He suggested that if we force an individual to act according to someone else's values, we limit his creative ability... ...and his natural tendencies to explore his environment.

To create an atmosphere of almost total freedom we used several procedures. To begin with, we let the children dress anyway they wished. They could come barefoot if they wished. At the begining we announced that they would be completely free, even to stay away if they lost interest. We encouraged them to express their feelings about us or anything we were doing at anytime. We let them move about whenever they wanted to explore the studio. They were free to desert the group activities and talk out whenever they wished. Special attempts were made to avoid negative evaluations among pupils or between leaders and pupils. Ample opportunity for role-playing gave the children freedom to express their ideas through the guise of another person.

In our program, we encouraged playfulness and humour at all times. When children realised that they were free to express themselves as they wished, fun, humour, silliness and goofing came naturally. Our joining in their playfulness was supportive. Finally, playing charades and viewing performances in video playback also created a sense of fun and humour.

This sounds like a utopia for the 16 fifth to seventh graders who attended these sessions twice a week for six weeks one summer. I like the style of the authors - it has me considering my study in different ways. Possibly not the way they might have intended, but I don't think they would mind! The warmth in the story made me smile. I will let their conclusions speak for themselves:

From this experience and from the other types of evaluation presented earlier, we formulated a set of general conclusions.

First, we concluded that we survived quite well. We came out of the sessions unscathed, even though we started as novices in this kind of learning situation in which total freedom prevails. We entered into the venture with trepidation. We had not taught in this way before and feared that complete freedom might breed complete chaos. It did not. The children were orderly and close to us and enjoyed the sessions.

Second, it was fun. The children were funny and productive. It was fun to see them doing their thing, open up, and generate ideas.

Third, we and the experienced some discomfort during the first few weeks. We felt that we should be "working" and producing "something". There was also a feeling that work and fun are really not compatible. But in time we seemed to get over these feelings.

Fourth, we saw individual children open up and express themselves more freely during this brief program of creative freedom. The unfolding of individual children seemed to be an intensely personal thing, undoubtedly dependent on each childs background and experience. We believe that this personal unfolding paves the way to more and better thinking.

Fifth, working with children in this way fostered warm interpersonal relationships. These relationships afforded a richly rewarding affect, added to the pleasure of working together, and reduced anxiey among all of us. Use of first names also brought us closer together.

Sixth, and finally, we concluded that we have just scratched the surface. We have much more to do in our effort to understand creative behaviour, how it develops, and how to teach it. Our major concern at this stage was to specify teachers' behaviours and pupils' activities that would be productive of creative thinking. It remains to be seen whether the system can be replicated by others who wish to teach creative thinking. Above all, it remains to be shown that the system, if replicable, helps children become better creative thinkers.

Tutoring, playing and learning (paper)

The features of playfulness in the pedagogical model of TPL – tutoring, playing and learning


Pirkko Hyvönen and Heli Ruokamo (2005)

Selected quotes:

In this article we define the pedagogical TPL model that represents the processes of tutoring, playing and learning. We also introduce the concept of playfulness and its six salient features.

Playing is understood to cover both playing and a variety of games, including digital games. The pedagogical TPL model interlinks with the Let’s Play project, where three doctoral thes es have examined how playing is utilised in the processes of learning and growing and what kinds of qualities playfulness requires of the learning environment.

We examined the concept of playfulness from different perspectives and have found six salient features. They are embodiment, collaboration, action, narration, creativity and insight. Our examination is based on theories of playing and learning and on our empirical data from: 1) creative sessions, 2) test playing and 3) story-crafting...

We have listened to children’s voice. Through this data, we get close to their unique culture that they construct through stories and playing...

Intentional tutoring can be called education that implies pedagogical and intentional actions whose aim is to influence a child...

Another view of tutoring deals with environments that afford tutoring.

Playing and games are creative processes where children may produce something else than imaginative things, e.g. handicrafts, piece of arts, posters, stories or songs. We see that playing is not limited to the actions that can be seen as playing, but also planning, preparing and ending are part of the activity of playing.

Event though the TLP model emphasises the significance of playing and games, they are not automatically beneficial processes.

The concept of embodiment refers to what a person experiences, knows and feels in her/his body and how she/he interacts through her/his body with other people and the environment...

In the context of playfulness, collaboration refers to different manners of social cohesion and cooperation and collaborative construction of knowledge.

Through language, an intellectual network is set up; in this network experiences and problem-solving processes become meaningful.

We define action primarily as physical activity that, in view of the other features of playfulness, invariably is experiential.

In playing and games, plotted stories are created and acted out, which allows a multiple means of creating narration, for example, with rhyming, gestures, music or pictorial collages.

As knowledge is constructed collaboratively… …creativity is similarly constructed according to our observations. Here one needs to pay attention to imitation and humour because they can free up thinking and imagination and generate an atmosphere conducive to creativity.

Insight refers to problem-solving situations and to making observations and conclusions.

I really like the way this study was conducted and I think this really does explore many facets of playfulness. There are heaps of references from this I would (and should) follow up.

This refines (reinforces?) my questioning on playfulness and I return to playfulness and freedom to learn, freedom to be playful, playfulness as freedom and freedom as playfulness.

Evaluating Playfulness (paper)

Construct Validity of the Children’s Playfulness Scale (CPS)

Efthimios Trevlas et al (Sept. 2003)

Some selected quotes:

Contemporary research on children’s play approaches it as a personality trait. A generally accepted definition of playfulness in young children is an internal predisposition to bring a playful quality to interactions and episodes. This trait is an individual characteristic and its expression, relatively stable, reproducible and recognisable.

While many authors wrote about the need to focus not on the external environment but on the internal disposition of player, few methodological efforts in this direction have been successful.

Lieberman (1965) was among the first who defined playfulness as a characteristic of the player and supported the existence of the playfulness trait in young children. Asking preschool teachers to rate the children in their classes, she identified five components of this playfulness quality: (a) physical spontaneity, (b) social spontaneity, (c) cognitive spontaneity, (d) manifest joy, and (e) sense of humour.

Specifically, it was hypothesized a priori that five measured variances item variables (motor, social, mental, humor, and joy) were manifestations of a latent variable “playfulness.”

The CPS instrument in this study required teachers to rate young children's 'playfulness' across the five point scale. They conclude:

The results of the present study supported the construct validity of the CPS proposed by Barnett (1991), encouraging educators to use it as one useful tool in the comprehensive assessment of children’s play behavior.

The authors touch on playfulness as an internal condition, but the study is based on observed behaviour.

Does this affect the possibility of authenticity in considering playfulness?

What about freedom?

What about shared playfulness?

Playfulness in blogosphere...

There was little to work with from wikipedia on playfulness. What happens when I look to the blogosphere and see who has playfulness listed as one of their interests - as I have.

There are two other bloggers out there:

Paschal Baute is a pastor and psychologist who describes himself with:

I love empowering people by building bridges between psychology, science and the Wisdom traditions.

He has numerous blogs, many of which are related to spirituality - particularly with, but not limited to, a Christian perspective.

The other playful blogger out there is Wo.andeRan whose blog and website also show an intense interest in spirituality, although a little more alternative than Pashal.

What might be made of this, the three of us, in the blogosphere - all professing an interest in playfulness. Clearly the others have a deeper respect for playfulness than is often encountered.

Possibly playfulness can be a place where the sublime meets (or is) the ridiculous... hmmm...

In reference to Wikipedia...

In my short life of blogging I have linked to Wikipedia several times to help illustrate terms I have used. Just about every time it has been quite useful. How useful it is for freedom and playfulness?

Freedom refers, in a very general sense, to the state of being free (i.e. unrestricted, unconfined or unfettered). Also, liberation from restraint or from the power of another: independence.

Fair enough, here we find lots of examples of how the word freedom is used, but not much on how we can be free. I am delving into what enables us to be free to learn. This has a depth that is not explored in Wikipedia. To have the freedom to learn people seem to need to be distanced from those parts of being that constrain, and be aware of those that empower. What is constraining and what is empowering is contextual. Context, in this case, is shared and particular; the pasts, presents and futures brought to the learning.

That being-in-the-world thing appears to be creeping in again.

Playfulness is a little easier - there was no direct hit. There was only one hit of 'high relevancy' though: Playful Little Audrey coming in at 100%.

I guess that means you can call me Audrey now - oh well...

Being with playfulness...

Let us throw around a couple of quotes from 'Being and Time' and question playfulness and freedom in light of them:

Thus we must keep in mind that the expression 'phenomenon' signifies that which shows itself in itself, the manifest (p.51)

There appears to be great value in considering 'freedom' and 'playfulness' as phenomena in this sense. Where does this lead us? What do we lose by considering them this way?

The phenomenology of Dasein is a hermeneutic in the primordial signification of the word, where it designates this business of interpreting (p. 62)

Dasein is an entity which, in its very being, comports itself understandingly towards that being. In saying this, we are calling attention to the formal concept of existence. (p.79)

Not until we understand Dasein's Being-in-the-world as an essential sturcture of Dasein can we have any insight into Dasein's existential spatiality. (p. 82)

How does Dasein's being-in-the-world relate to playfulness?
How does Dasein's being-in-the-world relate to freedom?
Do playfulness and freedom have their own existential spatialities?

The inconnections between these seem strong and I wish to inquire into shared, yet individual, playfulness and freedom to learn.

Is one practical implication that participants in my inquiry need to have a deep sense of being-in-the-inquiry?

I am glad the next section I am grappling with is on being-in-the-world!

Reflection and direction with a blog...

Ulises Ali Mejias has posted something interesting:

In this post, I employ the rubric proposed by Boote & Beile (2005) to determine whether blogging can be considered a form of literature review. I also make some suggestions for how blogging may be incorporated formally into the research and writing activities of some doctoral students, although it certainly might not be useful to others. I am not suggesting that this single post is my literature review; I am merely providing a map that outlines how my blogging during the past years constitutes a form of ongoing literature review

Even though a 'literature review' is not part of my thinking I feel that his arguments are analogous to the application for candidacy that I have to submit by the end of the year. It is also worth having a look at the comments people have made in response to his ideas.

While this blog is useful for me, guidance from Kathy Sierra is very welcome on what may be in it for other people in this is a potentially very public forum. She gives us a Crash Course in Learning Theory and blogs.

Providing a balance...

I was just looking at a summary by Ian Jukes on Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind. According to Ian this book focuses on what Daniel percieves to be the shift from the 'Information Age' to the 'Conceptual Age' and:

More specifically, he suggests we work toward developing in ourselves (and I hope by implication, our students), six right brain “senses,” to complement our left-brain, analytic skills. He suggests we will need realize the value of:

1. Not just function, but also DESIGN
2. Not just argument, but also STORY.
3. Not just focus, but also SYMPHONY.
4. Not just logic, but also EMPATHY.
5. Not just seriousness, but also PLAY.
6. Not just accumulation, but also MEANING.

______________________________________

It is interesting the separation of these into 'left' and 'right' brain - does that sit easily with moving into the 'Conceptual Age'?

Here play appears to be 'locked' out of the eleven elements listed - where does play fit?

I suspect play is more significant than this and the book is not quite as simplistic as portrayed here.

I have to start somewhere...

I am reading, with the help of some people, Heidegger's Being and Time as I am interested in what it is to be free and be playful. His Dasein appears to require a playfulness and freedom within being to consider being itself.

I am pursuing this philosophical aspect while exploring examples of the use of the word freedom and playfulness and their associated words.

Ockham's Razor recently had Prof. Mark Dodgon speaking on the Language of Inovation. One of the things he said was:

...firms play around with innovation the whole time, and workplaces where people are enjoying their work, encouraging that close relation of play, fun, are the most productive and creative organisations around.

Do we 'play around' the whole time? Mark's book Think, Play, Do : Innovation, Technology, and Organization looks interesting enough for me to keep an eye out for his name elsewhere.