Rhythm in Communication LO23891

From: Bruno Martins Soares (bmartins.soares@mail.EUnet.pt)
Date: 02/04/00


Replying to LO23535 --

Fellow learners,

This topic has had many important and valuable contributions, but at this
precise point I feel the need to reformulate my goals towards this
discussion. I'm starting to lose sight of solid ground and that makes it
pointless to continue without renewing lines of thought.

Maybe some of you think this discussion is academic and too abstract. Yet,
I think that rhythm is fundamental in life, and, in this case, in
communication. When training someone, it is wasteful and counter
productive to present information at a rate beyond the learning rhythm of
the trainee. As well, when we're talking to someone, if there is not
harmony in the rhythms of information one conveys, this information will
be unintelligible. Thus the convention of each of us taking our turns to
talk and listen. We can observe in others and ourselves what happens when
the reality strikes us at a rhythm we cannot grasp. We go into shock. We
freeze or fail to perform. The brain remains incapable of processing and
of issuing coherent responses. Studying the ways rhythm works can help, in
my opinion, to develop better solutions to some of these problems.

At this point, this is more or less how the concept is structured in my
mind:

Entropy Production is the responsible process creating movement in the
Universe (Assumption 1). Patterns in this movement are called Rhythm
(Definition 1).

These patterns are created by the transference of energy from rejectors to
attractors (Assumption 2).

These are not equal in strength(Assumption 3), so the movement is not
homogeneous, or Rhythm would be nil (Thesis 1).

Yet, unless in extreme very unlikely conditions, patterns emerge (Thesis
2). Thus, even a broken watch is on time twice a day. At some point in
time, equal strength or equal direction transferences of energy
(Assumption 4) occur.

According to Entropy Production, these transferences can be emergences or
imergences (Assumption 5).

How the essentialities of the movement relate to one another in a given
set defines the strength and direction of rejectors and attractors, thus,
the pattern of emergences and imergences (Assumption 6).

Thus, Rhythm is a pattern of relationships of essentialities (Thesis 3).

When we talked about still photographs, we were trying to understand how
form and content made sense in all this. At made a good effort to show us
how the movement is re-constructed in our heads so that even in a still
photograph of someone falling from a chair, we can feel it, imagine it.
Yet, I think you missed my point, At, or I missed yours.

A still photograph is a form with no rhythm in it self (Leo says form is
the HOW, I think it is the WHAT; but still believe there's a big
misunderstanding in the air).

The Rhythm of the photograph is in the content. The content, projecting a
movement, shows a clear attractor (the ground) and a clear rejector (the
chair). My question is: is it not that our feeling of the rhythm of the
photograph, or of the movement the photograph projects, comes from our
identification of this attractor and this rejector?(Question 1)

Thus, another hypothesis: sometimes we are able to control the rhythm of
the form and not the rhythm of the content (as in this photograph).
Sometimes, we can control both ( as in the photograph of a bowl of fruit).
Question: can we control the rhythm of content without controling the
rhythm of form? Can anyone think of an example?(Question 2)

Does it make sense?(Question 3)

Abrašos,
Bruno

-- 

"Bruno Martins Soares" <bmartins.soares@mail.EUnet.pt>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>


"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.