Actors

By "actors" I think that IAD means people in roles.

Brian's Notes

* Are all the boxes on stage left and right, actors?

> Interesting question. The idea of places being actors has puzzled me for years. Aboriginal worldview, absolutely. For clarity these are place holders that must be specified with local names for all scales used--ecological and political. That is why I call them props that must be selected and painted for the particular play and staging.

Each actor must come alive. Their role(s) must become clear. Their motives, sometimes conflicted, must be revealed. Their relationship to the the protagonist must be made clear, even when conflicted.

Each actor’s role(s) and position(s) relative to institutions, politics, and places should become clear.

Institutions are considered actors and their relationship to the protagonist’s world must be made clear, especially the proximity vs. remoteness, their common interests vs. private interests, and their ability to understand the protagonist situation—as determined by the protagonists.

* Does it make sense to anthropomorphize the boxes?

> Brian asks an interesting question about the usefulness of anthropomorphizing the “boxes” in the EIP sketch—ecological recursions, political recursions, institutions.

> Interesting question. I would like to hear what you have to say on this one since most of the boxes represent human institutions (or types of institutions) so "anthropomorphic" would be redundant. If you are referring to the ecologic object, then you have a great question that I struggle with.

> Considering my preferred variabizetion “aliveness” it is a great question. Abrigional societies certainly treated the biophysical world as equal to humans.