Five Bodied
 
Advanced Search
   
 
Home Register FAQ Memberlist Usergroups  
 
 

Five Bodied Forum Index Five Bodied (A)Wake Why doesn't somebody fire Lance Strate and Eric McLuhan?
Display posts from previous:   
      All times are GMT - 5 Hours  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:58 am
Author Message
sixbodied
Site Admin


Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4047

Post subject: Why doesn't somebody fire Lance Strate and Eric McLuhan? Reply with quote

SENT TO THE LEADING McLUHAN SCHOLARS AND MEDIA ECOLOGISTS (INCLUDING LANCE STRATE AND ERIC McLUHAN) ON JAN.1/15:

[[ Here we go again! More sloppiness!

Unfortunately, this seems to be developing into a series :@) ...

Until yesterday, I hadn't read my copy of MEDIA AND FORMAL CAUSE, Marshall McLuhan and Eric McLuhan, NeoPoiesis Press, 2011, since I had acquired all the articles it features years ago. But I decided to look at it and to my chagrin I noticed:

1. Eric McLuhan writes on p.3 in the Introduction:

"But while he [Marshall McLuhan] knew the route to understanding media new or old was to be traced in the actions of environments and not of their contents or uses, the matter of an appropriate causality still eluded him.... Of all of his colleagues and correspondents at this time, Jacques Maritain appears to have been the only one to point him in the direction of formal cause as relating to media."

2. Lance Strate writes on p.vii of the Foreword:

"This was the first I had heard of FORMAL CAUSE [italicized], and I found it rather difficult to understand at first, although I could sense that this article represented a major breakthrough for McLuhan studies, and therefore for media ecology."

Well, here are three quotations from the paperback edition of THE GUTENBERG GALAXY, University of Toronto Press, 1962:

1. "Ivins is right in pointing to the interplay among many factors in this way. But the technology and social effects of typography incline us to abstain from noting interplay and, as it were, 'formal' causality, both in our inner and external lives." (p.126)

2. "Anybody who tried to get Pope's meaning by considering the content of the writers he presents would miss the needed clues. Pope is offering a formal causality, not an efficient causality, as an explanation of the metamorphosis from within." (p.259)

3. "Pope's efforts to clarify this basic point have been in vain. His intense concern with the PATTERN [italicized[ of action in his armed horde of nobodies has been mistaken for personal spite. Pope was entirely concerned with the FORMALISTIC PATTERN [italicized] and penetrative and configuring power of the new technology. His readers have been befogged by 'content' obsession and the practical benefits of applied knowledge." (pp.262-3)


Eric and Lance should be ashamed of themselves. Since they get paid to teach McLuhan's work, they should have an above-average grasp of McLuhan's "understanding" of media and the refinements he made responding to his additional discoveries and inventions. There is a deep misunderstanding here of McLuhan's "learning curve" and his Menippean tactics by Eric and Lance. McLuhan didn't learn or "grow" in the 60's and 70's. McLuhan was presenting in his writing a complete vision, aesthetically speaking, by 1961.

Prof. Donald Theall points out how the tetrad is implied in the SI/SC charts in McLuhan's report to the NAEB in 1960.

McLuhan was using the phase-shift categories of technological and cultural "evolution" - "the last word, cliché, art form, and archetype" - by 1962.

So, in 1969, McLuhan is probing Maritain and many other colleagues to see whether they were "on the ball", i.e., had absorbed any of what McLuhan had been saying or publishing, or had perceived how much McLuhan's image had gone "from cliché to archetype" (1970). Maritain apparently did not pass the test.

Just as Theall complained that Marshall McLuhan massaged FINNEGANS WAKE too simply, I am tempted to denounce McLuhan scholars for massaging McLuhan too lightly. You have lowered the bar on McLuhan's accomplishments and challenges.

So, I have pledged to do something about this impoverished situation: I am going to start a new broadcast on Jan.14 wherein I will offer freely to college students and others in their late teens and early twenties an "education" they cannot get today in any institution or otherwise, from media ecologists or teachers of any other discipline.

Apparently I have what you don't - the energy (nobody else here caught these mistakes by Eric and Lance), vision, financial resources, and chutzpah - to set an example of the Tradition that is sorely missing in all the "right" places.


Therefore, to begin to acquire a clearer appraisal of the "stages of apprehension" in McLuhan's creation, one should read my article from 1999:

http://www.fivebodied.com/archives/audio/catalog/Bob_Documents/Essays/McLuhan%20and%20Holeopathic%20Quadrophrenia.htm


Also, all of you should be engaging Cameron McEwen's objections to media ecologists at his new project:

http://mcluhansnewsciences.com/mcluhan


Sincerely,

Bob Dobbs ]]


Last edited by sixbodied on Fri Jan 02, 2015 4:21 am; edited 1 time in total
 
View user's profile Send private message
      Back To Top  

Fri Jan 02, 2015 4:00 am
Author Message
sixbodied
Site Admin


Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 4047

Post subject: Re: Why doesn't somebody fire Lance Strate and Eric McLuhan. Reply with quote

THIS IS THE PREVIOUS COMPLAINT I MADE ABOUT DERRICK DE KERCKHOVE, TITLED "WHY DOESN'T SOMEBODY FIRE DERRICK DE KERCKHOVE".
IT WAS SENT TO THE LEADING McLUHAN SCHOLARS AND MEDIA ECOLOGISTS (INCLUDING LANCE STRATE, ERIC McLUHAN, AND DERRICK DE KERCKHOVE) ON MAY 6/14:
It ended up with me staying at Derrick's home in Nice, France, for 2 days, last August. And lead to this series (which is not finished):
http://ionandbob.blogspot.com/2014/06/bob-dobbs-derrick-de-kerckhove-discuss.html

[[ Now that I've got your attention, let's look at extremely lazy Derrick's latest perpetuation of a bullshit meme/virus.

In the latest issue of the JOURNAL OF VISUAL CULTURE (Vol.13, #1, April, 2014), Derrick recycles the following supposed quotation from THE GUTENBERG GALAXY, p.158, 1962:

"The next medium, whatever it is – it may be the extension of consciousness (1) – will include television as its content, not as its environment (2), and will transform television into an art form (3). A computer as a research and communication instrument (4) could enhance retrieval (5), obsolesce mass library organization (6), retrieve the individual’s encyclopedic function (7) and flip it into a private line (8) to speedily tailored data (9) of a saleable kind (10)."

Derrick also used it in the May, 2011, edition of the Barcelona Proceedings of the UNDERSTANDING MEDIA, TODAY Conference, and before that in THE COLUMBIA HISTORY OF AMERICAN TELEVISION, 2007.

And none of you supposed McLuhan scholars ever caught it... not even Doug Coupland who copies it in his 2009 book on MM (see p. 4).

I didn't waste time trying to find the first sentence but it's not on p.158 of THE GUTENBERG GALAXY as Derrick claims in his latest blooper.

It's the second sentence that is the more egregious mistake.

It's from p.143 of THE GLOBAL VILLAGE by Powers and MM... and Powers was quoting from 1978 ( he says, but Zingrone and EM say 1979 in ESSENTIAL McLUHAN, pp.295-6).

I know it's from the journal, ETC., late 70s, but I'm not wasting any time checking my copy of the article in my voluminous archive here on Maui.

The point is Derrick boasts in the JOURNAL that it's cited over 15,000 times on Google as being first uttered in 1962 (other citations say 1964 or 1967).

Well, thanks a lot, idiot.

You are a disgrace... but you did brag in the 90s, I recall, that you hadn't seriously looked at McLuhan's work since 1986.

I wonder if someone else first posted the mistake and ol' De Jerkhoff just took it off the Web (BBWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!).

And we should all note that none of you in this loop were percipient enough to ever publish or utter a correction (as far as I know) over the last few years, so perhaps you should fire yourselves, too.

As MM asked back in 1957 in EXPLORATIONS #8, Item 15, "Is anybody listening?"

How you guys ever got to teach... :@)


Sincerely,

Bob Dobbs ]]
 
View user's profile Send private message
      Back To Top  

Fri Jan 02, 2015 3:18 pm
Author Message
Ad Absurdum



Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 149
Location: Toronto

Post subject: probe vs package Reply with quote

"McLuhan didn't learn or "grow" in the 60's and 70's. McLuhan was presenting in his writing a complete vision, aesthetically speaking, by 1961.
Prof. Donald Theall points out how the tetrad is implied in the SI/SC charts in McLuhan's report to the NAEB in 1960."

I remember Eric describes the process of co-discovering the tetrad ... I'm sure his anecdotal memory will trump textual citations when it comes to his personal certainty that his dad did learn and grow / didn't have it all figured out by the early '60's ... but I can't help but wonder if Papa McL was manipulating him (benevolently) in these dramas of discovery ... not wanting to alienate/'turn off' his son by relentlessly presenting completed packages for him to learn, knowing full well (as a teacher) that the way to spark and stoke Eric's raw interest in the subject is to get him involved in the process of discovery, imprinting the excitement of pattern-recognition as well as the deep emotional delight of being dad's collaborator instead of merely his student ((plus, the process of discovery is ultimately the real content he wants to teach)) ...
???
_________________
turn the other screw!
 
View user's profile Send private message
      Back To Top  
Post new topic  Reply to topic

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


      Back To Top  

Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Avalanche style by What Is Real © 2004