In the book Infinite Jest*, there are details about a potent form of media.
Here is a brief re-cap:
In the world where the story takes place, promotional DVD-like discs were often sent to people in the mail as a form of advertisement.
Upon returning home from work early one day, one of the characters receives a DVD in the mail, but the package had no details or description on it. Dude popped it into his player anyway and began watching it.
The reader never finds out (I dont think) what the exact contents of the disc are. All we find out is that the disc is so engaging that the dude watches it, and it is so engaging that he watches it again. And then again. And then again. And then he just puts it on loop, and gets stuck watching this program.
When his wife comes home and finds him stuck in front of the screen, she sees that he has also pissed his pants and has slipped into some sort of zombie-like state watching this program. But when she starts watching it, she also gets stuck watching the program.
Eventually, dude doesnt show up for work the next day. His employer sends some lackeys to go check whats goin on. When they show up at his house, they peep the scene and then they too end up getting stuck watching the program on the screen.
Some door-to-door religious types find the door open and decide to enter the house. They too get stuck watching the program.
By now you should see where this is going.
As it turns out - if I recall correctly - the media had been put together by some sort of French-Canadian terrorist organization of people in wheelchairs. I cant remember the full details correctly.
The notion of creating a piece of media that is so engaging that people cannot turn away from it seems to be the aim of some people and organizations.
Controlling the mind.
In these days, creating a immobile, comatose audience is not the preferred outcome. Rather, media is getting better and better at making people move in a certain direction. Its not so much a quest to control peoples entire lives, but instead it is a quest to control the decision-making capacity insofar as revenue and profits are involved.
How does one counter this?
It seems that the approach of avoiding and/or boycotting media has been attempted, but has failed miserably. The media force simply becomes stronger and more effective.
The results are predictable: people making choices based on information that is broadcast not to 'inform', but to convince.
The destructive effects of this are evident and have been detailed repeatedly.
The only thing that seems clear now is that this is a trend that is not going to stop until 'the end' (whatever you may determine that to be).
If this is something inevitable, it seems that the only way to put an end to this is to leap into it and advance the progress.
This point of view can be seen in some literature:
"Immanentizing the eschaton" is a term I recall from The Illuminatus Trilogy*, and I also recall themes similar to this in the graphic novel Watchmen*.
Saying that something is imminent suggests that it is inescapable.
When there is something inescapable, it places constraints and pressure - like being trapped.
When something notices that it is trapped, it is not uncommon for that thing to seek any way out.
In a situation like this - it appears that the 'only way out' is to plunge head-first into the situation.
more on this later...
add on...
*
Infinite Jest - by David Foster Wallace - debut novel - a ridiculous 1100 pages - flashes of brilliance
The Illuminatus Trilogy - by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson - incredibly entertaining - many suggest it is poorly written with a sloppy ending
Watchmen - by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons - great piece of literature - held by some as the best graphic novel ever
I was wondering when Infinite Jest was going to be brought up.
I'm glad you were able to extricate your post from that swamp of a book.
Post-modernism at it's most dubious, IMO.
Good points in your post, but aren't you just talking about refined propoganda?
Here's a question, do we think it is possible for there to be a day when video media (TV, Internet, IPhone, etc.) doesn't exist? Obviously, there was a time when there wasn't television and radio was the powerful medium. Also, there was a time when radio didn't exist and print media ruled. But even back then, it didn't seem as it was as saturated today. Can we see a day when this doesn't exist? Could the technology fade away? I suppose, even if it did, it may be replaced by some other form of mind-bending infotainment.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 05:07:45 PM
Here's a question, do we think it is possible for there to be a day when video media (TV, Internet, IPhone, etc.) doesn't exist? Obviously, there was a time when there wasn't television and radio was the powerful medium. Also, there was a time when radio didn't exist and print media ruled. But even back then, it didn't seem as it was as saturated today. Can we see a day when this doesn't exist? Could the technology fade away? I suppose, even if it did, it may be replaced by some other form of mind-bending infotainment.
The only logical conclusion to tv I can see is an upgrade, something more pervasive, more immersive, more multi-sensory. If I had to guess I'd be choosing between the holodeck from star trek or the Jackplug in the back of the neck ala William Gibson. TV won't disappear but it's scope would probably be more limited than it is now, in the same way that radio has sorta paled into tv's shadow. Total sensory immersion will open a whole new hornets nest of potential worst case scenarios from 'bodyjacking' - taking direct, driving-seat control of a person via neural interface to inability of people to tell the difference between real and Teevee+, perhaps becoming mentally trapped in the virtual world via 'trojan exits' where someone trys to end the program only to be projected into a virtual model of their living room, indistinguishable from the real thing.
Should be big fun, I can't wait whatever it is.
I think what LHX points out about mind-controlling properties of media is sort of what is driving the legislation vis a vis the internet.
The "information superhighway" is one area where the claws of the powers that be are chopped off at the knuckle.  People can independently explore what is put on the web, worldwide.  If you have a connection, you can plugin anywhere, at anytime.  Individuals can TRY to control you through bent of information supplied, ads and subscription payments...but again, you make the choice by going there and clicking away.
Of course, same can be said about the teevee and radio.  You tune in to that station yourself...the t.v. doesn't turn on by itself.  You accept what is told to you by paying attention and turning the machine on.  Perhaps it takes more of a metadialogue about media influences to wake people up to this fact. 
Though, print media often do seem to point this out more often, I find.  And people will admit, in abstract, that there's a compelling property to multimedia, ads and commercials.  But keeping the awareness alive while engaging in the use of said media is the difficult part.  Can you feel your mind bending to the control mechanism's will?  Can you pinpoint the moment you ear listens instead of just hearing, your eyes' pupils contract in attraction, and your mind begins to memorize the information in the commercial?
Probably not.
According to m-w.com, the primary definition for "immanent" is "inherent" or "within us". I think most folks think of the second definition - "within the possible limits of experience" - when speaking of immanentizing Eschatons, but it sounds to me like it may also be a call to focus on blowing your own mind instead. Like the idea of "jihad" and how it's supposed to be mostly internal - fighting your own demons that keep you from fully embracing the ways of Allah.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 08:41:01 PM
According to m-w.com, the primary definition for "immanent" is "inherent" or "within us". I think most folks think of the second definition - "within the possible limits of experience" - when speaking of immanentizing Eschatons, but it sounds to me like it may also be a call to focus on blowing your own mind instead. Like the idea of "jihad" and how it's supposed to be mostly internal - fighting your own demons that keep you from fully embracing the ways of Allah.
agreed
there is, of course, the 'as above so below' perspective as well tho
the micro and macro
what occurs externally occurs internally
and
what takes place inside will also manifest itself in some form on the outside
in terms of critical masses, a external jihad would be nothing more than the result of a populations where many internal jihads had occurred
Quote from: LHX on January 11, 2007, 09:49:36 PM
what occurs externally occurs internally
and
what takes place inside will also manifest itself in some form on the outside
Oh, most definitely QFT. I can think of a few people through my life who have changed it, or forced me to take a second look at it, just by being what they are. They didn't do or say anything to indicate that I should do or be anything different; they were just walking examples, and for the most part absolutely unaware of the fact.
My favorite example is mildly related to the sub-forum, so I'll share: I knew a guy named Luc who was an Art & Performance major where I work. When the art building had a show that featured some of his stuff, I went to go see it, and he pointed to a painting of this strange green object and said "guess what that is".
Obligingly, I made a few guesses, none of them correct. He had found an oddly shaped bell pepper at the market and painted that. When he pointed out this fact, it made sense, but what sticks with me is him saying "I *wish* I could see this painting the way you guys see it. I *know* what it's of; I wish I could see what *you* see."
Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 11, 2007, 09:57:18 PM
Quote from: LHX on January 11, 2007, 09:49:36 PM
what occurs externally occurs internally
and
what takes place inside will also manifest itself in some form on the outside
Oh, most definitely QFT. I can think of a few people through my life who have changed it, or forced me to take a second look at it, just by being what they are. They didn't do or say anything to indicate that I should do or be anything different; they were just walking examples, and for the most part absolutely unaware of the fact.
thats some beautiful shit right there
its funny you mention that because i notice the same thing about this community right here - even tho on a individual basis - people produce generally good shit - the real value is the personality behind it that exposes itself in the consistency of what they post over time
its not the specific content so much as it is the approach people take to life and the over-arching themes of what gets written
walking examples
I think it's more effective that way, personally.  In linguistics, we have a discipline known as conversation analysis.  In this field of study, we don't just look at WHAT people say, but HOW they say it.  So non-verbal cues are just as important.
When a speaker is aware of their audience, everything changes about what they are saying.  They have this subconscious intent that they are using to field how every body movement, the situation of the body, eye movement, etc. contributes to the messages they are attempting to get across to their fellow interlocutors.
So if you were aware that every word you say had a certain impact on who you said it to on the internet, you'd behave differently, uncontrollably, without knowing it.  And that, to me, sets a metatextual reference that truly devalues alot of the worth of this sort of exchange between people.
You can always ASSUME you are effecting people, but the extent and the exact notion of the effect should really be an unknown, to my mind at least.  More fun, more extemporaneous, more insightful that way.
most speakers want to control their audience - or so it seems
what good is a teacher who doesnt want to be surpassed by his students?
thats just another form of shooting yourself in the foot
Quote from: SillyCybin on January 11, 2007, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 11, 2007, 05:07:45 PM
Here's a question, do we think it is possible for there to be a day when video media (TV, Internet, IPhone, etc.) doesn't exist?  Obviously, there was a time when there wasn't television and radio was the powerful medium.  Also, there was a time when radio didn't exist and print media ruled.  But even back then, it didn't seem as it was as saturated today.  Can we see a day when this doesn't exist?  Could the technology fade away?  I suppose, even if it did, it may be replaced by some other form of mind-bending infotainment. 
The only logical conclusion to tv I can see is an upgrade, something more pervasive, more immersive, more multi-sensory. If I had to guess I'd be choosing between the holodeck from star trek or the Jackplug in the back of the neck ala William Gibson. TV won't disappear but it's scope would probably be more limited than it is now, in the same way that radio has sorta paled into tv's shadow. Total sensory immersion will open a whole new hornets nest of potential worst case scenarios from 'bodyjacking' - taking direct, driving-seat control of a person via neural interface to inability of people to tell the difference between real and Teevee+, perhaps becoming mentally trapped in the virtual world via 'trojan exits' where someone trys to end the program only to be projected into a virtual model of their living room, indistinguishable from the real thing.
Should be big fun, I can't wait whatever it is.
I disagree. The written word is already regaining its status as primary medium via the internet. How many of us log on and immediately start checking a set of websites that we absolutely
have to read? I read the news and the weather and my email and this site and another forum and several blogs and one webcomic. Every day. We all read a hell of a lot every day, without even realising it. Ads are omnipresent. Hell, we can even use our phones to send words instead of talking.
While a full-body experience might be the newest thing in entertainment, I highly doubt it will become the driving medium of our culture. Not least because of the skill and artistic creativity producing sensory immersion would require, while words are free. The whole concept of "Web 2.0" is to distribute the burden of production of content across the masses instead of depending on a limited supply of creators (whether this is a good idea or not is another discussion altogether).
In the age of the internet, the word is god.
Quote from: LHX on January 11, 2007, 10:42:01 PM
most speakers want to control their audience - or so it seems
what good is a teacher who doesnt want to be surpassed by his students?
thats just another form of shooting yourself in the foot
...but when the audience is UNKNOWN...and can only be guessed at...the possibilities are less static.  I think in that instance, the result is much more worth the experience in general.
Everything else might as well come in a tin can!
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2007, 10:21:03 PM
So if you were aware that every word you say had a certain impact on who you said it to on the internet, you'd behave differently, uncontrollably, without knowing it. And that, to me, sets a metatextual reference that truly devalues alot of the worth of this sort of exchange between people.
This is why Bella doesn't talk about magic on the internets anymore. She knows what kind of people are listening.
Kind of sad, in a way.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 12:37:41 PM
Quote from: Jenne on January 11, 2007, 10:21:03 PM
So if you were aware that every word you say had a certain impact on who you said it to on the internet, you'd behave differently, uncontrollably, without knowing it. And that, to me, sets a metatextual reference that truly devalues alot of the worth of this sort of exchange between people.
This is why Bella doesn't talk about magic on the internets anymore. She knows what kind of people are listening.
Kind of sad, in a way.
Sounds interesting. Expand pls
Many people on this (and the EB&G forums) think madgjyikque is bullshit, and are very vocal about it.
So, knowing that those people would be reading and castigating, Bella decided not to post her experiences.
Quote from: LMNO on January 12, 2007, 01:25:55 PM
Many people on this (and the EB&G forums) think madgjyikque is bullshit, and are very vocal about it.
So, knowing that those people would be reading and castigating, Bella decided not to post her experiences.
kk got ya - Know/will/dare/stfu :-D
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on January 12, 2007, 12:57:03 AM
I disagree. The written word is already regaining its status as primary medium via the internet. How many of us log on and immediately start checking a set of websites that we absolutely have to read? I read the news and the weather and my email and this site and another forum and several blogs and one webcomic. Every day. We all read a hell of a lot every day, without even realising it. Ads are omnipresent. Hell, we can even use our phones to send words instead of talking.
This is true. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that it is also leading to a decline in face to face idea exchange. Even voice to voice. Often, in my work, I have to send e-mails to people because I can't get them on the damn phone. And so, really, little is ever accomplished through that. However, when I have meetings with other people, and we get a chance to exchange ideas in real time, it's magic. That 2 hours a month I have with my colleagues is above and beyond more productive than all of my efforts through e-mail conversations.
Now, a forum can kind of serve some of that purpose, though, it is only quasi-real time. And the audience isn't captive. For example, I am rarely ever at this place the same time TGRR is, so we rarely get to exchange conversations at the same time. So while being able to read his thoughts and ideas are definitely inspiring, I would much rather prefer, if geography weren't an issue, to sit down with some brews and pick his brain in person. But, of course, you have to use what works the best, and so it is better than not being able to converse at all.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 12, 2007, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: Rabid Badger of God on January 12, 2007, 12:57:03 AM
I disagree. The written word is already regaining its status as primary medium via the internet. How many of us log on and immediately start checking a set of websites that we absolutely have to read? I read the news and the weather and my email and this site and another forum and several blogs and one webcomic. Every day. We all read a hell of a lot every day, without even realising it. Ads are omnipresent. Hell, we can even use our phones to send words instead of talking.
This is true. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that it is also leading to a decline in face to face idea exchange. Even voice to voice. Often, in my work, I have to send e-mails to people because I can't get them on the damn phone. And so, really, little is ever accomplished through that. However, when I have meetings with other people, and we get a chance to exchange ideas in real time, it's magic. That 2 hours a month I have with my colleagues is above and beyond more productive than all of my efforts through e-mail conversations.
Now, a forum can kind of serve some of that purpose, though, it is only quasi-real time. And the audience isn't captive. For example, I am rarely ever at this place the same time TGRR is, so we rarely get to exchange conversations at the same time. So while being able to read his thoughts and ideas are definitely inspiring, I would much rather prefer, if geography weren't an issue, to sit down with some brews and pick his brain in person. But, of course, you have to use what works the best, and so it is better than not being able to converse at all.
Try IM - it's not quite face to face but it's miles more instant feedback than forums