There was always something endearingly magnanimous about Marshall McLuhan. He never sought to brow-beat his intellectual opponent into submission but always seemed to accomodate them somehow into his overall vision, with a gracious kindness and generosity of spirit . Anyone who debated him always went away richer for the encounter.
I have observed what Norman Mailer referred to at time code 19:45 - "I say, we will inhabit all these areas...We will not inhabit them well...We will pop into a Hindu village, but we won't know a damn thing about that Hindu village...That Hindu village will then come to...have created for itself a mode of receiving us."
Imagine if these two geniuses of our culture and electronic technology today, [in 1968,] were invited to a current 2020 presidential debate, to moderate. Is there even a modern-day political candidate that could compete with these two giants of linguistics, semantics, and literary mastery?
No one wanted to see a moderate Norman Mailer. They came to see this fierce, combative literary warrior. His writing is brilliant, both fiction and non-fiction. His conversation could piss you off, even if you were a fan. But those were the times. McLuhan is holding his own, though. A real discussion, not just the shouting matches we see today, regardless of the topic.
Say, I'd recommend the works of James Poulos, who deeply understands McLuhan and has extended his framework to digital's usurpation of the electronic/televisual. Start with his 2019 article "McLuhanomics The Medium vs The Market"
I dislike Mailer's definition of an alienated man. Man can be pretty integrated within his own psyche and yet alienated from his culture to a great degree.
Man as a social being is necessarily alienated from his own urges, his own real self. He understands himself in words, but words are not his essence. He can in that sense only observe, not be, what he is.
@@jnagarya519 i am not a social-linguistic robot, or your subjective object, but an individual free agent embodied by past/present, in constant action of making the probable future real.
10:25 “Information overload creates pattern recognition” I can only imagine what McLuhan would think of modern internet discourse. What a disaster. Also probably our downfall unfortunately.
19:46 McLuhan thinks eventually, through accelerated travel, we will "inhabit all areas simultaneously". Mailer thinks that's impossible. I agree with Mailer.
Yet here you are inhabiting the comment board simultaneously for everyone for the sole reason of exposing your 'views'. Students of McLuhan know the troll playbook by heart. think about it
Yet you happened show up here for us today via your media and yet you wrote your message one year ago.. you are here and you are where you are right now in another place simultaneously
As I go deeper and broader with my study of McLuhan, I wish there existed video, or script, of a meet-n-greet/debate between McLuhan and Gore Vidal. How about McLuhan and Kurt Vonnegut. Battle of this sort gets me thinking of Godzilla and Gamera. Godzilla VS. Gamera ua-cam.com/video/JgHyt46Ng9E/v-deo.html
No one can discuss coherently what lacks coherence. One cannot compress into a concept the incompressible; the complex. You have to interpret what McLuhan is saying, it has to be perceived as a musical score, as such is also the nature of what he is trying to relate.
I disagree, there's a coherent target to what McLuhan asserts. Our aim at it may not always be steady, and we will occasionally miss the mark, but the intent to hit the mark is a deep part of any organisms nature. Miss the coherent target too often, you die
At one point (about 13:40) Mailer is interrupted and says "No let's follow this through", to which McLuhan replies "I don't want to". I find McLuhan patronising and dismissive. But part of that impression might have to do with the editing, which seems to have the effect of making it seem that both men are ignoring each other and always starting a new thread in the conversation (which consequently doesn't always sound like a conversation).
La era cuando la televisión tenía calidad con producciones bien elaboradas y de una estética de buen gusto pero anulada más adelante con el torrente de anuncios con la cual el medio fue colonizado
I often get the sense that McLuhan is not engaging in conversation, but constantly trying to find some way of presenting his pre-packaged tropes - like Dylan, who said "people who live in the past are losers' - then goes onstage to perform something that occurred to him at age 30. Mailer can do spontaneity, McLuhan is too stiff, he just carries a bag of memorized coins.
That could be said for anyone. It's called personality. McLuhans answers are very carefully synthesized though, showing great understanding and sympathy. He can answer difficult and or critical questions like a true artist, like no one before or since. He also elevates mundane or stupid questions to something interesting.
McLuhan continued to search and question up to his embodied end. He not only saw the Global Village of the Internet coming, he invented many of the words we use for it, including "Global Village" and did 30 years before the first HTML page was coded.
"There is a sort of totalitarian element to this uh... avalanche of over information, if you will." 🎯 Jesus, these guys had a VERY clear understanding of humans and the human condition... and where it would all lead.
Painful to watch ! One good reason you shouldn't put artist (Mailer) together with a scientist ( Mcluhan) and expect the audience to walk away with a clear understanding of what either one has to offer the world in terms of a coherent insight into the human condition. They spend almost the whole interview talking past each other because they come from two different worlds.
21:08 Increasingly irritated by McLuhan's pomposity. Both men are inclined to make categorical statements, but McLuhan's are more often than not expressed with a condescending half-smile, as if Mailer has said something absurd. McLuhan is brilliant, obviously, obviously - but I don't like him.
He just realizes that Mailer uses only his left hemisphere when engaging in this conversation that is why he smiles …the intellectual gets supplanted by right hemispheric dialogue
![[UA] NAVI vs MOUZ | BO5 | IEM Rio 2024](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CMBYk0cbGoA/mqdefault.jpg)
Could you imagine such a conversation as this on television today?
No it would be on UA-cam.
There was always something endearingly magnanimous about Marshall McLuhan. He never sought to brow-beat his intellectual opponent into submission but always seemed to accomodate them somehow into his overall vision, with a gracious kindness and generosity of spirit . Anyone who debated him always went away richer for the encounter.
He didn’t browbeat, but he did interrupt annoyingly so.
What are you talking about? WHEN did he interrupt? How often did he do this? And what you call an "interruption",.are u sure it is as such?
Why had I not seen this earlier? I had no idea that the CBC had this in their archives. Remarkable...
Back when CBC produced quality content. Miss those days.
Interesting program. Essentially Teacher McLuhan and a Student Mailer fairly Moderated. Great direction and demonstrates why we don't need scripts.
This sort of T.V. entertainment was awesometacular. Medium is the message. For me, better than MMA.
😂👏🏼🤘🏼
This is just brilliant! Thank you so much for uploading!
Mailer really loves to hear himself talk
so would you if you were as brilliant as mailer.
BINGO! thanks for posting brother!!
I have observed what Norman Mailer referred to at time code 19:45 - "I say, we will inhabit all these areas...We will not inhabit them well...We will pop into a Hindu village, but we won't know a damn thing about that Hindu village...That Hindu village will then come to...have created for itself a mode of receiving us."
‘An electronic world re-tribalizes man.’ -McLuhan, 1968. Hello, world, 2021.
I’m blown away how on the nose this is.
Imagine if these two geniuses of our culture and electronic technology today, [in 1968,] were invited to a current 2020 presidential debate, to moderate.
Is there even a modern-day political candidate that could compete with these two giants of linguistics, semantics, and literary mastery?
Mailer never moderated anything, least of all himself.
No one wanted to see a moderate Norman Mailer. They came to see this fierce, combative literary warrior. His writing is brilliant, both fiction and non-fiction. His conversation could piss you off, even if you were a fan. But those were the times. McLuhan is holding his own, though. A real discussion, not just the shouting matches we see today, regardless of the topic.
Say, I'd recommend the works of James Poulos, who deeply understands McLuhan and has extended his framework to digital's usurpation of the electronic/televisual. Start with his 2019 article "McLuhanomics The Medium vs The Market"
I dislike Mailer's definition of an alienated man. Man can be pretty integrated within his own psyche and yet alienated from his culture to a great degree.
If culture is in need of pruning thats a valuable trait to pursue.
Man as a social being is necessarily alienated from his own urges, his own real self. He understands himself in words, but words are not his essence. He can in that sense only observe, not be, what he is.
Yes - today this is more or less obvious.
However, In 1968 culture and collectivism actually mattered - hence Mailer's poor argument
@@jnagarya519 i am not a social-linguistic robot, or your subjective object, but an individual free agent embodied by past/present, in constant action of making the probable future real.
@@nuqwestr Congratulations.
And yet your ego mediates between self and world.
10:25 “Information overload creates pattern recognition”
I can only imagine what McLuhan would think of modern internet discourse. What a disaster. Also probably our downfall unfortunately.
You sound like Mr Mailer with the apocalyptic man …. Pattern recognition is not a bad thing
@@rhb30001 ‘our guilt’ is inherent in nostalgic cross examination.
19:46 McLuhan thinks eventually, through accelerated travel, we will "inhabit all areas simultaneously". Mailer thinks that's impossible. I agree with Mailer.
Yet here you are inhabiting the comment board simultaneously for everyone for the sole reason of exposing your 'views'.
Students of McLuhan know the troll playbook by heart. think about it
Simultaneously...
Mcluhan meant this kind of acoustic space, nonlinear and discontinuous
m.ua-cam.com/video/q7X2X7LDFok/v-deo.html
Yet you happened show up here for us today via your media and yet you wrote your message one year ago.. you are here and you are where you are right now in another place simultaneously
@@rhb30001 capability, potentiality doesn’t imply achievement.
As I go deeper and broader with my study of McLuhan, I wish there existed video, or script, of a meet-n-greet/debate between McLuhan and Gore Vidal. How about McLuhan and Kurt Vonnegut. Battle of this sort gets me thinking of Godzilla and Gamera.
Godzilla VS. Gamera
ua-cam.com/video/JgHyt46Ng9E/v-deo.html
No one can discuss coherently what lacks coherence. One cannot compress into a concept the incompressible; the complex. You have to interpret what McLuhan is saying, it has to be perceived as a musical score, as such is also the nature of what he is trying to relate.
I disagree, there's a coherent target to what McLuhan asserts. Our aim at it may not always be steady, and we will occasionally miss the mark, but the intent to hit the mark is a deep part of any organisms nature. Miss the coherent target too often, you die
'An electronic society re-tribalises man.'
You don't say...
Listen to the drum beats issuing from NATO, Ukraine, Russia and all around the world...
And that is why global liberalism is dead
I was typing this same words as I read it in the background 🤔
Structure/agency
23:01 These types of moral judgements
if anyone watching this has an opinion of it, they've already misunderstood it
Norman Mailer was such a pompous boor.
Unless they have more than one.. ;)
McLuhan is always spread eagle.
They don't even want us men to "manspread" anymore.
Intuition
At one point (about 13:40) Mailer is interrupted and says "No let's follow this through", to which McLuhan replies "I don't want to". I find McLuhan patronising and dismissive. But part of that impression might have to do with the editing, which seems to have the effect of making it seem that both men are ignoring each other and always starting a new thread in the conversation (which consequently doesn't always sound like a conversation).
13:03
HELLO?
17:56
Group
La era cuando la televisión tenía calidad con producciones bien elaboradas y de una estética de buen gusto pero anulada más adelante con el torrente de anuncios con la cual el medio fue colonizado
I go far enough back to a time(late 50's -early 60's) when the CBC would not allow advertisements on TV. The CBC today is just a huge embarasment.
18:30 McLuhan interrupts with a meaningless reference to "travel/travailler". "Yes. Thank you," says Mailer. Lol.
I often get the sense that McLuhan is not engaging in conversation, but constantly trying to find some way of presenting his pre-packaged tropes - like Dylan, who said "people who live in the past are losers' - then goes onstage to perform something that occurred to him at age 30. Mailer can do spontaneity, McLuhan is too stiff, he just carries a
bag of memorized coins.
That could be said for anyone. It's called personality. McLuhans answers are very carefully synthesized though, showing great understanding and sympathy. He can answer difficult and or critical questions like a true artist, like no one before or since. He also elevates mundane or stupid questions to something interesting.
McLuhan continued to search and question up to his embodied end. He not only saw the Global Village of the Internet coming, he invented many of the words we use for it, including "Global Village" and did 30 years before the first HTML page was coded.
27 minutes 43 seconds of Norman Mailer missing the point.
Mailer is particularly insufferable here
"There is a sort of totalitarian element to this uh... avalanche of over information, if you will." 🎯
Jesus, these guys had a VERY clear understanding of humans and the human condition... and where it would all lead.
Painful to watch ! One good reason you shouldn't put artist (Mailer) together with a scientist ( Mcluhan) and expect the audience to walk away with a clear understanding of what either one has to offer the world in terms of a coherent insight into the human condition. They spend almost the whole interview talking past each other because they come from two different worlds.
21:08 Increasingly irritated by McLuhan's pomposity. Both men are inclined to make categorical statements, but McLuhan's are more often than not expressed with a condescending half-smile, as if Mailer has said something absurd. McLuhan is brilliant, obviously, obviously - but I don't like him.
I'm having fun with him, it's humor, not pomposity, he likes to have fun, and why he appeared in Woody Allen's movie, Annie Hall.
He just realizes that Mailer uses only his left hemisphere when engaging in this conversation that is why he smiles …the intellectual gets supplanted by right hemispheric dialogue
21:00 McLuhan: "To select is to distort" (quickly tries to move on, as his comment is beyond debate). Always dismissive, constantly patronising.
20:50