Richard C. Holloway wrote:
> Walter G. Prevalnig wrote:
>
> > I suggest that a change of language would help to change the thinking. If
> > we were to talk about "intrinsic" as motivation and "extrinsic" as
> > incentives or incitement , things fall into place nicely.
>
> Interesting thoughts. I guess, I've almost always considered external
> attempts to motivate me as "manipulation, control, intimidation, coercion,
> management." Information is meaningless until I attach values and mental
> models to it. Information only motivates me internally--for instance, if
> I see someone running down the street with a weapon (gun), I now have
> information. Depending on my training, situation, mental models, etc., I
> will respond a certain way.
Doc, Morty, Walter and list,
A few years ago I collaborated with the computer sculpter Jack A. Kruger,
on an opera that created an interactive lighting between the heat of the
audience and the lighting of the opera. We also explored the possibility
of an interaction based upon electrostatic/chemical patterning that
changed within the room based upon the audience's emotional state. He had
figured out how to do it but the cost made us resort to the more simple
computer projections based upon the timing of the musical input. My
point, is that the technology, like with Bill Gate's Mansion; is there.
I believe the issue of this thread, is whether the consciousness of the
observer is up to the interaction. This means that you may be subliminally
acted upon without having any knowledge of the stimuli that you are
unconsciously observing. The future cable box that has a camera that
never turns off, the continuous running non-conscious visual band running
at the bottom of the screen are but two future ways that this input of
external stimulation will decide your place in the market and choose the
TV ads targeted for your educational class and affluence. Will you
notice? Even today people rarely notice the discontinuity between the
mouths of the TV actors and the sounds of the voices. Americans are
famous, in the anthropological literature, for their lack of attention to
rhythm, i.e., patterns in time.
My point in all of this is that you have between four and seven thought
streams that you can consciously follow given the literary educational
focus that is taught in most world societies. That is the basis of most
Western musical composition and the root of the Fugue. As a baby you
didn't have the ability to focus but you took in thousands of stimuli at
once and responded by dancing it in your consciousness. Today most people
turn off the TV when they walk into the room and want to talk assuming
that you cannot pay attention if your focus is split. That is only two
streams. How do you hope to make the decisions that you are contemplating
given the limited scope of today's intellectual and educational tools? We
are still arguing over the three Rs and believe that Math is a substitute
for the training of the Somatic perceptual tools. It isn't and until we
decide to work that out IMHO this thread is a pie in the sky. Of course
we could build a machine to eleminate all but one of the threads in the
room. Then every home would be like the old "Get Smart" TV Spy series
isolation bubble.
Just a few thoughts, sorry if I rambled,
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Chamber Opera of New York, Inc.
mcore@idt.net
--Ray Evans Harrell <mcore@IDT.NET>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>