Occasionally, I’ll come up with an idea that seems so overwhelmingly useful, needed, or just plain interestingly fun, that I’ll begin to consider how I might implement it. When such an idea relates to the internet, I’ll oftentimes first implement it here at plexAV.com. That’s when I open the laptop, open the FTP client, open the text editor or the IDE, open the web browser, open a can of RedBull, and start to crawl ahead into the darkness of the unknown. The way is dimly illuminated; by the glow of the screen and my own sense of curiosity.

When I’m knee deep in PHP, Javascript, CSS, HTML, et al., there’s nothing that makes life easier than someone else who knows what they’re doing, doing the work for me. When such a person isn’t available, then I at least search to find a good tool to use. Note the distinction between a person and a tool. A person is obviously (at least to me) not like a tool in that a person ought not be ‘used.’ A person generally is due (and ought to expect) some form of compensation, whether that be cash, comestibles, housing, a new computer, etc., and one ought happily and generously provide such.

“Happily” in the proceeding refers to one’s motivation for paying a person. The measure of compensation ought not be based upon the difference between the amount or quality of a person’s work product and that achieved by oneself (perhaps aided by some tool), or another. Instead, compensation ought to reflect one’s appreciation for the creative time a person spends focusing on another’s ideas and acting to realize such.

The difference will seem insignificant to some, and fewer still may consider the foregoing an exercise in hyperbole. Yet I doubt that anyone so insensitive, so inured to the significance between these two motivations, would characterize the distinction as overstatement, intentionally exaggerated for effect.

To those that refuse to consider the foregoing and feel that reading this essay has been a waste of time, consider the following. The amount of creative time each of you has spent focused on these ideas is itself insignificant, and as such, you are fully compensated by the author’s present consideration.

To each of you considering the foregoing, please “comment” with your criticisms, clarifications, or questions. In keeping with the idea, I grant to anyone so “commenting”, a perpetual non-exclusive license in and to the copyright for the present essay.

Summum Bonum,

Kenneth Stein

Copyright 2008 Kenneth L. Stein

All Rights Reserved under U.S. Copyright Law
and all other applicable U.S. and foreign laws.

Beginning in about the 6th century and from the 3rd century BCE on, Israelites referred to god using the term elohim. Due in part to a growing belief that the divine name (YHWH) was too sacred to be uttered, it was replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai (”My Lord”), which was translated as Kyrios (”Lord”) in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. In ancient Greece, a woman’s dowry was given by her father or her kyrios to the husband and could be taken back if the marriage ended in divorce.

Every woman had kyrios or male guardian: when she was born it would be her father, and if he died, a male relative could take his place. After her marriage, her husband would become her kyrios. Any property or money that would be hers because of the death of a family member or through inheritance, became the property of her household, which was controlled by the kyrios.

There is no evidence from Athens that women were ever allowed to become kyrios. An Athenian woman could never have any real financial say in her life. Her dowry was in no legal sense her own, as it was given by her kyrios and she could not dispose of it herself. An Athenian woman could obtain a divorce, but only if her family and kyrios supported the decision, and in that case, the dowry had to be returned. Many men feared the possibility of divorce because the return of a dowry could bankrupt a family. Therefore, men may have treated their wives somewhat better than if there was no money to be considered. If the woman was young enough, her kyrios would use her dowry to marry her off again, and if not, the money was used for her future care.

Greek - kūrios, lord, master.

English - cu·ri·ous (kyr‘ē-us)

adj.

1. Eager to learn more
2. Unduly inquisitive; prying
3. Arousing interest because of novelty or strangeness
4. Archaic
   1. Accomplished with skill or ingenuity.
   2. Extremely careful; scrupulous.

[Middle English, from Old French curios, from Latin cūriōsus, careful, inquisitive, from cūra, care]

Given that the Greek ‘kurios’ referred to lord and master, one can conceptuialize how such meaning was embodied in the Latin, curiosus - careful, inquisitive and care. The master of the household exercised careful inquisitiveness while ensuring the care for those in his charge. In order to prosper, one must investigate beyond the borders defining that which one knows to be so.

The Latin cūra means -

1. concern, worry, anxiety, trouble, attention, care, pains, zeal;
2. cure, treatment, task/responsibility/post;
3. administration, supervision;
4. command

So, the Greek ‘kurios,’ which again means lord is related to being a curator, curious, care provider. At the same time, one finds that the Latin word for lord is dominus - owner, king, ruler, judge. Whereas the Greek perspective of ‘lord’ or ‘god’ is one of caretaker, the Romans ascribed the role of ruler. Of course one also finds that Latin uses dominus as a title for ecclesiastics, men of the church.

ec·cle·si·a (noun)

1. The political assembly of citizens of an ancient Greek state
2. A church or congregation

What was in Greece an assembly of citizens, became a church or congregation. The call of the body politic became the call of the body of christ. The political assembly in Greece was democratic in nature. The church took away the voices of those who might oppose and took up a dominant position to lord over, or dominate the populous. Did the church do this with the intention of caring for and curing the flock?

The cure for ignorance is curiosity, not domination. The future of humanity depends upon the promotion of curiosity and the avoidance of domination. Curiosity integrates care and cure. Domination integrates rule and judge. Dominus or Curious, which feels right to you?

Vishal Nayak, who is now working in the games industry, implemented a model I developed that allows for real-time emotional expression. While I won’t detail much right now, the model can also be used to enable computer characters to talk about their feelings!!

Virtual agents should be able to interact and communicate effectively with a human. If virtual agents can connect with the user on a personal and emotional level, they will be able to be maximally effective in their interaction with humans. This connection is especially important for applications that attempt to significantly affect the user, such as certain educational applications or games that aim to challenge the individual emotionally.

We believe that individuals will be able to better relate to virtual agents if these agents exhibit personality and emotions through affective behaviors. Their believability would increase, since the expression of personality and emotions causes the agents to seem more like living characters.

Using a procedural, 3-dimensional, character animation system, and using Playspace’s Emotivation Model, we have implemented body language for seven main mental state characteristics: confidence, anxiety, interest, thought, anger, defensiveness, and physical pain in various body parts. We have implemented this body language by procedurally animating the character’s body movements (body part adjustments as well as additional actions) and facial expressions.

Here’s a link to Vishal’s conference paper.