Are We Having Fun Yet? What's at Play with Play.

     I love watching kids be kids.  And when I say that, I mean watching them in real life and not on some monitor or screen.  But when kids are kids, they seem to have more and more trouble divorcing anything really worthwhile from that monitor or screen.  As simply as I can state it:  A generation is now growing whose concept of reality and its worth is engulfed in visual stimulation.  Why bother with something that doesn't relate to visual media?--they might assume.

     This hit me (almost literally) as I was dodging some pre-teen boys during a recent stroll around the park.  But no worries.  It was a breath of fresh air to witness their enthusiasm for something that:  A. didn't have to be "booted up," B. didn't require a remote control and negotiations on who could use it, and C. was a product of their own intelligence, creativity, and teamwork.  You see, the boys had built a strange but admirable "go-cart" of sorts out of what looked like an old car seat and a skateboard.  One at a time could sit on it and ride while the others pushed.  Doing so, of course, would lead to an eventual wipeout, and they almost wiped me out along with them, but that's O.K.  I was impressed that the thing actually worked and that they were engaged a kind of play that is more "raw," simple, and hands on. 

     Yes, I now have to come to the cliche you're expecting at this point and say that they were playing like we used to when we were kids.  But my reflections of fashioning similar contraptions and engaging in the kind of play we did in Scott Underwood's backyard in the 1970s suddenly got jostled out of my head when I heard something shouted out by one of those boys right after he'd wiped out on the "go-cart."  No, he wasn't screaming out from injury.  It was something perhaps worse.  I heard him yell, "I wish I could put this on YouTube!" 

     Well, there you have it.  I know that all of us, young and old, want to record memories on video or picture--"to capture those Kodak moments."  Even though I wanted to use that as a teaching opportunity for the kid, I instead stayed within my propensity, which is to mind my own business, assuming that kids are as interested in my wisdom as much as I was interested in listening to grownups when I was their age.  Assuming (correctly or incorrectly) that you also would be tempted to admonish the kid, what would you want to tell him?  It just seemed like it wasn't enough that he was having fun; he wasn't having fun in quite the right way, with quite the right mindset.

     Usually one's blog or commentary stops at this point to insert statistics proving how too much TV and computer time has diminished physical playtime to the great detriment to our youth.  For such stats, I'll divert to the important efforts of others--from Michelle Obama to one of several relevant blogs by Albert Mohler.  But we're now beyond needing such confirmation.  The effects of a media-saturated culture on children has been more than adequately proven with authority, no?

     I suppose what it gets down to is that to enjoy moments in life to the fullest, we have to learn actually to enjoy "the real moment itself."  Child's play, at its best, brings moments of rapture.  They are usually too few and far between, and they don't last nearly long enough.  That's why one of the first things they learn to demand is, "Again!" I wanted to tell the boys not to think about putting their fun on YouTube, no matter how much viewers, like family and friends, might enjoy watching the spectacle.

     There really are amazing things that exist far beyond the bounds of visual communication and the chronicles by camera--no matter the skill of any picture taker.  Among these amazing things is child's play.  Instead of pictures, its enchantment can only reside most powerfully in the subjective experience of the boy or girl experiencing it.  Second best is the memory of it, if it can be recalled at all.  The Peter Pan in us seems to fly away.  I suppose that once we get so old that we can't recall the ecstasy, all we can do is unplug our silly gadgets and really just play again . . . somehow.
     Perhaps the next day I visit that park, I'll be riding their crazy looking go-cart and try to avoid smashing into them.  The boys will then smile at me.  Maybe they'll learn a lesson that quickly passes their eyes and reaches their character.

"Whether Aliens Exist." What Kind of Question is That?

     You're probably familiar with Stephen Hawking.  If not, quit watching so much ESPN (men!) or Glee (women!).  He's the most influential scientist in the world and an amazing individual.  He's a guy often seen on the more nerdy TV shows; a quadriplegic whose motor neuron disease forces him to use his unique, recognizable "computer voice" that he creates by slight finger movements.

     Hawking has recently stated that, in all probability, there is life outside of earth, including advanced life forms.  According to this TimesOnline article, "Hawking’s logic on aliens is, for him, unusually simple. The universe, he points out, has 100 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only planet where life has evolved."  Hawking says, "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. . . The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."

     Unlike most people who believe in advanced aliens, he is leery of humans trying to contact them.  Doing so might lead to a situation that would not necessarily be a "win-win"--much in the way that Columbus's discovery of the New World didn't exactly work out well for Native Americans.  (Or, I would add, it might end up like the TV show V or a gazillion [mostly "B"] movies since the 1950s!)
     Though he might not use the term, Hawking's thinking is influenced by The Copernican Principle.  This principle is basically an assumption that, since Earth sits in such an inconspicuous place in such a vast universe, we should not think that our planet or species have any real significance in the grand scheme of things.  The principle also, of course, is grounded in strong skepticism of the existence of a Creator or Intelligence behind the universe.  If God does or ever did exist, he's irrelevant to proper scientific methodology.  This thinking was summed up decades ago by Hawking's predecessor as science's spokesman to us idiots, Carl Sagan.  "The cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be."  Therefore, said Sagan, the earth is nothing more than a "mote of dust."  Wow!  As we used to say back in my teenage days, That's a real buzz-kill, man!  (But before you jump off the bridge, be aware that The Copernican Principle has been keenly answered by some brave renegade scientists who actually think we have good reason to hop out of bed, sing a song, and dance into our sneakers every day after all!  Read here.)
     Hawking's probabilistic conclusion that life must exist elsewhere in the universe seems typical for someone who is a "scientific naturalist."  He, like most scientists, will only think of nature in terms of measurable physics, probabilities, mathematics, etc.  If there were to be any "mind" behind the mere physical workings of nature, the "mind" must be conceptually divorced from truly scientific conclusions or predictions. 
     What a pity.  This forces one to look at the cosmos with one's head tilted completely the wrong way.  What if the cosmos is something more than a rapidly expanding system of particles and chance, carrying on mindlessly since the big bang?  What if it is actually an immeasurable, continually unfolding canvass whose ultimate purpose is to "show off" the glory and power of its Creator?  And what if the energy involved in the creation of a supernova light years away actually does operate with us mere earthlings in mind -- with implications in physics that pertain to our actual existence? 
     Contrary to what many scientists have assumed, thinking of the universe in this better way is not a science-stopper.  It actually magnifies our passion for measurable, immeasurable, and sometimes purely aesthetic beholdings of creation.  Beyond just dragging ourselves out of bed, this viewpoint gives scientific discovery unlimited purpose and potential. 
     When we take in more and more knowledge of nature as a quest to discover God's handiwork, we draw (usually still limited) conclusions that simply overwhelm our souls and take our breath away--from glory to glory.  Should Stephen Hawking ever begin to use his genius for this kind of approach, there will arise questions even more profound than whether life could exist elsewhere--be it simple or complex.  Even the questions of ET existence would then become rudimentary distractions.  Imagine that!

-----
FYI: You might want to catch Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking, now airing on the Discovery Channel.