[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 456x409, Mcluhan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4249258 No.4249258[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is the medium the message?

>> No.4249297

>>4249258
Or rather what did he mean in the first place?

>> No.4249305

No.

Next question.

>> No.4249309

>>4249297
Or rather, what did " he " mean ?

>> No.4249312

>>4249309
...go on.

>> No.4249319

>>4249312
on what?

>> No.4249328

>>4249319
What were you trying to say?

>> No.4249330

>>4249309
Or rather, what did he ?

>> No.4249334
File: 904 KB, 2598x3943, pynchon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4249334

>>4249330

Or rather, who did?

>> No.4249342

I guess you could interpret "medium" in a lot of ways. I'm not sure if he means technology, the transportional aspect of communication in general, style, or maybe a mix of all of the above. It seems like when you're trying to get to the bottom of meaning there isn't much difference between medium and message. Does he mean there can't be information without a information carrier?

>> No.4249347

>>4249342
>Does he mean there can't be information without a information carrier?

Oh, yes, of course that's what he meant. It's all so obvious.

>> No.4249359

>>4249347
Is it? It wasn't obviously, considering if it had been there there wouldn't have been a thread.

>> No.4249365

>>4249359

No, you got it. That's what he meant. You're a profound and subtle thinker. I bet you read a lot.

>> No.4249367

>>4249365
If your medium is supposed to be assholish sarcasm I got the message.

>> No.4249370

What is music- the sound waves, or the neurological response?

>> No.4249398

>>4249370
I think Cage proved it was the neurological response. Since if you keep going down the path of Cage's "all sound is music and everything is an instrument" theory then you'll eventually arrive at how you recall songs in your head. So surely that makes your brain a musical instrument since you perceive the sounds made in your thought as music.

>> No.4249416

>>4249398
>So surely that makes your brain a musical instrument since you perceive the sounds made in your thought as music.
If you imagine a cat, does it mean you've created a cat?

>> No.4249422

>>4249416
Cats are material unlike music which is something you purely perceive and create.

But I'm sure some philosophers would argue that the idea of a singular material plane of existence is just a symptom of being human.

>> No.4249445

>>4249422
I think the problem here is the differences between subjective and objective existance and at what level we can accept a meaning as having no objective basis- IMO everything has an objective basis and that basis is just as much their definition as anything, including music. Consider a hole in a fabric: does the hole *exist*? Does Bach's ``Art of Fugue'' *exist*? What does that mean? It exists in many forms- a record player with Bach's abrupt ending fugue imprinted on it, an old woman in Bordeaux humming the melody while picking escargots, the history and lore around the song which a child reads in a history book... but where is the song? Well, where is the hole? Where is the spirit? Are these things physical, objective things? Which aspect of them constitutes their definition? ``Mu'' tbh

>> No.4249460

>>4249416
When a composer writes, has he created music or does someone have to play it first?

>> No.4249592

>>4249445
I'd say whole isn't anything ins positivistic sense but the lack of something.