From: strength@milton.u.washington.edu (Julian Bleecker)
Subject: Re: VR defined
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 18:56:41 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab University of Washington, Seattle


In article <1991Oct20.192715.1862@milton.u.washington.edu> gavand01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
>
>
>In article <1991Oct18.002614.24400@milton.u.washington.edu>, strength@milton.
>u.washington.edu (Julian Bleecker) writes:
>
>>In article <1991Oct17.064143.12595@milton.u.washington.edu> rick@xing.unocal.
>>com (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>>
>

I said...
>>Now, if you're convinced of the distinction between the Medium and the Message
>>(and i'm reasonably sure this is the distinction McLuhan tried so hard
>>to construct) and you really understand it, the most compelling issue is
>>obvious.


And you replied...
>Yes, I am quite sure you have the distinction right.  Please no offense, but
>McLuhan is kid's stuff.  He's got the right picture, but between the picture
>and the act falls the shadow.

Agreed.  McLuhan today is kid's stuff, but in that same "paradigm" :-) its
a great way to start to understand some of the foundational issues that
are brought up when people start discussing VR and media (in the broadest
sense) issues.  Was McLuhan revolutionary chic back in the 60's?  Thats
before my time.  


I said...
>>The message is a very touchy issue, particularly with respect to
>>VR, let alone TV, radio, the phone, etc.

And you replied...
>The message may be touchy, but the medium is far more so.  In other fields, the
>medium in this sense is the metaframe or the subtext.  Human rational systems
>tend to shut down and the person goes reactive, feeling attacked.  The ego
>cannot deal with the medium, only the message.


Interesting.  So the medium has somehow a sublime level of influence?  This
could very well be the case, but i'd argue further that you cannot be
reductionist about the medium-message connection. Can the medium exist 
without the message (forget the metaphysical, lets be concrete so we don't
get banned)?  If the medium is more touchy then the message, then the
whole thing is way touchy and that is what makes the whole thing both
powerful and potentially dangerous. 


>Quick aside: I am not an electrical engineer, but I do have electronics,
>systems, programming, graphics, etc., training.  I can address technical
>issues if the speaker avoids jargon, which is difficult.  On this newsgroup, I
>have been accused of speaking jargon and too readily dismissed as ivory tower,
>as if I am talking philosophical issues in a way that can never be
>operationalized.  Perhaps persistence will pay off (either that or I will be
>banned from the newsgroup! tsk, tsk) and someone will realize that I can offer
>the technical types something.  

I AM an electrical engineer, spent too many years studying to be a 
technologist and two years being a technologist.  There are plenty of
people out there who are cracker jack techies (meaning also subscribers
to this newsgroup) and plenty of people out there who are cracker jack
ivory tower.  There are not enough people who can be both.  This is
my goal.  If the moderators of this group or the subscribers feel
threatened by differing views, it doesn't surprise me.  Historically
this is a typical problem of technological innovation.

-julian