34 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2022
    1. McLuhan wendet also den Formcha-rakter des Mediums ins Materiale

      Erinnert mich direkt an Latour und andere New-Materialism Ansätze vllt auch interessant für das Emergenz Phänomen, von dem Jörg Noller wiederholt spricht- http://felix.openflows.com/html/mcluhan_latour.html

    2. Me-dien sind, wie der kanadische Kulturwissenschaftler MarshallMcLuhan pointiert formuliert hat, keine bloßen Hilfsmitteloder Instrumente, sondern performative Realitäten

    Tags

    Annotators

  2. May 2022
    1. Why is the title of the book “The medium is the massage” and not “The medium is the message”? Actually, the title was a mistake. When the book came back from the typesetter’s, it had on the cover “Massage” as it still does. The title was supposed to have read “The Medium is the Message” but the typesetter had made an error. When Marshall saw the typo he exclaimed, “Leave it alone! It’s great, and right on target!” Now there are four possible readings for the last word of the title, all of them accurate: “Message” and “Mess Age,” “Massage” and “Mass Age.”

      Quote from the Commonly Asked Questions (and Answers) on https://marshallmcluhan.com/common-questions/ with answers written by Dr. Eric McLuhan, Marshall McLuhan's eldest son.

    1. Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page. But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”“You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler , Nietzsche’s prose “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.”

      Saving the entire story for context, but primarily for this Marshall McLuhan-esque quote:

      “You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.”

      I want to know the source of the quote.

  3. Mar 2022
    1. Erving Goffman, you may recall, was a mid-twentieth century sociologist, who, in The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, developed a dramaturgical model of human identity and social interactions. The basic idea is that we can understand social interactions by analogy to stage performance. When we’re “on stage,” we’re involved in the work of “impression management.” Which is to say that we carefully manage how we are perceived by controlling the impressions we’re giving off. (Incidentally, media theorist Joshua Meyrowitz usefully put Goffman’s work in conversation with McLuhan’s in No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior, an underrated work of media theory published in 1986.)3

      Sacasas also makes reference to an article he wrote in which he made use of Goffman's theory to make sense of online experience

    1. Sociologist and anthropologist Bruno Latour’s work is almost never mentioned in media-ecological contexts, but considering the aim, style and scope of his work he can definitely be seen as a media ecologist pur sang. Moreover, he shares some essential premises with Marshall McLuhan. His notions of ‘actant’ or ‘hybrid’, ‘black box’, and ‘translation’, for instance, all find counterparts in ‘common’ media-ecological vocabulary. His advice to ‘follow the actors’, detective style, can be likened to McLuhan’s sleuth-like probing ‘method’. And they both make a similar cultural critique. Yet above and beyond these correspondences, some crucial divergences remain, more precisely with regard to the concept of agency. In this article I endeav-our to outline the similarities and differences, which eventually lead me to a brief reflection on the ‘uniqueness’ of the discipline of media ecology

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. Die soziale Welt aber bleibt platt in allen Punkten, ohne dass man hier Stufen entdecken könnte, die es erlaubten, vom „Mikro“ zum „Makro“ zu gehen.

      McLuhans ground

    1. The shift from McLuhan to Latour allows us to retain some of the key ideas of McLuhan, namely that the most interesting aspects of new technologies are that they indicate much more extensive changes in the environment. However, ANT might be able to describe these strange new connections in ways that are less declarative but more argumentative, less intuitive but more analytical.

      Mögliche Rolle der ANT in Fragen von Leitmedienwechsel/Paradigmenwechsel - argumentativer und analytischer als McLuhans Ansatz (?)

    2. turning attention to the area of inattention

      Don't know if I am too superficially thinking here, but this reminds me of thoughts about mindfulness - Gives me the idea, that coping with new media will be more successful if it is done mindfully

    3. The reason why he ran at such as speed was that he had to be fast enough to avoid turning what he described into figures, and, quite literally, he had to cover lots of ground

      Sounds somewhat rhizomatic to me

    4. His Understanding Media, for example, is by and large the exploration of different grounds as they are structured by media such as Television, radio print, the car, clothing or money.

      Also nach Stalder ist für McLuhan das Studium der Medien das Studium des Grundes, nicht der sich davon abhebenden Figur. So z.B. TV, radio, Auto, Kleidung, Geld

    1. der eben sagt es gibt immer wieder neue galaxien

      Vllt ist dieser Galaxienbegriff zu starr, zu voraussetzungsreich? Vllt hilft bspw. Latours Plug-in Idee hier etwas bescheidener zu sein, kritische Nähe, nicht kritische Distanz

    1. medium is the message also das medium ist die botschaft es ist nicht die überbringerin der botschaft zumindest 00:32:30 selbst bedeutsam strukturiert ich würde noch einen schritt weiter gehen das medium selbst hat auch unter logische funktion es selbst verändert unsere wirklichkeit wie wir zum beispiel in handels internet sehen was die ich 00:32:44 glaube gar nicht zutreffend als medium beschrieben werden kann da auch in der neue begriffe ich würde vorschlägen schlagen als ein handlungsraum

      medium is the message Noller: Aber Internet ist eher Handlungsraum als Medium

    2. erstmal schnittblumen und gerhard an gut

      Gutenberg Galaxie

      *Marshall McLuhan und der hat ein Buch geschrieben

  4. Jan 2022
    1. We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. —Winston Churchill


      Life imitates art. We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us. — John M. Culkin, “A Schoolman’s Guide to Marshall McLuhan” (The Saturday Review, March 1967) (Culkin was a friend and colleague of Marshall McLuhan)

  5. Dec 2021
  6. worrydream.com worrydream.com
    1. Bret Victor: email (9/3/04) Interface matters to me more than anything else, and it always has. I just never realized that. I've spent a lot of time over the years desperately trying to think of a "thing" to change the world. I now know why the search was fruitless -- things don't change the world. People change the world by using things. The focus must be on the "using", not the "thing". Now that I'm looking through the right end of the binoculars, I can see a lot more clearly, and there are projects and possibilities that genuinely interest me deeply.

      Specifically highlighting that the "focus must be on the 'using', not the 'thing'".

      This quote is very reminiscent of John M. Culkin's quote (often misattributed to McLuhan) "We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us."

      <small><cite class='h-cite via'> <span class='p-author h-card'>Linus Lee</span> in Towards a research community for better thinking tools | thesephist.com (<time class='dt-published'>12/01/2021 08:23:07</time>)</cite></small>

  7. Nov 2021
  8. Sep 2021
    1. Nicholas Carr explores cognitive science and media theory to understand how technology is change our brains through neuroplasticity.

      Ezra Klein was in conversation with Richard Powers regarding his recent book, Bewilderment, exploring the way technology changes us by changing our environment. The medium is the message.

    1. I think Marshall McLuhan knew it all. I really do. Not exactly what it would look like, but his view and Postman’s view that we are creating a digital global nervous system is a way they put it, it was exactly right. A nervous system, it was such the exact right metaphor. And he didn’t — it’s not that they saw it exactly, but I really love those mid-century media critics because they saw something happening clearer than we see it now. And it is a nervous system. I’m a huge Marshall McLuhan stan.

      We are creating physical infrastructure to scale, enhance, and amplify human capabilities to extend our reach beyond the constraints of time and space.

  9. Jul 2021
    1. Carr’s argument is something I resisted for a long time, but his main assertion — that the tools we use to think shape how we think — is hard to ignore.

      While this may be Nicholas Carr's statement, it's actually pre-dated significantly by Marshall McLuhann

    1. Linnaeus had to manage a conflict between the need to bring information into a fixed order for purposes of later retrieval, and the need to permanently integrate new information into that order, says Mueller-Wille. “His solution to this dilemma was to keep information on particular subjects on separate sheets, which could be complemented and reshuffled,” he says.

      Carl Linnaeus created a method whereby he kept information on separate sheets of paper which could be reshuffled.

      In a commonplace-centric culture, this would have been a fascinating innovation.

      Did the cost of paper (velum) trigger part of the innovation to smaller pieces?

      Did the de-linearization of data imposed by codices (and previously parchment) open up the way people wrote and thought? Being able to lay out and reorder pages made a more 3 dimensional world. Would have potentially made the world more network-like?

      cross-reference McLuhan's idea about our tools shaping us.

  10. Jun 2021
    1. liberatory struggle but also there are traditions that are um indigenous to like black um to the like to the black community to black explorer community

      yes marxism is a incredibly important tool um for thinking you know uh for you know liberatory struggle but also there are traditions that are um indigenous to like black um to the like to the black community to black diaspora community —Christopher R. Rogers (auto-generated transcript)

      Marxism can be a lens (tool) through which to look at the black community, but the black community has also changed Marxism.

      How can we connect this to the McLuhan-esque idea of us shaping out tools and then them reshaping us?

      cf. https://hypothes.is/a/6Znx6MiMEeu3ljcVBsKNOw

      "We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us." — John M. Culkin cf.

    1. Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism.

      The idea of Taylorism as a religion is intriguing.

      However, underlying it is the religion of avarice and greed.

      What if we just had the Taylorism with humanity in mind and took out the root motivation of greed?

      This might be akin to trying to return Christianity to it's Jewish roots and removing the bending of the religion away from its original intention.

      It's definitely the case that the "religion" is only as useful and valuable to it's practitioners as the practitioners allow. In the terms of the McLuhan-esque quote "We shape our tools and thereafter they shape us." we could consider religion (any religion including Taylorism) as a tool. How does that tool shape us? How do we continue to reshape it?

      While I'm thinking about it, what is the root form of resilience that has allowed the Roman Catholic Church to last and have the power and influence it's had for two millennia?

  11. May 2021
    1. As Friedrich Nietzsche famously conceded to his friend Heinrich Köselitz a century later, “You are right — our writing tools take part in the forming of our thoughts.”

      This is a fascinating quote and something I've thought about before. Ties to McLuhan's "the medium is the message" as well.

  12. Aug 2020
    1. “When the environment itself is constituted by electric circuitry and information, architecture becomes the content of the new information environment. Architecture is the old technology which is automatically elevated into an art form.”
    2. electronics presents new challenges to planners because this latest prosthetic extension of the body defines an entirely new form of space.
    1. Obviously not every group chat counts as a “conspiracy”. But it makes the question of how society coheres, who is associated with whom, into a matter of speculation – something that involves a trace of conspiracy theory. In that sense, WhatsApp is not just a channel for the circulation of conspiracy theories, but offers content for them as well. The medium is the message.
  13. Jul 2019
    1. In this sense, it isn’t the medium that is the message as McLuhan (1994) famously states; rather the process of producing media is the message as Benjamin (1970; See also Waltz, 2005) argued, whether the media in question be print, radio, TV, or online.
  14. Feb 2019
    1. we will have amplified the intelligence of the human by organizing his intellectual capabilities into higher levels of synergistic structuring.
    2. The realization that any potential change in language, artifact, or methodology has importance only relative to its use within a process' and that a new process capability appearing anywhere within that hierarchy can make practical a new consideration of latent change possibilities in many other parts of the hierarchy—possibilities in either language, artifacts, or methodology—brings out the strong interrelationship of these three augmentation means.
    3. It is the augmentation means that serve to break down a large problem in such a way that the human being can walk through it with his little steps
    4. integrated domain