Marshall McLuhan

Is it necessary to actually read his work or are Wikipedia summaries enough? Does he go much further in depth? Admittedly, Medium is the Massage sounds like a fun read.

Attached: mcluhan1234.jpg (647x389, 48K)

Yes read him and others. Hope this makes for a decent /technology/ general for now.

What kind of question is this? Do you not enjoy reading? Do you just absorb summaries for pseud cred or something?

What is your goal? What do you want to achieve or attain?

bump

I have other things I'm reading and I very briefly allude to him in a piece of writing I'm working on. There are much higher priority books for my project, and I have dozens of unread books besides.

What more would I get from purchasing his work? What ideas does he develop beyond just "media have their own impact beyond content"?

In my opinion his thesis falls prey to itself

[Yea Forums post]

Well then why don't you just go to Wikipedia for all of those other things then mister lazy?

Is there anybody writing today that has a similar vibe as Marshall?

Analysis of how new media is shaping society?

'From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg' was pretty great, as was 'What Technology Wants', and also the recent Adam Curtis documentaries.

What else should I be reading?

Post-meaning, the medium is the only message. The trajectory of sense becomes tied to what you want to hear, not what I want to say: language screaming through us from the future in self-fulfiling prophecy, using the human body and our digital creations as vehicles. The world falls back to ur-tribalism, mysticism and sacrificing goats: the luxury flat of the future middle class becomes a bunker.

Finnegans Wake is the real acid

Alice in Wonderland is about electricity

I already read it all, I'm asking about beyond Wikipedia.
Alice in Wonderland is about opium nods.

Oh, I misread. I didn't go to Wikipedia for the other readings because the other readings are more important. I'm honestly very skeptical that there is any depth to McLuhan's ideas beyond the obvious surface level content. If you disagree, well, show me where I'm wrong.

Sherry Turkle, Clay Shirky, Nicholas Carr, there are plenty of others. This is why I want a /technology/ general to take off.

Is the Heidegger fixation among some tech-talkers bullshit?

I wouldn't say so.

Why not?

>Is it necessary to actually read his work or are Wikipedia summaries enough?

DIE ZOOMER, NEWFAG SCUM!

Attached: 1564406405643.gif (400x353, 2.76M)

It's funny how despite mocking me for posing the questioning of what value his work has beyond the superficial summary form of his seemingly very superficial summary form type ideas, nobody in the thread has yet mounted any kind of defense for the depth of his work. Is it possible [gasp!] that none of you have read him?

>Do my work for me and tell me why he is important instead of me having to read the whole book and figure it out on my own!

Attached: Grayons.png (214x236, 6K)

See

Yes, we are in agreement, not sure what the point of your post is.

The polite answer is that your question answers itself.

How do I acquire a cult-following for my social theory art books so that I can live humbly off of royalties the rest of my life?

He was an important egg hider