Marshall McLuhan on surveillance and identity in the electric age (1977) [video]

108 点作者 llimos超过 2 年前

15 条评论

greyface-超过 2 年前

Full ~30 minute source program: <a href="https://www.tvo.org/video/archive/marshall-mcluhan-in-conversation-with-mike-mcmanus" rel="nofollow">https://www.tvo.org/video/archive/marshall-mcluhan-in-conver...</a>Transcript: <a href="https://www.tvo.org/transcript/155847" rel="nofollow">https://www.tvo.org/transcript/155847</a>

评论 #34256306 未加载

sdwr超过 2 年前

My jaw literally dropped when he said TV takes away your body. That's mastery of the medium, he owned the fourth wall harder than I've ever seen. Beautiful little lie, it's not true for him in the moment, but it is true for the viewer, and he's concerned with the viewing so it is kinda true...That's angling towards qualia. What does it feel like to be an AI? I can imagine a world where programs are paid in experience. Querying a model is cheap, and leaves it unchanged. Integrating new info is expensive.

low_tech_love超过 2 年前

Usually the argument pro-digital social networks is that it's just the same as before: the same happened to radio, TV, etc. But is it really the same? Did we ever had such an immediate, quantified, ubiquitous, and global feedback mechanism that kept us constantly aware (and self-conscious) of every single thing we say or do? Is it really natural to micro-manage your life based on the amount of likes you are going to get from people who are (more often than not) not even a part of your life? They say that a metric stops being useful when it becomes the goal, and I feel like we reached the ultimate instance of that problem.

评论 #34252541 未加载

coolandsmartrr超过 2 年前

"When you don't have a physical body, you're a discarnate being"As a video creator[1], the greatest irony about the above quote is that filming is substantially involved with the physical reality of the world in front of the camera. You cannot create an image unless the object exists in front of the lens. That is why filmmaking is material-intensive, and to that extent, capital-intensive. Visual elements like objects, composition, lighting do not happen by accident. And in the metaphysical realm, elements like stories, characters, emotions do not just occur in an optimal sequence without considerable premeditation.[1] <a href="https://youtu.be/Z_pH0RMxa_E" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/Z_pH0RMxa_E</a>To continue McLuhan's quote: "You have a very different relation of the world around you."This is also true with making intangible products like videos. A video file is just a sequence of bytes that had sampled the audio-visual stimuli. This is then re-manifested into our perception by the manipulation of light on the screen and of soundwaves on the speaker.The intangible nature of video is both a blessing and a curse to filmmakers. Being immaterial makes it effortless to distribute the material once already created. But the audience will not see the challenges in manifesting an idea into the physical realm for the camera. Furthermore, with the inundation of video content online, appreciation for such crafts evaporates.As McLuhan postulated, entities are treated differently when manifested without physicality. I would say that being physical evokes more empathy. His conversation referenced the erosion of privacy, on the principle that discarnate beings are treated as being less. I wonder if more "things" will be treated less with their further digitization.

评论 #34257422 未加载

cjohnson318超过 2 年前

I just read about McLuhan in 1Q84 today. He coined the expression, "the medium is the message," talking about how we tend to focus on the content of media, and disregard the media itself. I feel like most people are wrong about most things, most of the time, but that's near prophetic for 1964.

评论 #34256972 未加载

评论 #34255838 未加载

评论 #34257049 未加载

motohagiography超过 2 年前

McLuhan's idea of being discorporeal, or without a body, being only a representation or a symbol pretty much sums up the culture right now. As neutrally as I can manage, that sums up the divide that makes political differences so irreconcilable. More than just being reduced to symbols to each other, the polarization is between people who believe symbols and the represented are the real, and those who believe there exists a real independent of the represented or experienced. We're in the power vacuum created by this discorporeal existence McLuhan predicted, and filling that vaccum is the source of the conflict.I'd take it a step further where the conservative mind is defined by belief in a real (the real) where pursuit and alignment to truth is the highest good, and whereas the progressive understanding is that the real is whatever one represents or experiences it to be over the substrate of a power struggle. They're right about the power struggle, but only because to them everything is a power struggle and we all just happen to be in one caused by this discorporeality from tech. Sort of a stopped-clock waiting for a Marxist moment. Personally, I think it's a materialist understanding that has no belief at all, and it substitutes a system of criticism for the physical experience that produces a sustainable morality. However, while I don't expect them to care, I am very interested in the problem of how to diffuse these conflicts I believe are the roots of the kind of cyclical and generational genocial wars for which our species seems about due.McLuhan was right about a lot of things, and probably was more concrete and useful than the more fashionable ideas of Baudrillard and the other post modernists. McLuhan was also a fairly devout catholic, which might explain how he could riff on the same broad critical themes as the atheistic critical theorists, but with a more right handedness instead of left hand perspective. His conservatism is probably what ultimately caused him to fall out of academic fashion, not unlike Rene Girard, where they both had an almost scientific level of predictive power, but the post-hoc explanatory power of the marxist theorists was ultimately more seductive to undergrad minds. These latter ones asked, "who needs all these other abstract things like good, truth, stability, freedom, when you can just seize the power?" And so we have a generation of politically activated adults who are organizing to rule over the ashes of civilization.A bit abstract for HN, but you post Marshall McLuhan, this is about par. I have a book of his essays on my shelf I thought about revisiting, but it's a bit like reading an engineering manual after the ship has struck the iceberg, where if you're only reading it now, it's probably too late. :)

评论 #34257200 未加载

评论 #34255630 未加载

layman51超过 2 年前

“Death to Videodrome! Long live the new flesh!”

Fricken超过 2 年前

McLuhan is still the most important thinker of the 21st century.

评论 #34258839 未加载

bhouston超过 2 年前

I love a lot of Marshall McLuhan but also a lot of what he says is very metaphorical and spiritual which doesn’t always make sense to me. He is sort of a weird guy that way. Smart but goes weird into unprovable allegories often.

评论 #34258066 未加载

评论 #34258302 未加载

msla超过 2 年前

I have yet to be convinced McLuhan had anything to add to the discussion.

r4ltman超过 2 年前

<a href="https://youtube.com/watch?v=pYX6NKZphWU&feature=shares">https://youtube.com/watch?v=pYX6NKZphWU&feature=shares</a> The education of Mike MacManus

nilmask超过 2 年前

> Show business had been one way of establishing identity by just put-ons. And without the put-on, you're a nobody.It always felt disingenuous to "smile for the camera" when really my life circumstances were plainly miserable at the time. However, by refusing to participate in fraudulent representations of your identity, you now become a nobody; a digital vampire, without a reflection in the black mirror.> Role-playing has become the normal mode of survival in the business world.You adopt an alter-ego. In the modern information age and WFH era, this is a non-corporeal identity whose representation is purely digital.> When you're on the air, you're a discarnate being.It may or may not have any correlation to your "actual" (read: corporeal) identity.> Everybody tends to merge his identity with other people at the speed of light.In modern censorious culture, the boundaries of your non-corporeal identity are being violated without consent - in order to have an identity (read: participate in most mainstream social media on the Web), you must adopt the ethics of the Moderator class and the masses of Users that uphold the group identity.Failure to accept the group ethos and install it into your non-corporeal identity leads to a deprivation of that non-corporeal identity; whether you were banned or merely refused to sign up on principle, the effect is the same - you are a ghost without a digital representation.> [...] and this, I think, has been one of the big effects of the electric age. It has deprived people, really, of their private identity.What makes this uniquely more dystopian in the COVID era is that identity has progressed to Baudrillard's third order simulacrum: "it masks the absence of a profound reality." Whereas the distinction between one's non-corporeal (digital) identity was clear in decades prior, due to, e.g. low megapixel cameras; low video resolutions & bitrates; historical groundings in BBS, mailing lists, and fora; etc....it is now becoming easier - tacitly assumed, even - to conflate one's digital identity for the "real person" (discussions of what a "real person" is notwithstanding). Indeed, for many people we encounter, our only interactions with them will be digital; especially during that time where in-person interaction was in fact forbidden, for reasons of public health. Thus, failure to assimilate into the group identity and uphold its manner of thought feels much closer to a direct assault on one's personal, corporeal identity.

amicusadastra超过 2 年前

This is the best comment thread I’ve ever seen on a McLuhan clip. Guess I need to pay attention to HN.

dredmorbius超过 2 年前

McLuhan is interesting and provocative, but also has a strong tendency to spout statements and assertions with little basis in fact. I'm not saying "ignore him", he'd managed to suggest far too many interesting observations for that. But read or listen with discernment, and note that apparent throwaway comments are often false.Standouts here, based on the full interview (<<a href="https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xtsTB3U8AeE" rel="nofollow">https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xtsTB3U8AeE</a>>):"The literate man can carry his liquor, the tribal man cannot." This fails to stand to even slight examination: history is replete with drunken authors (Dylan Thomas comes to mind, whoever he was, as S&G noted), and the correlation is far more with populations which had a long-standing relationship with alcohol and hence evolved both tolerance and moderation. Indian and Chinese populations are highly literate but notably less alcohol-tolerant than Europeans."You cannot propagandise a native." That is, literate populations are singularly susceptible to propaganda. This is ... interesting, but again, fails to stand to examination. Tribal cultures are subject to Big Man narratives, and propaganda seems most effective among the less literate and educated members of a population. In part this is because propaganda is a large-group mechanism, that is, its very influence is largely based on its ability to move a large portion of the population, and even amongst literate cultures, there are limits to how much of the population is highly literate. That the highly-literate and educated are subject to different sorts of propaganda and influence I've no doubt, but that illiterate populations aren't subject to cargo-culting, mythology, and daemonisation of the other ... fails basic historical tests."Electronic people lose their religion very easily." Again, evidence suggests otherwise. The history here of the Second Great Awakening, of the Burned Over Districts (of upstate New York), of Holy Rollers, of Father Coughlin, and of the recent co-option of the American Evangelical movements ... all suggest that religion and electric / electronic media can in fact coexist, though again in different forms.There are others.Again: don't ignore McLuhan, but be well aware that he is very much the showman --- that is, somewhat ironically, quite the creature of television, at least of his time --- mid-length interviews (this one runs ~28 minutes), fairly common in the 1960s and 1970s --- and often goes for immediate impact rather than deep truths. The penumbra of people who influenced and were influenced by McLuhan is worth examination: Harold Innes (mentioned in the interview, though again claims made in the interview are questionable), Walter Ong, Neil Postman, and Elizabeth Eisenstein amongst them.

1vuio0pswjnm7超过 2 年前

McLuhan cameo in Annie Hall (1977)<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROIrLRQi-m0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROIrLRQi-m0</a>"The scene encapsulates McLuhan's theory rather neatly. McLuhan is famous for the claim that the medium is the message. What he meant by this is that the way in which radios, TVs, or phones address us is more important than what they say when they do. In this case, Allen is alluding to the fact that film is an interactive medium: we are being addressed not as a remote community, as in a radio broadcast, but instead as direct visual witnesses. Before turning to McLuhan, Allen's character has already made his case, that the guy behind him is a nuisance, across the fourth wall to us filmgoers.The scene in Annie Hall epitomizes how readily available McLuhan's ideas were in the 1960s and 70s. Unless you were an Oscar-winning filmmaker, you couldn't pluck the literal McLuhan out of thin air, of course. But you could certainly invoke his ideas with about as much (apparent) ease. Its safe to say laypeople are less familiar with McLuhan's ideas today than they were then, and its also safe to say that many who regurgitated his theories, like the gentleman in Annie Hall, didnt actually understand them all that well. And given the line the actual McLuhan speaks in the scene, we, the viewers, will likely fear we're misunderstanding him as well.Did that mean his whole fallacy was wrong? In a way, no, since knowing to invoke McLuhan was perhaps a better proof of his theories than actually understanding those theories. Maybe that is also why Allen left McLuhan's odd line in the final version of the script and the final cut of the film. After all, the point of the scene is that Allen is able to pull the actual McLuhan from behind the standee and have him settle a dispute directly -- not what McLuhan actually says, which in no way resolves the dispute. And this was true in the sixties already: invoking McLuhan was a way to show you were switched on, tuned in, vibing, or whatever other media metaphor you want to use to show you've grasped what's happening. You got it, and if you couldn't quite say what it was, that mattered less than that you got it."- Daub, What Tech Calls Thinking (2020)