<html>
<body>
At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Friday 28 December 2007
17:43, nvitamore@austin.rr.com wrote:<br>
> How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship
to<br>
> progress and change within the context of perception and its<br>
> transformation?<br><br>
Wow. What an amazing question with such a detailed set of
options. Such <br>
rigorous thinking and precision of expression are becoming increasingly
rare <br>
on chat lists. Thank you!<br><br>
My personal interests go toward reframing the role of risk. But
that is not <br>
to imply what other people or organization should do. That's just
what I <br>
think is most important, interesting, and most neglected by many
futurists. <br>
I see this as making progress toward workable solutions.<br><br>
The other options seem more toward promotion of existing solutions more
than <br>
contributing to new solutions. I think reframing innovation to
recreate the <br>
familiar is a way to educate people on existing solutions. I think
reframing <br>
innovation to shake up creative activity improves consumer demand for
future <br>
solutions. And, I think reframing conceptual innovation enables the
<br>
consumers to utilize the new solutions better.<br><br>
So, obviously, my viewpoint is skewed by my profession. And these
are very <br>
complex questions, so I may not be understanding all the meanings and
<br>
ramifications of your presented options. But I see the first option
as being <br>
aspects of pre-innovation development, while the other options are
aspects of <br>
post-innovation marketing.</blockquote><br>
Thank you Harvey, good point. This is a difficult area because
reframining something requires knowing everything about it in order to be
able to find loopholes. Alternatively, dealing with risk offers, as
you say, may offer areas to explore.<br><br>
Futurists usually don't engage in areas of human consciousness and human
perception. In fact, I don't think I have ever read a post on the
Association for Professional Futurists email list that had anything to do
with same. Since consciousness and human perception are the topics
of interest in the domains of media arts, cognitive/neural sciences,
psychology, and AI and AGI, as well as nano-neuromacrosensing, this is
the environment to start digging around for relationships between
innovation in relation to risk and human consciousness and
perception.<br><br>
Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in
motion. But if risk is the p<font size=2>robability that something
will cause injury or harm</font>, it is not the correct concept. I
would not dare to enter an environment that probably will cause me
harm. On the other hand, I would enter an environment that could
cause me harm if I was not aware of dangers. So, I would opt for
the possibility of injury or harm rather than probably of injury or
harm.<br><br>
Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of observing
an environment for its potential and possible injury or harm rather than
assuming that the probability of harm will ensue.<br><br>
What do you think?<br><br>
Natasha<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<dl>
<dd><font size=2><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Natasha
</a><a href="http://www.natasha.cc/">Vita-More</a> </font>
<dd>PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty
of Technology
<dd><font size=2>School of Computing, Communications and
Electronics</font>
<dd><i>Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts</i> <br><br>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><i>If you draw a circle in the
sand and study only what's inside the circle, then that is a
closed-system perspective. If you study what is inside the circle and
everything outside the circle, then that is an open system perspective. -
</i>Buckminster Fuller</font>
</dl></body>
</html>