Skip to main content

Media Ecology: The Technological Society- How Real Is Our Reality? Also, How Reality Is Real.. Everything Is Everything.

  • Author:
  • Updated date:

The Present Future's Future...

Transhuman....

Transhuman....

The Future is the here-and-now Presentism...

The Future is the here-and-now Presentism...

It is supposed to be the future, where is my food in pill form? Oh, it's right here

It is supposed to be the future, where is my food in pill form? Oh, it's right here

Plaplax: Media Art Connecting image to reality

Plaplax: Media Art Connecting image to reality

This is a Dassault Systemes, the company specializing in 3D and lifelike experiences. Sme people are torn between the real world and a virtual(the matrix), which is revealed as a false reality

This is a Dassault Systemes, the company specializing in 3D and lifelike experiences. Sme people are torn between the real world and a virtual(the matrix), which is revealed as a false reality

Cross reality, dual Reality, X-Reality brings the Virtual into the Real and vice versa. These devices are designed to be like wormholes that let you tunnel through to a second reality. Second life is detached and is being tied into the Real world

Cross reality, dual Reality, X-Reality brings the Virtual into the Real and vice versa. These devices are designed to be like wormholes that let you tunnel through to a second reality. Second life is detached and is being tied into the Real world

Virtual reality Sunglasses. "The Wrap 920AV" headgear functions as either as sunglasses of portable video eyewear, and can be connected to almost any type of media player; also includes built-in audio for quiet viewing

Virtual reality Sunglasses. "The Wrap 920AV" headgear functions as either as sunglasses of portable video eyewear, and can be connected to almost any type of media player; also includes built-in audio for quiet viewing

Will LARK/MIT Lab: Smart Cities GROUPMIT is Submitting a proposal to build a network of stackable car in a city in Asia. The University"s initiative is focused on solving transportation problems. Changing reality and new real reality

Will LARK/MIT Lab: Smart Cities GROUPMIT is Submitting a proposal to build a network of stackable car in a city in Asia. The University"s initiative is focused on solving transportation problems. Changing reality and new real reality

Developed by the Iwata-Yano Laboratory at Tsukuba University, "The Media Vehicle is a personal virtual cocoon where you get spherical display projecting videos and image feed shots with a camera, providing rider minimum movement sensation for overall

Developed by the Iwata-Yano Laboratory at Tsukuba University, "The Media Vehicle is a personal virtual cocoon where you get spherical display projecting videos and image feed shots with a camera, providing rider minimum movement sensation for overall

Reality Check is one of the most desperately needed realities by today's consumers of the media

Reality Check is one of the most desperately needed realities by today's consumers of the media

Garbled Messages and new Media voices in the ether

Garbled Messages and new Media voices in the ether

Emerging words and word matrixes within the media media cacophony

Emerging words and word matrixes within the media media cacophony

Head-scratcher of  a pair of headphones. The demo did sound realistic -  the phones ae designed to rotate the simulated environment as you turn your head. If "virtual" means fake, is a real fake any better? This is a true virtual analog synthesis

Head-scratcher of a pair of headphones. The demo did sound realistic - the phones ae designed to rotate the simulated environment as you turn your head. If "virtual" means fake, is a real fake any better? This is a true virtual analog synthesis

Virtual Reality - In this case you interact with real people, real teachers, real content... with real results. The word virtual is used to describe something that is almost a thing but not quite the thing- Virtual Reality Helmet

Virtual Reality - In this case you interact with real people, real teachers, real content... with real results. The word virtual is used to describe something that is almost a thing but not quite the thing- Virtual Reality Helmet

media-ecology-the-technological-society-how-real-is-real

An Environment Defined by Technology

Media Environments as Communications

According to Lance Strate: "Media Ecology is the study of media environments and the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs.... It is technological determinism, hard and soft, and technological evolution. It is media logic Medium theory, and mediology.

"It is McLuhan Studies, Orality-Literacy Studies, American Cultural Studies. It is grammar, and Rhetoric, Semiotics and Systems Theory, along with the history and philosophy of Technology. It is the postindustrial and Postmodern, and the preliterate and prehistoric; and new emerging and the constantly submerging technologies and techniques."

Neil Postman sees Media Ecology as: "Looking into matter of how media of communication affect human perception, understanding, feeling and value; and how interaction with media facilitates or impedes our chances of survival. The word "ecology" implies the study of environments: their structure,content and impact on people.

"An environment is, after all, a complex message system which imposes human beings certain ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. Media Ecology structures what we can see and say and, therefore, do; it assigns roles to us and insists on our playing them; it specifies what we are permitted to do and what we are not.

Scroll to Continue

"Sometimes, as in the case of a courtroom, or classroom, or business office, the specifications are explicit and informal. In the case of media environments, (e.g., books, radio TV, Internet and so forth), the specifications are more often implicit and informal, half concealed by our assumption that what we are is not an environment but merely a machine. Media Ecology tries to make these specifications explicit.

"It tries to find out what roles media force us to play, how media structure what we are seeing, and why media makes us feel the way we do. Media Ecology is the study of media as 'environments.' It is studying these environments that we begin to understand communication and reality, and reality as communication that we look into the real reality, or is reality really real? How real is real as we begin to understand our media infected and saturated media environment.

"Communications also creates reality, because reality is what is, real, and, communication is merely a way of expressing or expanding it. Traditional ideas of reality are delusions which we spend substantial parts of our daily live shoring up, even at the considerable risk of trying to force facts to fit our definition of reality instead of vice versa. The most dangerous delusion of all is that there is only one reality.

"There are many types of reality, some are contradictory, but all are the results of communication, and not reflections of eternal and objective truths. If we have something acting as an external influence to our inner being and what we perceive as our sole reality, we change our core values and reality, by mixing them with whatever affects us as an outside influence. The technology we are imbibing today acts as an external effect and it changes our perception of the world and reality prior to that effect.

"On the other hand, if we wish to know about the technology and society, and in order to remain within the limits of what can be known, we must be content to understand and study our relation of Technology, Technique and Society; i.e., how Technology affects the Web, and in the process how the Web sucks our time and life, should then make us pay close attention as to how modern technology embedded in our gadgets is affecting how we behave, think and act in our day to day life.

"We need to pay close attention of our usage of Media and technology, i.e., how this has affected us as a society, and the affects and effects of our relationship with the new technology and technique impacting and imposing itself on us, how these act anew and develop in us new ways of knowing what is reality or not, which have the advantage of being meaningful and real, or might lead to our enslavement.

"Either technology's technique is really creating a greater dependence on our part on its efficiency or maybe we are unwittingly allowing ourselves, through this dependency, are are being enslaved to a false reality by the new technological gadgets and the reality they bring along with them.

"The preponderance of different machines and their varied uses is creating a dependence on them, and this is leading us to being enslaved by our over-dependence on technology , and less on our individual ingenuity. If this is real, it has already begun and is affecting us, and if it's unreal, signs are that it makes real unreal because it is festooned with the pulse and blip, glitz and blitz of modern technologies and gadgets. Maybe the media and its technologies will help us reach an amicable compromises and tolerance in trying to understand each others reality, maybe not.

"The close connection between reality and communications and communications systems is a relatively new idea. Although physicists and engineers long ago solved the problems of transmitting signals effectively, and although linguists have for centuries been engaged in exploring the origin and structure of language, and semantics and have been delving into the meanings of signs and symbols, the pragmatics of communication.

"That is, the ways in which people can drive each other crazy and the very different world views that can arise as a consequence of communications.

"The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions.It becomes still more dangerous if it is coupled with a missionary zeal to enlighten the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wishes to be enlightened or not. to refuse to embrace wholeheartedly a particular definition of reality (e.g. an ideology), to dare to see the world differently, can become a "think crime" in an Orwellian sense."

Media Empowers Ignorance and the Cultural Ways of Knowing

One other way to view this reality is the assertion that war is peace. For instance, the war in Afghanistan is waged against those Alqaeda operatives who are still holed-up in the Mountains of Afghanistan and using Pakistan to carry out their devious, that, and us going into both countries to flush them out and suppress militant elements of the Taliban will bring us peace and stability.

But George Orwell says that, "War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It was a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting, and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude toward it, has become bloodthirsty or even more chivalrous.

"On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which even extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when committed by one's own side and not by the enemy, are meritorious.

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence in the long run, too intelligent.

"Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labor power without producing anything that can be consumed." (Orwell)

In the past, war was also one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical. All rulers of all ages have tried to impose a false view of he world upon their followers, but they could not afford to encourage any illusion that tended to impair military efficiency. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later, and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusions. So it seems like the ignorance is strength, and then how real is real?

Our Media environment today is like a modern Theme Park. The different representative media and communication systems present a false sense of being free, liberated and having various forms of expression and projection. We have become deeply immersed in the participating in watching TV, different channels News, Sports, Shopping, Movies, Commercials-with advertisers spending fortunes slicing, dicing chopping, and crunching the numbers and getting all the bits of information about who is watching and information about the viewers.

Rushkoff states: "Having been raised on a diet of media manipulation, we are all becoming aware of the ingredients that go into these machinations. Children raised hearing and speaking a language always understand it better than adults who attempt to learn its rule. This is why, educators believe our kids understand computers and their programming languages better than the people who designed them.

"Likewise, people weaned on media, understand its symbols better than its creators and see through the carefully camouflaged attempts at mind control. And now Americans feel free to talk back to their TV sets with their mouths, their remote controls, their joysticks, their telephones/cells,and even their dollars."

"Television has become an interactive media" - This can be witnessed during Obama's election during the Presidential Primaries, wherein talking heads on TV would propound their theories, rhetoric and ideology about the outcome of certain primaries, and to their dismay, the Polls always seem to answer them in the negative about the self-same issues and then some.

On some level, we are capable of negating and controlling the media in a given way, at the same time we are thoroughly immersed in an environment that is built driven by the technological gadgets, machinery and language manipulated through media talking points and advertisement(seduced subliminally), polls, and various other programming. The whole point of TV in America and elsewhere is to get you to watch so that programmers, performers an others can rake in the money and manipulate consent.

Media Consumption

When people log onto a computer terminals, they are welcomed into a vast world of information that is now revolutionizing how we learn and work. The World Wide Web of computer connections is information explosion the likes of which we have never seen. This information revolution now rivals the printing press and broadcasting in terms of how it affects our daily lives.

The evolving telecommunications infrastructure, now popularly known as the Internet, links homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, libraries, cell phones and the worked, to each other and to a vast array of electronic information resources. People all over the globe are able to tap into computer databases elsewhere more easily than walking down to the local library.

This has changed our relationship to information gathering and consuming in todays world. People can shop and order goods,ing formation, order movies online or TV; have video conferencing, talk with each and see each other; the environment is stimulative with neon signs and digital informercials.

On the net the pop-ups and blinking and glitzing ads, incoming e-mails, twittering, texting, blogging, and many other activities comprise an environment controlled and dictated to by technopoly. A Technicized environment confined within the Internet where one surfs to chat rooms and so forth, is an environment of semi-annonimity adding up to the new ways of consuming and using technology in a global milieu

The other problem the Internet presents is that it is growing faster than we can grasp, document or make conform to our civilizing sensibilities. Developed as a decentralized web, it has evolved into a complex, capable of feedback and iteration in a scale unfathomable. The internet is so vast that it is potentially modifying everything it contacts and is completely changing the media and communication landscape and data sphere.

The Media ecology is changing very fast. What we get from the environment within which the media operates are new ways to communicating(twittering, blogging, e-mailing, texting and book publishing), we have 'conferences," 'topic,' chat rooms', we post 'response, 'individual posts called 'articles', movies, television, face books, porno, and so forth. This is now known as cyber space. Rheingold explains thus: "... biological imagery is often more appropriate to describe the way cyberculture changes.

"In terms of the way the whole system is propagating and evolving, think of cyberspace as a social Petrie dish, the net as the agar-medium, and virtual communities, in all their diversity, as the colonies of microorganisms that grow in the Petrie dishes". Media ecology, as we know it, has converged within the Internet and it directs the totality of our media consciousness and environment, consumption and interaction.

"This system has its lewd and dark sides. It is also used for anti-social and deviant behavior, and many troubling usages which we will not go into here. Evidently the Ecology of the media has taken on a serious turn in the media landscape and data world; Its like being instantly anywhere, anytime, anyhow within and around the reality of the present media ecology. It is real because it is, but ways of knowing how to use it to communicate, have diverse means and ways of how disseminate articulate and promote communication"

Is Real Really Real?

How real is real? This was the question we posed and mentioned above. As we said, reality is what is, and communication is merely a way of expressing a way of expressing or expanding it. The old ways through which we imbibed the media have been transformed by the new technologies and their way of presenting and projecting themselves. We have changed from the printing press, to the radio and television and VCRs to Computers, Internet and cyber space combining new cell phones and other gadgets in convergence.

The environment of the media in presenting what's real has afforded and is being taken over by cyberculture. The ways of viewing have become more interactive and user adaptable. The reality of the past ways of knowing and using the media and communication apparatuses, has been taken over by the connectivity of the Internet, similar to the nervous system plied throughout our bodies.

The different media outlets and their function are all found on the net,Radio, TV, Newspapers,etc., which has now become a monolithic colossus and time and space-grabbing automated technique that the technological society that we live in is becoming enveloped into the web, so that, we are now almost a Webbed society locally, regionally and globally. The reality is that this is how the present environment functions, in a nutshell, and it is unreal because mad become welded and wedded to a machine to be in and with the world.

Is there a possibility that the media, in the form of the Internet can free us? The media or Internet, during the Obama Presidential primaries offered us a glimpse into this issue, whereby cyber participants proved that the media in it's present day format, can truly contribute towards loosening the grip technologies and media presentation and projection in the past had on us-where we were the silent viewing majority, to a chatter and interactive mass: remember Tienamen Square, Iran, Youtube and so on.

Mass media environment might end up being viewed, understood, consumed through the lens of Internet or the Web. There is already the case and it is the effects of this behavior we exhibit that will be investigated and analyzed in the Future. Media Ecology in a Technological Society is really real because it has morphed into the web-newspapers, radio and television, publishing and the whole bit.

We now have a one-stop-shop technological media environment where we can meet and satisfy our craving for media and its concomitants; at the same time we are slowly being weaned away from the old media and some of us are playing catch-up, at the same time technologies and the Web are head-off in a myriad directions, elongating, changing and presenting newer challenges in our present day Technological Societies.

Communications is consistently and constantly changing, reshaping and creating our reality at a furious pace, and we are merely playing keep-up. If Technology and the Web do not rule us yet, they will, in the very near future, dictate and design, influence and change our world as we know it permanently.

If our world is constantly changing and evolving, and tech-gadgets are churned out at a rapid pace, how then does our changing reality ever become real? As we go into the 21 century, it would be interesting to see how our reality, which is now, more than ever never constant, will present us with a constant reality, given the changing, emerging and converging technologies .

Marshall McLuhan in the section on "the medium is the message" points out that any technology gradually creates a totally new human environment. In trying to understand the media, McLuhan sys that data classification yields to pattern recognition, like when data move instantly, classification is too fragmentary.

McLuhan observes that in order to cope with data at electric speed in typical situations of "information overload"(as in the case of the Internet), men resort to the study of configurations. Marshall gives an example like the drop out situation in our schools today is only developing because the young students today grows up in an electronically configured world. McLuhan states that it is not a world of wheels but of circuits, not of fragments but of integral patterns.

"The student today," McLuhan observes, "lives mythically and in depth; at school, however, he encounters a situation organized by means of classified information. The subjects are unrelated and they are visually conceived in terms of a blueprint.

"The student can find no possible means of involvement fro himself, nor can he discover hoe the educational scene relates to the 'mythic' world of electronically processed data and experience that he takes for granted. The medium is the message means, in term of the electronic age, that a totally new environment has been created.

"As our proliferating technologies have created a whole series of new environment, we are aware that these provide us with the means of perceiving the environment itself. As we can all see, todays' technologies and their consequent environments succeed each other so rapidly that one environment makes us aware of the next. Technologies begin to perform the function of art in making us aware of the psychic and social consequences of technology."(McLuhan)

It is then a wonder if whether we will be able to know how real is real if our minds and lives are technologically determined, rather than determined by human ingenuity and the natural processes of human control and manipulation.

Edmund Bacon said that, "We are now entering the new age of education that is programmed for discovery rather than instruction. As the means of input increase, so does the need for insight or pattern recognition. In our trying to recognize the real reality in communication, we turn to another school of though that is of the opinion that since technology is an integral part of the social process, judgement must be postponed until the whole social structure is evaluated. Technology, this view says, is simply another factor in social change, among others.

"In any event, runs the argument, technology alone is at best, a rough index of social change. Society is constantly changing and diverse ingredients and properties contribute their fair share in a proportion commensurate with the capacities, ambitions and influence. Most societies are like this and adjustments accompany the introduction of new products and inventions.

"Indeed, the value of a new product is dependent on the ability of people to recognize a need for it. That alone tells us something about mental attitudes towards receptability/repeatability of new things. For instance, the wheel came at a time when the mental disposition to new ideas generated its own demand for them. This is why technology poses no insuperable problem to a society in which it is introduced, whether it comes form outside or from within."

Plaplax

Plapax is a collective of artist comprised of media artist group minim++, who have shown such poetic installations as objects made from various commodities, the shadows of which turn into animated images of animals or airplanes, and a central member Yasuaki Kakehi, who has been exploring innovative media technology that stimulates interaction and communication to expand the natures and functions of objects, and human body, producing, among others, works in which viewers/users play hockey against their own mirror images.

The group creates works based on immediate yet intangible elements such as shadows, smells, footprints or voices, or constructed on such themes as "evidence of existence." While utilizing digital technology, the artists place importance on the aspect of touching and holding things, which has made them popular around the world among children and adult alike.

Plaplax(See photo in gallery), create sensory and spatial experiences born out of seemingly magical interconnections between reality and the world of images. For the newest piece they challenged the real, physical bodies of dancers, the result of which promises to turn the stage into a previously unseen scenery

Human resources and the attributes — language, habit, social organization — came before technology. Man, as Protagorus said "is a measure of all things"; and just as he accommodated the wheel and the printing press into his daily routine, he will do the same with modern tools. Man adjusts not only because he has to, but because he want to.

This view is attractive, because it simplifies the debate by placing the man at the center of the argument. In so doing, it strives to accommodate those critics who see man held captive in the grip of the machine. It has the same appeal as does Marx for naïve planners who look to him for salvation.

But just as Marx did not foresee that the disappearance of the capitalism might cause the emergence of a class that was neither capitalist nor proletarian, but in fact a kind of efficient elite, so do the defenders of this view cannot envision the numerous features of a modern technology that do not leave much room or individual detachment(B. Bagdikian)

How Reality is Virtually Real...

Osur reality is real only if we really look at the real reality. For instance, Mawhrin-skel by Deanne Achong, Kate Armstrong, Joelle Clona, David Floren, and Matt Smith, with help from Dina Gonzalez Mascar brings together an eclectic group of local Vancouver artists, who work variously in new media, electronics, sculpture, installation and performance, to create autonomous robots that communicate with one another wirelessly via the Internet.

The Project - Sheryl [Crowbot] (DA), The problem of Other Minds (KA), Phono, Mono and, ChartBot (DF), Radbot (MS) — is based on a fictional character - Mawhrin-Skel - and intelligent drone that, having failed to meet the conditions of its original purpose, is decommissioned and left to wander aimlessly through a near utopian environment where it becomes a social nuisance and prankster.

This character — invented by Ian M. Banks in his 1989 novel "The Player of Games" — provides an interesting social and cultural entry point into the study of 'robots' as both cultural artifacts and autonomous members of society.

Robots typically have industrial application — wireless mines that can dig their way out of the earth and move to a 'better' location, machines that clean up radioactive waste or other hazardous material, surveillance equipments, toasters, coffee-makers, etc. It is unusual to build a robot that doesn't have an overt industrial purpose — it may be decorative, dysfunctional, nailed to a tree and bleeping.

It exists purely to raise questions about Industrial and technological philosophies and ethics in our society. This discourse is bout and also examines how ideas of function, autonomy, artificial intelligence and purpose-driven technology converge and effect technique, also affecting the user and all-round-reality.

These objects are intended to sit on window sills, desk corners,over doorways, railed to a post on the back deck, in the gravel pit in the basement, etc. The wireless Internet connection allows the devices to talk to each other and mingle their conversations of the Web. The "eyes" of one machine can influence the actions of another. Keywords can generate furious activity or silence.

Following the series of workshops,the results of the artists' experiments with robots will be exhibited to the public through a number of events in May 2006 and 2007. The Mawhrin-skel robots communicate with other using the Scrambler - a message server that was developed in 2003 to connect electronic installation works around the world.

Our Reality is real when looked at as real-reality. It is important for us to understand our world and its myriad functions, manifestation and function, is something that if we give ourselves time, can wrap our minds around it… To put some perspective on reality, we will throw out some working points as follows:

1. Reality has no order, in which case, reality is tantamount to confusion and chaos, and life would be a psychotic nightmare.

2. We relieve our existential state of disinformation by inventing an order, forget that we have invented it and experience it as something "out there" which we call reality.

3. ... Or, there is an order. It is the creation of some higher Being on who we depend but who itself is quite independent of us. Communication with this Being, therefore, becomes man's most important goal. Therefore, our reality is real so far as we understand that our reality is real, if we ask how real is real.

Reality Checking

Experiencing the World Through Technology

Technology must be seen as an integral part of the social process and an offshoot of human creativity. Technology is new knowledge whose social and political implications cannot be ignored, and that they are real; and by restricting it to narrow economic considerations, stifles present development and arrests future possibilities.

How real is real will be determined by the amelioration of all different recognized patterns and theories, and technologies and their techniques too, that deal with media and its environment and how these make the human being a center of their interrogation and applications along with all his reality — and those of the technology.

It would be refreshing to look at the perspective presented by Cryurchin which sees the god that the reality and the existence of technologies is for people: "I've been thinking about technology a lot recently. Not just digital reading technologies, but technologies in general. I think I've been trying to work on a phenomenology of technology if I'm honest, which is even more scary to put down in words than it is to contemplate.

"But how are we meant to write about the effects of iPads and Kindles when that word 'technology,' encompasses the hammer of a stone-age hunter, Gutenberg's printing press, Karl Benz's automobile, my mobile phone, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? What could possibly link all of these things? And should they be lined?"

"Men have become tools of their tools" - Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 61.

"Because I'm writing about the resistance to the digitalization of reading, contested ground if ever there was any, I want to know why there is a constant discourse of fear about technology, when the only thing that I can say with any certainty is that humans have technology at their hearts. We can look at the lives led in any human habitat, by any nomadic or settled people, and from Inuit tupiq to Bedouin bayt char, from Favelas to Penthouses, the single defining element of homo sapiens, existence is the use of equipment to ensure out thriving survival."

Cryurching cites Emerson as cited by Merritt Roe Smith as follows: "Emerson, who had once embraced invention and the 'mechanic arts' as expression of 'Young America's genius vitality,' grew increasingly relative." Urchin further quotes Emerson excerpt as who stated: " "What have these arts done for the character, for the worth of mankind? Are men better? 'Tis sometimes questioned whether morals have not declined as the arts ascended. Here are great arts and little men.

"Here is greatness begotten of paltriness. We cannot trace the triumphs of civilization to such benefactors as we wish. The greatest meliorator of the world is selfish, huckstering Trade. Every victory over matter ought to recommend to man the worth of his nature. But now wonders who did all this good.

"Look up the inventors. Each has his own knack; his genius is in veins and spots. But the great, equal, symmetrical brain, fed from a great heart, you shall not find. Every one has more to hide that he has to show, or is lamed by his excellence. 'Tis too plain that with the material power the more progress has not kept pace. It appears that we have not made judicious investment. Works and days were offered us, and we took works" (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

"The resistance most often stem from two related arguments: (i) using technology is 'unnatural' (ii) technology gets between us and experiencing the world 'as it is,' and unwanted mediating layer that we would jettison if we could"(Cryurching). Cryurching says that according to William Carlos Williams, "Machines were not so much to save time as to save dignity that fears the animate touch.

"It is miraculous the energy that goes into inventions here. Do you know that it now takes just ten minutes to put a bushel of wheat on the market from planting to selling, whereas it took three hours in our colonial days? That's striking. It must have been a tremendous force that would do that. That force is freak that robs the emotions: a mechanism to increase the gap between touch and thing, not to have contact."

"But what if technology is at the fundamental part of our nature? What if technology was one of the few ways we are able to experience the world? What if we need technology in order to feel, rather that in place of feeling?"(Cryurchin) To answer these questions, Cryurchin cites Maurice Merleau Ponty who states that:

"The body is our general medium for having a world. Sometimes it is restricted to the action necessary for the conversation of life, and accordingly it posts around us a biological world; at other times, elaborating upon these primary actions and moving from their literal to a figurative meaning, it manifests through them a core of new significance: this is true of motor habits such as dancing. Sometimes, finally, the meaning aimed at cannot be achieved by the body's natural means; it must then build itself an instrument, and it projects thereby around itself a cultural world."

Concluding his diatribe, Cryurchin makes these notations: "With a moth in my hand I get a taste of what it's like to touch the world. But the same happens when the surfboard suddenly pick up speed and sea gives you just a hint of what it can do. And the same happens when cars push around corners so, at the limit of their tires grip. And the same happens when I want these words to appear on screen, and the keyboard seems to take them from my hand, not my head, and flicker them up before me.

"It is our bodies that are our 'nature,' but those bodies are malleable things, a combination of gross anatomy and mental kinesthetic image, and into that synthesis can be incorporated Plato told us that writing was a receipt for recollection and not the path to true wisdom." Reality is real so long as we can recognize it for what it is.

"Maybe technology is there for the betterment of humans, but it is also taking on all those roles that made human feel in control about; we cede or remembering things to saving them on various machine; we bookmark and save what we need to remember, which we could without these new technology, but readily give-in to them without any regard as to what is happening to us once we do that.

"It is these abilities of the new technologies and their embedded techniques that are a cause for concern, True, technology has helped humans immensely, but, if they interfere with real reality, then we have to interrogate the newly presented reality in its relation to our emerging in a technological society and the interconnecting-interactive gizmos as to what they are to us, and are there more gains than loses, or vis-a-vis."

Marshall McLuhan points out in the same vein as pointed out by Cryurchin that: "With the arrival of electric technology, man extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself. To the degree that this is so, it is a development that suggests a desperate and suicidal autoamputation, as if the central nervous system could no longer depend on the physical organs to be protective buffers against the slings and arrows of outrageous mechanism.

"It could well be that the successive mechanizations of the various physical organs since the invention of printing have made too violent and superstimulated a social experience for the central nervous system to endure. ...That our human senses of which all media are extensions, are also fixed charges on our personal energies, and that they also configure the awareness and experience of each one of us, may be perceived in another connection by the psychologist C.G. Jung:

"Every Roman was surrounded by slaves. The slave and his psychology flooded ancient Italy, and every Roman became inwardly, and of course unwittingly, a slave. Because living constantly in the atmosphere of slaves, he became infected through the unconscious with their psychology. No one can shield himself from such an influence."

In the final analysis, we are extension of our media as they are of us. We cannot avoid nor shield ourselves from its affects and effects, and that is the conundrum here. We are what are our technologies are and so are our technologies us in the way they are built for us to adapt to them.

That makes our technologies become embedded into our lives and psyche as our staples or natural resources, creating a permanent dependency and they become lost to us as being gadgets, but become a necessary part of our lives.

This makes the media a means by which we assert and try to create an equilibrium in our reality and as we build cities, their walls become the extension of our skins; as we use and apply the new and emerging media and social media, that is in reality an extension of our nervous systems. McLuhan was right, the media is the message, also, it is an extension of ourselves and the media is us as we are the media. In a word, everything is everything.

Media Ecology Review

"...Our first thinking about the subject was guided by a biologic, metaphor. You will remember for the first time when you first became acquainted with a Petrie dish, that a medium was defined as a substance within which a culture grows.

"If you replace the world 'substance' with the word 'technology,' the definition would stand as a fundamental principle of 'media ecology': A medium is a technology within which a culture grows; that is to say, it gives from to a culture's politics, social organization, and habitual ways of thinking.

"Beginning with that idea we invoked still another biological metaphor, that of 'ecology'. ... We put the word "media" in the front of the word "ecology" to suggest that we were not simply interested in 'media', but in the ways in which the interaction between the 'media' and human beings gives culture its character and, one might say, helps a culture maintain symbolic balance (Postman-2000)

We get another viewpoint and review of Media Ecology from Ong who writes:

"Our present fascination with ecology of all kinds is tied in with the information explosion that has marked our age. ... With information explosion, we have become more and more conscious of the interrelationships of all the life structures in the universe around us, and, with our more and more detailed knowledge of cosmic and organic evolution, ultimately of interrelationships as building up to and centering on life, and eventually human life.

"The human environment is of course not just the earth, but the entire universe, with its still incalculable expanse and an age of around some 12 to 14 billion years. This is the real cosmos within which human beings appeared and still exist." Therefore, the last topic sentence of this Hub - "Everything Is Everything of the Main Topic Of This Hub: Media Ecology: The Technological Society - How Real Is Our Reality? Also, How Reality Is Real.. Everything Is Everything...."

"Moreover, Walter Ong set the standard and demonstrated the possibilities for scholarship in the Media Ecology intellectual tradition"., and Neil Postman exemplified the practice of Media Ecology analysis by a public intellectual engaged in social criticism. Working parallel to one another, Ong and Postman built upon an intellectual tradition that coalesced in response to the revolutions in communication, media , and technology of the 19 and 20 centuries, and brought it into the 21 century."(Lance Strate)

Media Ecology is a perspective that embodies what Ong (1977) refers to as "ecological concern," which he describes as "a new state of consciousness, the ultimate in the open-system awareness." Its thrust is the dialectical opposite of the isolating thrust of writing and print."

"Ong," according to Strate, "goes on to suggest that contemporary questions of ecological concern 'echoed earlier thinking in Darwin's work, which has shown how species themselves, earlier thought of as the closed system bases of life and taken to be major elements in philosophical thinking, are not fixed but develop through natural selection brought about by open interaction between individuals and environment. The new philosophical attention to openness appears not related to the opening of previously isolated human groups to one another fostered by electronic communications media, telephone, radio and ultimately television [now more recently by the computer and the Web].

The concerns about the ecological systems of the media were central to McLuhan's approach towards studying the media:

"The Medium Is The Message" means, in terms of the electronic age, that a totally new environment has been created. The "content" of this environment is the old mechanized environment of the Industrial Age. The new environment reprocessing the old as radically as TV is reprocessing Film[and the computer with the Web reprocessing TV]. For the content of TV is the Movie.

"TV is an environmental and imperceptible, like all environments{the Computer and the Web is all these and is still imperceptible. We are aware only of the "content" of the old environment. When machine production was new, it gradually created an environment whose content was the old environment of agrarian life and the arts and craft. This older environment was elevated to an art form by the new mechanical environment. The machine turned Nature into an art form." (McLuhan)

We have to finally understand and recognize that Media ecology touches, in part, mass media, new media, journalism, communication studies, cultural studies, cultural studies, literary theory, the arts, history, theology, law, politics, economics, language, and so forth. Everything is everything in terms of the Media Ecology we exist in and the lens of Media Ecology, somewhat provides answer to all those obscure features of technique, technology and communications. A more concise and broader definition can be found in the opening paragraph of this Hub.

Indecryptable Demarcated Cybernetics

Douglass Rushkoff wrote this introduction:

"When human beings acquired language, we learned a lot not just how to listen, but how to speak. When we gained literacy, we learned not just how to read, but how to write. And as we move into an increasingly digital reality, we must learn not just how to use programs, but how to 'Make' them.

"In the emerging, highly programmed landscape ahead, you will be the software. It is really that simple: Program, or be programmed. Choose the former, and you gain access to the control panel of civilization. Choose the latter, and it could be the real choice you get to make.

"For while digital technologies are in many ways a natural outgrowth of what went before, they are also markedly different. Computers and networks are than mere tools: They are like living things, themselves. Unlike a rake, a pen, or even a jackhammer, a digital technology is programmed. This means it comes with instruction not just for its use, but also for itself.

"And as such, technologies come to characterize the future of the way we live and work, the people programming them take on an increasingly important role in shaping our world and how it works. After that, it's the digital technologies themselves that will be shaping our world, both with and without our explicit cooperation.

"That's why this moment matters. We are creating a blueprint together-a design for our collective future. The possibilities for social, economic, practical, artistic, and even spiritual progress are tremendous. Just as words gave people the ability to pass on knowledge for what we now call civilization, networked activity could soon offer access to shared thinking-an extension of consciousness still inconceivable to most of us today. The operating principles of commerce and culture-from supply and demand to command and control-could conceivably give way to an entirely more engaged, connected, and collaborative mode of participation.

"But so far, anyway, too many of us are finding our digital networks responding unpredictably or even opposed to our intentions. Retailers migrate online only to find their prices undercut by automatic shopping aggregators. Culture creators seize interactive distribution channels only to grow incapable of finding people willing to pay for content they were happy to purchase before.

"Educators who looked forward to accessing the world's bounty of information for their lessons are faced with students who believe that finding an answer on Wikipedia is the satisfactory fulfillment of an inquiry. Parents who believed their kids would intuitively multitask their way to professional success are now concerned those same kids are losing the ability to focus on anything.

"Political organizers who believed the Internet would consolidate their constituencies find that net petition and self-referential blogging now serve as substitutes for action. Young people who saw in social networks a way to redefine themselves and their allegiances across formerly sacrosanct boundaries are now conforming to the logic of social networking profiles and finding themselves victims of marketers and character assassination.

"Bankers who believed that digital entrepreneurship would revive a sagging industrial economy are instead finding it impossible to generate new value through capital investment. A news media that saw in information networks new opportunities for citizen journalism and responsive, twenty-four-hour news gathering has grown sensationalist, unprofitable, and devoid of useful facts.

"Educated laypeople who saw in the Net a new opportunity for amateur participating in previously cordoned-off sectors of media and society, instead see the indiscriminate mashing and mixing up of pretty much everything, in an environment where the loud and lewd drown-out anything that takes more than a few moment to understand.

"Social and community organizers who saw in social media a new, safe way for people to gather, voice their opinions, and effect bottom-up change are often recoiling at the way networked anonymity breeds mob behavior, merciless attack, and thoughtless responses. A society that looked at the Internet as a path toward highly articulated connections and new methods of creating meaning is instead finding itself disconnected, denied deep thinking, and drained of enduring values.

"It doesn't have to turn out this way. And it won't if we simply learn the biases of the technologies we are using to become conscious participants in the ways they are deployed. Faced with a networked future that seems to favor the distracted over the focused, the automatic over the considered, and the contrary over the compassionate, it's time to press the pause button and ask what all this means to the future of our work, lives, and even our species.

"And while the questions may be similar in shape to those facing humans passing through other great technological shifts, they are even more significant this time around-and they can be more directly and purposely addressed.

"The big, unrecognized news here is about a whole lot more than multitasking, pirated MP3s, or Superfast computers at the investment houses for shortcutting our stock trades. It is that thinking itself is no longer-at least no longer exclusively a personal activity. It something happening in a new networked fashion.

"But the Cybernetic organism, so far, is more like a Cybernetic mob than a new collective human brain. People are being reduced to externally configurable nervous systems, while computers are free to network and think in more advanced ways than we ever will."

Cyberian Vision

Rushkoff Adds:

"In recent countercultural initiative, however, that which is anathema to [Media] Ecologists has been elevated to a potion of centrality. For those enthralled by the latest modes of data-processing and communication-known variously as hackers, crackers, phreaks[freaks], cyberpunks and cyberians — the possibility of traversing fields of pure information takes on a similar significance to the immersion in pristine nature in the ecological view. "Cyber Culture," as Mark Dery defines it, is a "Fa flung, loosely knit complex of sub legitimate, alternative, and oppositional subcultures [whose common project is the subversive use of tecnhnocommodities, often framed by radical body-politics].

"No less than that of Ecology, the world-view which seems to be crystalizing around transgressive practices in the new networks enunciates a desire for radical cultural transformation. According to Douglass Rushkoff, the "Cyberian vision is a heretical negation of the rules by which Western society has chosen to organize itself."

"Again, the benevolent specter of universal interconnectivity is invoked. In this context it is the structures of ownership and control of the mode of information which must be subverted, in order that human subjects might reassert their communality: the enlightening moment or occurring when the illicit operator breaks through some 'artificially' imposed barrier to attain commune with other 'free agents' or with a body of data which wants to be liberated."

Digging deeper into the reality that as we interact and interphase with interconnectivity in a jagged sense, we learn from Rushkoff as to what causes this effect and affect-and begins, up to this point shows and demonstrates why I say and wonder if our 'technological reality is real,' and that in the final analysis Why I say that when it comes to Technology, 'Everything is Everything.' We learn the following from Rushkoff:

"And a medium once celebrated for its ability to 'program' the public becomes open to our intervention. Instead of only fostering social programming, the television also fosters a new, postmodern perspective on society;s time-honored truths. From Bart Simpson to Stephen Colbert, conventions are turned on their heads. The spirit of the digital age still finds its expression in its re-appropriation of time. Our cutting and pasting, mash-ups and remixes, satires and send-ups all originate in this ability to pause, reflect, and rework.

"As Internet connections grow faster, fatter, and freer, however, we are more likely to adopt an 'always on' approach to media. Our broadband connections-whether in our homes or in our phones-keep applications on, updating, and ready at every moment. Anytime anyone or anything wants to message, email, tweet, update, notify, or alert us, something dings on our desktop or vibrates in our pocket. Our devices and, by extension, our nervous systems are now attached to the entire online universe, all the time. Is that my phone vibrating?

"We scramble to keep up with the never-ending inflow of demands and commands, under the false premise that moving faster will allow us to get from under the endless stream of pings for our attention. For answering email and responding to texts or tweets only exacerbates the problem by leading to more responses to our responses, and so on.

"We strive to multitask, attempting o give partial attention to more than one thing at a time, when all we really do is move as quickly as possible from one task to another. No matter how proficient we think we are at multitasking, studies show our ability to accomplish tasks accurately and completely only diminishes the more we try to do at the same time. This is not the fault of digital technology, but the way we use it.

"Instead of our going online to get our email, our email comes to us. Instead of using our inbox as an asynchronous holding bin, we stick it into our phones, which are sure to thump, ding, or shudder with each incoming message-just to make sure we know something wants our attention. We work against the powerful bias of a timeless technology, and create a situation in which it is impossible to keep up. And so we sacrifice the thoughtfulness and deliberateness our digital media once offered for the false goal of immediacy-as if we really can exist in a state of perpetual standby."

Rushkoff continues to make us aware of our real reality and how and why it is real by continuing to point out that:

"The results aren't pretty. Instead of becoming empowered and aware, we become frazzled and exhausted. We have no time to make considered responses, feeling instead obligated to reply to every incoming message on impulse. We reduce the length and complexity of our responses from paragraphs to sentences to texts, making almost everything we transmit sound like orders barked over a walkie-talkie in a war zone.

"Everything must happen right away or, better, now. There is no later. This works against the no-time bias of digital media, and so it works against us, even though it might work for the phone company programming the device and inducing our dependence and compliance. It's not that the Net has somehow changed from an asynchronous medium to a synchronous one. No, it's all still just commands existing in a sequence, outside time.

"But those commands are coming at us now in increasingly rapid bursts, stimulating us to respond at rates in incompatible with human thought and emotion-and in ways that are not terribly enjoyable. Try as we might, we are slow to adapt to the random flood of pings. And our nervous systems are not happy with this arrangement.

"For the first time, regular people are beginning to show the signs of stress and mental fatigue once exclusive to air traffic controllers and 911 operators. Cell phone users now complain of "phantom vibration syndrome," the sensation of a cell phone vibrating on your thigh, even though there's no phone in your pocket. Websites and programs become laboratories where our keystrokes and mouse clicks are measured and compared, our every choice registered for its ability to predict and influence the next choice.

"The more we accept each approximation as accurate, the more we reinforce these 'techniques' from our machines and their programmers. Whether it's an online bookstore suggesting books based on our previous selections (and those of thousands of other consumers with similar choice histories), or a consumer research firm using kid's social networking behavior to predict which ones will someday self-identify as gay (yes, they can do that now), choice is less about giving people what they want than getting them to take what the choice-giver has to sell.

"Meanwhile, the more we learn to conform to the available choices, the more predictable and machinelike we become ourselves. We train ourselves to stay between the lines, like an image dragged onto a 'snap-to" grid: It never stays quite where we put it, but jerks up and over the closest available space and place on the predetermined map.

"Likewise, through our series of choices about the news we read, feeds to which we subscribe, and Websites we visit, we crate a choice filter around ourselves. Friends and feeds we may have chosen arbitrarily or because we were forced to in the pasts, soon become the markers through which our programs and search engines choose what to show us next. Our choices narrow our world, as the infinity of possibility is lost in the translation to binary code."

Media Ecology In Context

Media ecology is a reminder that media technologies are not simply plug-in devices. The “unplugged” theme captures the wide span of environmental mediation prior to the wired and plugged-in revolution of mass media. This mediation includes architecture, literacy, urban design, transportation, art, and other discursive and non-discursive forms. The theme also turns attention to recent and cutting-edge technologies that have de-tethered users from the plug. These include satellites, nanotechnology, robotics, genetic engineering, modern pharmacology, cell phones, Bluetooth, e-readers, solar cells, green technologies, neuroscience, and much more.

"The world that God created understandably troubles us today. … Some are inclined to blame our present woes on technology. Yet there are paradoxes here. Technology is artificial, but for a human being there is nothing more natural than to be artificial.
Walter Ong (Faith and Contexts, Vol 1, 1:7.)

Media ecology is the study of communication technologies as cultural environments. If that doesn’t make your heart race (like me), then don’t worry: there’s still hope. In the infancy of the digital information age, it’s hard to imagine a field of study that’s more important ; or that can better explain why the new edition of the iPhone is messing with our minds.

We learn from McLuhan that:

"A medium is any extension of a natural human faculty, either mental or physical. The vehicle (more precisely, the wheel) is an extension of legs and feet. An axe can extend an arm. Both the axe or the wheel are technological mediums. But so are the more mental extensions such as the alphabet and subsequent print, which extend human thought, or forms we now associate with the term, such as radio, and TV, which McLuhan would say are extensions of our central nervous system.

"The content of a medium is always another medium. Huh? Here’s what we mean: it’s like those rubbermaid boxes or Russian dolls, each one fitting into each other. The telegraph encodes the medium of the printed word, which contains the alphabet, which contains human speech, which contains human thought. Why is this important? The impact of messages are obscured. We think it’s the “content” that matters. But content is inseparable from container. The making the container—the medium—the message.

"New media do not replace prior media but modify or obscure them. The printing press does not replace handwriting, but alters the way it is used. The question is not whether books on the iPad or Kindle will replace printed, bound books, but how it will change our perception of them. This is fundamental (and often missed).

"Not all media are the same. Some media contain a high level of data–let’s call it “high definition.” McLuhan would call it “hot.” Movies are a good example–swirling immersive experiences in sound and light and story. By contrast, other media are low definition—or cool—and therefore require the physical senses to engage more heavily to fill in missing data, such as the telephone or cartoons.

"The effect of adding a new technology [medium or extension to human function] is numbness. McLuhan would say that our senses get thrown off by new technologies: we don’t accurately feel its effects until later. That is, minus the prophets and artists. We can talk about them sometime.

"One big point to take from these? We’re like fish-in-water when it comes to culture and technology. It’s hard to see when we’re swimming in it.

"It’s difficult to give a precise definition of media ecology, especially one that’s succinct and easy to understand. Perhaps that aspect of media ecology is its greatest strength in addition to its greatest weakness. As an intellectual tradition, media ecology generally focuses on a core group of scholars and philosophers that includes Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, Walter Ong, Eric Havelock, Neil Postman, Lewis Mumford, Jaques Ellul, Susanne Langer, and a few others.

"For each media ecologist, a different group of ideas and angles define relationships to the tradition even if the general core remains the same. In that way, media ecology is always growing and branching out. It is always challenging itself with new perspectives and ideas."

Neil Postman wrote of media ecology in his 1979 book Teaching as a Conserving Activity:

Media ecology is the study of information environments. It is concerned to understand how technologies and techniques of communication control the form, quantity, speed, distribution and direction of information; and how, in turn, such information configurations or biases affect people’s perceptions, values, and attitudes. Thus, media ecology transcends several subjects of wider acceptance, including, for example, psychology and sociology, since it assumes that the psychology of people and their methods of social organization are, in large measure, a product of a culture’s characteristic information patterns. As I have tried to say earlier in the book, such information forms as the alphabet, the printed word, and the television image are not mere instruments which make things easier for us. They are environments — like language itself, symbolic environments – within which we discover, fashion, and express our humanity in particular ways.


The fundamental difference between mass media and digital media is interactivity. Books, radio, and television are "read only" media. We watch, but only have a choice over how we will react to the media someone else made. This is why they are so good for storytelling: We are in the storyteller's world and can't talk back.

Digital media, on the other hand, are "read-write." Any digital file that is playable is also sharable and changeable. (Files can locked, at least until hackers can figure out how to break the lock, but such protection is ultimately against the bias of the media, that's why it so rarely works.) As a result, we are transitioning from a mass media that makes its stories sacred, to an interactive media that makes communication mutable and alive.

Likewise, and in stark opposition to the media monopolies of broadcast radio and television, digital communications technologies are based on networks and sharing. The original reason computers were networked to one another was so that they could share processing resources. This makes them biased toward peer-to-peer activity.

Mass media respected only the law of gravity: The people with the presses or broadcast facilities dropped their myths down onto the masses. Digital media go up, down, and sideways. In a sense, there is no longer any up or down at all, as each node in the network and receive the message of refuse it, change it or leave it alone, and delete it or pass it on. That is why I say that when it come to technology and the media and human reality - Everything Is Everything.

For Web Users Around The world Everything Is different Now: Presenteism Made Real..

As details of the US government’s PRISM program continue to emerge, much of the debate in the United States has focused on the constitutionality of the program. This is only right for people within those borders, but it’s a debate that sounds a lot less relevant to many of us in the outside world.

The rest of the world has, in effect, long supported and nurtured a technology industry that revolves around the US The main reason, of course, is the fact that much of the innovation in the tech industry has come out of the US However, there is also the fact that the US has been seen as a trustworthy partner — it would be hard to imagine Europeans willingly throwing their personal communications and virtual life into Chinese cloud services, for example.

Necessary readjustment

Now that PRISM is (at least partially) out in the open, thanks to the efforts of NASA contractor Edward Snowden, I can’t help but feel everything has changed. Whether or not the program has been spying on US citizens, it has certainly had people outside the US in its sights. This is really only starting to sink in, but non-Americans using online services from the U.S.-based Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Apple are subject to monitoring by the US authorities, and have been for years.

The US is using the world’s most-beloved online services to spy on the world. Whether or not those businesses were willing or even witting conspirators in this program is an interesting detail, but not pivotal. Whether or not US citizens are also being spied on is similarly of relatively mild concern to the rest of the world. The point is, we are being spied on.

Many people have long recognized a privacy tradeoff in using Facebook and Google, but this has been framed within the context of commerce: you let businesses know more about you in order to provide services based on that knowledge. I’ve always felt uncomfortable about that, but I accept it’s a choice that people should be able to make for themselves (even though I believe the consequences of the choice should be made more explicit to the average user).

Responsible response

However, few people outside US borders have been making that choice based on the knowledge that US spies are able to trawl through all this information at will. Even for those who trust their own governments with their security, this is not those governments we’re talking about.

How would Americans feel if it emerged that the British could watch everything they did online? Or the Germans? Or Russians? Do they vote for the British or German or Russian governments? Could US citizens exercise power over those administrations and their actions at the polls? Of course not. So why would anyone imagine it’s acceptable the other way round?

In short, whatever tradeoff Americans might or might not accept in order to safeguard their own security, there is no good outcome here for the rest of the world, which constitutes the majority of users of American web services. We’ve been screwed, and now we have to face some difficult decisions.

As a technology journalist not based in the US —, I certainly have a lot to consider. I’m not rushing it — there’s a lot to take in, and we still don’t know the full picture. But here are the points running through my mind at the moment:

  • I cannot recommend that those outside the US continue to use Google, Facebook or any of the other services known to be linked to the PRISM program, until those companies clearly demonstrate that it is impossible for the NSA and its ilk to read the data of those people. This definitely applies to all business communications, but also any personal communications that may put the sender, recipient or anyone else in a bad light, should someone choose to use it in that way.
  • Other American online services that deal in private communications must unfortunately be viewed with suspicion, too. It’s not like those services have some kind of immunity from the NSA that Google et al. not have.
  • As my profession precludes me from becoming a digital hermit, even on a temporary basis, it is almost impossible for me to stop using these cloud services without a viable alternative that is located outside the US, and it’s not clear that any such alternatives exist yet in a scalable and practical sense. So, for me personally, I will have to accept this quandary for now.
  • Where would these new services be situated anyway? Where is safe from such prying? Which countries are already complicit in PRISM in order to derive data on their own citizens? And what does the US get in return?
  • Will this lead to a balkanization of the web? (I hope not.) If we need a re-architecting of business models and processes around online communications, how can we replicate the best of the systems we have today without reintroducing the same vulnerabilities? Is the answer the decentralization of data control, and how could that work? Will a new degree of complexity — strong encryption and so on — become inevitable?
  • And finally, the point I least want to countenance: Will public opinion allow the current situation to be normalized and, if so, how do I as someone who finds the situation repellent continue to operate in this industry while maintaining a clear conscience?

As yet, I have come to no firm conclusions. But I can say this for sure: For web users around the world, everything has changed. It is unacceptable to pretend otherwise, and that means some really tough choices will soon have to be made.

Also, Everything is Everything when it comes to Man and their use and interaction with the Mida and its technological gizmos, and their embedded, mediating and enabling techniques.

Douglas Rushkoff: Present Shock

The Present, "Now", Once Apprehended, Is No More

The future, no so long ago, several decades ago, was still what we knew as Future Shock. Now, we are in the present of the this Future Shock, and are living in the present future shock. As Rushkoff says, we have already arrived into the Shock of the Future, which is our ow and present future shock. How this affects and affects us- how we become conditioned and digifrenized in htis world of Interruptions we live in. To this reality in the present, Rushkoff writes:

"This Is The New Now"

"Our society has reorientated itself to to the 'present' moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It's not mere speeding up, however much our lifestyles and technologies have accelerated the rate at which we attempt to do things. It's more of a diminishment of anything that ins't happening right now-and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.

"It's why the world's leading search engine is evolving into a live, customized, and predictive flow of data branded "Google Now"; why e-mail is giving way to texting, and why blogs are being superseded by Twitter feeds. It's why kids in school can no longer follow linear arguments; why narrative structure collapsed into reality TV; and why we can't engage in meaningful dialogue about last month's books and music, much less longterm global issues. It's why an economy once based on long term investment and interest-bearing currency can no longer provide capital to those who plan to put it to wrk for future rewards. It is why so many long for a "singularity or a 2012 apocalypse to end linear time altogether and throw us into a post-historic eternal present-no matter the cost to human agency or civilization itself.

When Obama announce that 'we're the ones we've been waiting for", Rushkoff responds:

"Well, the waiting is over. Here we are. ...

"Add real time technologies , from the i-Phone to Twitter; a disposable consumer economy where 1-Click ordering is more important that the actual product being purchased; a multitasking brain actually incapable of storage or sustained argument; and an economy based on spending now that one may or may not earn in a lifetime, and you can't help but become temporally disorientated. It's akin to the onslaught of changing rules and circumstances that 1970s futurist Alvin Toffler dubbed Future Shock."

Only, in our era it's more of a 'present shock'. And while this phenomenon is clearly 'of the moment,' it's not quite as in the moment as we may have expected

"For a while many of us were correct about the way all this presentism would affect investments and finance, even technology and media, we were utterly wrong about how living in then"now" would end up impacting as people. Our focus on the 'present' may have liberated us from the twentieth century's dangerously compelling ideological narratives. No one-well, hardly anyone-can still be convinced that brutal means are justified by mythological ends.

And people are less likely to believe employers' and corporations' false promises of future rewards for years of loyalty now. but it has not actually brought us int greater awareness of what is going on around us. We are not approaching some Zen state of an infinite moment. completely at one with our surroundings, connected to others, and aware of ourselves on any fundamental level.

"Rather, we tend to exist in a distracted 'present'. where forces on the periphery are magnified and those immediately before us are ignored. Our ability to create a plan-much less following through on it-is undermined by our need to be able to improvise our way through any number of external impacts that stand to derail us at any moment. Instead of finding a stable foothold in the 'here and now', we end up reacting to the 'ever-present' assault of simultaneous impulses and commands."

Some of us as users of these technologies have not yet grasped that they being conditioned by the gadgets and their techniques. Rushkoff is making thing clearer and more understandable by designing a narrative and presentation of this 'presentism. Rushkoff elaborates:

"In some senses, this was the goal of those who developed the computers and networks on which we depend today. Mid-twentieth-century computing visionaries Vannevar and J.C.R. Licklider dreamed of developing machines that could do our remembering for us. Computers would free us from the tyranny of the past-as well as the horrors of World War I-allowing us to forget everything and devote our minds to solving the problems of today. The information would still be there; it would simply be stored out of the body, in a machine.

"It's a tribute to both their designs on the future and their devotion to the past that they succeed in their quest to free up the 'present' of the burden of memory. We have, in a sense, been allowed to dedicate much more of our cognitive resources to active RAM than to maintaining our cebrebral-storage hard drives. But we are also in danger of squandering this cognitive surplus on the trivial pursuit of the immediately relevant over any continuance of the innovation that got us to this point.

"Behavioral economists exploit the growing disparity between our understanding of the 'present' and that of the future,helping us see future debts as less relevant than current costs and leading us to make financial decisions against our won better interests. As these ways of understanding debt and lending trickle up to those making decisions about banking and macrofinance-such as the Federal Reserve of the European Central Bank-our greater economies end up suffering from the same sorts of logical traps as those of individual mortgage holders and credit card users.

"Neuroscientists, mostly at the service of corporations looking to develop more compliant employees and consumers, are homing in on the way people ,make choices. But no matter how many subjects they put in their MRI machines, the focus of this research is decision making in the moment, the impulsive choices made in the blink of an eye, rather than those made by the lobes responsible for rational thought or consideration.By implementing their wares solely on the impulsive-while diminishing or altogether disregarding the considered-they push us toward acting in what is thought of as instinctual, reptilian fashion.

"And this mode of behavior is then justified as somehow more connected to the organic, emotional, and immediately relevant moment in which human beings actually live. Of course, this depiction of consciousness may help sell the services of neurotechnicians to advertisers, but it does not accurately represents how the human brain relates to the moment in which the organism exists..

"No matter how invasive the technologies at their disposal, marketers and pollsters never come to terms with the living process through which people choose products or candidates; they are looking at what people just bought or thought,, and making calculations based on that-after the fact data. The "now" they seek to understand tells them nothing about desire, reasons, or context. It is simply an effort to key off what we have just done in order to manipulate our decisions in the future. Their campaigns encourage the kinds of impulsive behavior that fools us into thinking we are living in the 'now' while actually just making us better targets for the techniques.

"That is because there is no "now"-not the one they're talking about, anyway. It is necessarily and essentially trivial. the minute the "now' is apprehended, it has already passed. Like they used to say about getting one's picture on a Time magazine cover: the moment something is realized, it is over. And like the diminishing beauty returns for a facially paralyzed Botox addict, the more forcefully we attempt to stop the passage of time, the less available we are to the very moment we seek to preserve.

"As a result, our culture becomes an entropic, static hum of everybody trying to capture the slipping moment. Narrativity and goals are surrendered to a skewed notion of the real and the immediate; the Tweet; the status update. What we are doing at any given moment becomes all-important-which is behavioristically doomed. for this desperate approach to time is at once flawed and narcissistic. which "now" is important" the "now" I just lived or the "now" Im in right now?

We have to begin to look and understand how present shock as it manifests itself in many ways how this changes the way we make and experience culture, run our businesses, invest our money, conduct our politics, understand science, and make sense of our world. In doing so, we will consider panic reactions to our 'present shock' right alongside more successful approaches to living outside what we have always though of as time.We have to graps fully the new concept of seeing and learning.

Digiphreia should be known today as "the way our media and technologies encourage us to be more than one place at the same time. We will be able to see that our relationship to time has always been defined by the technologies we use to measure it, and that digital time presents particular challenges we haven't had to contend with before. As human beings, we have to figure out how to pace ourselves and our expectations when there's no temporal backdrop against which to measure our progress, no narraative through whicch to make sense o our actions, no future toward which we may strive, and seemingly no time to figure any of this out.

"I suggest we intervene on our own behalf-and that we do it right now, in the present moment. When things begin accelerating wildly out of control, sometimes patience [which is a virtue], is the only answer. Press pause ... We have time for this."

The main picture of this Hub states, "Welcome To The future." The future is our present-here and now, now that one has read about the present future, it is already gone, so we are understanding it from the point that it is no more the real reality of our present, the moment we wanted to capure, now that we know that we have apprehended, it is no more.. We have time to look into our minds and souls and to begin to take in the lesson of our presenteism.

The future is here and now. The very access I have to write on the viral stream, was unheard of not so long ago. The nature of the Web has extended one's sense in the McLuhan's sense. It has also extended everything I was before the advent of the Internet. Reality is manifold; the here and now ever so fleeting. As we barrel towards the inevitable, the means of capturing real reality, when everything is everything, means one has to take over their selves and understand the real world that is now our present future-here and now.


Techne's Evolution And Its Devaluation Of Man

From Early Man to technological man the evolution of and impact of technology on present-day society

From Early Man to technological man the evolution of and impact of technology on present-day society

Technology and Technique's Real Reality

The technological growth taking place in the world today is doing so very rapidly and there are new advancements being made with each passing day and this is possible owing to the large number of extensive programmes of technological research currently being done by a large number of researchers working within non-profit research organizations, business and universities. The developments being made today are very strong and are very pervasive forces in the business environment today. Technology can easily be referred to as the scientific knowledge to the practical problems we are experiencing in the world today. There is no denying that the impact of technology in the world today is huge and can be categorized Into how it effects our society today and how it influences the business activities and operations.

Impact of technology on society:

Technology has without doubt an impact on society. As a matter of fact, we experience this effect in our daily lives. It has an effect on the growth of the economy, our culture and our living standards. It is however important to note that the benefits are a double-edged sword with some being detrimental and other being beneficial. One should be very careful and get to know how the effects on society get to effect the business activities and operations.

Positive impact of technology:

Technology impacts on our daily lives. Our environments are all so full of technology to the point that most of the time we take it for granted and never actually notice the level of impact that it has on us until when we have no telephone, transport, water or electricity. Advancements in technology have greatly increased our living standards. Despite the fact that we are currently experiencing very high inflation rates and the rates of unemployment are very high, generally, people are feeding better, are dressing better and are as a matter of fact living more comfortable lives.

Technology also has a great impact on all the fundamental aspects of all our cultures including laws and how they are enforced, language, art, health care, mobility, education and religion. For instance the great technological improvements in health care have given a chance to doctors to treat their patients in an environment that is virtual through the use of mediums such as video conferencing which has also greatly benefited the legal environment as it allows the judges to still listen to the cases of hard core criminals who cannot be allowed to get into the court rooms due to security reasons.

Negative impacts of technology:

With every advancement that is made in the technological world, creative destruction results. For example, television impacts negatively on the movies and synthetic fibers impact the cotton fibers negatively. The coming in of new types of technology also results in a negative impact on the growth of the economy at times; television at times consumes all the productive hours that a man has in a day. Every new form of technology gets into the market together with long term consequences that are most of the time not foreseeable. For instance is there really a justification for nations coming up with bombs, nuclear weapons and missiles to maintain security?

Synergy

Despite the fact that we cannot really ignore that there are a number of ways in which technology negatively impacts our society, for the better part it has greatly helped to make out lives better. Technology has greatly helped us to become more efficient thus increasing our productivity. It has also helped us a great deal to be able to save on many resources such as time and money and these are great benefits that cannot be ignored. It has also worked well in bringing unity into the world by turning it into a global village which has in turn helped people to more easily overcome their cultural, racial and continental barrier.

So that, the environment of the media as it presents itself to us today, has adjusted and changed our reality, so much so we are now wondering How Real Is real? The way the Internet has made the information data feed we imbibe so assiduously, everything is everything. Our minds,mouths and lives have been extended and streaming. This is a new normal because just several decades ago, none of this was possible. The evolution and emergence of new technologies and techniques have given us a mode of operation and communication that is still in its infancy-in regards to its effects and affects on its users.

Since an environment, according to Postman a complex message system which imposes in human a certain way of thinking-thes then is true of our present-day technological society. The ecology of the Media therefore, structures what we can see and say and, therefore, do; it assigns roles to us and insists on our playing them; it specifies what we are permitted to do and what we are not. sometimes, as in the case of a courtroom, or classroom, or business office, the specifications are explicit and informal.

In the case of Media environments, (e.g., books, radio, TV, Internet and so forth), the specifications are more often implicit and informal, half-concealed by our assumption that what we are is not an environment, but merely a mchine. Media ecology tries to make these specifications explicit. It tries to find out what roles media force us to play, how media structures what we are seeing, and why media makes us feel the way we do. Media Ecology is the study of media environments. It is studying these environments that we begin to understand communication and reality-and also reality as communication that we use and look into as real reality, or is this reality real? How real is real is what we have been working on throughout this Hub.. and it still seems to be shaping and manifesting itself, daily now..

What We Still Don't Know - Are We Real - Discovery & Documentary HD

Introducing Media Ecology

Extraterrestrial Communication and Contact

Believing It Or Not - Seems To be The Question

I am a Media Ecologist and I study the environments of the media, technology and the Universe and its entities. One thing I have had maintained as a young person was to have an open mind. I have always been drawn and very interested if thee is life beyond our realm of reality and exist3ence. there has been much written and debated about this reality, but for me, as I expanded my understanding of the cosmos and terrestrial existence, I have always believed that we are not alone, and that our present earthly knowledge is that of us never having ever reached cosmic space nor cosmic travels.

I do understand that there are skeptics, but I am still prepared to have an open mind that transcends the present Earthly Zeitgeists. I am going to be writing a full Hub about this subject and area of exploration and I think we should begin to look much deeper and realistically, as much as we can realistically manage to, that, we are not really alone here within the vastness of Time-Space or the Universe.. This is the first time I have really broached this subject in the Hubs, but I think that a sequel to this Hub will delve much more deeply into many areas of this very complex and controversial subject. for now, since I believe that the Hub is addressing our Real Reality in order to interrogate How Real Our Reality is-Since I I have pointed out that Everything Is Everything, I will not forego nor pretend that this type of subject does not exist. It does, and in this Hub, I will briefly how the pictures that were taken by Billy Meier, and a couple of his Videos. This will be supplemented also by the writings on his credibility or incredulity as according to various people. I will leave tat in this Hub to the Reader to form their own opinion, only after viewing the videos I will be posting

As a Media Ecologist, I am not only having an open mind, and believing that Everything is Everything, but am constantly interrogating our reality and its realness, and the realness of reality-0this also includes the study and research about the the existence of other life forms and what is known as extraterrestrials, which, I contend, with our earth-bound knowledge, how can we say we are the only ones in existence, in this part of the Milky Way? This question the, I hope will be explained by the few videos I have selected as provided by Billy Meier.

Unreal Real Pictures of UFOs by Meier

One of the Meier's Photographs of a Beamship floating/hovering beside a tree

One of the Meier's Photographs of a Beamship floating/hovering beside a tree

Meier's Photo of Semjase's Beamship

Meier's Photo of Semjase's Beamship

What Can Be The Basis Of Our Communication With Extraterrestrial be or be like..?

Thoughts about Worries of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

by Billy Meier on July 4, 1998 at 1:05 am

Every Earth year has 365 days in which we are subjected to both joyful and painful events, which make us walk at one time with our head lifted high and at another time with it dropped dejectedly to the chest, because humans are denied the right to freedom from timidness, apprehension, sorrow, pain and doubt. And yet, as more days pass, equally as many days come into being only to also disappear into the past and recede from our dominion. With every passing day our mistakes and fears, our sorrows and deficiencies along with our grief, pain, and suffering retreat from the present, as do joy and sadness for nothing remains eternal before the law of transience.

Everything in the past recedes eternally beyond our dominion, and nothing, be it will, promise, money, possession or property, can ever ring it back again. Nothing that has ever happened can be undone by humans, and neither our power nor that of the universe can reverse anything we have experienced and suffered nor can it be turned into something that was not experienced or not endured. Not one spoken word can be erased nor can any deed be undone, for things of the past are permanently gone and can never be brought back, made anew into an event or turned back into the actual moment of the experience. What is past is gone for good, and this holds true for yesterday, the day before, and all other days and years of the past, along with any occurrences we have experienced, fears, apprehensions, joys, sufferings, sorrows, pains, faults, gains, losses, and anything else that took place.

To worry about the past is futile for to do so hampers our progress and success. Only unwise people wallow in the sadness, worry, pain, fear and doubts of past events. Furthermore, it is also unintelligent and demoralizing to worry about tomorrow and other future matters, since by worrying about things we repress and overlook truly important matters. This precipitates fidgetiness and incompetence in our manner of thinking, our feelings and actions and leads, in turn, to faulty actions, thoughts, and failures which are encumbered with insurmountable hardships. Worrying about tomorrow, the following day or other future days and times results in pessimistic promises, poor performances, as well as destructive thoughts, feelings and actions, against which the individual is defenseless.

On every single day that exists in a future of tomorrows or the days-after-tomorrow or in days and times even beyond, we must influence and cope with all those matters we cannot act against, change, influence or guide in such a way whereby we become the winners of the daily battles, so we gain the greatest benefit of each day. We must continually conquer and assimilate fears, apprehensions, grief, worry, pain, doubt, and so forth to gain their benefit and the best they offer us. We must not gather and amass yesterday's, today's and tomorrow's burdens into one package nor should we wallow in them, for this can produce our collapse. Should any negative matters appear, regardless of how trying and shattering they may be, they are but a mere episode in our lives, and within seconds they will irretrievably elude into the past. Hence, such negative matters should be conquered and assimilated rationally and logically as swiftly as possible, so they do not become chronic burdens whereby grief, worry, fears, pain, doubt, apprehension, and other things turn into headlocks for us and become a daily horror.

As a rule, rarely do the experiences and events of only the current day plunge us into fear, despair and the like. On the contrary. The experiences and events of one day do not bring us to the brink of a nervous breakdown. Instead, we usually have on one hand the fears, apprehensions, worries, grief and doubts for tomorrow, the day after that, and the future in general with the consequence that people often experience last-minute-panic attacks. On the other hand we experience guilt for things that occurred yesterday, the day before or some other past time. Our memory seizes things of the past at any cost which then create fear and the dread of what tomorrow and the near future may bring.

Our lives are very rich in substance. They are entwined and interwoven with countless negative and positive things. Still, it is within our power to form our experiences into things with a neutral-positive balance, to cope with them and to live. May we all, therefore, make the most of each day without fears, apprehensions, pain, grief, doubt, worry or the like. Instead, may we learn to conquer and master these things so we may be cheerful and free and able to state with dignity in the last minute of our lives: "I have lived my life honorably and in evolutionary fulfillment, and to a good measure I have satisfied the duties of the [Creational] laws."

Billy


I think the reader/viewer can make up his mind whether to believe all of tis or not. I think an open mind and a curious disposition will be a healthy skeptical thing to do-but learning should not be impeded by those things that want to block out a reality that does not configure nor fit into our our real reality, which I have asked, is our reality really real? The information in this Hub should help the reader/viewer to configure the truth.

Well.. There's still so much to be learned that I think for myself, the jury is still out regarding the question(s) and its answer(s).

UFO-Billy Meier First Meeting With Semjase

A United Free-Will Of Man and Liberated Spoirit Iwithin The Universal Laws and Existence Of The cosmos

Human beings of the earth, it is time to take on reason, turn towards the true life and live according to the laws and commandments of Creation in a natural manner and in a humanely dignified manner get rid of those irresponsible and criminal statesmen in power doing wrong, who with greed of power in self-glorification and hatred and revenge etc. drive mankind into hardship, misery, horror and many deaths and thereby also destroy the achievements of human beings and the whole world. Human beings of earth, unite in common sense and reason to understand and love, no matter to which religion, race, and people you belong. In a dignified human way, make certain that those criminals and terrorist statesmen in power and terrorists disappear, who work against the well being of nations and the whole of mankind. Remove them from their powerful positions they hold as despots, dictators and terrorists, and deport them to live in exile for life, that never again they can bring about harm and evil, no more death, ruin and disaster to human beings and the world. Replace the irresponsible with human beings who deserve to be called a human being and who are dignified and honorable to take on the leadership for the peoples on earth and the whole of mankind and to work towards the well-being and true freedom and real peace of the people and mankind without greed for power, self- glorification and greed for profit as well as not to decline to the level of hatred, craving for revenge and blood, retaliation, warmongering, lust for murder and terrorism. And time is urgent, otherwise the insanity of the old prophecies will be fulfilled that speak of the worst and most horrible happenings and degenerations of all times that ever have come true since earth and human beings have appeared.

Semjase Silver Star Center, January 30th 2003, 11:54 am,

Billy Meier

FULL Billy Meier-1985 Beamship - The Movie Footage

How Real Is Real? Is Our Reality Real?

Paul Watzlawick wrotes"

"Is there intelligent life beyond our planet? As far as our own solar system is concerned, the answer has be a clear 'no' even before the advent of space flights. Even if life should eventually be found on Mars or another planet, It would be of a a very rudimentary nature (amino acids, bacteria, perhaps linchens), but nothing even remotely approaching little green men in unidentified flying objects.

"If we extend our question beyond the solar system, the answer is almost certainly 'yes'. To understand why this is so, we must place our quesiton in perspective, and the perspective is truly cosmic."

"First of all, astrophysical laymen find it hard to believe that if intelligent life were found within our galaxy (the Milky Way), its forms would have to be vry similar to life on earth. this is because there is solid evidence that the Milky Way is composed largely of the same four basic elements that makes up 99 percent of our terrestrial matter: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen.

"This makes it most unlikely that totally different organisms could have evolved on other planets-for instance, beings that could exist in a temperature of bubbling lava or the icy, airless climate of some distant cousin of our moon.

"However, as the cosmologist Martin Rees said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," and the only scientific attitude to take in the face of this uncertainty is to assume that intelligent life does exist in and beyond our galaxy. Once we have accepted this, the question of establishing communication demands an answer. In the case of extraterrestrial communication, both the how and the what have to be found and established

Eduard Billy Meier - Interview

Time Travel: If We Are In It(Reality) We will Need More Other Things to Ponder

"It is only another way of looking at Time. there is no difference between Time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our Consciousness moves along it." (H.G. Wells)

Above I have dabbled with a topic that is taboo amongst scholars of any stripes. I for one am a Media Ecologist and I look at media and its ecology and expunge from it those issue that apply to what I want to talk about. Now, that which concerns our 'reality' is fraught and filled with many things that chipping away at some, would help, at least, help keep the awareness of our reality if it is real or is reality real? It is a perplexing and nuanced rhetorical question, but anyone can answer it within themselves.

But, I did not pick up the topic, video and pictures just to be melodramatic or cause a sensation. No. What I am onto is investigating phenomena like reality and whether what we experience, feel, live , acknowledge as real, if it is real. I am not here addressing the point I have already touched upon within the Hub. I am looking further into reality, if it is real, or is our reality really real. This then has brought me to the issue of interest celestial beings.

It would really be preposterous if we were to think we are the only beings in the Milky Way galaxy when there are so many Galaxies that are billions and billions and within them contain contain billions and trillions of Stars that we can begin to think we are alone. That is not going to happen. In order to better know our reality, we will dig a little deeper, and maybe if we do, we will not need to wonder about whether reality is real, our is what we perceive as our reality, real..

For a much more concise and seriously in-depth look at this discourse and topic, I will defer and cull to and from Watzlawick:

"... To be able to foresee the future is one of Mankind's oldest, fondest dreams-and not only that of the man playing roulette or the stock market.

"*As we move with time, we constantly find ourselves at the line dividing future from past. It is also the instant when the properties of reality are somehow turned upside down: the future is changeable but not known; the past is known but not changeable [*I am of course, oversimplifying. there are many things that can be predicted very accurately-for instance, planetary motions,the tides of the oceans, chemical and physical events, the fact that if I don't step on my brakes, I shall run over that pedestrian, etc. But notice that awareness of these aspects of our first-order reality does have little toward reliving the general uncertainty of life.].

Watzalwick continues below after he made the notation I cited above:

".. Or, as the French put it, "Si jeunesse savait, si vieilesse pouvait!" (If youth only knew, if age only could0. Small wonder that philosopher and poets have at times attributed the Creation to the mockery of a spiteful demiurge, constantly demanding our right decision while leaving us in the dark and showing us what we should have done only when it is too late to do it.

"Pseudophilosophical as these considerations may be, they nonetheless indicate that our experience of time is intimately linked with the idea of causality. When we say that one event is the cause of another, we obviously mean that the second event follows the first time. (This is again the temporal 'if-then', which we must carefully distinguish from the timeless 'if-then,' of logic.) It would be quite absurd to think that the sequence of events could also be the other way around: that an event in the future could cause another event in the past.

"Planned action makes sense only because, as far as we know, time flows in only one direction, and we assume as far as we know, time flows in only one direction, and we assume that our entire universe is moving with it at the same pace. Otherwise object traveling at a different "time speed" would disappear into the past or the future, as the case might be. but they do not, and this suggests that the explanation given by H. G. wells's 'time traveler, who is quoted at the beginning of this chapter, is correct.

"Time is not, as it is sometimes believed to be, merely a dimension of the human mind, a necessary delusion of consciousness. And indeed, physics has found evidence of thhis. einstein's and Minkowski's space-time continuum is the most modern and precise representation of our universe is four dimensional, although the fourth dimension, time, has properties quite different from those shard by the three spatial dimensions.

"Above all, it is not as directly accessible to our senses. but we can at least appreciate that four types of measurements are needed to define the location of an event in our world-its spatial coordinates (e,g., longitude, latitude and elevation) and its point in time. Beyond this modest degree of understanding we are not much better off than the Square in Flatland was when the Sphere tried to explain to him the properties of three-dimensional reality.

Sphere Passing through Flatland

What  Watzlawick calls a "Transcendental experience

What Watzlawick calls a "Transcendental experience

A Sphere Visits Flatland

Deluded Or Illusive Reality, Or Denuded Comprehension of the Unreal-Reality; The Impossible Possibility of Comprehended Reality in Time

The Illustration on the photo above dubbed the "Sphere Passing through Flatland" and assume that the eye on the right margin of the diagram is our own. ket us further assume that the sphere descending from above and passing through the two dimensional space of Flatland is somehow representative of time. Just as the Square could not comprehend the properties of the Sphere in its totality, but could perceive only individual circular cross sections of the infinite number of such cross sections composing a Sphere, each having only an infinitesimally height, so we in our three dimensional world cannot perceive time in tis totality, but only the infinitesimally short instances of the present. What came before, we call the past, and what is yet to follow, the future, but the sum total of the phenomenon time (in which past, present and future coexist) is as imaginable to us as the idea of a sphere was to the Square.

"Suppose that a person's life has been filmed in its entirety, from birth to death or, if you prefer, from his appearance in time to his disappearance (we shall disregard the fact that his cells anteceded and outlived him), and that we have this film before us, wound on a large reel. Since the film contains the person's whole life, all events are there, coexisting without any temporal order. (Let us, please, disregard the fact that the analogy is not quite satisfactory, because the person's birth will be located at the beginning, the outside, of the film, while his later experiences will be closer and loser to the center of the reel.)

"If we run the film through a projector, temporal order is restored, and the events of the person's life unfold in the order in which he experienced them. But to us observers, there is no getting away from the fact that his entire life is there on film, and that every single picture of the film is past, present or future, depending upon whether it has already run through the projector, is at this very instant in front of the lens, or is still on the feed reel.

"The film itself, without the motion introduced by the projector, is the analogy of a timeless universe, which the Greek philosopher Parmenides defined as "whole and unique, and immovable, and without end; nor was it ever, nor will it be, since it is now all at once, one, continuous."

This is a far cry from what Reichenbach appropriately calls the 'emotive siginificance' of time. All of us have seen a moving picture or read a book more than once and been fascinated the second time as if we did not already know the outcome of every event. Reichenbach writes:

"What we regard as "Becoming" is merely our acquisition of knowledge of the future, but it has no relevance to the happenings themselves. The following story, which was told to me as true, may illustrate this conception. In a moving-picture version of "Romeo and Juliet' the dramatic scene was shown in which Juliet, seemingly dead, is lying in the tomb, and romeo, believing she is dead, raises a cup containing poison.

"At this moment an outcry from the audience was heard: "So do it!" we laugh at the person who, carried away by the emotion of subjective experience, forgets that the time flow of the movie is unreal, is merely the unwinding of a pattern imprinted on a strip of film. Are we more intelligent that this man when we believe that the time flow of our actual is different? Is the present ore than our cognizance of a predetermined pattern of events unfolding itself like an unwinding film?"

"This question throws us back into the dilemma of Newcomb's paradox. All we have to do is imagine that the Being can predict future events because he has solved the problem of time travel. He travels into the future, looks at your decision regarding the two boxes, comes back to the present and either puts or dos not put the $1 million in box 2. For him, the time traveler, time is merely a long film strip which he can examine at any point he chooses. But if time is merely the unwinding of a film, we are back at complete determinism, and all free choice is an illusion.

"On the other hand,if time unfolds freely, if every moment is pregnant with all the conceivable positions of choice, then there is an infinite number of universes-and that, in itself, is an unimaginable reality. If this is the case, we are living in a Magic theater like the one in Hermann Hesse's "Steppenwolf", with an infinite number of doors to choose from. but how do we choose? With that "randomizer in our head"?

Again we have come full circle.If only we could travel into the future and see for ourselves! But wait-what difference would it make? If all our actions and outcomes are already there, our foreknowledge of them would not change them in the least; we would be in the horrible position of 'having to malke' the very same choices that we now 'know are wrong' and will be damaging to us or others. would we not prefer to return to our merciful state of ignorance? What hell life would be if, for instance, we knew the date and the circumstances of our death.\

"But wouldn't foreknowledge enable us to create an almost ideal world. for instance, we could save thousands of live by evacuating an area we knew would be devastated by an earthquake on a certain date. We would prevent bad cause-effect relationships from taking palce. It would, for example, be perfectly easy not to let oneself be bitten by a particular mosquito at a particular moment and thereby prevent oneself from contracting Malaria."

I guess thus listening to and reading what Watzlaiwich is saying about reality and time travel is begin to slowly sink. Does knowing the past help us with the present, or knowing the future make us go back to the past to correct whatever, or avoid certain events. Does looking into future make life futile in that one will begin to know how one is going to die, or what events will precipitate certain realities in the present. so that, does this make our reality reality; is reality real; is the fact that we know the past mean the future will be meaningful, even if we cannot rectify the past, nor alter the future. Is know present here-and-now reality real or matters, or the knowledge of the future any help or importance. I guess at this point I will say that one will know about something, past present future if we can comprehend it as being incomprehensible,or a denuded delusion or a futile exercise whenever we can live in one.

This trend of thinking is very important when we begin to talk about what I presented above in terms of the Flying Saucers, because then, it is important we breakdown the time travel issues and our reality. tis is one of the discourse that Semjase above, tries to explain. How when they travel from the constellation of the Pleiades, and travel in space, at certain point de-materialize and so forth that it becomes hard to conceive for we are not in it, and not only that we still have to comprehend it as a reality- since the trip that would take us 400 light years to to get to their orb, only takes them seven hours. Food for thought up to this point. How true and real that is well, I would aver that until we grasp and are in the time travel mode and know how to alter, adjust, adapt and change our reality from time to time in space and time, we still then have a long way to go.

Low Attention Span

Rushkoff says present shock has shrunk our attention spans. As a result, our entertainment trends toward the sensationalist and away from complicated plots.

Rushkoff says present shock has shrunk our attention spans. As a result, our entertainment trends toward the sensationalist and away from complicated plots.

Time Has shrink our Attention Span

Douglass Rushkoff says that technology as made us obsessed with the present - and rendered us unable to think deeply about the past or future. He points out to the fact that with technology, everything happens now.

"Think about those emails you get every minute, the texts constantly vibrating in your pocket, a news cycle that never ends. Turn on the television and you'll likely have to flip through a cornucopia of sensationalist reality television shows before you find what you're looking for (unless what you're looking for is, indeed, "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.") All shows have one thing in common: you can turn them on at any moment without missing a beat. You don't need to follow a plot to understand, for example, Kim Kardashian complaining about her grey hairs."

According to Rushkoff, our obsession with reality television is a product of a culture that has us constantly tuned in to what's happening in the present - just click over to Twitter or Facebook and you can see real-time updates from people all over the world, many of whom you've probably never met. As a result, we've lost our ability to think deeply about the past and the future, and we're even losing touch with the real relationships and interpersonal interactions in our lives.

Rushkoff says that the onslaught of technology in our lives has made us obsessed with the present moment.

"We're stuck in this one notion of time, this idea of 'how old are you? How many things do you have? How close to retirement are you?' All these little metrics, and we're losing sight of the time in which our lives are actually occurring," says Rushkoff.

The lasting effects of present shock - and our shortened attention spans - aren't just confined to the realm of entertainment. For more on Rushkoff's theory - including how it influences politics, news, and even the stock market - tune in to our full interview above.

Future Context

media-ecology-the-technological-society-how-real-is-real

The False Present Now

“If the end of the twentieth century can be characterized by futurism, the twenty-first can be defined by presentism.”

This is the moment we’ve been waiting for, explains award-winning media theorist Douglas Rushkoff, but we don’t seem to have any time in which to live it. Instead we remain poised and frozen, overwhelmed by an always-on, live-streamed re­ality that our human bodies and minds can never truly in­habit. And our failure to do so has had wide-ranging effects on every aspect of our lives.

People spent the twentieth century obsessed with the future. We created technologies that would help connect us faster, gather news, map the planet, compile knowledge, and con­nect with anyone, at anytime. We strove for an instanta­neous network where time and space could be compressed.

Well, the future’s arrived. We live in a continuous now en­abled by Twitter, email, and a so-called real-time technologi­cal shift. Yet this “now” is an elusive goal that we can never quite reach. And the dissonance between our digital selves and our analog bodies has thrown us into a new state of anxiety: present shock.

Rushkoff weaves together seemingly disparate events and trends into a rich, nuanced portrait of how life in the eter­nal present has affected our biology, behavior, politics, and culture. He explains how the rise of zombie apocalypse fic­tion signals our intense desire for an ending; how the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street form two sides of the same post-narrative coin; how corporate investing in the future has been replaced by futile efforts to game the stock market in real time; why social networks make people anxious and email can feel like an assault. He examines how the tragedy of 9/11 disconnected an entire generation from a sense of history, and delves into why conspiracy theories actually comfort us.

As both individuals and communities, we have a choice. We can struggle through the onslaught of information and play an eternal game of catch-up. Or we can choose to live in the present: favor eye contact over texting; quality over speed; and human quirks over digital perfection. Rushkoff offers hope for anyone seeking to transcend the false now."

Douglas Rushkoff analyzes a very different phenomenon. The future arrived a little while ago, he posits — maybe with Y2K, maybe with Sept. 11. Now it’s here. And we are stuck with “a diminishment of everything that isn’t happening right now — and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.” Mr. Toffler warned that we would be unready for this onslaught. Mr. Rushkoff is more analytical than alarmist. He divides his thoughts into five sections addressing five kinds of profound change, and his biggest illustration of present shock has to do with the actual book itself. Because the present is more full of interruptions than the past was, it took him extra time to write. Because its ideas aren’t glib, he says, “here I am writing opera when the people are listening to singles.” And he realizes that data-swamped readers may take longer to finish books now. Coming from him the phrase “thanks for your time” has new meaning.

“Present Shock” begins by simply describing how we have lost our capacity to absorb traditional narrative. It goes on to explain what we have used to replace it. There was a time, Mr. Rushkoff says, when everything had narrative structure, even TV ads. Captive audiences sat through commercials that introduced a protagonist, presented a problem, then pitched a product to solve it. The little story ended well, at least from the advertiser’s point of view. But now viewers may be more angry than bored at such intrusions. They know that “someone you don’t trust is attempting to make you anxious,” so they ditch the ad before it’s over.

The ancient Greeks learned about the hero’s journey from Homer’s narratives. We’ve gotten decades of Homer Simpson, who “remains in a suspended, infinite present,” while his audience moves from one satirical pop-culture reference to the next. Citing “Forrest Gump” as a film that failed to combat late-20th-century feelings of discontinuity and “Pulp Fiction” as one wild enough to usher in a new era, Mr. Rushkoff moves on to what came next: the video game open-ended structure that keeps TV drama in the eternal present. About “Game of Thrones” he says, “This is no longer considered bad writing.” Changes to news presentation are even more dramatic. This book describes the present shock of politicians who — thanks to the 24/7 coverage ushered in by “the CNN effect” that began in the 1980s — “cannot get on top of issues, much less get ahead of them.” He notes that both the political left (MSNBC, with its slogan “Lean Forward”) and right (conservatism devoted to reviving traditional values) share this goal: They’re trying to escape the present.

Contrasting the Tea Party with the Occupy movement, he says the Tea Party’s apocalyptic yearning for closure is diametrically unlike Occupy’s “inspiring and aggravating” quest for an eternal present. The ways Occupy resembles the Internet make him think it may be the more durable of the two movements.

When Mr. Rushkoff moves on to what he calls digiphrenia — digitally provoked mental chaos — he writes about present shock’s capacity to be a great leveler. Now that a single Facebook post can have as much impact as 30 years’ worth of scholarship, how do we analog creatures navigate the digital landscape? How do we shield ourselves from distraction, or gravitate to what really matters? This section of Mr. Rushkoff’s agile, versatile book veers into chronobiology, a burgeoning science that has not yet achieved peak popular impact. Dr. Oz may speak of it on television, but the correlation between time and physiology is ripe for more exploration. Mr. Rushkoff, who likes being his own guinea pig, divided his writing of this book into weekly segments based on a lunar cycle.

Among the intuitive ideas turned tangible by “Present Shock” is “filter failure,” the writer and teacher Clay Shirky’s improved term for what used to be called “information overload.” Mr. Rushkoff’s translation: “Whatever is vibrating on the iPhone just isn’t as valuable as the eye contact you are making right now.”

Your new boss isn’t the person in the corner office; it’s the P.D.A. in your pocket. And there are the discrepancies between age and appearance that are increasingly possible in our malleable present. The book contends that young girls and Botoxed TV “housewives” all want to look 19; that hipsters in their 40s cultivate the affectations of 20-somethings, to the delight of marketers; and that apocalyptic types just want to opt out of time altogether. “Present Shock” gives them good reason to feel that way.

But in the end only some of the ills in “Present Shock” can be chalked up to dehumanizing technological advances. “I am much less concerned with whatever it is technology may be doing to people that what people are choosing to do to one another through technology,” Mr. Rushkoff writes. “Facebook’s reduction of people to predictively modeled profiles and investment banking’s convolution of the marketplace into an algorithmic battleground were not the choices of machines.” They were made by human intelligence, because present shock’s ways of targeting, pinpointing and manipulating aren’t just shocking. They’re very lucrative too.(New York times Book Review)


Douglas Rushkoff on Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now

Rushkoff: "We Live and exist in the immediate present, anchored in our real-time.

Time travel can be done in space and through the Universe. On the other hand, it is our presentism, as characterized by Rushkoff that is time in times of the here and now of our present reality in the present future we are in now. Rushkoff informs us that:

"The always-on, simultaneous society in which we have found ourselves has altered our relationship to culture, media, news, politics, economics, and power. We are living in a digital temporal landscape, but instead of exploiting its asynchronous biases, we are misguidedly attempting to extend the time-is-money agenda of the Industrial Age into the current era. The result is a disorienting and dehumanizing mess, where the zombie apocalypse is more comforting to imagine than more of the same. It needn't be this way."

Unfortunately it is this way and people are caught-up and enamored by the present emerging and evolving technologies and their techniques that reinforces the false now and present. We learn from Rushkoff that:

"Our society has reoriented itself to the present moment. Everything is live, real time, and always-on. It’s not a mere speeding up, however much our lifestyles and technologies have accelerated the rate at which we attempt to do things. It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now—and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is.

It’s why the world’s leading search engine is evolving into a live, customized, and predictive flow of data branded “Google Now”; why email is giving way to texting, and why blogs are being superseded by Twitter feeds. It’s why kids in school can no longer follow linear arguments; why narrative structure collapsed into reality TV; and why we can’t engage in meaningful dialogue about last month’s books and music, much less long-term global issues.

It’s why an economy once based on long-term investment and interest-bearing currency can no longer provide capital to those who plan to put it to work for future rewards. It’s why so many long for a “singularity” or a 2012 apocalypse to end linear time altogether and throw us into a post-historic eternal present—no matter the cost to human agency or civilization itself.

But it’s also how we find out what’s happening on the streets of Iran before CNN can assemble a camera crew. It’s what enables an unsatisfied but upwardly mobile executive to quit his job and move with his family to Vermont to make kayaks—which he thought he’d get to do only once he retired. It’s how millions of young people can choose to embody a new activism based in patient consensus instead of contentious debate.

It’s what enables companies like H&M or Zara to fabricate clothes in real time, based on the instantaneous data coming from scanned tags at checkout counters five thousand miles away. It’s how a president can run for office and win by breaking from the seeming tyranny of the past and its false hope, and tell voters that, “We are the ones we have been wait-ing for.”Well, the waiting is over. Here we are.If the end of the twentieth century can be characterized by futurism, the twenty-first can be defined by presentism.

The looking forward so prevalent in the late 1990s was bound to end once the new millennium began. Like some others of that era, I predicted a new focus on the moment, on real experience, and on what things are actually worth right now. Then 9/11 magnified this sensibility, forcing America as a nation to contend with its omnimpermanence. People had babies in droves, and even filed for divorces, in what was at least an unconscious awareness that none of us lives forever and an accompanying reluctance to postpone things indefinitely.

Add real-time technologies, from the iPhone to Twitter; a disposable consumer economy where 1Click ordering is more important than the actual product being purchased; a multitasking brain actually incapable of storage or sustained argument, and an economy based on spending now what one may or may not earn in lifetime, and you can't help but become temporarily disorientated. Its akin to the onslaught of changing rules and circumstances that 1970s futurist Alvin Toffler dubbed "future shock."

We are now in the present future of anticipated time travel and traveling in the present from the past and headed into the future. Our future is now and ever present which we seem to be unable to transcend. We cannot break out of the vicious cycle of emerging technologies and techniques, and are not yet even capable of envisioning the future. We are trapped in a fascinating here and now presentism and we are still yet to project and advance into the future. This is the conundrum that human find themselves in the present technological society, and it a weird sort of way, we are stagnant in the present future in terms of time travel, time movement and time itself.

Is Our real Time Real in Our Real Reality?

Ruskhoff says that the onslaught of technology in our lives has made us obsessed with the present moment in our "reality;s real time"

Ruskhoff says that the onslaught of technology in our lives has made us obsessed with the present moment in our "reality;s real time"

Introducing Media Ecology

Ecological Media

Media Ecology

Media Ecology

Robert K. Logan on The Origin and Evolution of Language

Media Ecology En vogue ~ Redux

Understanding Media Ecology

It is at this juncture that we take an in-depth look into the Media Ecology's Archeological infrastructure and structure to enhance the discourse about these viral streaming ecologies. In this article the emergent paradigm of media ecologies is distinguished from the ‘actually existing’ media ecology emerging out of the work of McLuhan, Postman and the media ecology association. The appearance of Fuller’s book was understandably unsettling for members of the latter and certainly marks at least a profound rupture in the media ecological paradigm if not a total break.." (Godard)


We further learn from Gordard in this extensively cited piece below that:

"While Matthew Fuller’s book entitled Media Ecologies has had a considerable impact on research into new media, digital art, alternative media and other spheres, it still remains relatively little-known in mainstream media studies and contains great potential for further development in relation to many fields of media research.

Media Ecology is a term that has existed for some time at the peripheries of media studies and theories, and is notably associated with the celebrated media theorist Marshall McLuhan. There is, however, a certain perhaps necessary confusion around the deployment of the term ‘Media Ecologies’ in Fuller’s book, partly because of the differences in this deployment from the already existing field of research known as ‘Media Ecology’, a US-based post-McLuhan stream of media research of which the most well-known figure is undoubtedly Neil Postman.

The following essay will therefore touch upon these differences, before giving a different genealogy of Media Ecologies via the encounter between the rethinking of Ecology or rather Ecologies undertaken by Felix Guattari and the free radio movement in the 1970s, focusing especially on Radio Alice.

The Differences Between Fuller’s Media Ecologies and ‘Actually Existing’ Media Ecology

That the contrast between Media Ecologies the abovementioned school of Media Ecology is not some exercise in Derridean hair-splitting is made abundantly clear by reading the review of the book that was published in Afterimage entitled ‘Taking Issue’, by Lance Strate, who is a central participant in the media ecology movement. Strate quotes the old saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet and as a good McLuhanite feels compelled to reject its wisdom: ‘If, on the other hand, you believe that the medium is the message, and that a good name is better than riches, then you may understand my concern over the title of Matthew Fuller’s new book, Media Ecologies’ (Strate, 2005: 55).

Strate goes on to add that Fuller’s book has little to do with Media Ecology, for which he gives a useful history, stating that it came out of conversations between Marshall McLuhan, Eric Mcluhan and Neil Postman, dating back to 1967. He also points out that Fuller’s treatment of this tradition amounts to four pages of the introduction to Media Ecologies (2-5) and that Fuller fails to make any reference to any of its key texts. In many ways it is unsurprising that Strate would feel put out by Fuller’s book and feel the need to provide a corrective history of the term with which he has been working for some time.

His review makes abundantly clear how alien the book Media Ecologies is to this tendency and it is clear that it is coming from quite different theoretical sources and significantly operates within an equally different discursive universe. Beyond the quibbling over history is a real disagreement about media ecologies themselves that, as Fuller rightly points out, are treated by the media ecology tradition through an amalgam of humanism and technological determinism.

While the work of McLuhan can and has given rise to numerous possible interpretations ranging from a literary, anecdotal and metaphorical anthropocentrism to Friedrich Kittler’s radical machinic anti-humanism, the work of at least some of the media theorists associated with the media ecology school retreats from the more radical implications of McLuhan’s work into a type of liberal humanism, an operation that has both conceptual and political implications.

Consider, for example, the work of Neil Postman. In both Amusing Ourselves to Death (1987) and the more recent Technopoly (1993), Postman adopts a form of populist technophobia that only seems to maintain from McLuhan his anecdotal style and love of metaphor and whose only antidote to the Behemoth of technological domination seems to be a quite conservative notion of pedagogy. In other words, it is an approach to media that would be better characterised as pre rather than post-McLuhanite (in the art historical sense of pre-Raphaelite) in that the full co-implications of human beings and technology is treated in a monolithic, rather than in a complex way.

This is strangely reminiscent of the Frankfurt School culture industry model of mass culture, whose one-sided and somewhat paranoid account of mass media has been the subject of important critiques. I would not extend this criticism to all practitioners of ‘actually existing media ecology’, some of whom seem to be relatively insightful scholars of McLuhan and the other theorists who Fuller characterises as a ‘vivid set of resources’ (Fuller, 2005: 4). But the point I would like to make is that Fuller’s book is a much needed intervention into this field, which in some respects can be seen as so many footnotes to McLuhan’s original and still important insight that the medium is the message.

As opposed to both the humanist conservative environmentalism of the media ecology school, Kittler’s anti-humanist technological determinism and the creative industries invocation of information ecologies as a free market strategy, Fuller injects a much needed materialism, politics and complexity into the term media ecologies as he uses it:

The book asks: what are the different kinds of [material] qualities in media systems with their various and particular or shared rhythms, codes, politics, capacities, predispositions and drives, and how can these be said to mix, to interrelate and to produce patterns, dangers and potentials? Crucial to such an approach is an understanding that an attention to materiality is most fruitful where it is often deemed irrelevant, in the immaterial domains of electronic media. (2)

What is crucial in this passage is the emphasis on the materiality of the supposedly immaterial components of media systems, including digital ones, and the association of this with politics since this not only distinguishes media ecologies from media ecology but from a good deal of media and specifically new media theory as well, precisely by proposing a material politics of media. In fact this is really the key reason why there is such a distance between media ecologies and media ecology: whereas the latter is closer to environmentalism, that is, the consideration of media systems as parts of relatively stable environments for which normative ideas about human beings form the centre, ‘media ecologies’ is closer to ecological movements. As Fuller describes this difference:

Echoing the differences in life sciences and various Green political movements, ‘environmentalism’ possesses a sustaining vision of the human and wants to make the world safe for it. Such environmentalism also often suggests … a state of equilibrium … Ecologists focus more on dynamic systems in which any one part is always multiply connected, acting by virtue of these connections and always variable, so that it can be regarded as a pattern rather than simply an object. (4)

This ecological as opposed to environmental conception of media ecologies (and the plural is also essential here) is necessarily activist, intervening in established knowledges about media systems and tracking the radical dynamisms that constitute them, however stable they might appear to be. This goes some way to explaining why the subsequent chapters of the book have varying methodological approaches and are engaged with radically diverse objects ranging from a single piece of Net Art, ‘The Camera that Ate Itself’ (55-84) to the London pirate radio network (13-54) that is perhaps the most systematic and recognisable ‘application’ of the concept of media ecologies.

The second part of this essay will therefore switch from discussing what Media Ecologies is not, in other words the media ecology movement, to one key source for what it is, that is a radically material and political intervention into established approaches to media including that of media ecology that, as Fuller acknowledges, draws substantially on the work of Felix Guattari.

The Three Ecologies and the Free Radios

Fuller acknowledges Guattari as a key reference not only for rethinking ecology but also media ecologies in the following terms: ‘Guattari’s use of the term ecology is worth noting here, first, because, the stakes he assigns to media are rightly perceived as being profoundly political or ethico-aesthetic at all scales. Aligning such political processes with creative powers of invention that demand “laboratories of thought and experimentation for future forms of subjectivation” (Guattari’s words), also poses a demand for the inventive rigor with which life among media must be taken up’ (5).

At the risk of leaping ahead to the conclusion of this essay, I would argue that at the very least, Fuller’s book is a fine example of applying just such an experimental attitude and just such inventive rigor to the field of media in order to, in Deleuzian terms, create a new concept of media ecologies, while nevertheless drawing productively but never slavishly on existing resources such as Guattari’s rethinking of ecologies as part of what he calls ecosophy.

Guattari was increasingly drawn towards ecology in his later writings, most explicitly in his essay The Three Ecologies which begins with the often quoted phrase from Gregory Bateson: ‘There is an ecology of bad ideas, just as there is an ecology of weeds’ (Guattari, 2000: 19). In the context of this essay, one might also be tempted to add the hypothesis of an ecology of bad media systems.

The point is, first of all, that ecology should not be limited to the physical systems studied by environmental science but ought to include (at least) two other levels, namely a social ecology of social relations and a mental ecology of subjectivity or rather the production of subjectivity. Guattari was well aware of the suspicion that tended to be applied to this third level whether from the ‘hard’ sciences or ‘hard’ politics, but for him this dimension is key to any truly ecosophic project. His treatment of these objections to taking seriously the incorporeal but material dimension of mental ecology in which sensibilities, intelligence and processes of desire take place, what Guattari referred to as vectors of subjectivation, is worth quoting in full:

I know that it remains difficult to get people to listen to such arguments, especially in those contexts where there is still a suspicion—or even an automatic rejection—of any specific reference to subjectivity. In the name of the primacy of infrastructures, of structures or systems, subjectivity still gets bad press, and those who deal with it, in practice or theory, will generally only approach it at arm’s length, with infinite precautions, taking care never to move too far away from pseudo-scientific paradigms, preferably borrowed from the hard sciences: thermodynamics, topology, information theory, systems theory, linguistics etc. … In this context, it appears crucial to me that we rid ourselves of all scientistic references and metaphors in order to forge new paradigms that are instead ethico-aesthetic in inspiration. (Guattari, 2000: 25)

Among other things, this dimension of subjectivation is crucial as it is the actual site where politics takes place, where new modes of sensibility and intelligence can be experimented with, mutate and transform themselves. No amount of dire warnings, backed up as they may be by hard empirical evidence, about such phenomena as global warming, for example, are ever going to result in the slightest political change without addressing these vectors of subjectivation, especially if they are merely imposed as part of a larger culture of fear and the cultivation of toxic and paranoid forms of subjectivity. Subjective ecologies and social ecologies are indissociable from physical environments and exist in complex relations of co-determination which any truly media ecological or even ecological practice needs to take fully into account.

But Guattari’s rethinking of ecology is not merely relevant for this reason but also because it was itself intimately involved with a rethinking of media themselves, which function for Guattari as just such vectors of subjectivation and perhaps the most important ones in contemporary societies.

As I stated earlier, Guattari was profoundly affected by his encounter with and participation in the Free Radio movements in Italy and France. In The Three Ecologies as in elsewhere in his work this encounter forms the basis for thinking what he referred to as the post-media era that he saw as potentially emerging from the rubble of mass media society: ‘An essential programmatic point for social ecology will be to encourage capitalist societies to make the transitions from the mass-media age to a post-media era in which the media will be appropriated by a multitude of subject-groups capable of directing its resingularisation.

Despite the seeming impossibility of such an eventuality, the current unparalleled level of media alienation is in no way an inherent necessity. It seems to me that media fatalism equates to a misunderstanding of a number of factors’ (Guattari, 2000: 40). The most relevant of these factors for our purposes is the third one Guattari mentions which is ‘the technological evolution of the media and its possible use for non capitalist goals, in particular through a reduction in costs and through miniaturisation’ (41).

From a contemporary perspective it is hard not to see everything from digital video to activist cybercultural projects such as Indymedia to digital networks in general to the various forms of social software as some kind of technological realisation of this call for a post-media era, that seems to have become at once less impossible and less utopian.

However, as I have argued elsewhere, this would be a far too technologically determinist understanding of Guattari’s concept of ecologies that pays too little attention to the crucial domain of mental ecology. In fact today’s miniaturised media are highly unstable ecologies where there is a clash of imcompossible forces and unpredictable vectors, ranging from the reformulation of capitalism as cognitive to the experimentation with new mediatised modes of subjectivation. What this shows is that far from being utopian or too abstract, Guattari’s conception of a post-media era is at once perfectly real and in need of further complexification, which is just what Fuller’s concept and pra