I think I'm Undertanding Media..

McLuhan's concept of media has me a bit thrown. Sometimes I think he is right on, other times I think he is talking out of his ass. It is during that time, that I have to remind myself when he wrote this, and I find myself silently, and mostly grudgingly, commending him on his progressive ideas. MM describes the differences between "hot" and "cool" media: "Any hot medium allows of less participation than a cool one, as a lecture makes for less participation than a seminar, and book for less than a dialogue." Meaning, that while both have an affect, the amount of affect varies. MM states that movies are "hot" because they enhance one single sense because it does not require much stimulus. It is simply for watching idly and enjoying, easily. Hot media is typically linear, such as radio and a lecture. "Cool" media, as MM puts it, would be television, as it provides more involvement and is more stimulating. Apparently, MM believes that watching TV requires more active participation than the movies. This makes no sense to me unless he is referring to the remote and channel surfing, which would account for his reasoning behind active participation. I suggest he observe my father watching TV, I bet he'd change his mind. My question remains, do we really have to "think" about what we're watching, whether it be movies or TV? With shows like Lost, 24 and Flashforward, there are more mystery that spans throughout the entire series, but I doubt people turn off their TV after an episode and really take time to study the events. TV and movies are designed for no participation. Maybe there are exceptions, as there is to everything.

MM concept of "media" being a medium or sorts is very interesting. The impact of each medium varies with each social network. Meaning, while the actual medium remains constant, the affect is different. For this I agree. However, once someone detaches themselves from the medium, they can control the outcome of the medium. So does this mean that everyone who attempts to change media or technology is living in a detached state? So by detaching themselves, they neutralize the affect the medium has. But is that possible? If the media and technology, and all the other words he uses to describe the exact same thing, is all around you, how can you detach yourself? It would be like going into a different dimension, not just mentally, but completely. Maybe it has something to do with this light bulb idea. Media isn't an actual thing, but is determined and described by the result of the affect it has on the environment. So does that mean the words in a newspaper isn't an actual thing, but the result of it on the social fabric?