Internet Forum: Blind Talkinta Blind
I think that part of the problem in Internet forums is that we loose all of the normal comprehension about the person with whom we are communicating. In face-to-face talking we have so very much information about one another that we do not have on the Internet. This lack of perspective leads to everyone assuming attitudes that are often inappropriate for the occasion.
I think that Internet discussions often take on a combat mode among the people involved.
Further evidence of “The Medium is the Message” I guess. In this form of communication all understanding of social situations that we had accumulated over a lifetime are now unavailable to us.
McLuhan was the most noted but not the only individual to recognize that the media of communication exercises widespread affects on personal and social behavior. Observations of many media theorists focused on the media as not just a neutral vehicle for information flow between two or more environments but that media was an environment in and of itself.
“McLuhan adds the notion of ‘sensory balance’. He analyzes media as extensions of the human senses or processes, and he suggests that the use of different technologies affect the organization of the human senses. McLuhan divides history into three major periods: oral, writing/printing, and electronic.”
In face-to-face situations we have codified proper forms of behavior. At a funeral we act one way, at a basketball game another, when speaking to a person in a suit we speak one way, when speaking to a man in a swimsuit we speak another. On the Internet we communicate to aliens who speak our language. Generally speaking. Studies show that children of four change speaking styles as a function of “audience”.
We all play a multiplicity of roles depending upon the social situation. Over the Internet we might be communicating with aliens suspended in a vacuum.
Quotes from “No Sense of Place” by Meyrowitz.
also known as the 'put on'. you 'put on' different hats (personalities) to try and achieve 'matching' with the other entity you're communicating with.
For a person who makes more general judgements based on their emotional reaction to one's face, voice, inflections/tones, vocabulary, etc., the internet is a good squelch to these judgements. I personally enjoy not seeing or knowing a thing about another poster but their commentary. There is no other basis for judgement this way. Information as obscure as even a real name starts the process of 'visualizing' that person (for me) But (again for me) commentary does not as much; I rather enjoy knowing nothing about that person's looks, physical condition, observable idiosyncrosies - it keeps judgement/opinion more pure.
Obviously there are great advantages to the full communication available when your conversationalist is right in front of you, but I like the absence of the physical, and typing thoughts instead of speaking them. I think it can also serve to keep one on their toes in vocabulary and good vocal thought-to-sentence construction. I'm my own proof of that. I never posted on forums before this one (once to raging bull and once to the Eagles forum) and I have found that I am speaking better and more concisely as a result of posting here, more than I ever anticipated. (Of course, most of what I've posted is highly speculative, but at least I say it well...
)
So while I am not disagreeing with you in general, I think communicating in physical absentia can have it's place, and be a learning tool.
Obviously there are great advantages to the full communication available when your conversationalist is right in front of you, but I like the absence of the physical, and typing thoughts instead of speaking them. I think it can also serve to keep one on their toes in vocabulary and good vocal thought-to-sentence construction. I'm my own proof of that. I never posted on forums before this one (once to raging bull and once to the Eagles forum) and I have found that I am speaking better and more concisely as a result of posting here, more than I ever anticipated. (Of course, most of what I've posted is highly speculative, but at least I say it well...
)So while I am not disagreeing with you in general, I think communicating in physical absentia can have it's place, and be a learning tool.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 27 2006, 05:34 PM)
For a person who makes more general judgements based on their emotional reaction to one's face, voice, inflections/tones, vocabulary, etc., the internet is a good squelch to these judgements. I personally enjoy not seeing or knowing a thing about another poster but their commentary. There is no other basis for judgement this way. Information as obscure as even a real name starts the process of 'visualizing' that person (for me) But (again for me) commentary does not as much; I rather enjoy knowing nothing about that person's looks, physical condition, observable idiosyncrosies - it keeps judgement/opinion more pure.
Obviously there are great advantages to the full communication available when your conversationalist is right in front of you, but I like the absence of the physical, and typing thoughts instead of speaking them. I think it can also serve to keep one on their toes in vocabulary and good vocal thought-to-sentence construction. I'm my own proof of that. I never posted on forums before this one (once to raging bull and once to the Eagles forum) and I have found that I am speaking better and more concisely as a result of posting here, more than I ever anticipated. (Of course, most of what I've posted is highly speculative, but at least I say it well...)
So while I am not disagreeing with you in general, I think communicating in physical absentia can have it's place, and be a learning tool.
Do you think that there is a great deal of negativity, harsh words, and insults that are somewhat commonplace on these forums that would never exist in a face-to-face discourse?
Obviously there are great advantages to the full communication available when your conversationalist is right in front of you, but I like the absence of the physical, and typing thoughts instead of speaking them. I think it can also serve to keep one on their toes in vocabulary and good vocal thought-to-sentence construction. I'm my own proof of that. I never posted on forums before this one (once to raging bull and once to the Eagles forum) and I have found that I am speaking better and more concisely as a result of posting here, more than I ever anticipated. (Of course, most of what I've posted is highly speculative, but at least I say it well...
)So while I am not disagreeing with you in general, I think communicating in physical absentia can have it's place, and be a learning tool.
Do you think that there is a great deal of negativity, harsh words, and insults that are somewhat commonplace on these forums that would never exist in a face-to-face discourse?
Newton resurrected this thread from about six months ago. I see that the counter indicates that there has been 530 views, which amazes me. Is this an error? How did so many views accumulate when the thread has been hidden all these months? Does anyone understand this?
Hi coberst,
I've no time for a decent reply to the primary question, but yes I have indeed noticed old threads resurface with way more views. I started a thread back in January that got two comments and little viewing. It quickly disappeared but when I went back to it recently to quote it, it had over 500 views! I think there are a lot of guests that do a lot of reading; maybe they think older topics are more interesting than newer ones are.
I must have missed this thread. It's an interesting one.
I've no time for a decent reply to the primary question, but yes I have indeed noticed old threads resurface with way more views. I started a thread back in January that got two comments and little viewing. It quickly disappeared but when I went back to it recently to quote it, it had over 500 views! I think there are a lot of guests that do a lot of reading; maybe they think older topics are more interesting than newer ones are.
I must have missed this thread. It's an interesting one.
QUOTE (coberst+Sep 27 2006, 06:23 PM)
Newton resurrected this thread from about six months ago. I see that the counter indicates that there has been 530 views, which amazes me. Is this an error? How did so many views accumulate when the thread has been hidden all these months? Does anyone understand this?
bots, perhaps.
lots of them.
bots, perhaps.
lots of them.
QUOTE
Do you think that there is a great deal of negativity, harsh words, and insults that are somewhat commonplace on these forums that would never exist in a face-to-face discourse?
Yeah, obviously that happens a lot, but I think, as people get used to the idea (over the years, probably) there will develop more of a respectful stance.
I think that these things happen mostly with the younger posters, and that us old 'fogies' are actually looking for something more substantial from our conversations.
An easy place to 'vent ones spleen', but that is a bit of a quick fix, and doesn't lead to any kind of respectful friendships in the long run.
Maybe, as people run out of insults, they'll start actually trying to make some sense, as they mature? They may even start to find themselves making friends...who knows?
Met my second wife on the internet! Moved country, and been happy ever since!! (But don't tell the first one!
) - joke.As for the first question, aren't we lucky we no longer have to put up with the smells? (sorry - still thinking about the first wife!
) - another joke.As you can see, I'm still in the 'trying to run out of insults' stage, but that doesn't mean i'm promising any sense for the future!
QUOTE (k.+)
As you can see, I'm still in the 'trying to run out of insults' stage, but that doesn't
mean i'm promising any sense for the future!
Ditto.
QUOTE (op+)
Over the Internet we might be communicating with aliens suspended in a vacuum.
That is how I prefer my
to remain (though I wish them no harm).k. gives a worst possible scenario..
Made physical contact with
(I must assume this) and ended up married 
(again ). Let that serve as a warning to all
. -C2.
...'made contact' alright! = women! (kidding!!!) 
(B'#5#!'*!s to 'politcal correctness'!)
And if we had been sitting at a table with a candle in the middle. Each with a glass of finest wine in our hands. Our friends and loved oned around us. Would the tease and the response be any different?
-C2.
-C2.
QUOTE
Do you think that there is a great deal of negativity, harsh words, and insults that are somewhat commonplace on these forums that would never exist in a face-to-face discourse?
I think the potential is there, but I wouldn't say it's currently a Great deal, though moreso than in person. The facelessness and relative anonymity of the internet does not expect the protocol of familiarity with the person before candid talk that real world relationships do. Obviously the situation is complex; there's lots of motives for being a mouse that roars. I believe that squeamish people aren't necessarily so at all on forums. I wonder if assured personalities remain firm yet humble; it seems logical.
People can scream at each other safely here. I wonder if such is an unwitting safety valve, or whether it increases angst. That would be a good thing to know as more and more talk online, and especially for the young, as conversation once removed may be taking the place of the real thing, as we 'technologize' ourselves - especially the impressionable young. I think Borg - like audio/video attachments as fashionable adornments that function are likely around the corner. And the sorts of thinking that goes with that as well. I have digressed, but they seem related.
Soundhertz
We need McLuhan to come back and help us understand this matter.
We need McLuhan to come back and help us understand this matter.
Do we need McLuhan to help us understand?
If you just accept all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds then what?
This isn't the first time I've posted this link on a coberst thread..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
-C2.
If you just accept all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds then what?
This isn't the first time I've posted this link on a coberst thread..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
-C2.
I took coberst's comment in a non-literal way that implied that we are in a rapidly evolving set of new paradigms and we aren't sure of how to even absorb the changes let alone have an intellectual hold of them. And we don't. I've never believed all is for the best; on a large scale the best I see is a compromised cooperation. And what is the 'best' if it's relative? On smaller scales I do believe the best that can be is achieved sometimes because the smaller the group the more refined the goal without all the different tones of the different members.
The link you provided is interesting but one 'bad apple' can taint the process, and with a body of communicants to have to adhere to strict unemotional guidelines to preserve the purity of this process, i think the 'bad apple' aspect of the set is far more subtle and legion than expected. Not that I am discounting it, but for purity's sake you'd need moderators, and moderators for the moderators...real mutual trust and disinterested goals are hard to come by. Is there a Bohmian Dialogue that was conceived implemented and successful with real results matching the intentions? Kind of like picking a jury, but in this case they should be retained!
The link you provided is interesting but one 'bad apple' can taint the process, and with a body of communicants to have to adhere to strict unemotional guidelines to preserve the purity of this process, i think the 'bad apple' aspect of the set is far more subtle and legion than expected. Not that I am discounting it, but for purity's sake you'd need moderators, and moderators for the moderators...real mutual trust and disinterested goals are hard to come by. Is there a Bohmian Dialogue that was conceived implemented and successful with real results matching the intentions? Kind of like picking a jury, but in this case they should be retained!
I am not sure how we got into the subject of dialogue but I consider it to be a very importantconcept. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter.
Socratic dialogue is a technique for attempting to solve multilogical problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multilogical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are mutilogical.
Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.
When we are dealing with monological problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multilogical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.
Socratic dialogue is a technique for attempting to solve multilogical problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multilogical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are mutilogical.
Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.
When we are dealing with monological problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multilogical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.
QUOTE
Before the digital Android Meme (AM), there was the massive analog media landscapes (I call that phase Cloned ESP and means all that it implies).
The AM includes Cloned ESP but adds the Rumplestiltskin effect of "autonomy" from the Cloned ESP (massive media landscapes). This effect I call Voluntary ESP.
The exhilaration from this release into an infinity of editing supremacy evoked years of spamming, trolling, and Jerry Springer/Sid Vicious-like spitting in the old publics' faces. Note the response of the old centralized media was to hoick up the EDITOR as celebrity dominatrix. This homeostatic balance used to be called "media ecology".
Then I would add this later phase of "abuse value" in our present time of "paramedia ecology" (which description below was evoked by another's question {Does the chip body talk out of its *** then?}):
That is the interplay between the AM and the AP where AM = Android Meme (chip body) and AP = Anthropomorphic Physical ("first nature"/***).
When I use AM/AP, the sentence above is what I mean. Over the last 30+ years, the AM gave the user/content (AP) the feeling of controlling the AM more and more and hence more of a sense of autonomy from previous massive media landscapes. This seduction by the AM is seen by some (Kurzweil) as "supernatural", while by others (Earth Firsters) as "the return and revenge of Mother Nature".
Note: the AP is not FIRST NATURE but "first nature".
Bob Dobbs
there you go.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Before the digital Android Meme (AM), there was the massive analog media landscapes (I call that phase Cloned ESP and means all that it implies). The AM includes Cloned ESP but adds the Rumplestiltskin effect of "autonomy" from the Cloned ESP (massive media landscapes). This effect I call Voluntary ESP. The exhilaration from this release into an infinity of editing supremacy evoked years of spamming, trolling, and Jerry Springer/Sid Vicious-like spitting in the old publics' faces. Note the response of the old centralized media was to hoick up the EDITOR as celebrity dominatrix. This homeostatic balance used to be called "media ecology". Then I would add this later phase of "abuse value" in our present time of "paramedia ecology" (which description below was evoked by another's question {Does the chip body talk out of its *** then?}): That is the interplay between the AM and the AP where AM = Android Meme (chip body) and AP = Anthropomorphic Physical ("first nature"/***). When I use AM/AP, the sentence above is what I mean. Over the last 30+ years, the AM gave the user/content (AP) the feeling of controlling the AM more and more and hence more of a sense of autonomy from previous massive media landscapes. This seduction by the AM is seen by some (Kurzweil) as "supernatural", while by others (Earth Firsters) as "the return and revenge of Mother Nature". Note: the AP is not FIRST NATURE but "first nature". Bob Dobbs |
there you go.
Exploring the effects of Voluntary ESP - Forum Bashing
While listening to a new Bob archive (soon to be released) I enjoyed a portion of the discussion that dealt with the 'timing' of speech, that is; 'when' you say something is as important as 'how' and 'what' and 'to whom' you speak. We refer to online forums as 'discussions' however they are more a retrieval of letter writing and graffiti (among other things). Forum posts have an exact time recorded which we use to assess the state-of-mind and habits of the communicator (ie a member who posts at 2AM most often vs one who posts at 8AM etc). I propose that this, and other aspects of online forums, falsely mimic the timing of speech (AP) which could very well be the root of the 'forum bashing' phenomena.
Using a previous experiment as example:
In the past, in live discussions, I've often asked odd questions of participants in order to speedup matching and to explore Bob's ideas. For example, I have asked small crowds, 'You have just found a perfectly preserved sample of Jesus’s stool (yes, stool), what do you do with it?'
When I first began asking this question I assumed it would reveal more about one's occupation, political stance or their attitude towards religion etc but from studying the various answers that were given, it became clear that it was critical to understand what combination and emphasis of the four bodies was being used to formulate the responses. The best clue as to which body did the answering was in the 'timing'.
In a face-to-face conversation, we process the infinite subtleties of the timing and hesitations of the one answering but we often pass off this information and focus on the content of the answer and try to relate that back to the speaker. But if we don't know which body is speaking (it's a combination of all four but there are emphases on certain bodies with each sentence spoken), we’re never given the chance to get to know the speaker in order to relate the content of the answer in the first place. (the ‘stool’ question was devised to be 'irrelevant' in order to magnify the 'irrelevance' of the answer - filtering out the content in order to expose the form)
There's no exact science in this exercise but the patterns in timing seem to be the most critical clue to identifying the 'speaking body'. Imagine how revealing the many combinations of timing are when we’re not the slightest bit interested in the ‘word content’ of the answer...
1) No hesitation at all:
2) A brief double 'thought pause':
3) A hesitation which implies the answerer has just reminded himself that he is in a group:
4) Someone who requests more time to think about their answer:
5) Somebody who requests that somebody else goes first:
6) A quick short answer that insults the question:
7) Someone who reaches for a book in order to read a quote aloud in response:
Those who pause to laugh:
9) ... 10)... ... 2333445217) ...
In person, you can (if you're 'listening') SMELL the body which is speaking and, almost every time, the content of the answer matches the modality of the speaking body revealed in the timing. I won't write out any of the many recorded timings and responses because it's very hard to describe smell - but we get the idea. ‘We need to know who we’re talking to!’
So, back to forum bashing:
If the ‘stool’ question was asked in a forum environment, those who answered would have WAY to much time to think about how they wanted to answer. They would muddle the four bodies so much that they would be - incoherent, satirical or angry. We would know nothing about their timing other than the fact that they were at a computer when they posted their response. We also don't know who heard the question and why some who did didn't attempt to answer it. If we then replied to an answer, the incoherence, satire or angry would simply intensify until some participants reached some false sense of 'matching' and they would spin off into other threads and discussions. I believe their is matching and making going on by those who have subconsciously adapted to the forum format but it sure ain't speech and as history repeats itself, the effects of a new media are never appropriately 'discussed' on their arrival.
Sleeper
QUOTE
... after the Gutenberg Galaxy (visual space) and before the Marconi Galaxy (tactile space) is the all-important Railroad/Carnegie/Morgan Galaxy (kinetic and proprioceptive spaces). One hint is MM's emphasis that the machine became an art form in the first decades of the 20th Century.
Transcript from my 1989 radio show;
"The old dialectic of visual space vs. acoustic space is now thrown out, it's been superseded in the 20th century by Kinetic and Tactile space. TV brought in tactile space, that reigned for 10-15 years in the 50' & 60's. Once the planet extended itself with the Sputnik environment: the satellite environment; you were then faced with a situation of tribal replay of the archetypes: technological themselves. So, tactile space, pushed to its extreme, flips into kinetic space. The dialogue between kinetic space and tactile space since 1950 is the hidden ground of what's been going on. We only talk about this in terms of visual space and acoustic space to give a subgenius novice an acquaintance with the sensory dynamics involved, and just to master the effects of the alphabet and printing - which is visual space - is the task that takes a while. Especially when you're born into an environment that is kinetic and tactile: its basic ground. So, we go back, we educate about visual space, then people begin to realize the acoustic-space effect under electric conditions via radio and telegraph - So, when Irving Layton discusses poetry moving into the movie form, the filmmaker as a new poetics, he is just beginning to realize that the oral tradition was superseded by the kinetic tradition since the Twist." - p.75 and 77 in my PHATIC COMMUNION book.
This is the key to getting kinetic (both inner and outer) North Americans interested in MM's quadrivial work outside of his tiny books - not the old oral/literate dialectic of the European Gut Gal.
Bob Dobbs
Transcript from my 1989 radio show;
"The old dialectic of visual space vs. acoustic space is now thrown out, it's been superseded in the 20th century by Kinetic and Tactile space. TV brought in tactile space, that reigned for 10-15 years in the 50' & 60's. Once the planet extended itself with the Sputnik environment: the satellite environment; you were then faced with a situation of tribal replay of the archetypes: technological themselves. So, tactile space, pushed to its extreme, flips into kinetic space. The dialogue between kinetic space and tactile space since 1950 is the hidden ground of what's been going on. We only talk about this in terms of visual space and acoustic space to give a subgenius novice an acquaintance with the sensory dynamics involved, and just to master the effects of the alphabet and printing - which is visual space - is the task that takes a while. Especially when you're born into an environment that is kinetic and tactile: its basic ground. So, we go back, we educate about visual space, then people begin to realize the acoustic-space effect under electric conditions via radio and telegraph - So, when Irving Layton discusses poetry moving into the movie form, the filmmaker as a new poetics, he is just beginning to realize that the oral tradition was superseded by the kinetic tradition since the Twist." - p.75 and 77 in my PHATIC COMMUNION book.
This is the key to getting kinetic (both inner and outer) North Americans interested in MM's quadrivial work outside of his tiny books - not the old oral/literate dialectic of the European Gut Gal.
Bob Dobbs
bob dobbs is the man.
eric mcluhan, marshall's son, was 'on the same page', and is still alive, if you want someone to talk to. they wrote, 'the laws of media' together.
a link to the laws, as interpreted by the linkees
oh yeah, and, .....IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!
Dialogue.. testing..
Perhaps we should know more about Marshall McLuhan
Apparently..
Canadian postmodernist Marshall McLuhan grew on the legacy of Southern New Criticism to be a champion of multiculturalism. New Critics set the stage for the multicultural climate of late 20th century. McLuhan's post-nationalism represented the contingencies of contemporary individuality and nationality, while his work suggested possibilities of liberation from violence. He believed that change in the direction of a government-sponsored income was the best solution to the dynamics of modern perpetual revolution and he advocated the multicultural, multi-media global village.
One of my pet hates is 'multiculturalism'.
In MY village we eat our boiled eggs from THIS end. This creates a cultural divide between us and the people from the next village who eat THEIR eggs from the OTHER end.
An egg is an egg is an egg. For heaven's sake -GROW UP.
-C2.
Perhaps we should know more about Marshall McLuhan
Apparently..
Canadian postmodernist Marshall McLuhan grew on the legacy of Southern New Criticism to be a champion of multiculturalism. New Critics set the stage for the multicultural climate of late 20th century. McLuhan's post-nationalism represented the contingencies of contemporary individuality and nationality, while his work suggested possibilities of liberation from violence. He believed that change in the direction of a government-sponsored income was the best solution to the dynamics of modern perpetual revolution and he advocated the multicultural, multi-media global village.
One of my pet hates is 'multiculturalism'.
In MY village we eat our boiled eggs from THIS end. This creates a cultural divide between us and the people from the next village who eat THEIR eggs from the OTHER end.
An egg is an egg is an egg. For heaven's sake -GROW UP.
-C2.
yup, we're still sneetches. sigh
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 5 2006, 10:20 PM)
Dialogue.. testing..
Perhaps we should know more about Marshall McLuhan
Apparently..
Canadian postmodernist Marshall McLuhan grew on the legacy of Southern New Criticism to be a champion of multiculturalism. New Critics set the stage for the multicultural climate of late 20th century. McLuhan's post-nationalism represented the contingencies of contemporary individuality and nationality, while his work suggested possibilities of liberation from violence. He believed that change in the direction of a government-sponsored income was the best solution to the dynamics of modern perpetual revolution and he advocated the multicultural, multi-media global village.
One of my pet hates is 'multiculturalism'.
In MY village we eat our boiled eggs from THIS end. This creates a cultural divide between us and the people from the next village who eat THEIR eggs from the OTHER end.
An egg is an egg is an egg. For heaven's sake -GROW UP.
-C2.
multiculturalism, not 'meltingpotism', allows you to eat the egg anyway you like.
maybe, you should hate less?
mcluhan didn't 'advocate' very much at all, so much as he observed patterns of the collective human mind. any 'advocacy' was more of a prediction or suggestion than a strong stance.
mcluhan didn't 'advocate' the global village. he observed that it is inevitable in a lightspeed sattelite enviroment. he 'advocated' realising this, in order to make informed decisions about how to handle it.
he also suggested the way to cure gridlock in big cities, was to make LESS roadspace available. no one would drive, anymore. not a bad idea, says i. pretty good, even.
i prefer driving, but it is not a healthy thing for millions of cars to be spewing exhaust twenty four hours a day. improved, more accessible public transit is inevitable in the future, unless exhaustless flying cars are invented.
mcluhan is one of the most misunderstood icons of academia.
he is also an enemy of big brother, which is why he is often ridiculed, MISCONSTRUED(as by confused2, above), and marginalised. his material is too compelling to ignore for some of the better abstract thinkers in the world.
don't feel bad, though, confused2, he is misunderstood even by people, 'scholars', who TEACH mcluhan.
the medium is the mess age.
the medium is the massage.
Perhaps we should know more about Marshall McLuhan
Apparently..
Canadian postmodernist Marshall McLuhan grew on the legacy of Southern New Criticism to be a champion of multiculturalism. New Critics set the stage for the multicultural climate of late 20th century. McLuhan's post-nationalism represented the contingencies of contemporary individuality and nationality, while his work suggested possibilities of liberation from violence. He believed that change in the direction of a government-sponsored income was the best solution to the dynamics of modern perpetual revolution and he advocated the multicultural, multi-media global village.
One of my pet hates is 'multiculturalism'.
In MY village we eat our boiled eggs from THIS end. This creates a cultural divide between us and the people from the next village who eat THEIR eggs from the OTHER end.
An egg is an egg is an egg. For heaven's sake -GROW UP.
-C2.
multiculturalism, not 'meltingpotism', allows you to eat the egg anyway you like.
maybe, you should hate less?
mcluhan didn't 'advocate' very much at all, so much as he observed patterns of the collective human mind. any 'advocacy' was more of a prediction or suggestion than a strong stance.
mcluhan didn't 'advocate' the global village. he observed that it is inevitable in a lightspeed sattelite enviroment. he 'advocated' realising this, in order to make informed decisions about how to handle it.
he also suggested the way to cure gridlock in big cities, was to make LESS roadspace available. no one would drive, anymore. not a bad idea, says i. pretty good, even.
i prefer driving, but it is not a healthy thing for millions of cars to be spewing exhaust twenty four hours a day. improved, more accessible public transit is inevitable in the future, unless exhaustless flying cars are invented.
mcluhan is one of the most misunderstood icons of academia.
he is also an enemy of big brother, which is why he is often ridiculed, MISCONSTRUED(as by confused2, above), and marginalised. his material is too compelling to ignore for some of the better abstract thinkers in the world.
don't feel bad, though, confused2, he is misunderstood even by people, 'scholars', who TEACH mcluhan.
the medium is the mess age.
the medium is the massage.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 5 2006, 12:52 PM)
Do we need McLuhan to help us understand?
If you just accept all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds then what?
This isn't the first time I've posted this link on a coberst thread..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
-C2.
hey, i LITERALLY just skimmed through this 'entry'(penetration), but here is the thing that took me less than a second to find...
and, i thought, ..."yeah".
If you just accept all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds then what?
This isn't the first time I've posted this link on a coberst thread..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
-C2.
hey, i LITERALLY just skimmed through this 'entry'(penetration), but here is the thing that took me less than a second to find...
QUOTE
his claim that language is a "violent incursion of Western hegemony upon reality"
and, i thought, ..."yeah".
One of my few bits of acquired wisdom is that the the wider you open the window the more the wind blows in (pretty smart eh? .. it only took me thirty years to notice). I suspect most of us have a 'comfort level' and a 'tolerance level' for the type of wind that blows around in society. We adjust our windows accordingly. If 'dialogue' has any meaning maybe it is a temporary agreement to allow the wind to blow when and where it will.
Two quotes from McCluhan:- ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcluhan#Quotations )
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
"Violence, whether spiritual or physical, is a quest for identity and the meaningful. The less identity, the more violence."
The second one is especially worrying in the context of multiculturalism.
-C2.
Two quotes from McCluhan:- ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcluhan#Quotations )
"Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the idiot with dignity."
"Violence, whether spiritual or physical, is a quest for identity and the meaningful. The less identity, the more violence."
The second one is especially worrying in the context of multiculturalism.
-C2.
“The future masters of technology will have to be light-hearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.” (1969)
"The American bureaucracy ... was set up for very slow speeds of the printed word and railways. At electric speeds, nothing in the USA makes sense." (1970)
"The artist is the only person; his antennae pick up these messages before anybody. So he is always thought of as being way ahead of his time because he lives in the present." (1970)
"In the electric age we wear all mankind as our skin." (1964)
- My favourites.
...but nothing on there comes close to this...
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." (Sticking to thread relevance)
k.
"The American bureaucracy ... was set up for very slow speeds of the printed word and railways. At electric speeds, nothing in the USA makes sense." (1970)
"The artist is the only person; his antennae pick up these messages before anybody. So he is always thought of as being way ahead of his time because he lives in the present." (1970)
"In the electric age we wear all mankind as our skin." (1964)
- My favourites.
...but nothing on there comes close to this...
"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." (Sticking to thread relevance)
k.
"The future masters of technology will have to be light-hearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.”
Maybe the future leaders of society should also be light-hearted and intelligent. Anyone (eg the pope) who gets more than (say) 10,000 'bad' emails gets put in virtual prison for 6 weeks. Fresh start, then any more crap and its back to virtual prison again. The prison warders all come dressed as Easter Bunnies and hold pop-festivals and generally annoy the hell out of the offender. How serious can that get?
Maybe everybody should be light-hearted. Intelligent would be nice too but I feel rather a large number of highly intelligent people .. plot loss.. enough from me.
-C2.
Maybe the future leaders of society should also be light-hearted and intelligent. Anyone (eg the pope) who gets more than (say) 10,000 'bad' emails gets put in virtual prison for 6 weeks. Fresh start, then any more crap and its back to virtual prison again. The prison warders all come dressed as Easter Bunnies and hold pop-festivals and generally annoy the hell out of the offender. How serious can that get?
Maybe everybody should be light-hearted. Intelligent would be nice too but I feel rather a large number of highly intelligent people .. plot loss.. enough from me.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 7 2006, 01:44 PM)
Maybe the future leaders of society should also be light-hearted and intelligent.
...And we all know that the future is being made now!
Boy, this ebunny costume is getting warm!!!
k.
nice comments, and relevent quotes.
mcluhan also said we travel into the future looking in the rear view mirror(not verbatim).
he also predicted the inevitable global village(which we're already living in, old world borders no longer have the same signifigance) would force a return to tribalism.
this is the multiculturism that you 'fear', C2?
violence is inevitable, too, as man fights to regain his tribal identity, which was obsolesced by the printing press.
or, according to the laws of media, 'retrieves' his 'obsolete' tribal identity as a 'nostalgia', and 'fuses' it with his new global identity (fusion is the unwritten fifth law, according to the relevent mcluhanites).
fearing the inevitable is no good way to deal with it. "change is the only constant". don't know who said it, but i'm sure mcluhan would agree.
mcluhan also said we travel into the future looking in the rear view mirror(not verbatim).
he also predicted the inevitable global village(which we're already living in, old world borders no longer have the same signifigance) would force a return to tribalism.
this is the multiculturism that you 'fear', C2?
violence is inevitable, too, as man fights to regain his tribal identity, which was obsolesced by the printing press.
or, according to the laws of media, 'retrieves' his 'obsolete' tribal identity as a 'nostalgia', and 'fuses' it with his new global identity (fusion is the unwritten fifth law, according to the relevent mcluhanites).
fearing the inevitable is no good way to deal with it. "change is the only constant". don't know who said it, but i'm sure mcluhan would agree.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.