Marshall mcluhan

the OG canadian pop-philosophy pseud

Other urls found in this thread:

thefreelibrary.com/"Nihilism exposed".-a0280004559
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Excellent thread, OP.

I just finished Understanding Media, I enjoyed it.

>the OG canadian pop-philosophy pseud

Don't even bother trying to substantiate this u brainlet.
Fucking hell. Look mom I did it again...
die.

>media has message

He said one extremely profound thing and then based an entire book if not his entire career around trying to elaborate on it and didn't do a very good job.
The medium is the message. A genius observation but he was unable to go anywhere with it.

If it works it's obsolete therefore everyone sufficiently familiar enough with it to make it work obsolescence is not the end but the beginning

The most human thing about us is our technology
People on Veeky Forums with declarative opinions are usually quite lazy and supply nothing of which they endorse

If they're trying to solve the problems mcluhan was trying to solve they'd probably start to think the way he actually wrote
You're obviously not familiar with take today cultures our business or from cliche to archetype let alone laws of the media the last witch being what was supposed to be an updated version of understanding media

Perils before swain post million eight

holy..

this board is shamefurr today

>can't into verbs
sad

its the massage retard

kek

guy is way overrated by pseuds on twitter

yup

Terrence McKennas deconstruction of Marshall McLuhan 10/10

McLuhan didn't invent anything, all of his ideas were coming from other sources. he was a genius at connecting the dots.

Can you faggots PLEASE stop mentioning twitter whenever there's a McLuhan thread

No it's the mass age

2/3 of the people here are active on lefty twitter on the side

...

...

is this the shit he copied, because if so, they're also brainlets

I kind of want to ask Peterson what he thinks of McLuhan.

>books that explore canada

oh my sides

Innis is great. Type in "Western Cynical" somewhere

im new here, ive read neil postman, am i bad person :(

I agree, him and Norman Lear.

McLuhan is one of those people that both pseuds and genuinely intelligent people like

>dude it's actually the tv and not what's on it
wow okay? how is that a genious obversation?

I really enjoyed Understanding Media. I thought his work on Hot and Cold mediums and the tribalization of culture based on the dominant form of media were profound, and easy to extrapolate into the Internet age.

Also, the Gutenberg Galaxy was excellent.

You should check out the literature podcast Entitled Opinions. There's a good episode speaking to Eric McLuhan about his father's work on media theory.

try actually reading it

I think he'd drop it by the chapter that details electric light as the first medium without content. That the brainlet hurdle.

Thanks user, I'll check that out.

Yes this is obvious and very annoying


McLuhan inherited media studies from Harold Innis one of his masters. He was exploring and very careful not to to predict anything that had not already happened. He learned a lot of what he said from Finnegans Wake

He was a Joyce scholar, wasn't he? Surprised Veeky Forums doesn't like him more just based on that.

It's perhaps debatable if media IS the message but it certainly shapes it. Just reading this on a screen is a very different process than on paper.

What mediums have been invented since Mcluthan died?
Social media, image boards, Videogames, Twitter and Clickbait seem like the ones he would be most interested in.

>genious

Not good. Less aestheticising Mcluhan and less decontextualising his ideas would be better. Even better would be to denounce him so that only serious readers engage with his works. The masses can do nothing with him except play along with a nod to the doomsayer.

Technological determinism is the most important issue of the 21st century. It goes beyond the politics of left or right, but has potential implications for both sides. Because we have no clear indication of the extant that technology determines our consciousness, we should consider all possibilities.

---

Luddites
Huxley's The island
and the holler-back girls.

---

F. Kittler

You can’t read it. You can only look at it. It’s inspired by Manuscript culture.

I found this review by Mcluhan interesting (from 1955):
thefreelibrary.com/"Nihilism exposed".-a0280004559
>...In a word, his triadic view of spirit, intellect, and sense is the neo-Platonic and Buddhist view of the opacity of the intellectual knowledge and the illusory character of the human self. There is no vitality or reality in mind or self or the world. But Art is of the spirit, the divine spark in man (which is not the self in this doctrine) and art alone can impregnate the world with some quality of reality. I may not be untypical of most Catholics in having been slow to apprehend this matter. But the Romantics and the symbolists necessarily regarded art as more real than the external world. The Catholic doctrine of the body-soul composite confers a substantiality on the existent such as it has had in no other view, pagan or heretical. All pagan religion and philosophy reposes immediately or ultimately on the doctrine of preexistence. The core of this doctrine is the notion that man imprisons an uncreated divine spark within his body and within his soul. But the human self is no more identical with this bit of divinity within us than the same spark is identical with a stick or a stone. But the imagination of the poet or genius is more nearly identical with this bit of divinity within us than the same spark is identical with a stick or a stone. The imagination of the poet or genius is nearly identical with this uncreated spirit. The least vision or action of the genius is thus more real than all the rest of existence.
>These views flooded into Europe in the fifteenth century. They underlie all the mechanic-materialisms from Descartes to John Dewey, since it is the merest whim whether these views are used to structure a Berkleyan idealism or a Darwinian mechanism. In this respect Hobbes was no more a materialist than Marx. Both regarded matter as an irreducible mental state. But mental states might well change with some rearrangement of the cosmic powers or aeons. And it is the business of the artist to be constantly shifting the scenery of existence about in accordance with his infallible intuitions of the cosmic weather. Art is revolution.

>...The soul is a shabby mechanism, the body a monstrous one. The spirit or artist says to body and soul, a plague on both your prisons. And now in the twentieth century when nature has been abolished by art and engineering, when government has become entertainment and entertainment has become the art of government, now the gnostic and neo-Platonist and Buddhist can gloat: "I told you so! This gimcrack mechanism is all that there ever was in the illusion of human existence. Let us rejoin the One."

You're alright mate.

>The least vision or action of the genius is thus more real than all the rest of existence.
So egoistic experimental formalists are his thing, eh? What a fucking contradiction to his opposing technological change, or at least disgruntled view of that change.

---

His playing with terms cant be treated with seriousness unless you could understand his view of them or at least how he was thinking about them in this instance. What he means by reality here is as lost to time as is the body/soul distinction.

I obviously don't understand him well here, but that anyone says they do is ridiculous considering what he himself would believe about the language he uses to "communicate" his "understanding". At least Kittler saw what Mcluhan saw and switched courses quick enough to actually engage with his subject. Mcluhan found the deadend and decided to sit there and wallow, clutching his mother's cross, joking about travel plans.

Art is no more revolution than the plague. And at least plagues are more likely to bring about silence, stillness, and emptiness. Although, I suppose a nuke does this too....

What does "and the holler-back girls" mean here? I don't understand.