Action is the Highest Form of Thought/My Website

My 2003 e-book of Pause and Effect doesn’t have the text “Action is the highest form of thought”. I searched the pages before and after 212 for this text by reading, and searched again using the search engine provided by the e-book without success, so assume this edition (2003) must differ from previous editions, at least where this text is concerned.

I copied the text from Page 212 for potential readers of this blog so you can compare and hopefully comment on variation between my text and yours. Page 212 in my book is the beginning of Chapter 4.1, Introduction, and states, “The success of a project isn't measured by numbers but by communication and emotional impact. Finally, interactive narrative, like any other form of narrative, is something that will fall within subjective purview and emotional borders. This is to say that, like graphic design or music composition, an interactive narrative is something that will resonate with a reader only if that reader has established some relationship with the narrative. This is the responsibility of the author first and the reader second. This isn’t a new relationship. Some kinds of music, such as classical forms that Bach composed, certainly have formula and structure that can be clearly communicated once understood. However, it’s the specific implementation and whether it moves the listener that is the final factor of its success. This is not only harder to understand and communicate, but for some people, it’s impossible to do in the first place."

So, without knowing the complete context of our statement, I can argue against it from a biologist’s perspective using the example of the reflex arc. A reflex action, the same type you have when the doctor taps your knee with his little hammer, totally bypasses any thought processes. The impulse goes directly from the sensory nerves to the spinal column without ever getting to the brain to ponder possibilities such as “is this pan with boiling water in it that I’m now touching hot?”

I'm sure Meadows wasn’t including reflex actions when making the statement, but it does present an obvious exception to what appears to be a rule according to Meadows. Reflex actions also remind me of knee-jerk reactions we sometimes have to others, which don’t often appear to have included higher thought processes.

I’m thinking that choosing not to act is an action that, in many cases, may prove to have been the wisest decision, or highest thought form. In this case, the action will be more thinking. (Who’s on first?)

I'm also thinking that action may be the result of thinking, and not necessarily the highest form. My thoughts may lead me to the action of watering my hanging plants on my 10th story balcony by standing in my rolling desk chair... and lead me to end up winning the Darwin Award before I reproduce...not very high level thinking, but dramatic results from acting.

I see thinking and action as a feedback loop. We think then we act, and based on the results or feedback, we think some more (or not), and then we act again. Supposedly insanity is continually repeating the same action and expecting a different result, but what does this have to do with websites?

So without further ado, I will try to address the statement from the writer’s and reader’s perspective, counting the comments above as this student’s perspective.

The writer will want the user to act by staying on the website. To do this, the writer must know the audience well before designing the website, and if the website doesn’t produce the writer’s desired action, the writer will have to think and act again to produce a website that elicits the desired action on the part of the reader.

The reader’s perspective could include looking for certain elements on the website that the writer’s “acts” in creating the website included, like asking website users to enter their email address twice when commenting (unlike whitehouse.gov), or allowing for responses to their “blog”. Not including these kinds of mechanisms in the “act” of creating a website could make the reader believe that whitehouse.org is faking the attempt to increase democracy. The reader may then act by never visiting the website again, or may act by sneering at it in blog posts.

Thought is action, but action doesn’t always include higher level thinking or any thinking. Still, the objective for websites is to tickle the readers’s fancy and keep readers on your website until your purpose as the writer is accomplished.

So, “know thyself”, but also, “know thy audience!”

My question for this week is, after looking at the photo on my homepage, what are your first impressions? I'm thinking something is wrong with the text on the photo. I'm also thinking that I should not fade out the human brain section sitting on the top of my desk, and should think about making it a mouseover link. It's located to the left of the fake plant, mostly under the breadcrumb "Student Research". I'm working in Adobe Photoshop CS3, using a slicing instrument to create sections that can be hyperlinked. I'm finding I can't get the border=0 between sections and have white lines in sliced photos when put back together unless I limit slices to 1, therefore sections to 2. Anyone?

And please comment on the website. I'm operating under TTU Website Template Tier 5, so have limited menu design options, with left side controllable, and upper selection standardized for all TTU Templates (so I left it off).

http://www.ciser.ttu.edu/hhmi/alumni/featured.aspx

Slainte’,

Melody