[lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
- From: John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:37:16 +0900
Another way to look at it is that successful rebellions only change the
people in power; successful revolutions change the system.
John
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Ursula Stange <ursula@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Isn't a rebellion just an unsuccessful revolution?
>
> Sent from my kitchen...
>
> On 2011-10-25, at 7:12 PM, Andy <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't see myself doing Facebook anytime soon. I've traveled vicariously
> around the world, inside the atom, around the universe, and through history,
> so why not Facebook. Actually, I heard a discussion on whether Facebook
> was the reason for the Arab Spring, since the organizing was done on
> Facebook, and the inteviewee's conclusion was that no, revolutions happened
> long before technology. The plotting had to have been more exciting then
> though,
> with secret meetings at somebody's house and the rest of it. On the other
> hand, Facebook did make the planning available to a lot more people, who
> then overwhelmed the status quo. According to Barbara Tuchman, all the
> rebellions in the Middle Ages failed, and there were a lot of them. No FB
> at the time. Rebellions are different from revolutions though.
>
> Andy
>
> *From:* Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
> *To:* <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:06 PM
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: The Medium is the Message
>
> Andy would do well to acquaint herself with Facebook before criticizing
> it. I find it a very interesting venue. How interesting it is depends
> mostly on your friends and their network of friends. Depending on them the
> experience It can be very political, very personal, very philosophical, very
> inconsequential -- all depends. Several liberal friends post articles that
> I find useful and informative that I probably would not have come across
> otherwise. Several conservative friends (yes, I have some) post hate-Obama
> diatribes to which I love responding with snarky remarks. Circles of
> friends -- what you make of it is up to you. Facebook has something like 3
> billion subscribers (I'm glad they're not all my friends) -- the experience
> can be as varied as 3 billion people can be. Depends on you and your circle
> of friends. It can be a post card, or it can be 95 thesis nailed to the
> cathedral door. In fact, I think if Andy would get passed her fear of the
> future, she would enjoy Facebook. Many Lit-Iders are on Facebook including
> Robert Paul, Bev Hogan, Marlena Boggs (Eternity Time), Julie Krueger, Erin
> Holder, Carol Kirschenbaum, Paul Stone, David Ritchie, Tom Hart, Lawrence
> Helm, John McCreery, and moi under the nome de plume Satchmo William
> Tragers. There are others, I'm sure, that I'm not aware of or am
> forgetting. Try it and see if you like it. There are no dues.
>
> In regards to Lit-Id, it is what it is. It has gone through several
> permutations over the 15 years I've been here. The split in the
> congregation way back when led to the demise of Phil-Lit and the rise of
> Lit-Id. It is no longer a primarily political band stand, but a much more
> philosophical one. We have Plato played by Walter O., Aristitole played by
> Robert P. Popper played by Donal Mc., Kierkegaard (?) played by Phil E.,
> Grice played by JLS., and Michael Geary played by himself. Economically we
> have Socialism played by Judy E. Capitalism was one championed by Larry K.,
> and Lawrence H., and Tom H. But Kramer shut down his shop, Lawrence has
> fallen in love with his cameras and dogs and Tom is somewhere out there, I
> sure, still beating bushes to scare off Commies and Liberals. Surely that
> is enough of a mix to make a stew. I still enjoy Phil-Lit a bunch of
> bunches. And as always I wish the women-folk would unload on men now and
> then. They seem to me to be too polite or is it politic? Whatever, men
> need to be reminded every now then what pricks we be. Else we start talking
> our selves seriously. There are a lot of people who've fallen by the
> wayside that I miss -- David Savory for one. but that's life.
> Amen.
>
>
> Mike Geary
> Still in Memphis goddamnit
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Andy < <mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
> mimi.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I understand that Facebook seems to be absorbing a lot of conversational
> energy. Just some thoughts, but first a disclaimer. I don't have a
> Facebook account, have never had one, and don't participate as a 'friend' on
> any other Facebook account, including those of relatives. For what it's
> worth, my understanding of Facebook is that it's all about posting pictures
> of how much fun you're having. It's not about having fun, it's about
> proving you're having fun, especially for the younger crowd. Based on my
> vicarious understanding, I can't imagine having an intelligent conversation
> on Facebook. Certainly I couldn't have one with my relatives (and that's
> with two nephews in med school), or for that matter with most of my flesh
> and blood friends. Lit ideas people who have Facebook accounts are
> certainly excepted, but generally Facebook to me is a pure pomo experience,
> reality as if. Worse, it's a reflection of the general dumbing down of
> everything, a great big huge Twitter with pictures. 'Reality as if'
> requires no depth of understanding, which would make Facebook and Twitter
> the media for the times. A vicarious understanding, yes, but I think
> unfortunately accurate.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
