[MD] Media As Epistemology and what it means for Truth

[Ian Glendinning]

He hee.
Media as epistemology ? You maybe already heard "The medium was the message".
I think I did get the point.

Trivial TV IS dangerous, no argument there.
My point was / is that the trivia is not always obvious. ie TV is not
synonymous with trivia
Ian

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually Ian,
>
> I'm very glad you disagree.  What fun is just bobbing our head up and down
> at one another?
>
> If you agree, then you'll be glad to know that I disagree with your
> disagreement.
>
>
>
>> TV is, like everything else in life. 90% crap.
>>
>
>
> I disagree with your analogy.  "everything else in life" is a pretty big
> category.  I mean, it might be true if "everything in life" IS tv because
> you watch so much tv, and come to think of it, why would you know so much
> about the crap except it has been shoved in your face.
>
> So, either false analogy, or tautology, but out of bounds on that one.
>
>
>
>
>> But the 10% is very good - we just have to be selective and discerning.
>>
>>
>
> "selective" means you watch comparatively.  Watching comparatively means
> you're not being selective.  I mean, do you read about crap or do you judge
> it as you watch?  To my mind, there is no way to "select" except by what is
> offered, and since what we are talking about "discernment in what I view"
> depends upon "viewing in order to discern" we are caught in a dilemma of
> devious devising.
>
> And victims of faulty logic to boot.  Shame, in't it.  The way the insidious
> thing rots your brain.
>
> Look at it this way.  The relative value of the program is weighted by the
> craposity of the rest.  If you've been noticing an increase of craposity,
> then your values have been shifted by the medium itself that you are
> supposed to be judging.  Judgement warped by the method.
>
> Media *as* epistemology, Ian.  Pay close attention to that last sentence I
> quoted from N. Postman:
>
> "For, like the printing press, television is nothing less than a philosophy
> of rhetoric.  To talk seriously about television, one must therefore talk of
> epistemology.  All other commentary is in itself trivial"
>
>
>
>
>> And I'm talking across popular (US) genres too, sit-coms, serial
>> dramas, satirical cartoons, not just intellectual and high-brow stuff.
>> Pragmatism can be fun - you know it makes sense.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ian
>> (PS talk-shows and reality-TV easily populates 80% of the the 90% all
>> by itself.)
>>
>>
>
> I'll take your word for that Ian.  Although it does make sense to me, in an
> age where you need tv to tell you what reality is.
>
> "Besides, we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised
> trivialities but by what it claims as significant.  Therein is our problem,
> for television is at its most trivial and therefore, most dangerous when its
> aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important
> cultural conversations.  The irony here is that this is what intellectual
> and  critics are constantly urging television to do."
>
>
> Get that point Ian?
>
>
>  television is nothing less than a philosophy of rhetoric.
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>