From: gavand01@ULKYVX.BITNET
Subject: Re: Virtuality as a system of actions
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 05:32:52 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Oct7.053252.11816@vlsi.louisville.edu>
Organization: University of Louisville


In article <1991Oct5.174545.12427@milton.u.washington.edu>, cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Bob Jacobson) writes:

>A difficulty with using prior media of communication (eg., theatre or film)
>as a theoretical model for VR is that the "theory" underlying these earlier
>forms is as muddled as the theory claimed as a foundation for VR.

There are several schools of thought surrounding each medium, so I don't really
know what you mean about their being muddled.

As my long posting (article 2017) said, "theory" in the strict mathematical
sense is a bad word to use here.  And my postings attempt to direct readers to
look at their own *premises*, which I submit must be done if there is ever
going to any real "theory" of human communication regardless of its medium.
Whether VR or anything else, all media have one consistent component, the
human.  The nature of the VR interface makes the issues of human perception
more central and demanding of a solution than previous media.

It is in human perception that I seek foundations, not art or other media; but
those areas are sorely neglected and have much to offer if they ever get
serious treatment beyond metaphorical, lay categories.  To put
the matter in simplistic gloss terms, our left brain culture has undervalued
right brain modes for so long, that it was really only since the 1970s that
scientific researchers considered the right hemisphere as something more than
"dumb" and "unconscious."  And the Arts still are not taken seriously, except
by right brain people who often cannot be left brain rigorous; and left brain
rigorous types assume there is nothing to know about the Arts except the
knowledge they have of it by acquaintance.  Still, there is a solid history of
work in the area that plugs into sensory psychology, neurophysiology, and
cognitive psychology research.  You just have to weed through the chafe.

The implications are that assumptions that seem so matter-of-factly apparent
are wrong.  But those assumptions remain invisible, because they are so matter
of fact.

Has it occurred to you that what you hear me saying is not what I have been
saying?  "Would it have been worth it, after all/ If, pulling her shawl over
her shoulder/ Would say, 'That isn't what I meant, isn't what I meant at all'"
--T.S. Eliot

>"Whatworks" is still the rule of thumb in the other arts, as it may well prove
>to be for VR:  empirical, trial-and-error methods of discovery will prevail
>until some bigger picture is formed and expounded -- which may yet be
>incomplete and contentious.  It's the way of the world.

Yes, it is the way of the world.  But underlying "what works" are elements of
cognitive and material construction that the left brain never can, perhaps
never will handle well.  But what about those trial and error methods?  Which
methods, which trials, will get the attention?  How are the choices made?
History of discovery shows that the novel trial, discounted in the past, proves
to accomplish the break through?

Any bigger picture gets ignored and remains contentious.  The dynamics that
govern how it all plays out does not follow rational models.  How to proceed
always becomes incredibly contentious.  People restrict categories of what
they consider is relevant to listen to.

>As an ardent proponent of design methods and skills for virtual environments,
>I am still left somewhat adrift by what passes for contemporary communica-
>tion theory.

Amen.  I too am an ardent proponent of design methods and skills for virtual
environments.  In article 2024 you distinguished between "designers of systems"
and "designers of worlds."  I assume you mean, by the first, the makers of the
tools, and by the second, the wielders of the tools.  I stand somewhere in
between.  There, you raised the question how the two groups should work
together, if they should.  You ask how a synthesis might be achieved.  And you
mentioned that there is infrequent systematic discussion between the two groups
of what is needed technologically.

I think those questions pertain here.  Groups with different vocabularies and
different needs usually discount each other too quickly.  And one group doesn't
want to stretch beyond their own expertise to bridge a gap.  But these are
moral questions of choice, and those seem SO out of place in research.  So
everyone befuddles along.

I too am still left adrift by what passes for contemporary communication
theory (again, that isn't just one thing).  I am involved with specific
patterened elements in light, motion, and sound as primary constituents by
which the cortex projects virtual kinetic volume, virtual tactual space made
visible, virtual characteristic rhythmic functional patterns which constitute
cultural identities, virtual time, virtual history, virtual futures, etc.
I am not talking theory; I am talking about opportunity to give trial and error
a chance!

Gary Van Den Heuvel
University of Louisville