![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Humaniculture
In a post earlier today, I struck upon a curious fact that though it is right out in the open has escaped me for quite some time. The best way to explain it is probably by playing a simple definition game.
- Agriculture - the process of producing food, feed, fiber and other goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals.
- Horticulure - “Horticulturists work in plant propagation, crop production, plant breeding and genetic engineering, plant biochemistry, plant physiology, and the storage, processing, and transportation of fruits, berries, nuts, vegetables, flowers, trees, shrubs, and turf. They improve crop yield, quality, nutritional value, and resistance to insects, diseases, and environmental stresses. Genetics is also used as a valuable tool in the development of plants that can synthesize chemicals for fighting disease (including cancers).”
- Aboriculture - “the selection, planting, care, and removal of individual trees, shrubs, vines, and other perennial woody plants”
- Viticulture - “the cultivation of grapes, often for use in the production of wine.”
- Apiculture - “the practice of intentional maintenance of honeybee colonies, commonly in hives, by humans”
Noticing any common elements here? It seems that within the realm of humans interacting with other species of plants and animals, the word “culture” has the unmistakable meaning of something like “the processes and knowledge used to grow and maintain species for a particular purpose.”
Merriam-Webster offers another definition which may be applied here for our purposes as well: “the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation.”
And yet, when we think of human cultures, we typically don’t think like this. Instead we think of things like language, shared customs, stories, music, dance and other forms of cultural expression. Or, as Wikipedia puts it: “patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance.” That’s starting to sound a wee bit vague, compared to our earlier usages of the word “culture” - isn’t it? I certainly think so.
But if we were to apply our earlier definition of “culture” onto human cultures, then we would be forced to ask some hard questions. Is there such a thing as “humaniculture”? If so, for what purposes are humans being grown, raised, farmed and harvested? And who is doing the farming?
All of a sudden, what we think of as “pop culture” doesn’t sound quite so harmless and entertaining, does it? Even the word “media” - as in mass media - takes on a whole new meaning when compared to our definition above: “the act or process of cultivating living material in prepared nutrient media.” In scientific terms, they call this a “growth medium” - it’s the stuff you see in a petri dish which microorganisms feed off of in order to grow. Wikipedia defines it as: “an object in which microorganisms or cells can experience growth.” Hmm… what if that “object” is actually television, movies, newspapers, websites, books, public education, even money itself?
Then there’s the word “propaganda” which takes on an eerie new meaning in light of its root word, propagation. Propaganda could be defined as, “a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviour of people, rather than impartially providing information.” Used in regard to plants, on the other hand, we see that propagation is, “the process of artificially or naturally propagating (distributing or spreading) plants.”
So propaganda could be also considered as a method of humaniculture: the method whereby a humanicultural system is spread to incorporate other humans. And the vehicle of this propagation is through is the media, which is a structure in which humans can experience growth.
What kind of growth though?
It’s fashionable to refer to things like religious institutions and money as “control systems.” Viewed through the lens of “humaniculture,” however, we begin to see the sorts of mechanisms that operate within managed human societies. By encouraging certain types of belief systems, one promotes particular values which in turn govern behavior and promote growth in a particular direction. Economics, money, seems to be a subset of this as it creates both a system of values and goals, as well as a mechanism whereby the fulfillment of those goals can be monitored, regulated and restricted (ie, money acts as a restriction against desire - limiting the appetites according to effort expended).
There seem to be a variety of humanicultural systems which promote different kinds of growth and employ different methods to achieve it. Some are heavier on what we think of as the overtly religious elements (theocracy, etc) while others are more into using the economic models (capitalism, communism, etc), while still others seem to believe that a technological or scientific system can effectively be used (technocracy, Enlightenment Positivism, rationalism, humanism, etc). Maybe we can begin to see what each of these humaniculture systems means to do with us by looking at what they promote as the sort of “goal” of life: salvation, being a productive member of society, being fulfilled (ie, “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness“), etc.
Another definition of “culture” from Merriam-Webster also seems to shed some light on the “use” of humaniculture:
c. the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization; d. the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic
In that sense, humaniculture could be seen as a method of cultivating humans such that they perpetuate (propagate) particular institutions, practices, values, or ethnic groups. And the subject of perpetuating ethnic groups brings us round full circle to one of the early users of the term “humaniculture,” an American economist and eugenicist named Irving Fisher. Information on Fisher’s use of the term online seems to be scant. Like many prominent Americans of his era (early 1900’s), Fisher professed a belief that we should “Breed out the unfit and breed in the fit.” An article on the subject elaborates:
“A scientific humaniculture,” is what Fisher wrote about a few years later (1921). Quite common at the beginning of the 20th century, this metaphor presupposes some rather heroic assumptions. First is the appropriateness of the analogy between stockbreeding and human reproduction. “There is every reason to believe that human beings are as amenable to cultivation as other animals or plants,” wrote Fisher in his report on National Vitality (1909). Second is the supposition that the characters of “inferiority” and “superiority” of some individuals could be objectively ascertained. Third is the assumption that the factors responsible for this distinction are hereditary rather than environmental. And fourth, breaking with any sort of laissez faire, is “the proposition that the beneficial action of natural selection had been replaced by social mechanisms facilitating the propagation of inferior specimens.”
“Scientific humaniculture” is rather close to what I have heretofore been calling “technocracy.” And if human cultures are designed to “grow” a certain type of human, it logically makes sense at some point that they would actively discourage other types of humans from growing, thriving or reproducing. We see humanicultural attempts to check undesirable traits within human populations when we look at things like prisons, mental asylums, forced medication, sterilization (and other forms of birth control), economic oppression, etc. [And as an aside, it might interest you to find out that Nazi Germany’s eugenic policies were actually based on American laws at the time. Further, many people argue that modern genetics is simply a more technical re-envisioning of eugenics, expanding selective breeding programs to include such disciplines as “prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.”]
Going back to our language games for a second: in our new formulation of what is referred to when we use the word “culture” (that is, humaniculture), where would that place the so-called “counter-culture?” We could fairly accurately say that members of the counter-culture tend to be people who are opposed to the current system of humaniculture. Except “anti-humaniculturalists” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as well. It seems that a distinction could well be made between members of the counter-culture who are opposed to the current system of humaniculture governing us, and those who are opposed to all systems of humaniculture. Someone of the first variety might be a communist who believes our current capitalist system ought to be overthrown and replaced with another system of management. Someone of the second variety might be an anarchist or primitivist - someone who believes our current system should be thrown down and nothing constructed in its place.
Although, technically, those who believe in the overthrow of all humanicultures do tend to have rather strong views about what constitutes “true” human nature. They believe, in other words, in a definable difference between the dictates of Nature herself, and the perversions which mankind has built on top of that (ie, culture). We could argue, however, that Nature itself practices a type of humaniculture - just like it is nature which is ultimately responsible for agriculture, horticulture and all the rest. Humans don’t grow plants; nature grows plants. Humans may decide where, when and how, but we do not control the elemental spirit which causes things to exist instead of not exist. Thus it may be that we are not ultimately the farmers of men we believe ourselves to be, but that Nature operates through us, meanwhile giving us the freedom to choose we would like to grow.
- Podcast 09: Media Eugenics
- Events In 1955
- Early Humans Obsessed With Corporate Products Too, Science Finds
- Animal Husbandry & Marriage
- Alexander Graham Bell’s Eugenics
- Prev: Cultivating Culture
- Next: Alexander Graham Bell’s Eugenics
November 7th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Well that was fun, seems you have realistically drawn a lot of things together , and for purposes of thinking about things from another perspective, humanaculture works just fine , and I like the concept.
I can also say that Technocracy is off the hook, in the sense that most cultures are not , and perhaps just about all cultures are not on our wavelength, of almost being in a way, the underpinning of the human potential movement.~!~
I have described it before as personal liberation theology, and also as the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Both of those are poetic allusions , and we do not bill our selves like that of course.
We happily celebrate the fact that we are not in the business or process of trying to transform human nature. Only of allowing humans to do what they want , in a different system which changes some of the glaring and basic problems of this one.
This might sound odd on the surface since our system just about completely revamps human society , but our aim and point in doing so is not in a belief system sense , but to actually remove the control of belief systems which heretofore have controlled and directed us in nearly everything. We put belief where it belongs, interesting , but it should not be used to control people .
We are trying to make a medium of health , reality, freedom, protection of the world, not so much by going for a methodology of a practice or order of believing , as allowing individuals the maximum amount of freedom as long as others are not hurt. Science takes the place of beliefs in governing fairly , but beliefs can still run wild , and maybe even wilder for humans in society , as beliefs are of no threat, unless enforced on others which they would no longer be.
What could be better nurture than to know that you will not be subjected to anyone’s tyranny economic or otherwise.?
An atmosphere of creativity and peace has to be the very best human element to be in.
The time taken to nurture and understand .
Also a rough and tumble training for toughness and resourcefulness would be essential to understand and expand on the best potential of any human.
The most telling thing about the present culture is the utter lack of caring for young people, and what they face as they are growing now.
When things are measured in economic money rather than human potential of personal growth in understanding and contribution, some basic reality of having a good life is lost, or traded in for a very inferior substitute , that is not nourishing.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
I suppose you could say that any environmental factor is culturing certain things under its influence e.g. Wilderness is gardened by Mother Nature. I don’t think that it is appropriate to put Gaia on the same level as the human would-be gods and pilots of global culture.
Under nature’s guidence diversity increases and ecologies flourish. The programs and structures of human design pursue much narrower goals and so far have mostly resulted in weakened, unbalanced ecosystems and untimately destruction.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Nice one, very interesting. You’ve been reading McLuhan, presumably?…
November 8th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Hey Tim - I’ve been thinking similarly lately - “of course”.
And, I’m also writing lists.
I’m buying and reading many of the books/articles you’re referencing and am intentionally consistently adding into my thoughts the views of 2 other writers - Chardin
and Doris Lessing (specifically, her space fiction set of 5 novels - Canopus in Argos: Archives)
- both, for their optimism and their implicit understanding of our human naturalness.
On eugenics: sociology is still trying to distance itself from this, specifically Spencer in early sociology. He’s still mentioned in the beginning of every intro book, which then leads to a discussion of why they do not want to engage any biological ideas about humanness, and in the aggregate, which then leads into the dichotomy between scientific and activist sociology. The most often used intro text includes in all editions, a box, a highlighted model of why sociologists do this: Scientific sociology is an attempt to understand everything about human sociality, and this knowledge can then be used by bad people to do bad things, like eugenics. Therefore, a different perspective was birthed, in the forefront since the 60’s, as a sole focus on finding and rooting out the bad - people, institutions, etc.
Skip, I really do dig what you’re thinking about so carefully. I, of course, pondered the governing of our social structure by sociologists - an intentional humaniculture that at times has made sense to me. But, this simple box description of sociology has been driving me nuts and pissing me off for at least 10 years. Simplified again, I found that folks who gravitated towards the activist side were angry or sad about something(s) and found they could make money/support themselves/have a good and meaningful life trying to fix it. The scientific side - well, there’s not too many left, mostly older white guys who got funding in the 50’s and 60’s to learn math, computer power and to figure out what the hell was up with human social structure.
I have way too much to say about this, but my thoughts are coming together and it’s relevant here and I don’t want to be just a voyeur. So, sociology is basically a joke now. Postmodernist sociologist’s laid the foundation for “truthiness”, and the now favorite conversation ender/winner, “Well, that’s your opinion”, or related variants on the endlessness of subjectivity. Humaniculture by the sociology majority would be many things, scary really to me, yet the scary events of today may be leading to better days.
While writing this I refreshed and found another post by Tim on eugenics - oh no! Or not…?
So, yes to these from Tim:
But, this is the one from Tim I’ve been focusing on because of neglect:
Line drawing, between us humans and everything else, has been and continues to be a fruitful and ridiculous continuous human activity - all aimed at figuring out what the hell we are - because we’re sceered - because we don’t really know.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
No, I never have! What should I read by him that relates to this?
I’ve been meaning to check out Teilhard de Chardin and Doris Lessing for a while!
November 8th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Good comment springhuman , We do know for sure that people like to screw and eat , and not necessarily in that order. The rest should be out there, and up in the air , and a good culture does not fill in the blanks for its citizens, just provides a healthy , open, practical culture. A good medium for creativity and future survival in abundance if possible.
A broad margin of thinking would seem like the best way to approach people, as people are so very different in belief and attitude.
A culture that looks at belief as something so not very important , and most often rather comical, would seem like a good culture to be a part of.
When belief turns deadly people suffer.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
A culture without beliefs isn’t a culture at all.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Something I wanted to roll around in my head:
Each human culture (humanicultural system of growth and management) creates a particular type of individual. In other words, it yields a certain type of crop.
This could be a useful place to plug in some of Richard Dawkins ideas about memetics (even though I dislike him and the concept in many ways). I will have to find the quote again, but there was a thing I remember reading by him where he suggests that an English-speaking brain is going to be hardwired differently from a Chinese-speaking brain. Maybe hard-wired is not the right word here. But the fact that each language, culture and religion will yield a different type of mind and personality as its “crop” is I think an especially good one!
What kind of crop is your culture making you into?
November 8th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Tim , you have missed the entire point.
The only culture which could be a good culture is a culture, where belief is left up to the individual, and not a societal brain wash concept.
Not used as an argument of control.
A culture without beliefs is a culture of individual beliefs , and not group beliefs as your post would imply as somehow good or connecting.
As beliefs are known to not actually have a basis in reality , what kind of culture is devoted to beliefs .?
Only deadly cultures, like our own is, that constantly draw value judgements through the hoop jumping of pointless and comical beliefs.
Your comment implies a desire to control and convince , using something that is subjective. Beliefs are only subjective.
If looked at that way , there may be no reason to kill or control someone for them.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I would argue much the same about your take on what I’m saying.
So, in other words, your ideal culture BELIEVES that belief is left up to the individual. Therefore it tries to “farm” individuals who adhere to that belief as well. When individuals crop up who do not adhere to that viewpoint, they need to be corrected so that the system whereby “belief is left up to the individual” may be maintained. And if you are enforcing the belief that belief is left up to the individual, then your culture is just as coercive and flawed as anything else.
Every culture!
Preposterous! No culture in the world lacks beliefs. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
So what are you saying.?
I think now that you are only twisting words.
What is it that you want then as a good culture of belief. ?
This last post of yours does not seem rational.
I have to assume that you are excited because you have an ax to grind as to a belief system you want incorporated.?
This is the problem with believers that want to control things with belief.
That is why our system allows for any damn belief and does not care about belief , or changing human nature.
Why do you feel it is important to somehow make out that a system that is free and open and humanitarian is somehow diabolically against humans.?
Is there anything coercive beyond your imagination of such that you in reality can glean from what I have said. ?
You seem to want to blame people . Even people that do not deserve blame. What do you want .? A fair minded society is not enough for you. ?
November 8th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Skip, I’m really not sure I understand where this outburst is coming from. I’m trying to speak openly and clearly on a subject that interests me.
I don’t know! That may be why you’re confused. I am as well.
Huh? I don’t have any belief system I want incorporated. That’s your game, not mine!
Again: huh? Is that me? Am I a believer who wants to control things with belief? Maybe you’d enjoy listening to my two podcasts about going *beyond belief* and the importance of questioning thoroughly all beliefs!
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/10/17/podcast-03-beyond-belief-pt-1/
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006...d-belief-pt-2-the-power-of-questions/
Our system absolutely cares about belief! As you have said elsewhere, it demands we believe in politics, in money, etc. And it is hell-bent on changing human nature so as to be a cog in that endless machine.
There’s no such thing as “free and open and humanitarian” in an absolute sense. Just shades of grey depending who you ask. All I am saying is that all systems have flaws. None are perfect. All bend us towards the direction that allows them to perpetuate, rather than allows us to have the life we ought to as people.
People always trump systems.
What people am I blaming? I think you are perhaps reading into or projecting onto something that I have not actually said.
To keep looking, asking questions, examining all angles and above all striving to be human.
It would have to be fair in more than mind to be enough for me!
November 8th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Btw, Did I say anything at all about a culture like I am describing, having a shortage of beliefs. ? I don`t think so. Lacking in beliefs as you say here. I don`t think so.
Humans will always believe anything they care to believe. We don`t mess with that. We accept that. We are not control freaks. This is a different approach. We are totally non-sectarian.
We don`t farm people.
What kind of crop is your culture making you into. ? Think about that question you ask. We are not making people into anything but what they want to be. There is no accounting for belief.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Who is “we”? Technocracy? All societies, all cultures function by domesticating humans to a greater or lesser extent.
I have thought about it! I asked the question!
Well what is it that people want to be? Riddle me that! What equals fulfillment within technocracy? What is the ideal human? There’s your answer to the kind of crop you’re growing!
November 8th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
That is why our system allows for any damn belief , we do not care about changing human nature.
When I said that above Tim, I was referring to the technocracy system , not the price system, or system we have now.
Sorry , if it seemed that way.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
We don`t have an ideal human. We want to just allow for a practical society that allows humans to become what ever it is they want to be.
The great beauty of being a human is to grapple with or accept some role , or conceptions in life.
Every human is in the same existential position of coming to grips with living.
We are here, we are human, we come to grips with what that means. We are all of us alone in that. Also together .
November 8th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
There’s your answer. That’s the crop you’re farming. It’s up to you to figure out what the implications of that may be.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
More specifically, how do you create a culture which teaches people to value those things and perpetuate the institutions which you’d like to set in place? That’s your real challenge.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
It is indeed. Our mission is do just as you say. Our group will then disband.
We ourselves have no assumption to power.
We don`t actually do the creating of the culture. We have our social proposal that we hope makes enough sense to people to be adopted. We expect a crises of survival in this system to precipitate things perhaps.
It could be a few months or a few years from now. It`s fun being a technocrat.
We are not like any other group. Ha.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Can someone steer me to a definition of what kind of “beliefs” you are talking about? Abstract cosmic world-views down to levels of societal recognition of service (support our troops, Labor day)?
Dang, I dont think a society without any shared beliefs would have any good holidays … maybe National Subjectivity Day?
November 9th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Maybe a national subjectivity would be a breath of fresh air.
It would definitely show us that we have a sense of humor.
I suppose beliefs not to be positive or negative really , it isn`t like they are bad or good. They have their place in human culture. Freedom of and from belief has to be the cornerstone of a good society.
If important societal choices that effect us all, are made thru that lens though , disaster can ensue.
We believe in our price system , our price system is self destructive, if we keep it , it will destroy us.
Why.?
To make money.? Not a good reason.
No sense that we would not have shared beliefs as a society. We would have the same shared experience of being here and being together.
J. Krishnamurti , one of my favorite philosophers said this ;
I don`t believe in anything I have to believe in.
Belief can be like a prison for people . A prison of thinking that is bequeathed to them from parents and society. Beliefs often are inculcated rather than taught.
Belief is used to trick people often to go and fight a war , or buy a useless product.
The best society is one where belief is not important , and people allow their fellow citizens whatever beliefs they care to have. The beliefs they have though are not inflicted on others .
Utility, common sense, practicality, live and let live, would be hallmarks of a technocratic society. Creativity in education would be a real key to a more successful culture.
When money is no longer used to make decisions as to education , then a good quality of education can be given. Money is considered the most important aspect of a good education now. Enough money is thought to be needed to fund a good education.
This theory of education is not working.
Money is thought to be needed to clean up the environment.
That theory is not working.
Money is thought to make people have a good life and be fulfilled, that theory is no longer working.
A big change is needed.
All these beliefs of how to solve problems are actually the major problem we face.
These beliefs in how to solve problems no longer work , and are not creative in the situation we are now in.
These beliefs that we cling to are going to destroy us , and are destroying us.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Skip -That’s a great reasoned response. Thanks.
It’s interesting to see how beliefs can be shared without obligation, but it seems as necessary as beliefs are to thinking people, that line to cross is always lurking below.
I doubt beliefs can exist without that subtle pressure which will always motivate the espouser, either out of personal drive or altruistic sense, to view his/her belief as a changing force.
As an artist I can appreciate a culture where merit and contribution is rewarded beyond money. Another artist and I were discussing the predominant view that art is a talent, not necessarily a skill. So while people may admire you, they think what you do they should somehow get for free. Makes living as an artist very difficult.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
In a technocracy operated system whatacharacter you would have the same consuming power as anyone else would in society.
That would be determined by what is in our resource base here.
We have a large enough resource base to have an abundant society.
We are in a window of opportunity as to be able to change now . That won`t last forever. We are looking for people to help us tell others and eventually enact our program before it is to late.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Skip, you mentioning consumption above reminded me of something. A friend and I the other night were speculating: what if currency were actually based on calories? Do you think that might fit into the whole “energy credits” thing of technocracy?
November 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Yes.
In effect Tim , that is it.
A human animal puts out approx. 1/20th of a horsepower of energy.
It takes a certain number of calories to make sure that a human will have the energy required to work or play.
Also the amount of Calories, B.T.U.`s or Joules, or kilowatts, ergs, etc. that is required for a human to have a sustainable abundant life, is figured to get our energy accounting system.
In essence Tim you have stumbled on in your talk exactly, in a very simple coherent way of saying, what we want to do.
Our whole system is based on that energy accounting system.
Why energy. ?
It is real. It gives a real thing to measure by.
The amount of energy it took to produce the food you are going to eat can be gotten at easily , so the real value , in energy of the food you are going to eat can be accounted, and then a good inventory of what people like and what more they want of something , can be gotten at.
This same formula works to get the amount of energy it takes to transform a raw material into a consumer product, such as say a lamp.
The amount of energy from the start of the process to the end would be what is debited from your energy debit card.
Thus the resources of energy are monitored of what it took to create that consumer product, which you would get for free as a right of citizenship.
This accounting system , using energy , instead of money can transform our society completely from a society that uses the unreal , abstract , concept of money which does not measure anything, except arguably debt , another abstract concept,
to a society that protects our world we are living in by protecting our resource base.
Our resource base of land , water , trees, everything, is where we derive our true wealth. These are true rich`s .
We crossed a point about 1913 when our system , because of extraneous energy or mechanical energy could be started.
That was realized shortly thereafter by the Technical Alliance, a precursor group to Technocracy. Then our complete study was published in 1934 , with instructions of how to construct that culture. It still makes perfect sense.
To survive we will probably go to a technocracy system at some point.
To survive that is in a life enhancing , and vitally human way.
Our prospects with the present system which values nothing , is bleak, and getting more bleak.
We are very lucky to be in this part of the world with our resource base.
The clock is ticking though as to changing into a better system.
We very desperately need to have a different operating system for North America. Technocracy offers what may be the only really viable alternative. Explore Technocracy. It is a real alternative.
We wrote the book on alternative. Ha.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:15 am
> You’ve been reading McLuhan, presumably?…
A couple of things in your excellent post made me think of McLuhan. First, he seemed quite into etymology: the roots of words are worth considering whenever assessing their meaning. And then he took the word ‘media’ and ran with it in a similar direction to yours but not quite: all media are ‘extensions of man’: they extend our natural faculties in a variety of ways: we think they are other than ourselves, because we have created them, but they are not; their very existence clouds and distorts the way we see the world. ‘Media’ for McLuhan included essentially all tool use. ‘Media’ can be divisive, or inclusive (and can change their nature). New and emerging media are difficult to perceive.
But I don’t remember reading of McLuhan joining ‘media’ and the growth medium of a culture… I haven’t read all his work but this strikes me as an excellent insight.
I suggest his book (or collection of related essays) entitled simply ‘Understanding Media’…
November 10th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
I would like to see a media theorist who takes it to the ultimate level: media as sense perception, the body and mind as media, etc