People can often name instances when their bodies communicate to them, whether it be a panic attack brought on by stress, a “gut” reaction to a racist comment, an upset stomach while contemplating complaining to a teacher or boss, or being drained and exhausted from an intense encounter. So why do people tend to ignore the body as a site for learning? This may be a result of the Western privileging of mind over body. The focus of learning and education is “a change in a mental state, from one of ignorance, to one of knowledge…” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 190)
For this Discussion, review this week’s readings, specifically the article “Learning Through the Body” by Tammy J. Freiler. Also, review the ideas presented in this week’s video by Dr. Keen.
BY DAY 3
Post by Day 3 a response to the following questions:
What do you think is the value of somatic learning? To what extent do somatic learning experiences influence adult learning? Justify your opinion.
Have you experienced spiritual knowing? What were the circumstances? How did it feel? What did you learn or know as a result? If you have not experienced spiritual learning, what have you heard or read about this topic? What did you learn?
What role do you think spirituality and somatic knowing should play in adult learning? Do you believe that these alternative forms of knowing should be encouraged in adult education settings? Explain.
th bots and AI, human curators firstly create objectives to inform software configuration that creates specific experiences. Algorithmic language is then created and replicated; this intra-action initially occurs between human actors with digital software through code; as a language that speaks with digital entities first within intangible spaces. Therefore, through algorithms, the digital software could be considered as the custodian and audience, in being the primary receiver of this content through this received information. Consequently, we as humans are the end users to receive and share this experience, but not the primary audience Even though digital entities are perceived to form the intermediary between ‘real’ human connections; they are nonetheless first to receive the content. This serves to reverse McLuhan’s arguably anthropocentric view of how technology is an expansion from the human. This can be asserted in that within digital museum spaces, humans can be seen as extensions from when the content is disseminated by digital entities, as illustrated above. By applying non-human centric ideology within the above examples, it could be reasoned that digital entities can be considered less as an intermediary to communicate and disseminate collections. Instead however, perceived as crucial producers and participants with memory and agency over its provision; the ability to generate algorithms of their own accord whilst interacting infinitely across space and time within the digital space. Consequently in regard to how we consider human and non-human actors within digital museum spaces, a consideration has been taken into account of how these actors relate to one another. Timothy Morton has described how ‘speciesism and racism is deeply entwined and makes the concept of a person super expensive. Artificial Intelligence makes the person very cheap’. By applying this relationship to museology, we understand the value placed on AI and digital technologies could even out value placed on human and non-human actors within the museum. This could arguably change how museums ask and critically reflect on their audiences, participants and producers, in democratising and widening scope when museums consider whom museums are for. To springboard from the assertion that software can function as the primary audience within digital spaces, it is appropriate to then explore whom museums are for when digital entities can spatially expand and traverse between intangible and tangible spaces. High specification audio-visual and interactive installations are now ubiquitous within museum practice, whether this is the Big Picture Show [Appendix A] at Imperial War Museum North or 360 degree cinematic experiences, such as Hemisfèric at the Park of Arts and Sciences in Valencia. Using projection mapping and speakers, these digital spaces are able to produce to the most fluid and hybridized experiences within physical spaces. Light is an attractive object; drawing in humans and animals. A museum installation creates illusions and auras, arguably digitally expanding on Walter Benjamin’s concept of the object’s ‘aura’, but simultaneously flouts this, because of how audio-visual entities exist through duplicity. Light dances and sound bleeds to swell and consume spaces, these entities take collaborative ownership of surfaces and spaces by creating more illusory dimensional planes. Sound is a space-filling entity; this unique quality means it cannot be contained as easily. Therefore during the experience of working with sound in museums, it can take on the role of a unique mediator, in that its properties influence encounters with other exhibits. These potent shape shifters transform spaces into objects and objects into spaces to provide alternate ways the >GET ANSWER