Sunday, November 20, 2011

Response to "as we may think"

"Knowledge evolves and endures for the life of a race but not an individual" goes along with the author's thoughts about research analysis. Scientists spend so much time writing and book-keeping with their cures and thoughts, that during the same time they could have actually been helping someone. Because of the fixation with recording everything, the ill person is never helped. The society as a whole is helped, eventually reading these recordings and learning from them, but that is long after the people who were being written about are gone. The author mentions that this is to be expected when we live in a world of "cheap complex devices that are reliable," so it seems like he is almost against technology in a way? Maybe I misinterpreted his words. Like when he references the stenotype and how words are recorded in short little phrases and then afterwards turned into actual speech/story, but why not make a language to begin with, that easily follows such a recording device (or vice versa) ?

I like when he says "for mature thought there is no mechanical substitute," which always makes me think he has a problem with our dependence on  technology. Scientists can always make machines and devices to make things easier, that may even be able to get a lot of work done without the aid of a human being; but you need that human being, with mature thought and intellect, if you really want to accomplish something.

RESPONSE TO MEDIA HOT COLD

Maybe it's because I read both of these within the same hour, but this just hurt my brain and I didn't have much patience to keep re-reading to finally get it. I understand the main point, and it's definitely interesting to break down media into "hot" or "cold." Hot medium, like the radio, heavily focuses on one sense, while cold is includes a few more, like TV. What I dont get is how a movie is hot, but TV is cold. Or radio is hot, but telephone is cold. The telephone only relies one sense as well as the radio..your hearing. I personally don't see the difference. Or a movie and TV? Both require both visual and oral. I can't decide whether I consider speech to be "low" definition or not, either. I mean a friend can tell you a story about their weekend and you can follow every little bit without the aid of anything but your eyes and ears. But I guess hearing something and seeing the person speaking wouldn't stick in your head as much as having those senses, along with, say, writing it down. Is that why he thinks it's low definition then? Because an un-recorded speech isn't as long lasting or informative?  Either way though I appreciate the unique way of describing media...

No comments:

Post a Comment