Is it fair to say that play is a means of escape from reality?

What about professional athletes? They are making quite a bit of profit from their sports. Does this mean that what they are doing is not play? I guess this goes back to the author's previously established idea that play is completely voluntary. Once it becomes a form of work, I suppose, it can no longer be called play.

a popular ancient Roman winter festival honoring the god Saturn.

What are these "savage societies"? What are these "tribes" he is referring to?

Perhaps this is why being a part of a team is such a unique experience. You may not otherwise have anything in common with a teammate, and outside of the sport you may never have crossed paths or become friends, but because you were on the same team, there is a unique bond formed that never really disappears.

The spoil sport rejects the rules and thus rejects the game itself. The cheater rejects the rules but still continues to take part in the game-world.

The idea that the tension element confers a kind of ethical aspect to play is one that I agree with; as the author says, when a game is full of tension, the players character is revealed

I didn't understand what this meant so I looked it up; apparently "warp and woof" refers to the fundamental components of weaving, and as an idiom it refers to the "essential foundation or base" of a structure. So, basically what he's saying is that repetition and alternation are essential components on which play is built.

I am curious to learn more about this link between play and the "sacred sphere." I do understand how the author tied the origins of ritual to play, but how exactly do they connect now? Would praying or going to ones place of worship for service be considered a form of play?

I like that the author is taking time to emphasize that play and non-seriousness cannot be conflated.

Interesting. Sometimes I am tired and don't feel like going to basketball practice or training. But I do go, because I feel like I have to, and in general I do like the sport, just not all the time. According to this argument, on the when I don't feel like going, I am not actually playing?

This thought makes me think of the way watching a dog or another animal run around highlights its muscles and athleticism. I've never thought about it this way, but physical play does, in a way, display the body in it's most active and beautiful form.

I would argue that it can have moral function- think back to the gambler. I would consider gambling to be both a form of play and, when out of control, a kind of vice.

This makes me think about our discussion in our first class; when considering what my favorite game is, I thought about the fact that I play a sport (basketball) but then hesitated to name that as a game. It is a game, of course, but after the years long experience I've had in training for the sport and competing very seriously, calling it a "game" feels in some ways very wrong. To me, it is more than a game; there are instances where some days it feels like work! With this in mind, can it still be considered a form of play?

from the perspective of play

I would say religion would also fit in this category (as it has roots in what the author is calling myth and ritual)

Interesting take- I never considered how language might have its basis in play. Now that I think about it though, the earliest forms of language were pictures-- in a sense, people were using their imaginations to create their own visual representations of what they saw in the world around them. Don't we consider a child scribbling or doodling in a coloring book to be a form of play? I suppose, then, that the beginning of language formation could be viewed this way as well.

I think what the author is trying to say is that in his examination of play, play itself will be the main subject and will not be viewed as some offshoot or secondary byproduct of another phenomenon

I love this thought. Play is one of the very few unequivocally universal concepts, just like love. I would go so far as to say every single person on this planet, regardless of where they are or what their life is like, has experienced play at some point in their life. When considering it from this perspective, play really is a unifying human experience.

These three questions happen to contain three very different examples of play that show us a wide range from harmless and innocent to extremely harmful and maladaptive. A baby enjoying a game is both normal and great for her positive development, but the gambler who is "losing himself" in his passion is quite literally ruining his life. It's interesting how different forms of play can have very different effects on the player's life

I wonder: does the level of sophistication of a species' play correspond with the species level of intelligence? It seems like this is the case. After all, both puppies and human toddlers can enjoy chasing a ball or playing tug of war, but the toddler can go beyond that and play complex games of pretend, where the puppies do not have that creative capacity

Although its a pleasant sentiment, I agree that calling all human activity "play" is something of a lazy take. Work is a major component of human life, and most of us do some form of work every day. Can work of any kind ever qualify as play?

Apparently "homo sapien" is Latin for "wise man." Very interesting; I never knew that before.