I think its important not to get too carried away inventing new terms as if they in themselves they are new ideas. I think we actually need to be careful about what we say which was the point of my original mail.

>In fact, in our work, we try to implement what we name an 
>interactional approach to emotion in human-machine interaction. 
 
This seems to be a simple tautology, a bit like a seasonal approach to seasons....
This is not to say there are not important things in your approach, however I'd suggest some need to be examined before they are accepted on face value, for instance the notion it
 
>3. Is non-reductionist
>4. Supports an expanded range of communication acts
 
is problematic. The very fact that you are using a limited set of data (which in itself is a form of abstraction) is reductionist in the sense that it is a limited form of communication within the system itself. I think this is one thing that artists using new tech have wither worked with or been frustrated by, life after all has a lot more bandwidth... for instance I'm sure if this were a face to face discussion a lot more would be being said by other means
 
>5. Focuses on people using systems to experience and understand emotions
 
the question here is how, does the system itself know the emotion of the user in such a way to facilitate it's understanding? Is this the high tech psychoanalyst approach again? Or simply something you feel you observe yourself in users?

>6. Designs systems that stimulate reflection on and awareness of affect
 
this might be slightly different, indeed it might be argued that this is no different from what a lot of people have pursued as artistic practice for many years...

...anyway one of the real issues I have follows on from this

>But my question was perhaps more to do with how our culture has 
>enforced a dualistic point of view for centuries and how this has, 
>perhaps, been internalised with our own understanding of our selves...
 
That that is too easy and glib a summation of the problem and it appears to be taken as a self evident truths. I think that the tendency towards dualism to which you refer has undoubtedly existed for many years (philosophically we can of trace this back to Socrates). However the reason why this has such a strong hold (and seems to have enjoyed a resurgence with the likes of Ascott et al) I would assert is down to the tendencies of human thought itself and not a matter of historical contingency; indeed for this reason the tendency may be internal rather than have become internalised. If you want to address this as a problem you need to understand the problem itself.... this is where such a fast summation of the problem leaves too great a gap.
 
>...so 
>strongly that anything the "measures" some aspect of your body is 
>something that we will immideately use to look at our bodies as 
>objects or machines? Is it possible to design something that bridges 
>that gap and makes people see themselves a wholes?
 
Paul raised a very important issue here which maybe we could spin out. However what I think you're actually doing here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is pointing to one of the things that most folk using bio sensors run into. That is that the first reaction to using these systems is usually to ask how do we use it ? This shouldn't be a surprise of course, it is implied by it being an interactive system. As such, the invocation of such a direct causality usually drives users towards attempting to use their body as an instrument to control the system, actually driving a wedge further between the very things you claim to be trying to bring together, this also demonstrates the tendencies which I've asserted as internal, indeed almost compulsively human. 
 
It is possible to devise systems that are complex and the interaction is a starting point (such as putting a stick into a stream to cause patterns in the flowing water) but the interaction needs to be so direct as to be understood immediately and the unfolding of events is what holds our attention. I think this is implied in what you're suggesting your work does, but I cannot see how the sensors fit into this, the events to which you refer seem to be something that would be contingent unless you apply the emotional mapping you referred to in your first mail... but which you seem to be denying in your second when you claim
 
>we are not tring to make machines that interpret
 
all the best
 
Mark


This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found