He makes the point that human beings are not so much governed by rules in
action as they make and break them in human action, somewhat along the lines
that Jay suggested. I think Jay's point that many of the rules that we
reference, make up, or change are intermediate ones is an important one here.
It is in the application or "referencing" that much of the work of rules
gets done in action.
I suspect that the larger cultural rules are ones that we tend more to
attempt to "break" in human action (whether in play-activity or other
activity-types) in the form of resistance. Unless we are engaged in what the
literary analyst Kenneth Burke might called some kind of "piety," where we
are attempting to be as faithful and "following" of a set of larger rules as
possible not just through some local action sequence, but through linked
social practices that make up some cultural, professional, or other identity
for us.
Both resistance and piety to me are larger orientations to rules. In many
cultures, there are symbolic "play" figures for resistance as well--such as
the coyote and the Heyokah in the Native American Southwest. In Tibetan
Buddhism, these figures embody "crazy wisdom," meaning that they
"treat-as-play" many human activities and intentionally break
expectations/rules, with the intent of promoting the spiritual development of
the ones with whom they are playing. To encounter "coyote medicine" means to
not be able to predict what will follow: all rules are out the door. One
must take a stance of _this is play_ in order to maintain balance.
Perhaps there are other larger play frames, or perhaps this is just one of
the orientations Jay is speaking of toward play-activity?
Bill Penuel
______________________________
PreventionInventions
PO Box 40692
Nashville, TN 37204
(615) 297-5923