the pesticide free village雅思答案
I've been working lately on a ludic theory of human nature. In
ca you haven't studied Latin in a while (perhaps not since
veral lifetimes ago), I hereby inform you that ludic means
playful. I'm calling my theory a ludic theory becau if I called
it a playful theory you wouldn't take it riously. (I'm trying
hard to ignore the fact that the only common English derivative of
建军节用英语怎么说ludic is ludicrous.)
Heaven take pity on tho few of us who try to take play
riously. It's hard to do. Play, by definition, is something that
is not rious. I'm sure that's part of the reason why most rious
scholars stay far away from the topic.
The great classic scholarly book on human play is entitled Homo
Ludens, which means literally Man the Player. It was written by
Johan Huizinga, a Dutch historian, in 1938. It's a wonderful book
and has inspired me greatly. But my own theory is quite different
from Huizinga's.
Huizinga stated clearly that his is a cultural theory of play,
matt dukenot a biological theory. My theory, in contrast, is fundamentally
biological, though it is also cultural, becau, in matters of
human behavior, biology and culture are inextricably entwined.
Another big difference is that Huizinga tended to equate play with
contest and to focus on agonistic, or competitive aspects of play,
while I hold that play is fundamentally noncompetitive. I can
understand how someone such as Huizinga, steeped in Western
cultural history, might view play primarily as contest. In my
theory, contest is a morphing of play with something that is clo
to the opposite of play--a drive to beat and dominate others. When
we combine the two opposites, play becomes more rious (and
thereby more acceptable to contemporary adults) and domination
becomes more playful--not entirely a bad thing, but not the same as
学习与评价答案pure play.
In the remaining paragraphs here, I prent a sketch of the
ludic theory. In subquent weekly posts I shall elaborate on
specific aspects of the theory, prenting evidence along the way.
miscreated
[Some of what I shall prent overlaps with ideas I published in a
recent article-- Play as a Foundation for Hunter-Gatherer Social
Existence, in The American Journal of Play, 1 (#4), 2009, pp
476-522.]
In most non-human mammals, play occurs almost entirely among the
young of the species and ems clearly to rve the function of
skill learning and practice. As I have noted in previous posts,
young mammals, in play, practice the very skills that they must
develop in order to make it into adulthood and to thrive andoutlet
reproduce. Predators practice predation, as when tiger clubs stalk
and pounce on bugs, wind-blown leaves, and each other. Prey animals
practice getting away from predators, as when zebra colts dodge and
dart in their playful frolicking and endless games of tag. Young
males of many species practice fighting, taking turns pinning one
another in their species-specific ways and getting out of pinned
positions. Young females of at least some species practice
nurturance, in playful care of young.
传达室We humans have inherited the basic youthful play characteristics
of our animal ancestors, but in the cour of our biological and
cultural evolution we have elaborated upon them and created new
functions. Playfulness in humans does not end when adulthood begins
and it rves many functions beyond the learning of
词根大全species-specific skills.
Social play in all animals requires that all tendencies toward
aggression and dominance be suppresd. This is especially true in
playful fighting, which is one of the most common forms of animal
baken
play. The fundamental difference between a play fight and a real
fight is that the former involves no intention to hurt, drive away,cjol
or dominate the other animal. A play fight between two young
animals can only occur if both are willing partners. Anything that
smacks of true aggression or tendency to dominate would cau the
threatened animal to run away, and the play, with all its fun and
身份证验证
opportunity for learning, would end. And so, in the cour of
natural lection, animals developed signals to let each other know
that their playful attacks are not real attacks, and they
developed, for purpos of play, lf-restraints and means of
