Food for thought DB, Okay, if the medium is the message and I consume radio, television, > magazines, newspapers, and books through the internet then what's the > message? Does a stupid thing suddenly become brilliant when it takes a > different shape or vice versa?
It can. I pointed out once with a thought experiment that the context of a message really does matter quite a lot. Stuff hanging on my walls might one day be in an Art Gallery, but the context of choosing and evaluation of high quality adds appreciation to the experience you don't get in one context. Further, books don't translate to TV or movies so adaptation has to be made. > I'm not entirely kidding. The borders between the various media are getting > blurrier every day and personally the medium doesn't matter to me. Yeah I can sort of tell. There's a blurriness of thought which accompanies the blurriness of selectivity. Perhaps more meds might help. Whatever we personally accept is the only real criterion for anything anymore. Truth is relative, ideas are dime and dozen and if you don't like the religious outlook you were raised in, well there's about a billion more to choose from. It's all personal preference anyway, with no real meaning to any of it. I agree completely. > It's like a window. I don't look at it so much as through it. Or a drink. > It's nice to have a proper glass but as long as it's clean who cares what > kind of cup it is? I don't know scholars make a big deal out of such things > but I just don't see it. I don't think it's a crazy idea or anything but it > does seem a bit overplayed and out of proportion. This is essentially a > Marxist idea, by the way. This basic notion that the material means of > production will always determine the shape of culture is a common assumption > among Marxist cultural critics. That assumption or premise practically > defines what a Marxist critic is. I don't know what Postman's background is > but it sure wouldn't surprise. > Well Dave, I'm sure it's fashionable in some circles to praise Marx, just as in other circles it's the fashion to sneer at him. But I'm in favor of evaluating ideas on their merit rather than dismissing or affirming just because it's "marxist". But then again, that's my personal preference for discernment. You're welcome to yours. Here's what's his jacket blurb says, if that's any help. Doesn't mention Marx but hey, you know those slimey academic types it's always in his background somewhere. Neil Postman-- critic, writer, educator and communications theorist- is chairman of the Dept. of Communications Arts, NYU and founder of its program in Media Ecology. Educated at the State University of New York and Columbia University, he won an award for teaching and is editor of Et Cetera, the journal of general semantics. Married, three kids, lives in Flushing, New York Where all the Marxists lurk, no doubt. An interviewer asked Will Rogers what he thought of Trotsky: "I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn't like. When you meet people, no matter what opinion you might have formed about them beforehand, why, after you meet them and see their angle and their personality, why, you can see a lot of good in all of them." Damn Indian Trotskyite sympathizer. They're everywhere. > There's my 2.0 cents. > Here's my change. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
