Why the use of a special voice tone makes sense with recordings, acting, etc

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

I mean there is precedent to modifying one's voice to send a message to others. Gay people have their own way of modifying their voice so as to inform others of their sexuality, for instance. Now, what might be the purpose of modifying one's voice when talking on the phone? Well, if you haven't got my understanding of technology, it might be hard to come up with a reason, but I can suggest a few tidbits of hints as to why that could make sense:

First and foremost, it sends the message that as you speak, you are aware and expecting that your voice is being picked up by a machine and used by that machine to create some sounds elsewhere that may be tied to you personally, either immediately or if recorded, in the future. There is a clarity and convenience aspect to doing it that way: say you are on the phone with another and someone suddenly appears next to you and you need to tell them something. You then use your normal voice for that and so the other at the other end of the line realize through the different voice that the words said were not meant for them.

Now, as I think of it I wonder howcome this way hasn't been adopted since the very beginning of machine made voice-alike machine produced sound. As I say this, the darn reasons why not hammer me in the head but I won't go in that topic in this opening post. I'll just continue with describing how much sense this make and wondering why not everyone is approaching their relation with a technological instrument that way.

So far, I have modified my phone voice for only one person and she immediately felt uneasy about this, first asking if I had just woken up, then asking me if I was fine and then finally saying that I didn't sound the same as usual. Well, I made no comment. My voice is what it is, just try and put up with it. You will eventually get familiar with my weird phone voice.

I could end my post here, but as I mentioned, a flurry of new ideas supportive of this approach sprang up in my mind: The first is about acting. When people act in a play, I would suggest that actors should not use their normal voice, but instead something else to convey that they are not being themselves there and that this is stage performance. Can an actor not be a liar if he or she pretends to be another in a play? Well, if the normal voice of the actor isn't there, it would suggest that the actor is in fact as a phone receiving a text from another place and blurting it here, as phones do. This sure will help to understand better that the actor isn't lying about being someone that he/she isn't. The modified voice is the critical clue to reveal this.

My third idea is having politicians or civil servants also speak with a different voice when on the job as they are officials of a political machine and since they speak for the machine, their voice should show that the message we're hearing from them, isn't simply them addressing us but the political machine they represent speaking to us.

Do you think this approach makes sens, will you be adopting it for yourself?

[Sculptor1]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

Wow this is amazing.
A wonderful new idea.
You remind me of Miss Anne Elk's palaeontological theory concerning Jurassic Diplodocoidea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7r5xfucPs

[JackDaydream]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

I mean there is precedent to modifying one's voice to send a message to others. Gay people have their own way of modifying their voice so as to inform others of their sexuality, for instance. Now, what might be the purpose of modifying one's voice when talking on the phone? Well, if you haven't got my understanding of technology, it might be hard to come up with a reason, but I can suggest a few tidbits of hints as to why that could make sense:

First and foremost, it sends the message that as you speak, you are aware and expecting that your voice is being picked up by a machine and used by that machine to create some sounds elsewhere that may be tied to you personally, either immediately or if recorded, in the future. There is a clarity and convenience aspect to doing it that way: say you are on the phone with another and someone suddenly appears next to you and you need to tell them something. You then use your normal voice for that and so the other at the other end of the line realize through the different voice that the words said were not meant for them.

Now, as I think of it I wonder howcome this way hasn't been adopted since the very beginning of machine made voice-alike machine produced sound. As I say this, the darn reasons why not hammer me in the head but I won't go in that topic in this opening post. I'll just continue with describing how much sense this make and wondering why not everyone is approaching their relation with a technological instrument that way.

So far, I have modified my phone voice for only one person and she immediately felt uneasy about this, first asking if I had just woken up, then asking me if I was fine and then finally saying that I didn't sound the same as usual. Well, I made no comment. My voice is what it is, just try and put up with it. You will eventually get familiar with my weird phone voice.

I could end my post here, but as I mentioned, a flurry of new ideas supportive of this approach sprang up in my mind: The first is about acting. When people act in a play, I would suggest that actors should not use their normal voice, but instead something else to convey that they are not being themselves there and that this is stage performance. Can an actor not be a liar if he or she pretends to be another in a play? Well, if the normal voice of the actor isn't there, it would suggest that the actor is in fact as a phone receiving a text from another place and blurting it here, as phones do. This sure will help to understand better that the actor isn't lying about being someone that he/she isn't. The modified voice is the critical clue to reveal this.

My third idea is having politicians or civil servants also speak with a different voice when on the job as they are officials of a political machine and since they speak for the machine, their voice should show that the message we're hearing from them, isn't simply them addressing us but the political machine they represent speaking to us.

Do you think this approach makes sens, will you be adopting it for yourself?

We are all social actors, some more consciously than others. My mother used to be an actress so she made all kinds of voices, including voices for teddy bears. Some people are more aware of how their voices sound, in the resonance of one's own voice as recorded. Hearing the sound of one's voice, such on as an ansaphone or video can be unnerving although it is useful feedback.

The idea of training for a specific role may be important but also as an aspect of self expression. On phones people build up visual images of people. There can also be the problem of misgendering on the phone. I know a man who doesn't sound feminine at all who told me that he often gets called 'Madam', and he thinks he is being mistaken for an older woman, and he is a 32 year old man. Gender and voice is complex because it is about differences of vocal chords but also men tend to speak from the chest whereas women more from the head.

But, speaking on the phone or on machines is so different from face to face because it is the disembodied voice alone. The non verbal dimension is missing which makes it harder to read emotions. Manner on the phone is also important and I can remember when I was working and had to answer calls it was sometimes more difficult to say the right thing than in real life, especially when phones break up and there is background noise. It even makes a difference where the phone is held, with voice beneath or above it. The more people have to speak into machines the more it becomes important to be aware of it, but it may also become contrived and artificial, like performance and lacking authenticity.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

Wow this is amazing.
A wonderful new idea.
You remind me of Miss Anne Elk's palaeontological theory concerning Jurassic Diplodocoidea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7r5xfucPs

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

With your reply, I am uncertain at which level I am now but this is progressing and that's all that counts. Thank you.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

I mean there is precedent to modifying one's voice to send a message to others. Gay people have their own way of modifying their voice so as to inform others of their sexuality, for instance. Now, what might be the purpose of modifying one's voice when talking on the phone? Well, if you haven't got my understanding of technology, it might be hard to come up with a reason, but I can suggest a few tidbits of hints as to why that could make sense:

First and foremost, it sends the message that as you speak, you are aware and expecting that your voice is being picked up by a machine and used by that machine to create some sounds elsewhere that may be tied to you personally, either immediately or if recorded, in the future. There is a clarity and convenience aspect to doing it that way: say you are on the phone with another and someone suddenly appears next to you and you need to tell them something. You then use your normal voice for that and so the other at the other end of the line realize through the different voice that the words said were not meant for them.

Now, as I think of it I wonder howcome this way hasn't been adopted since the very beginning of machine made voice-alike machine produced sound. As I say this, the darn reasons why not hammer me in the head but I won't go in that topic in this opening post. I'll just continue with describing how much sense this make and wondering why not everyone is approaching their relation with a technological instrument that way.

So far, I have modified my phone voice for only one person and she immediately felt uneasy about this, first asking if I had just woken up, then asking me if I was fine and then finally saying that I didn't sound the same as usual. Well, I made no comment. My voice is what it is, just try and put up with it. You will eventually get familiar with my weird phone voice.

I could end my post here, but as I mentioned, a flurry of new ideas supportive of this approach sprang up in my mind: The first is about acting. When people act in a play, I would suggest that actors should not use their normal voice, but instead something else to convey that they are not being themselves there and that this is stage performance. Can an actor not be a liar if he or she pretends to be another in a play? Well, if the normal voice of the actor isn't there, it would suggest that the actor is in fact as a phone receiving a text from another place and blurting it here, as phones do. This sure will help to understand better that the actor isn't lying about being someone that he/she isn't. The modified voice is the critical clue to reveal this.

My third idea is having politicians or civil servants also speak with a different voice when on the job as they are officials of a political machine and since they speak for the machine, their voice should show that the message we're hearing from them, isn't simply them addressing us but the political machine they represent speaking to us.

Do you think this approach makes sens, will you be adopting it for yourself?

We are all social actors, some more consciously than others.

Now that's a great response! I like the ambiguity of meaning that comes with "some more consciously than others".

Some of us are also anti-social actors and I wonder if they ought to still be also described as 'social' actors: Are serial killers, mass killers 'social' actors when their activities brings a quick end to all social activity around them? Now that would represent a huge travesty of the word 'social' if you agreed to describe them that way.

Also, if we are all social actors then what about the authors, the play director and editors? Are they actors as well?

For your information, I have abandoned the objective of trying to get others to unanimously agree to what I consider factual as I respect the power of utter stupidity to come and stand up against me with a scary case. So, it's 100% ok if your views differ from mine. I know I can appear that way to others as well as I make my case.

Having said that, I think I still see your point: even if you're an author, you are still a part of an apparent world history and a player in that story led seemingly by some other author(s) and you may be more or less conscious of that.

So for all of us to be social actors, it would appear that you need either the belief or the realization of your position in some type of narration. In light of that, and knowing that not all of us realize this, I would say that no, we aren't all social actors. We are what we are. To have actors, you need a play and for the play you need an author. The actors can only exist once the play is set by the author.

I try to settle this point as clearly as I can because if I agree with you that all I am doing is 'acting' then it sort of defeats what I see as a need for those who observe any worldly action to have a means to always tell the difference between play and world or natural reality.

My proposal is also tied to mental health: give people the means to tell the difference between art and nature. Your suggestion that we are all social actors seems to brush aside that need because we're all art in your opinion, wether we are conscious of it or not.

So, in my opinion, your reply is a prime example of why my approach is indeed urgently needed. It would force some much needed thinking or rethinking about the nature of our world and proper adjustments could then be made to the benefit of all and every truth seekers every where.

[Sculptor1]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

Wow this is amazing.
A wonderful new idea.
You remind me of Miss Anne Elk's palaeontological theory concerning Jurassic Diplodocoidea

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs7r5xfucPs

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Mahatma Gandhi

With your reply, I am uncertain at which level I am now but this is progressing and that's all that counts. Thank you.

You are at the level of failing to see the joke.

[JackDaydream]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

I mean there is precedent to modifying one's voice to send a message to others. Gay people have their own way of modifying their voice so as to inform others of their sexuality, for instance. Now, what might be the purpose of modifying one's voice when talking on the phone? Well, if you haven't got my understanding of technology, it might be hard to come up with a reason, but I can suggest a few tidbits of hints as to why that could make sense:

First and foremost, it sends the message that as you speak, you are aware and expecting that your voice is being picked up by a machine and used by that machine to create some sounds elsewhere that may be tied to you personally, either immediately or if recorded, in the future. There is a clarity and convenience aspect to doing it that way: say you are on the phone with another and someone suddenly appears next to you and you need to tell them something. You then use your normal voice for that and so the other at the other end of the line realize through the different voice that the words said were not meant for them.

Now, as I think of it I wonder howcome this way hasn't been adopted since the very beginning of machine made voice-alike machine produced sound. As I say this, the darn reasons why not hammer me in the head but I won't go in that topic in this opening post. I'll just continue with describing how much sense this make and wondering why not everyone is approaching their relation with a technological instrument that way.

So far, I have modified my phone voice for only one person and she immediately felt uneasy about this, first asking if I had just woken up, then asking me if I was fine and then finally saying that I didn't sound the same as usual. Well, I made no comment. My voice is what it is, just try and put up with it. You will eventually get familiar with my weird phone voice.

I could end my post here, but as I mentioned, a flurry of new ideas supportive of this approach sprang up in my mind: The first is about acting. When people act in a play, I would suggest that actors should not use their normal voice, but instead something else to convey that they are not being themselves there and that this is stage performance. Can an actor not be a liar if he or she pretends to be another in a play? Well, if the normal voice of the actor isn't there, it would suggest that the actor is in fact as a phone receiving a text from another place and blurting it here, as phones do. This sure will help to understand better that the actor isn't lying about being someone that he/she isn't. The modified voice is the critical clue to reveal this.

My third idea is having politicians or civil servants also speak with a different voice when on the job as they are officials of a political machine and since they speak for the machine, their voice should show that the message we're hearing from them, isn't simply them addressing us but the political machine they represent speaking to us.

Do you think this approach makes sens, will you be adopting it for yourself?

We are all social actors, some more consciously than others.

Now that's a great response! I like the ambiguity of meaning that comes with "some more consciously than others".

Some of us are also anti-social actors and I wonder if they ought to still be also described as 'social' actors: Are serial killers, mass killers 'social' actors when their activities brings a quick end to all social activity around them? Now that would represent a huge travesty of the word 'social' if you agreed to describe them that way.

Also, if we are all social actors then what about the authors, the play director and editors? Are they actors as well?

For your information, I have abandoned the objective of trying to get others to unanimously agree to what I consider factual as I respect the power of utter stupidity to come and stand up against me with a scary case. So, it's 100% ok if your views differ from mine. I know I can appear that way to others as well as I make my case.

Having said that, I think I still see your point: even if you're an author, you are still a part of an apparent world history and a player in that story led seemingly by some other author(s) and you may be more or less conscious of that.

So for all of us to be social actors, it would appear that you need either the belief or the realization of your position in some type of narration. In light of that, and knowing that not all of us realize this, I would say that no, we aren't all social actors. We are what we are. To have actors, you need a play and for the play you need an author. The actors can only exist once the play is set by the author.

I try to settle this point as clearly as I can because if I agree with you that all I am doing is 'acting' then it sort of defeats what I see as a need for those who observe any worldly action to have a means to always tell the difference between play and world or natural reality.

My proposal is also tied to mental health: give people the means to tell the difference between art and nature. Your suggestion that we are all social actors seems to brush aside that need because we're all art in your opinion, wether we are conscious of it or not.

So, in my opinion, your reply is a prime example of why my approach is indeed urgently needed. It would force some much needed thinking or rethinking about the nature of our world and proper adjustments could then be made to the benefit of all and every truth seekers every where.

Sociologists have looked at the social construction of reality, but, before that Shakespeare described the world as a stage and people as players. In some ways, people are living out scripts which may be given to them or chosen personally, like son, daughter, husband, teacher or doctor. Eric Berne goes as far as seeing people playing games in his book, 'Games People Play', and Erving Goffman wrote one book called, 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. As far as the way people develop into serial killers, it may be about the construction of deviant identity. Ernest Becker argued that people develop deviant identities in stages. For example, someone may start off being suspended from school, go on to mixing in subcultures and go on to commit crimes on account of the ongoing development of deviant identity.

Of course, there are other factors which come into play in human life, including a mixture of genetics and many other aspects of psychology. I find the idea of understanding how the construction of social roles is a component of identity and human action. I once had a tutor who said how he was completely different out of work because in his tutoring he was in a professional role. I found that a little extraordinary because I was working a psychiatric nurse at the time and didn't feel that there was a major discrepancy between how I acted in or out of work, although I would not disclose personal issues in the same way at work as I did in personal friendships. However, thinking about it retrospectively I think that when I was working in mental health care I did act a bit differently to the way I do currently, including even the way I speak. I was far less casual and was inclined to think as a nurse outside of work more than I do now.

One writer who I would recommend as I read some briefly( but I don't have any books by him to refer to or quote) is Stravinsky because he wrote on the art and philosophy of acting.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Hi every truthful one!

As some of you may know or remember, I have a radically different view of technology in general, especially regarding the use of energy consuming devices, such as this computer. Because my views aren't mainstream, they tend to be ignored even as I feel my points are important and need to be further discussed. This obviously causes me some frustrations.

However my very special thinking about machines has led me to a new excellent idea to try out. You never know, it may possibly drive my unorthodox views, into mainstream discussion. As I began considering implementing this new idea in my life, more ideas and important realizations have begun to surface and I am quite excited to share all of this with you for both your critical feedback and perhpas to help you understand my concerns with technology and how addressing these concerns matters.

So, with no further preamble here is my new idea: whenever using the telephone, I need to modify my voice from my normal or usual voice that others associate me with to a voice where they will question upon hearing "Who is this?"

I mean there is precedent to modifying one's voice to send a message to others. Gay people have their own way of modifying their voice so as to inform others of their sexuality, for instance. Now, what might be the purpose of modifying one's voice when talking on the phone? Well, if you haven't got my understanding of technology, it might be hard to come up with a reason, but I can suggest a few tidbits of hints as to why that could make sense:

First and foremost, it sends the message that as you speak, you are aware and expecting that your voice is being picked up by a machine and used by that machine to create some sounds elsewhere that may be tied to you personally, either immediately or if recorded, in the future. There is a clarity and convenience aspect to doing it that way: say you are on the phone with another and someone suddenly appears next to you and you need to tell them something. You then use your normal voice for that and so the other at the other end of the line realize through the different voice that the words said were not meant for them.

Now, as I think of it I wonder howcome this way hasn't been adopted since the very beginning of machine made voice-alike machine produced sound. As I say this, the darn reasons why not hammer me in the head but I won't go in that topic in this opening post. I'll just continue with describing how much sense this make and wondering why not everyone is approaching their relation with a technological instrument that way.

So far, I have modified my phone voice for only one person and she immediately felt uneasy about this, first asking if I had just woken up, then asking me if I was fine and then finally saying that I didn't sound the same as usual. Well, I made no comment. My voice is what it is, just try and put up with it. You will eventually get familiar with my weird phone voice.

I could end my post here, but as I mentioned, a flurry of new ideas supportive of this approach sprang up in my mind: The first is about acting. When people act in a play, I would suggest that actors should not use their normal voice, but instead something else to convey that they are not being themselves there and that this is stage performance. Can an actor not be a liar if he or she pretends to be another in a play? Well, if the normal voice of the actor isn't there, it would suggest that the actor is in fact as a phone receiving a text from another place and blurting it here, as phones do. This sure will help to understand better that the actor isn't lying about being someone that he/she isn't. The modified voice is the critical clue to reveal this.

My third idea is having politicians or civil servants also speak with a different voice when on the job as they are officials of a political machine and since they speak for the machine, their voice should show that the message we're hearing from them, isn't simply them addressing us but the political machine they represent speaking to us.

Do you think this approach makes sens, will you be adopting it for yourself?

We are all social actors, some more consciously than others.

Now that's a great response! I like the ambiguity of meaning that comes with "some more consciously than others".

Some of us are also anti-social actors and I wonder if they ought to still be also described as 'social' actors: Are serial killers, mass killers 'social' actors when their activities brings a quick end to all social activity around them? Now that would represent a huge travesty of the word 'social' if you agreed to describe them that way.

Also, if we are all social actors then what about the authors, the play director and editors? Are they actors as well?

For your information, I have abandoned the objective of trying to get others to unanimously agree to what I consider factual as I respect the power of utter stupidity to come and stand up against me with a scary case. So, it's 100% ok if your views differ from mine. I know I can appear that way to others as well as I make my case.

Having said that, I think I still see your point: even if you're an author, you are still a part of an apparent world history and a player in that story led seemingly by some other author(s) and you may be more or less conscious of that.

So for all of us to be social actors, it would appear that you need either the belief or the realization of your position in some type of narration. In light of that, and knowing that not all of us realize this, I would say that no, we aren't all social actors. We are what we are. To have actors, you need a play and for the play you need an author. The actors can only exist once the play is set by the author.

I try to settle this point as clearly as I can because if I agree with you that all I am doing is 'acting' then it sort of defeats what I see as a need for those who observe any worldly action to have a means to always tell the difference between play and world or natural reality.

My proposal is also tied to mental health: give people the means to tell the difference between art and nature. Your suggestion that we are all social actors seems to brush aside that need because we're all art in your opinion, wether we are conscious of it or not.

So, in my opinion, your reply is a prime example of why my approach is indeed urgently needed. It would force some much needed thinking or rethinking about the nature of our world and proper adjustments could then be made to the benefit of all and every truth seekers every where.

Sociologists have looked at the social construction of reality, but, before that Shakespeare described the world as a stage and people as players. In some ways, people are living out scripts which may be given to them or chosen personally, like son, daughter, husband, teacher or doctor. Eric Berne goes as far as seeing people playing games in his book, 'Games People Play', and Erving Goffman wrote one book called, 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'. As far as the way people develop into serial killers, it may be about the construction of deviant identity. Ernest Becker argued that people develop deviant identities in stages. For example, someone may start off being suspended from school, go on to mixing in subcultures and go on to commit crimes on account of the ongoing development of deviant identity.

Of course, there are other factors which come into play in human life, including a mixture of genetics and many other aspects of psychology. I find the idea of understanding how the construction of social roles is a component of identity and human action. I once had a tutor who said how he was completely different out of work because in his tutoring he was in a professional role. I found that a little extraordinary because I was working a psychiatric nurse at the time and didn't feel that there was a major discrepancy between how I acted in or out of work, although I would not disclose personal issues in the same way at work as I did in personal friendships. However, thinking about it retrospectively I think that when I was working in mental health care I did act a bit differently to the way I do currently, including even the way I speak. I was far less casual and was inclined to think as a nurse outside of work more than I do now.

One writer who I would recommend as I read some briefly( but I don't have any books by him to refer to or quote) is Stravinsky because he wrote on the art and philosophy of acting.

I wouldn't argue that people ought to have/use a modified voice for learned/educated roles because such roles are essentially private and personal, however, for civil servants --those who make the political machine function in an official manner-- I think that would be needed here again.

But if you're an educated chess player, you still play to win the game for yourself, and that's a private and personal thing that do not reflect upon the chess school you attended, so feel free to say "Checkmate" using your very own voice tone.

On the other hand, if you are given political authority to engage in a certain profession then you may be considered a civil servant and that means teachers --the one paid for by the political machine -- should also modify their voices to indicate the presence of the political machine haunting them.

Here, the mention that Shakespeare described the world as a stage and people as players does make no point other than reveal that Shakespeare had an author's vision of the world: he didn't see people for what they really are but simply tried to view them as story elements. Their existence only mattered in the context of the stage, as if it was all meant for some viewer (s). This is so questionable if you ask me. It seems to reveal a person who would believe in a worldly God creating world history as days pass by and that he Shakespeare is somewhat like that too, as an autor. Some may agree with this, and some may be offended by that as if it is an offense against God to immitate his ways and pretend that it's your work and not God's work.

So, in order to give the things that are Cesare's to Cesar and the things that are God to God, I keep suggesting that actors need to send constant signals when they are acting that they are acting and that's why a voice modification to signal this is essential when playing such roles.