A dangerous misconception may sound like the name of a bad suspense movie or band, but that’s exactly what we’re dealing with here. Not the movie, or the band; but the lack of realization.  I am referring to is something Gardner Campbell said during his discussion; the very common presence of a seemingly, almost intentional blindness in regards to the music. The metaphorical music of ideas as defined by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg in their essay of the Personal Dynamic Media. They describe the dynabook as an instrument who’s music is ideas.  Campbell expressed this as a symbol of a higher realization.  More specifically, he displayed it in the light of a series of interlocking ideas; ones that breed an identity.  Not narrowed to just an individual’s digital, but also a communal identity. When considering the amount of creativity that is accessible, a real digital version of the self is possible. Campbell expresses this in a way that one can create a “portrait of who I am, and what I want to be in contact with.” I thought this was really intriguing. The concept of not just creating a representation but more of a reflection of the individual; yet displayed in a way that individual wishes. This is better described by Campbell as a shared being, or an alternative mode of presence.

I think this might be where the notion of the “dangerous misconception” comes into play. The true lack of realization of this, the idea that this amazing metamedium or technology in itself … is just stuff. Campbell said it best when he compared the dynabook to the technological perspective equal to that of language. They both serve a purpose. Statements by sentences, sentences by words, words by letters… and one speaks. Yet, you don’t need to know the language of a computer in order to access it’s potential for creativity. Although, in doing so (or not doing so) one creates boundaries. Boundaries that are invisible, yet convenient. A great amount of possibility lost, due to the resistance of proliferation. Honestly, it seems to me the language is becoming more complex, and the application more convenient. It’s difficult on a grand scale to battle convenience. Perhaps, it’s not actually solely the misconception that technology is just stuff. Perhaps, it’s that we’re at a stage of which is the result of technology breeding technology, that a different type of evolution is taking place. One of creativity and manipulation through the application process itself. It seems to me like it’s more of a question about opportunity cost. Of course, technology will always breed technology; but what people want will always define what is bred. The music is still there, the tone is just different.

Or maybe I’ve gone off the deep end.

“A computer is an instrument, who’s music is ideas.” Alan Kay