see Gek Opels post... I was just up for a debate about the validity of critical theory. But it's one thing you're not allowed to criticise.
see Gek Opels post... I was just up for a debate about the validity of critical theory. But it's one thing you're not allowed to criticise.
I think he's angry about you lightly critiquing his latest musical wank fantasy
this is so funny
why is it bothering you so much that you are taking your displeasure into a completely unrelated discussion?
‘I think he's angry about you lightly critiquing his latest musical wank fantasy...’
this seems even more plausible now (lmao gek)
Are you maybe conflating the media theory of the "I predict, that by 2003 we'll all be having 3-D holographic sex in cyberspace" type with this more technically philosophical approach to the implications of new technologies (for subjectivity, social relations, politics, epistemology, etc.)?
It's funny you say that, borderpolice, because hypertext theorists/novelists anticipated the internet in 1970, exactly as it would be formed.
Have you ever read the early cognitive scientists? Turing machines? Hello??
(Incidentally, I think CS and media theory diverge GREATLY around 1985-1990. Neither replaces the other--media theory studies/maps out/track broad cultural trends that happen to include changes in computer technology. Computer science can't really replace this study with lines and lines of javascript can it?)
i just don't see either at odds with the other
but i also think your'e misunderstanding media theory and its scope if you think it's about programming languages and virtual architectures exclusively.
media studies is not simply derivative of computer science.
where do you leap from talking about practical solutions and technological capabilities to, say, psychoanalysis?
No.dHarry said:Are you maybe conflating the media theory of the "I predict, that by 2003 we'll all be having 3-D holographic sex in cyberspace" type with this more technically philosophical approach to the implications of new technologies (for subjectivity, social relations, politics, epistemology, etc.)?"
so what were you referring to when you said that the theorists' predictions were wrong?
now I'm curious about which Frenchies you've been reading...can't think of distinctly French media theorists right now for some reason... de Certeau maybe? not a flaneur?
I made a glib statement that i hereby retract , partly because there is so much stuff that any summary judgement will be inappropriate. My general feeling is this: what i consider the heart of the (visible) changes in popular culture due to the internet (google, myspace, IM, blogs, podcasts, P2P, filesharing, IP wars) has not really been anticipated very well, at least in the literature i have seen (mostly french or french inspired),which can only be a tiny fraction of what has been written).
i think this is very true.
most of the time, this stuff is always 4 steps behind the actual practice of the internet, the thing is changing all the time, the way people interact, exchange information, buy and value goods, the kind of goods they buy and value etc..
Umm, might I ask exactly what that means? Surely the trend of the internet is an increase of the organizational structure of knowledge? Especially with things like google's attempt to digitize all the world's books and i dunno, just pretty much the efforts of every large technology company out there. And please don't just say "entropy"What does it mean that there is a continuous decay in the organisational structure of knowledge?
Umm, might I ask exactly what that means? Surely the trend of the internet is an increase of the organizational structure of knowledge? Especially with things like google's attempt to digitize all the world's books and i dunno, just pretty much the efforts of every large technology company out there. And please don't just say "entropy"