kumar

Well-known member
that grapejuice essay is unbelievable.

i mentioned the catholic humanism essay the other day, i was trying to read it around the same time i found that blog on here but had no idea of the overlap. that feels very special.

and bob dobbs too! fkn hell zappa mentions him in his book, says something like theyre on the same page in most areas. hes quite a magnetic personality, 100 years old or not.

on a related note to mcluhan i was watching kung fu hustle with my friend the other day and apropos of nothing she said "hippies were the first generation to grow up with tv"

i will try and add more when ive had a sit down
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
Do add a bit more when you can. You're a clever sausage. Usually have something useful to add.set a good example.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
on a related note to mcluhan i was watching kung fu hustle with my friend the other day and apropos of nothing she said "hippies were the first generation to grow up with tv"
“Whole problem ’th you folk’s generation,” Isaiah opined, “nothing personal, is you believed in your Revolution put your lives right out there for it — but you sure didn’t understand much about the Tube. Minute the Tube got hold of you folks that was it, that whole alternative America, el deado meato, just like the’ Indians, sold it all to your real enemies, and even in 1970 dollars — it was way too cheap…”
 

kumar

Well-known member
well i just read in the other thread that you said you were on the piss last night but still thats a kind thing to say.

I don’t know much at all about mcluhan. Like the grapejuice says, until i read the catholic humanism essay recently i had the vague notion of him being a wired magazine style media guru. Between that essay and this grape series there are countless brilliant ideas, none of which i really understand. Perhaps primarily this thread should be an investigation into how we reallign the sensorium, but if it just stuck as a close reading of these two accounts I would be very happy.



The main thrust of both pieces, new to me, is that perception is analogous and emblematic and evidence of the incarnation, catholic or otherwise, an ongoing eternal return to the creator that can be perceived at any and all moments by everybody, hierophany-free. which is demonstrably true and changes everything and nothing. before incarnation chop wood carry water, after incarnation chop wood carry water etc.

By the process of perception everybody instantaneously transforms chaotic sensory data into an ordered cosmos, it’s a metaphorical account of the union of spirit and matter and also literally the very fact of that. The potential reconstruction of the world that could be achieved by manipulating individual sense perceptions, through control of their technological extenstions, is the main problem raised by mcluhan. To counteract this, we must become aware of the process of perception, and rebalance the sense ratio that is knocked out of whack by the successive development of print, radio, tv, phones, vr. i reckon “become aware” refers to more than this kind of rudimentary sparknotes summary of this version of the incarnation.

There’s a bit where he says that tv, or the cinema, is promising because it foregrounds this mechanism of reconstructing the world, reverse engineering the process of perception externally. You sit in the theatre, you see the projection, you’re aware of the artifice but still immersed, maybe. The screen’s an immersive environment but its still a clunky simulation of human vision if its a 16 by 9 rectangle. We’re still at the point of “becoming aware of the process of perception” / the incarnation as long as the shoddy analogue of the silver screen is mediating.

As far as mind control, subjective perspective is more difficult to pull off convincingly with video than sound - asmr therapy is democratic and accessible, vr therapy is expensive and reserved for war veterans. First person shots in films for instance are tricky because they most clearly stick out as being filmed, the robocop interface works for instance but otherwise you create this critical distance for the audience - the first person shots in rear window which have that red filter that matches the cinema curtains are an example of how embarassing this limitation is for directors.

By comparison recorded sound is much more invasive and tricksy, amplified it gives rise to the biggest social changes in last sixty years, it doesn’t require you to be fixed in a hypnotic gaze at a single point, has a much clearer synasthetic tactile component, that’s why get far more upset by muzak than billboards.

The conclusion of the grapejuice is fantastic, the tone they seem to conclude on is always very hopeful without feeling weedy, but i’m having the most difficulty with that part. If touch is missing how is it to be restored. what is touch? in both accounts its the centrepoint of the cross that acts as the interplay of each sense. didnt version describe their spirtitual breakthrough in the snow as a sudden buzzing feeling? Is that kind of tactility the awareness of the perceptual process? Is that too literal minded? version whats that quote from?
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
I don't think I understand his bit about charisma, about looking like the majority. Carter was charismatic because he looked like every American man?

So the degree you identify with someone in such a way is the degree of trust you have in them, giving them that kind of social sway?
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Yeah, I was iffy on that bit too but the more I thought about it the more sense it made. The appeal of Trump to many of his supporters is that he's just like them. He talks and thinks they way they do. He's one of them who just happens to be a billionaire.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Someone like Brad Pitt would be a counter example, imo. He's generally considered charismatic but I doubt people think he's just like them. He's someone they want to be like. Maybe McLuhan would say that's something different.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Oh, you just reminded me of a working theory regarding parasocial relationships, specifically the difference between the two kinds of relations you mentioned: identifying with someone, and wanting to identify with someone.

Another effect of rampant expansion/extension of senses, we are exposed to personalities that we will likely never have an exchange with, and yet these personalities can become measures of our own personal development. Having conversations with such-and-such celebrity or admiree in your imagination.

There are those personalities we tune into because we relate to them on some mundane and comfortable level (all the idle hangout entertainment), and there are those personalities we tune into because we want to relate to them (more in the line of celebrity).

I think such a relation can begin as the former, as some personality has an initially modest niche, and transform into the latter, as said personality gains attention and platforms etc. From the perspective of the fan, we go from looking this personality eye to eye, more or less as an equal, to looking up to them.

This transformation seems to be correlated with the size of the fan base. If you are one of a handful of followers for so-and-so, its reasonable to say that you are more inclined to view that personality as an equal, seeing as their following is much closer to your following than some celebrity's is. But as the follower count grows, this distance lengthens, and soon enough you have a tough time really relating.

Anyway, if would be interesting to find some McLuhan thoughts on parasocial relations.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
I read an interview with William Gibson the other day where they mentioned a book of his called Idoru where he apparently puts forward the idea that,

“... it's easier to desire and pursue the attention of tens of millions of total strangers than it is to accept the love and loyalty of the people closest to us.”
He wrote that in '96 but it seems particularly true nowadays what with the rise of social media.
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
didnt version describe their spirtitual breakthrough in the snow as a sudden buzzing feeling? Is that kind of tactility the awareness of the perceptual process? Is that too literal minded?
I felt like the entire planet was one big electrical circuit and everything seemed to be humming/vibrating.
version whats that quote from?
Vineland.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I understand his bit about charisma, about looking like the majority. Carter was charismatic because he looked like every American man?

So the degree you identify with someone in such a way is the degree of trust you have in them, giving them that kind of social sway?
This is about hot and cold media. And a very specific idea of coolness. It’s tricky to understand and I won’t bore here but worth investing in I think
 
In any case, I appreciate the lead.

But for what it is worth, I'd hardly find any elaboration boring.
Yeah sorry I don’t mean to play things down I’m just showing my ignorance and trying to signpost to his ideas. In terms of him getting toward a method, you might get something from his tetrad.
 
Also keep posting, really interesting contributions so far, especially your up frontness about wanting to achieve something
 
Top