The Medium is the Message

Seth says ...

#btw … and this is quite a #btw … but that meme, “The medium is the message”, is somethig that i have been toying with since its drama emerged for me in #p2 days.  It comes out here in what i call #MixedMedia … and is not a thing that i can rationally connect to anything whatsoever … nevertheless it haunts my dreams null



re what i am getting at … nothing really … just connecting some of my personal mental history here in this mind.

Well, in terms of what we have been discussing over the last few days, I would say that considering the medium to be the message is the root of a tangled and self-limiting belief.

It is akin to the idea that the means of delivery of the information, or the perceived source of the information, is more important than the information itself. And that thought is directly opposite of the idea that we, as humans, always receive the information that matches our state of being … the information we get is that which is most appropriate for us, however it comes, and wherever it comes from, it is what we individually need to move forward.

So the medium being the message short circuits that idea and places us in a reality where “things happen to us” instead of in a reality where “things happen for us”.

 See also The Medium is the Message null

interesting that i did that after #p2 … #thanks → mark for connecting heart

i don’t think it is necessarily connected to #TheMediumIsTheMessage
except perhaps in a way deeper than i can fathom.

well yeah i kind of agree … except perhaps where we hair up, #Supervene, to humanity as a whole viewed from a very long duration.  from that perspective, new media coming into existence actually is the new input information to the system null.  

But even from a narrorer perspective of a single personal life, is not new media being depolyed really what informs  the #BeIng? For example i gave #GW a calculator for Christmas one year.  I gave him no mathmatical informtion whatsoever in that gift.  Yet it changed the course of his inquirey for years.

Which, #btw , was not my intention … i just wanted to give him a Christmas #chotskies.

Not following. I don’t see how a calculator is a medium. A calculator is a tool, it does not contain or transfer information as a function of itself. It simply acts upon information. A pencil is not a medium, and the only difference between a pencil and a calculator is functional complexity.

Conversation forked to thought 23194

i don’t think it matters how you call or name it. 

Any agent which #catalyzes the transfer of information qualifies.   That #agent is considered “the media” In the context of #McLuhan’s meme.   A calculator canalizes the transfer of mathematical information … a pencil canalizes the transfer of graphic information … etc, etc ...

Somewhere in there I think you have lost the human component, which is what is really driving, and where information is actually transformed into reality experience. I think this is simply another aspect of “if a tree falls in the forest without an ear to hear it, does it make a sound”?

Without a human to experience the transfer or transformation of information, a calculator is just a block of silicon, metal, and plastic. It is the human who is generating the reality experience and the human who is experiencing it. The medium is but a color of the experience, an attribute.

The old thingy about sound is still buzzing around for those who are #AlreadyAlwaysArguing .  It doesn’t take a human for a tree to exist (IS!) There are still a few virgin forests around with trees in them that exist outside of human cultivation, interference & pedantry.

There are potential virgin forests. When a human does experience them, they will be real forests. Until you experience them for yourself, they are only your imagination … you will turn your imagination into a kinetic experience, and the forest you will experience will be as unique as you and your individual imagination, or not, as the case may be.  

Pure #Bullshit nathan null

#LOL … is what a politician would say on camera? Sorry, your going to have to put some meat on them bones. I can’t make much out of pure bullshit, it’s just squishy mush.  

an interesting though idneed null

let me see if i can think it, staring with your words  …
There are virgin forests. When  i experience them, i no longer can call them  virgin. Until i experience them for myself, they are only in my imagination.  i will experience the forest,  enhancing my senses with my imagination.    The forest i experience will be as unique as my individual imagination.
nathan’s thought as seen by seth

well, in the case of the calculator, it would not even exist  without a human having  invented it.  

Yes, seems fine. Don’t forget to add the other aspects we talk about. i.e. that one’s imagination is based on one’s beliefs, and one’s beliefs are most often shared with many on issues like forests … so one’s imagination will most likely be close to the same as many others.

Of course, the first one to experience a truly virgin land of any kind is in the position to actualize a whole lot more than anyone to visit it later when a blueprint of it is already in universal consciousness for the belief group you travel through reality with.

All that simply to say, if you truly see it first, your “discovery imagination” wins, but if you see it second, a lot will have been pre-determined for you, according to your beliefs about that.

#HellYes… makes me want to go find something new null

Such is an unprovable hypothesis if it means that nothing exists until a human encounters or interacts with it.  Solipsism similarly is unprovable one way or another & hangs out in riddles & paradoxes.
nullnull enjoy arguing amongst your selves.

Consider that your apparent model is unprovable because until you experience it, you can’t actually have any idea of it other than imagination.

My model simply acknowledges that clear fact.

Provability is no more obtainable in any model than in any other. When people think they are proving something, they really are only making base assumptions and then proving upon those, not upon anything concrete.

nothing exists until a human encounters or interacts with it

is a assumption (belief) which i factored out of my version above.

Yes. That is not a provable belief, either way, in any system.

However, believing that, does give useful advantages that can be tangibly experienced the same way by any number of people. It is a “useful” belief, even if it cannot be proved.

But really, what belief can be proved other than the 5 characteristics of existence? All other beliefs are dependent on some other belief. No matter who you are and what you believe, all you experience will match those beliefs until you change or relax one or more.

well i agree, it is not “provable” (one way or the other) in any system of beliefs. 

personally i see no tangible advantages
in believing that humans create natural occurrences,
outside of our own culture, 
purely out of our imagination.

my intuition tells me that believing otherwise more closely matches my experience.

”believing otherwise more closely matches my experience”.

“Believing is seeing”, not “seeing is believing”.

It is the interaction of your beliefs which are showing you the experiences which support your beliefs. So yes, you believe the above, so your experience validates it by what you see.

However, you can change that belief, and if you do, your experience will likewise change to match and you will thus further strengthen the new belief. That’s how beliefs work … and in that sense Mark has it completely right. The only real thing he has wrong is the idea of getting rid of ALL beliefs … because then, for him, there will be no reality left.  

It is the interaction of your beliefs which are showing you the experiences which support your beliefs. So yes, you believe the above, so your experience validates it by what you see.


Does not work that way over here. 

My beliefs do not just interact with each other to support themselves

← which is a closed and circular as your first sentence above implies. 

Rather …

my beliefs interact with my senses changing my beliefs. 


#wow … it just dawned on me i can improve my #TetModel ( #gestalt ) of #psychology.

Makes no difference. Including senses doesn’t change the result in any way, it simply makes the model more complicated to think about, that’s all … part of why I say your #TetModel is overly complicated.

why? …. senses must be included or the system is closed and circular upon itself … which humans certainly are not.

I am not saying senses don’t exist, just that they are part of perception and don’t need to be separated out, and in fact doing so, makes the other parts of the model land in less usable places or the whole model becomes much more complex.

here is the new #TetModel that just dawned on me, as mentioned above.

i think it is more accurate not implying so many things that do not necessarily obtain.

and, in passing, highlights the differences between my philosophy and nathan’s

So …
thinking, feeling, and will are internal to the #BeIng
world, action, and Sense are external to the being.

“Action” could be considered “Change” or happening.  World, Action, and that which informs  #sense’es  are considered here outside of the Being … they are #otherness to it. 

don’t fight the gestalt … see it … then go beyond it.