Conversation The Interological Turn in Media Ecology © P e te r Z h a n g Grand Valley State University © E ric M c L u h a n Independent Scholar This dialogue foregrounds the interological nature of media ecology as a style of exploration into the human condition. Besides Marshall McLuhan, it also brings Gilles Deleuze, field theory, and the I Ching, et cetera, to bear on media ecological inquiry. The idea is to reveal a pattern instead of defining a term. A BSTRA CT KEYW ORDS Interology; Deleuze; Assemblage; McLuhan; Field theory; Leibniz; I Ching RESUME Ce dialogue met en relief la nature « interologique » du style d’exploration de la condition humaine que propose I’ecologie des medias. Pour ce faire, il fait intervenir, en plus des reflexions de Marshall McLuhan, la pensee de Gilles Deleuze, la theorie des champs et le « Livre des transformations» (Yi King). II s'agit moins ic i de definir un terme que de reveler un « motif » (pattern). M OTS CLES Interologie; Deleuze; Assemblage; McLuhan; Theorie des champs; Leibniz; Yi King Preamble T h is a r t ic le is o n e a m o n g a s e r ie s o f d ia lo g u e s o n m e d i a e c o lo g y t h e a u t h o r s h a v e w r i t ­ t e n s in c e 2011. T h e i d e a is t o p la y , p r o b e , a n d p r o v o k e , w h i l e k e e p i n g f r o m p u t t i n g th in g s to b e d in a p r e m a tu r e m a n n e r . M a r s h a ll M c L u h a n p o in ts o u t: “ T h e f u tu r e m a s ­ te r s o f te c h n o l o g y w ill h a v e t o b e l i g h t h e a r t e d a n d in te ll ig e n t. T h e m a c h i n e e a s ily m a s ­ te rs th e g rim a n d th e d u m b .” 1 I n t h e s a m e v e i n , t h e a u t h o r s b e l i e v e p l a y f u l n e s s is p e r h a p s h u m a n i t y ’s b e s t d e f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e s h a p i n g p o w e r o f i t s o w n p r o s t h e s e s . O v e r t h e p a s t f e w y e a rs , t h e a u th o r s h a v e b e e n p r a c tic in g f r a g m a tic s a n d in te r o lo g y in a n in te r s u b je c tiv e , in te r g e n e r a tio n a l, a n d in te r c u ltu r a l in te r v a l, f ir s t u n w ittin g ly a n d t h e n s e lf - c o n s c io u s ly . I n t h i s in t e r v a l, p u r p o s e f u l s y m b o li c a c t i o n a n d lu d ic v e r b a l p la y o fte n b e c o m e in d is tin g u is h a b le , a n d in n o c e n t m is h e a rin g o fte n re s u lts in p e n e tra tin g in s ig h t. T h e a u t h o r s r e a liz e t h a t t h i s is t h e v e r y m o d e o f o p e r a t i o n o f M c L u h a n e s q u e e x p lo r a tio n s a n d t h u s fe e l in c r e a s in g ly c o m f o r ta b le w ith t h e u n f in is h e d n a t u r e a n d P e t e r Z h a n g is A s s o c ia t e P r o f e s s o r i n t h e S c h o o l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n s a t G r a n d V a lle y S t a te U n iv e r s it y . E m a il: z h a n g p @ g v s u .e d u . E r ic M c L u h a n is a n i n d e p e n d e n t s c h o la r . E m a il: m c lu h a n e @ s y m p a tic o .c a Canadian Journal of Communication Vol 41 ( 2 0 1 6 ) 2 0 7 -2 2 5 © 2 0 1 6 C a n a d ia n J o u rn a l o f C o m m u n ic a tio n C o rp o ra tio n 208 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) mosaic-like texture of the pieces that have emerged so far. As our life world becomes increasingly technologized, the study of man necessarily becomes inseparable from the study of media, and vice versa. As a matter of fact, to study the ontology of man or the ontology of media is precisely to miss the point. Whether one takes man or media as the starting point, one necessarily ends up studying interality (i@]|4) or the “play” in between, which is to say, one necessarily ends up doing interology Interality is precisely the preoccupation of most sections in this article. Media understood as assem blages Peter Zhang (PZ): The strategic shift of perspective is a rhetorical exercise. The term “assemblage” at least offers us a fresh vantage point. In the final analysis, “media” and “assemblages” are synonymous terms. The dif­ ference is in the terministic screen each invokes. The one implies a mediumistic view of the world—what milieu the technical object (e.g., the stirrup, which makes possi­ ble the affect of courtly love and the social posture of chivalry) creates, and the affect, social posture, and ethos this milieu in-forms. The milieu is invisible and therefore in­ vincible. It conditions man. The ethical question is a question of creating a counter­ milieu to make the immediate milieu visible. The other term implies an assemblage orientation: what assemblage or social machine takes up man and the technical ob­ ject (e.g., the stirrup) alike, what mode of being is immanent in this assemblage. The social machine can be virtual, or it can be actualized or occupied. Either way, it is real. The ethical question for the human agent is a question of autopoiesis: what social ma­ chine to be taken up by, what technical object to enter into composition with, or, which virtual profile of oneself to recognize and actualize. Jackie Chan’s character, for example, typically is capable of recognizing a virtual profile of himself in more ob­ jects than his rivals. He perceives more contrapuntal relationships between himself and objects in the environment. Therein lies his versatility. Eric McLuhan (EM): I do not find much here to quarrel with. It seems a restatement of figure/ground relations. Why bother to translate into other terms? Is there an audience for the more complex version? One feature of translations: much is inevitably added, and much is also inevitably lost or sidelined. PZ: “Assemblage” implies a compositional ontology, or, to be more accurate, an interology. Each technical object extends an existential invitation to its intended user. The invention of a technical object means the invention of a social machine. The introduction of a new social machine means more than the addition of an extra thing to the social field. Rather, it changes the entire milieu. A Platonist impulse is plaguing the discipline of media ecology. McLuhan’s ex­ plorations have been driven by a sophistic spirit, which celebrates simulacra. To play with the notion of “assemblage” is to honour that spirit. Media and m odes PZ: In “Media Ad-Vice: An Introduction,” McLuhan points out: “All of my recommendations, therefore, can be reduced to this one: study the modes of the Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology 209 m edia, in order to hoick all assum ptions o u t of th e sublim inal nonverbal realm for scrutiny and for prediction an d control of h u m a n purposes .” 2 The Human Equation takes m odes as a given, and as the basis of technological extensions. Mode in this sense is a m atter of h u m an s’ extendibility. (The flipside w ould be affordance.) Through the Vanishing Point, however, suggests th at m odes are a result of m ediainduced m odulations of o u r sense bias. P ut differently, m odes are a m atter of clo­ sure. W hen we engage the world an d “close” o u r experiences w ith all of our' senses equally, we are in a “prim itive” m ode, to use Claude Levi-Strauss’ vocabulary . 3 Neo­ prim itivism is an outcom e of h u m an ity ’s retrieval of this m ode in th e electric/elec­ tronic age. The distinction betw een th e eye m ode and the ear m ode is a big deal for McLuhan. The sam e distinction can be called the distinction betw een th e left-hem i­ sphere m ode and the right-hem isphere m ode, or th a t betw een the visual m ode and th e acoustic m ode. I like this line from Laws of Media a lot: “W hen th e senses dance together transform ation is the com m on-sense m ode of experience; w h en vision reigns over th e others the universe tu rn s static .” 4 There is a direct correlation betw een m edia, m odes, and affect. Here is why this correlation m atters: The “sam e” m essage affects people differently depending on w h at m edium is used and how th e m edium is appropriated. The p oint is th a t w hen th e m edium changes, the m essage no longer stays th e sam e— we get a different m es­ sage (i.e., overall com m unicative effect) entirely. So a m edium im plies a m ode. If we take a closer look, however, we can see th a t th e sam e m edium can be ap ­ propriated in different m odes. For exam ple, writing can be appropriated in a prosaic m ode, or a poetic/rhapsodic m ode. M cLuhan operates in the latter m ode. Film can be appropriated in a classical m ode, or an anim ation m ode. Vilem Flusser suggests th a t telem atics can be used in a discursive m ode or a dialogic m ode .5 The form er is how control is exercised, w hereas th e latter leads to the pro duction of new inform a­ tion and the sensation of freedom. Gilles Deleuze w ould say th e assem blage is the m ode . 6 The assem blage th at takes one u p bespeaks o ne’s m ode of being, m ode of perception, and m ode of con­ sciousness. H um ans switch m odes by entering into com position w ith different as­ sem blages, for real or in fantasy. Exam ples of the latter can be fo und in Dr. Seuss’ book And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street, w hich is about th e young protag­ onist’s m ode switching while he is daydream ing . 7 For Baruch Spinoza, m ode is a passive term , p erhaps because m ode is a m atter of h u m a n s’ affectability, nam ely th e capacity to be affected .8 Affectability and ex­ tendibility are m ore or less synonym ous term s. It is a m easure of o u r passion, pathos, or passive power. Affect is a pivotal term here. H um ans can be affected in m ore ways th an ticks. The tick is the symbol of the Stoic— capable of being affected by, and patiently awaiting, three stimuli b u t totally indifferent to all others. Therein lies the Stoic’s power— the freedom from pointless arousals and the freedom to do a few m eaningful things well. W hen we are in an eye m ode, we can be affected visually b u t we ten d to be deaf, tasteless, blunt-nosed, and callous. W hen one sense is intensified, other senses are 210 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) narcotized. As a result, we enter a specific sensory mode. When we are in a tactile mode, we can be affected through all of the senses working together. In the final analysis, our senses are the physiological basis of our modes. Media modulate our sense ratios and put us in different modes. The eye mode is an outcome of print media’s modification of our sensory equi­ librium. The post-literate ear mode is an outcome of electric/electronic media’s re­ tuning of our sense ratios. Bruno Latour’s An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Mod­ erns is a tantalizing book.9 EM: My impression is that you are taking something simple and making it complicated. Now this is normal/expected/required academic procedure, I know very well, but it runs counter to my own instincts, which are always to clarify and to simplify. I have in hand a book on academic responses to my piece on formal cause: a dozen or so essays try it on everything in sight, in their own fields and outside them. By the end of the book I feel impressed by all the learning on display, and com­ pletely confused about the nature of the subject, formal cause. (The editors asked me to write the introduction.) Richard Cavell did something similar, writing a large book about our idea of vi­ sual and acoustic space—even after our exhaustive essay at the front of Laws of Me­ dia. Same result: impressive, and utterly confusing.10But in both cases, the academic response is to write even more essays, critical of the books and so on. In Cavell’s case, the solution is available: both my father and I and the two of us together have writ­ ten one-page expositions of the kinds of sensory space. It can even be done in a sin­ gle paragraph. So his book is unnecessary. I have talked with a few readers of the book and found them not a bit wiser about the subject, though they now know a heap of peripheral things and facts and arguments they did not know before. It might have appeared in a more useful form, as a small article. Think of the oyster and the pearl. The irritant (the original essay or whatever) invites commentary and explanation—layers of wisdom that surround the provoca­ tion and eventually obscure it completely, but those pearls of wisdom become the new end of it all and quite bury the original. Even distort it. I always ask myself, what is this or that piece of writing for? What effect does the writer aim to have on the reader? Much time is devoted to the word “mode.” It appears prominently in the two-sentence conclusion, but the word there adds noth­ ing new, and the conclusion itself is not news. Incidentally, while my father did make much use of the eye/ear contrast, he set­ tled on it as a teaching strategy. It was a big deal, that is, a frequent resort, only because the contrast was an easy way to help people come to grips with what he was trying to discuss, but of course the matter is hugely more complex than a simple dichotomy. The audience, though, ran with it and bypassed the complexity—maddening. A side note: the four Modes of Action in The Human Equation are not modes in your sense, as I understand it. That is, they are not forms of closure but of utterance. We might have called them Forms of Action, or Kinds of Action, et cetera, with equal Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology 211 felicity. (Want to know why we chose “modes” instead of something else? We liked the sound better.) PZ: I agree “eye” and “ear” are better treated as heuristics or cover terms. I like the oyster and pearl metaphor and feel like reworking it a bit. If your essay on formal cause is the original irritant (the grain of sand for the oyster), then each academic reader needs to come to grips with it on his or her own terms. Writing a re­ sponse essay is a ritual process of developing a counterirritant (growing a pearl around the original irritant) out of one’s own being. If your essay on formal cause gets people to think up a profusion of fresh thoughts on a range of topics, be it emergence or morphogenesis, I would not dis­ miss those derivative essays as sheer simulacra but as a sure sign that your notion of formal cause has served the function of a potent heuristic. This, of course, is a so­ phistic attitude, as opposed to a Platonist one. On the other hand, some simulacra are more useful (provocative, pregnant) than others. If an existential pressure is the irritant, then a technological response is a coun­ terirritant. If a technological invention is the irritant, then art might serve as a coun­ terirritant. If the clamour of the technologized cityscape is the irritant, then Stravin­ sky’s music is a counterirritant. The irritant is the ground (formal cause) out of which the counterirritant emerges. If we start to talk about discursive formations as formal cause, then we are building a bridge between media ecology and rhetoric, or constitutive rhetoric in particular. The peculiar thing about our world today is that statistics has become a salient formal cause. Many of the things we do are driven by stats. Information literally is the formal cause (artificial ground) that in-forms. This is the insidious side of cyber­ netics. The entailment is that “cybernetic categories must be used for criticism,” as Vilem Flusser puts it.u EM: Well, a quick riposte ... First, not sure what you mean by rhetoric: Aristotelian or real (Ciceronian)? Second, rhetoric is essentially ecological: that is the function of the third divi­ sion, elocutio. Third, I would want to know, what is the ground (i.e., formal cause) for statistics and for information (quite different things) and for cybernetics? PZ: By “Rhetoric is essentially ecological,” do you mean it is ground driven? That is to say, the right thing to say is a function of the ecology of communication. EM: Ecology derives from “oikos,” the Greek word for a house, a household. Note the word for master of the house: “oiko-despotes,” house-despot—very witty, no? PZ: How would you work the etymology into “Rhetoric is essentially ecological”? EM: Cannot think of a way to work the two together as you indicate. Ecology generally refers to natural environment, the state of one’s natural “house,” and only 212 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) lately to mental or cultural affairs. Bateson’s Steps to an Ecology of Mind? Never read it but you might have. Is there a path there? PZ: Martin Heidegger comes to mind: “Language is the house of being” is a close-toliteral translation of “Rhetoric is essentially ecological.”'2 EM: A quibble: Heidegger’s image means language might be ecological. Says nothing about the art or science of rhetoric. PZ: On the other hand, language as a mode of action cannot but be rhetorical. EM: Or it could be grammatical instead, or even dialectical. PZ: Wonder what your answer to your third question would be. Intriguing and provocative! Here is my guess: The ground for statistics: mass media, which bring into being a mass society—a society of crowds. The ground for information: experience. The ground for cybernetics: electronic and digital media. Formal cause is not that far from “conditions of possibility,” or “the circumstances that call something into being,” or simply “in-forming ground.” Do statistics and cybernetics not also create an artificial environment/ground (a second nature) that in-forms the way many things are done? Also, what do you think is the ground for informatics? EM: I might have thought that the ground for stats is the alphabet. “Information” is a rather woolly notion, don’t you think? What is the difference between it and informatics? Does cybernetics not depend on the feedback loop? Please forgive me if you have told me before, but have you got into Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power? 13 He proposes two modes of crowd, and the third, of which he is unaware, is the ground for his observations about the first two. PZ: What is the third mode of crowd, please? EM: It is the “mass audience.” Disembodied. All mass audiences are the same size. They have their being not by size but by speed: the speed of light. Medium and content PZ: The medium is something that “has us.” “The content” is something that “we have.” EM: If the medium “has us,” then the content is ... us (“being had”). Still assuming that “the medium” means the environment. PZ: Books have become the content of digital media. Books no longer have us. Instead, we have them. Now digital media have us. EM: Right on! PZ: Put otherwise, nowadays technical images are the medium, while concepts are Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology 213 the content. We are freeing ourselves from our concepts by illustrating them with technical images. After being alienated from the world by images, and then concepts, and now technical images, we are now thrice removed from the world. EM: First removal from the world: speech. That is, names of things draw the speaker back from direct experience, direct contact with things named. But they also have a dramatic effect on perception and the “right” name for a thing— le mot juste—is the word that replays the experience of the thing when first encountered. T.S. Eliot called this the “objective correlative.” 14 We are still in the world of perception here. At what point do names flip into concepts and out of the domain of perception? Wouldn’t that be when they cease to invoke perception? That is the sort of nomenclature that scientists seek and poets abhor. PZ: Percept is the ground. Concept is the figure. The flip marks the distinction between the intuitive man and the rational man, to use Friedrich Nietzsche’s categories.15 Are you suggesting the flip has to do with the phonetic alphabet? When we “language” (used as a verb here), the things being referred to are tire content that we have. The words are the medium that has us. This is where media ecology and general semantics intersect. Media ecology is general semantics writ large. EM: Your first sentence ties my brain into knots. I have never seen the word language used as a verb and cannot imagine its meaning here. And the rest is too gnom ic... A language is one thing, words another. Brings to mind the Structuralist pairing of langue and parole, which they used roughly as figure and ground. A language is a repository (or codification) of the experience and sensibility of the users, and as such is used by the poets whose job it is to track changes in perception and to keep the language in good operating condition. PZ: Perhaps instead of dying out, literacy will be widespread in the age of post­ literacy. But books will not be the medium that programs people. Instead, people will be programed by technical images. EM: Already happened. Literacies abound; new ones every day. I gave a speech on the topic at York University some time ago. The title is “Literacy in a New Key.” It is part of a book I am doing on literacy past, present, and future. People programmed by images is the basis of modern advertising: that was well underway when “lifestyle ads” made their appearance more than 30 years ago. The “technical” part refers to the content of the ad, the subject matter, which is of course not the area of effect. “T he user is th e c o n te n t” PZ: The chief task of interlocutors is to serve as each other’s mediator and falsify each other’s provocations. “The user is th e co n ten t” is som ething we need to demystify. It is polysem ous. Canadian Journal of Communication, V o l 214 A n y in s ta n c e o f c o m m u n ic a tio n , w h a te v e r th e 41 (1 ) a p p a r e n t c o n te n t, is u l t i ­ m a te ly a b o u t th e u se r. T h e u s e r / r e a d e r is t h e u l t i m a t e a r b i t e r o f t h e c o n t e n t . T h e u s e r is t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e m e d i u m — lite r a lly , c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e h i d ­ d e n m ilie u , w h ic h s h a p e s h im in a n a ll b u t ir r e s is tib le w a y . H e r e i s t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d b y M c L u h a n a n d B a r r i n g t o n N e v i t t : “ Y o u ‘p u t o n ’ t h e p o e t ’s m edium a n d b e c o m e its content b y a d ju s tin g y o u rs e lf to u s e h is p o e m i n a l t e r i n g y o u r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e w o r l d . ” 16 EM: S o m e t i m e s p o e t r y is b e s t le f t a s p o e t r y : t h e r e a d e r l e a r n s b y r e a d i n g a n d re a c h in g fo r u n d e r s ta n d in g , d a n c in g a m o n g th e w o rd s . T h e c h ie f ta s k o f in te r lo c u to r s , s u r e ly , is to ta lk to e a c h o th e r , to k ic k id e a s a r o u n d . Gestalt theory, field theory PZ: T h e r e is a s tr o n g r e s o n a n c e b e t w e e n G e s ta lt T h e o r y a n d f ie ld t h e o r y i n m o d e m s c ie n c e . B o th w o u ld b e g o o d w a y s to g r a s p “ m e d ia .” EM: H o w a b o u t th is : le t u s b e g in w ith a te tr a d o n e a c h ? L e t u s s e e w h e r e th a t le a d s u s . PZ: M y g u t fe e lin g is t h a t t h e y w ill b e s im ila r . T h is p o in t m a d e b y F lu s s e r c a n b e u n d e r s to o d in te r m s o f G e s ta lt T h e o r y : “ T h e in d u s tria l p r o d u c ts m a d e in J a p a n th a t a re flo o d in g th e w o rld d o n o t b r e a th e th e s a m e a tm o s p h e r e a s t h a t b r e a th e d b y th e I n d u s tr ia l R e v o lu tio n s in c e th e E n lig h te n ­ m e n t .” A tm o s p h e r e is t h e e q u iv a le n t o f “ g r o u n d .” enhances a w a r e n e s s o f f i g u r e / g r o u n d i n t e r p l a y , obsolesces t h e i d e ­ retrieves t h e p h i l o s o p h y b e h i n d t r a d i t i o n a l C h i n e s e m e d i ­ t o a n e x t r e m e , flips i n t o g r o u n d d e t e r m i n i s m , a n a t t i t u d e o f r e s i g ­ G e s ta lt T h e o r y o lo g y o f e ffic ie n t c a u s a lity , c in e , a n d , p u s h e d n a tio n , d is b e lie f in in d iv id u a l a g e n c y , a n d th e r e f o r e , a d is in c lin a tio n to ta k e a c tio n . I h a v e d e v e lo p e d a ( p s e u d o ) f ie ld th e o r y o n t h e s p u r o f th e m o m e n t: W e a ll c re ­ a t e a f i e l d o f e n e r g y a r o u n d u s , a n d i n h a b i t e a c h o t h e r ’s f i e l d . W e i n f l u e n c e o t h e r s a n d g e t in f lu e n c e d th r o u g h s u c h fie ld s . T h e “ s u b s ta n c e ” o f a Z e n m a s te r o r a g r e a t p e d a g o g u e , fo r e x a m p le , lie s m o r e in th e a tm o s p h e r e o r fie ld h e o r s h e c r e a te s th a n i n w h a t is c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n h i s o r h e r s k in . W h a t is a p e r s o n if n o t t h e m i l i e u h e o r s h e c re a te s ? T h u s it m a k e s s e n s e to tr e a t a p e r s o n a s a m e d iu m . T h e m e d iu m , m i­ lie u , o r f ie ld c r e a te d b y , s a y , D e le u z e , is s till v e r y m u c h a liv e a n d is b e c o m in g in c r e a s ­ in g ly v ib r a n t. I n C h in e s e c a llig ra p h y , e a c h s tr o k e c re a te s its o w n fie ld . S o d o e a c h r a d ic a l a n d e a c h c h a r a c te r . T h e “ a ir ” b e tw e e n t h e s tr o k e s , ra d ic a ls , a n d c h a r a c te r s a r e a s im p o r ­ t a n t a s th e s tr o k e s , ra d ic a ls , a n d c h a r a c te r s th e m s e lv e s . M o re p re c is e ly , t h e s tr o k e s , ra d ic a ls , a n d c h a r a c te r s are t h e fie ld s th e y e ith e r c r e a te o n th e ir o w n o r c o -c re a te w ith o th e r s tr o k e s , ra d ic a ls , a n d c h a r a c te r s . A v ir tu o s ic c a llig ra p h ic p ie c e is o n e in w h ic h is s u e s o f t h e in te r z o n e o r z o n e o f p r o x im ity h a v e b e e n a rtf u lly re s o lv e d . T h e n e e d le s o n a p in e tr e e c r e a te a s p e c ia l f ie ld a r o u n d th e m s e lv e s . W h e n w in d p a s s e s t h r o u g h th is fie ld , w e h e a r a u n iq u e h u m . C h in e s e a r tis ts o f o ld w e r e v e r y m u c h d r a w n to th is a u d io v is u a l c o m p le x , w h ic h th e y c a lle d “ p in e - w in d ” (fY R ). It Zhang & McLuhan M edia Ecology 215 takes extraordinary genius to capture the quality of the field created by a pine tree on a windy day with brush and ink. Grammatically there is a difference between “wind filtered through a pine tree” and “pine tree and wind in a contrapuntal rela­ tionship, as an integral happening,” but existentially there is none. So the semantic ambiguity created by the hyphen in “pine-wind” is a non-problem. The artistic will is the only difference that makes a difference. A field orientation is none other than an interological orientation. W hen two fields come into contact with each other, a resonant interval is created. The contact zone is where the action is. Probing is all about releasing energy by means of artifi­ cially created contact zones. Paul Virilio displays a field orientation in the way he talks about antiform.17 Carl Jung’s notion of synchronicity, which is informed by his work with Wolf­ gang Pauli, the quantum physicist, is a field theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics. Alan Watts’s joyous cosmology is field theoretical in nature. Media ecology McLuhan style is a field theoretical study of media. The fourfold processes diagrammed with tetrads are loosely synchronous or simul­ taneous, although we tend to think “flip” comes a bit later than the other three. If there is a word that crystalizes the gist of field theory, what is it? Emergence? Synchronicity? Interdependence? Interconnectedness? Interlockedness? Inter-ness? Interality? For McLuhan, the field is acoustic and simultaneous. Simultaneity is not just temporal, but spatiotemporal. “Coincidence” is a good synonym. A field is a field of potentials. It exists at the level of the medium, the virtual, rather than at the level of contents qua actual events. The virtuality of the field, however, tends to be underem ­ phasized, because the virtual as a category is more or less precluded by the material­ ist, positivist demands of scientific method. Field is ground, which can only be com­ prehended through apposition and ratio. Therein lies a retrieval of Keplerian archetypalism (music of the spheres) and medieval organicism in general. McLuhan’s (1999) view of the global village seems to be a field theoretical view, as indicated by the following passage from “Communication Media: Makers of the Modern World”: Let us start directly with a m ention o f ... the global-village atm osphere of the twentieth century. W hether you conceptualize it or whether you ver­ balize it, you live in a global situation in which every event modifies and affects every other event. Not at some rem ote time, not long after the first one, but at the sa m e time. In other words, whatever happens today affects everything that happens TODAY, not tomorrow.18 In a sense, the global village is a field of media events. Our sense of “ontology” is constrained by a visual bias. Interology is m eant as an acoustic corrective. But the “logy” (logia, “writing about, study of”) in “interology” may still imply, oddly, a figure orientation. McLuhan criticized Karl Marx and Georg Hegel precisely because ground cannot be figured directly w ithout conjuring up another ground. That is why he adopted the analogical m ethod of the tetrad. Lo- 216 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) gos, logocentrism, is essentially figure oriented. Hence McLuhan’s suggestive style of writing. Field theory is a critique of the ideology of efficient causality. It postulates that the entire field causes (or mediates) the chain of events that take place within it. Something specific that appears to happen “here” is actually a side effect (i.e., an un­ intended consequence) of a field deformation or fluctuation, which is to say, a side effect of an energy passing through the field. The apparent vector of the event, seen as “content,” is orthogonal to this energy. Instead of linear cause and effect, field the­ ory believes in obliquity, perpendicularity, orthogonality, side effects, and unin­ tended consequences. The well-known butterfly effect makes a good example. There are affinities between field theory and systems theory. Cosmic consciousness is field theory writ large. In ancient China, a severe flood or a locust swarm was easily perceived as a sign of the illegitimacy of a ruler. A hurri­ cane in the US, by contrast, almost never gets read as a sign of an unjust social sys­ tem. Instead, it is easily dismissed as an act of God. In a sense, field theory is a species of neoprimitivism. It is highly compatible with ecological thinking and m e­ dia ecological thinking. It is a much better way of encompassing meteorological hap­ penings, climate change, and myriad other things than a linear model. Field theory arguably started with electromagnetism, but there are obvious fore­ runners in intellectual history. The practice of consulting the I Ching for clues about a situation implies a proto-field theoretical Weltanschauung. Put in tetradic form, field theory enhances acoustic thinking and interological thinking, obsolesces visual thinking and entity orientation, retrieves ancient cosmolo­ gies (e.g., the ones that had informed yoga, taiji, and qigong), and pushed to an ex­ treme, flips into paranoia, psychosis (conflation of fantasy and reality), or mysticism. Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) PZ: Is Leibniz a notable figure for McLuhan? If so, in what way? EM: Leibniz? Not really. I think we left a bit on him in the first part of Laws of Media: The New Science. PZ: I think Leibniz inhabits a pivotal position between the East and the West—his work foreshadows the flip of the alphanumeric into the digital, which, according to Flusser, is ideographic and synthetic in nature.19Between the East and the West lies a space for involution. This peculiar involution is particularly worth looking into. Once the two blur into one, such involution will be out of the question. With the digital becoming the unified code for East and West alike, humanity stands to lose the most significant interality. I really have the I Ching in mind when I mention Leibniz, who is often referred to as the father of the digital revolution. The hexagrams of the I Ching are a prede­ cessor of the binary system Leibniz reinvented. The undivided line, the yang, is the equivalent of one, and the divided line, the yin, is the equivalent of zero. In the digi­ tal age, the binary system is the hidden medium or milieu of our existence, the for­ mal cause of our mode of being and manner of doing things. Probabilistic thinking Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology is v a lo r iz e d tio n , a n d 2 1 7 o v e r a g a in . H a p p e n in g s m o r e in te r m s o f th e te n d f u s io n to b e g r a s p e d o f c h a n c e a n d le s s in te r m s o f lin e a r c a u s a ­ n e c e s s ity . McLuhan and th e I Ching PZ: D o y o u E M : I d o o n — a fe w s u c h a n y c u r io u s w h ic h r e a d C o lle c tio n ? h is to w a s B o th a e d itio n tw o , th o u g h in th e a I Ching h o f th e I c o u ld n o t o w n h a v e c o p y . H is o ffic e w a s PZ: th e ( a t le a s t) , b u t n e v e r d id I w is h m a r g in a lia E M : M y f a th e r d id h e b e tw e e n c L u h a n ’s w o r k th in g s th e r e , th o u g h , th a t a p p e a r e d a rc h iv e . I u s e d s o re la tio n M h e to a n d I Ching? th e I k n o w th a t m y fa th e r r e a d “ c o n s u lt” it, a s o th e r s c o n f ir m th in g s h e d o . H e w a s w o rk in g a s re v e rs a l. c L u h a n a n d re s o n a n c e s b e tw e e n I Ching o n c e th e PZ: 1 a m M a n y n o t s e e th r o u g h f o u n d s e e b e th e r e Ching, i f I c o p y h e e to d id th e lo o k a I Ching, a n o f th e f r o m a h a v e o n e , b u t I d o u b t th a t h e a b o u t 5 0 y a rd s re a d . Is th e r e ta k e d r e a d a c o p y a t th e in th e e n tir e M a rs h a ll c o lle c tio n c o p y . s o th e r e is n o t o n e it. P r o b a b ly d o o r o f th e S t. M h e u s e d in a th e lib ra ry i c h a e l ’s C o l l e g e lib ra ry , f r e q u e n t v is ito r th e r e . I Ching a n th e d M c L u h a n ’s w o r k m a n if e s t a d e p a r tu r e f r o m th e id e o lo g y o f e ffic ie n t c a u s a lity . I Ching c o n s c i o u s E M : W a s th e k n o w e ff ic ie n t c a u s e C e rta in ly b o th h a d it a n d M m o f d e p a r tin g a d e in r o a d s a r s h a ll M f r o m in to c L u h a n s e q u e n tia l c a u s a lity ? C h in e s e w o r k w ith c u ltu r e b e fo re f o r m a l c a u s e I d id n o t o r a t th a t tim e . ( i.e ., e n v i r o n m e n t a l c a u s e ). PZ: Y w a s o u a re rig h t. M y s till la rg e ly o f /b e h in d th e Is th e r e im p lie d b y J u n g a th a t m o m d iffe re n c e th e r e c a s t a e n t, o r a T h is th e to m a c h a n c e o f m to o f th e b e c o m e y a r r o w h id d e n in s c h e m e o d e r n th e h u m b le alea to W v is -a -v is a n re trie v e s itu a tio n m a k e s p u ts th r o u g h it p o s s ib le a r e c a s ts im s a c re d p la n t it: th e m th e fo r a n ip ­ s e n s e th e n o t e q u a lly s ta lk s . A s p e n d ­ s a c re d u n ­ f itte d tr a n q u il m in d , r e c e p tiv e to d iv in in g a I Ching? P u t t h e I Ching? o f c e r ta in p e o p le , th e ilh e lm o n e fo c a l p o in t fo r y s t e r i o u s ... s im p ly in s ta lk s c le a r a n d a h e a d c o m p u te r ? a b o u t th e m ig h t th in k C h in e s e o f a th e n e c e s s ity w h e n a c tiv e . A ll in d iv id u a ls o ra c le . It r e q u ir e s a in f lu e n c e s — R ic h a r d n a tu r e b y and n e c e s s a r y it n e c e s s a r y s ta lk s ] w a s r e g a r d e d a s m a n a n d p o s tm e d iu m is y a r r o w . A s th e s im u la te d in te r p r e tiv e e n t m a k e m ille n n ia s e n s e . o f r a n d o m n e s s , c h a n c e , o r ra n d o m s o m e th in g s p e c ie s [o f le a r n in g a n ip u la tio n in c o n s u lt th e c o s m ic lo c a te e n v ir o n m a k in d o f a n c e s tr a l w is d o m . F o r th e o f y a rro w m b e tw e e n and n e c e s s a r y e le c tric p r o c e d u r e c o n s c io u s th e m a k e o f r a n d o m n e s s is to a n c e s tr a l w is d o m u la tio n th a t f u s io n O r ie n t is a t le a s t tw o w o u ld b e tw e e n k in d p s y c h e d e lic s — a s tr a n s m itte r s th a t tr a n s m its is a h e x a g r a m e n ts s itu a tio n . Is th e r e o th e r w is e , d o e s th e in to th e tim e . T h e s ta te m k in d d r a n d o m in g , in d e te r m in a te p la n ts in I Ching a n s u g g e s ts P e o p le o f a t th e O c c id e n t. B o th th e h e x a g r a m . T o p o in t is a n a c h r o n is tic , o r p o s t- h is to r ic a l. S e q u e n tia l c a u s a lity u n h e a r d th e p r o d u c ts o f 218 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) the vegetable kingdom, these were considered to be related to the sources of life. The stalks were derived from sacred plants.20 EM: The sixties—the age dominated by colour TV—went gaga over the I Ching. Colour TV is a distinctly different experience from monochrome TV. It is hugely more tactile inasmuch as the beholder fills in (i.e., makes) every colour except “pure” RGB (red, green, and blue). The filling in with black and white programs aired on the colour set is total: “white” in that formula consists of all the colours at once, R and G and B together at full blast. That is to play up the resonant intervals between those three colours in the macula of the eye to the hilt. Does not the I Ching emphasize resonance and experience in a nonlogical mode? It is certainly nonvisual. The hexagrams and the trigrams seem to me to be musical compositions, sheer poetry. And poetry has one foot in music and one foot in dance. Ezra Pound noted that tire meaning of a poem came about through “the dance of the intellect among the words.” Would that be a useful way to imagine the tri- and hexagrams? Could it be said that the I Ching treats the world as an information environment? All of these probes are reaching for the suitability of the I Ching to sixties sensi­ bility: the sixties environment of sensory intermingling paved the way and there was the I Ching, ready to play on that instrument. PZ: What is peculiar about the digital age is the simulation of chance. If the hexagrams of the I Ching embody chance, then computers now simulate chance. There is a world of difference between a hexagram worked out ritualistically through the manipulation of yarrow stalks or the tossing of coins, and a hexagram that randomly pops up on the computer. The one derives from the fusion of chance and necessity, whereas the other derives from the simulation of chance. Real chance, and therefore, serendipity and a genuine future, can be programmed out of existence—that is a major threat more or less hidden from humanity in the computer age, an age of algorithms. The four actions in the I Ching PZ: Thunder—to move. Wind—to distribute. Mountain—to stand still. Valley/Marsh—to collect. EM: They appear to align with the Modes of Action (MOA): Movement: displacement. Distribution: articulation. Stillness could be balance: isometrics. That leaves one orphan MOA, posture/configuration, and one orphan action, collect. Do you see how they too might align? I am not confident of the pairing, but then I know next to nothing about the real essential meaning of the four actions in tire I Ching. Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology 219 P Z : T o c o lle c t m e a n s to a s s u m e a r e c e p tiv e p o s tu r e , to t u r n o n e s e lf in to a re c e p ta c le , to n o t e x p e n d e n e rg y — th e o p p o s ite o f d is sip a tio n . A m o n g th e fo u r a c tio n s , th e r e a re tw o y a n g s a n d tw o y in s. A : B = C : D. Two series of technical inventions P Z : D e le u z e a n d F e lix G u a tta r i (1 9 8 6 ) h a v e a p a s s a g e o n te c h n ic a l in v e n ti o n s in Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature: ... K a fk a d is t in g u i s h e s tw o s e r ie s o f te c h n ic a l in v e n t io n s : t h o s e t h a t t e n d to re s to re n a t u r a l c o m m u n ic a t io n b y t r i u m p h in g o v e r d is ta n c e s a n d b r in g ­ in g p e o p le to g e th e r ( th e tra in , th e c a r, th e a irp la n e ), a n d th o s e t h a t re p re ­ s e n t t h e v a m p i r is h r e v e n g e o f t h e p h a n t o m w h e r e t h e r e is r e in tr o d u c e d ‘t h e g h o s t l y e l e m e n t b e t w e e n p e o p l e ’ ( t h e p o s t , t h e t e l e g r a p h , t h e t e l e ­ p h o n e , w i r e l e s s t e l e g r a p h y ) . 21 T h o u g h ts ? EM: “ T h e p o s t ” is t h e s o u r n o te in t h e c h o r d . Iw o u l d p u t it w ith t h e f ir s t lo t, if a n y w h e r e . U n l e s s i t w a s j u n k m a i l . .. P Z : I n d e e d t h e p o s t b e lo n g s w i t h t h e n o n e le c t r ic lo t, a s f a r a s s p e e d is c o n c e r n e d . D e le u z e a n d G u a tta r i s e e a d if f e r e n t d is tin c ti o n , t h o u g h : w h e t h e r w e e n d u p s e e in g e a c h o t h e r in a fu lly e m b o d i e d m a n n e r o r m e r e ly s e e in g a d is e m b o d ie d m e s s a g e f r o m e a c h o t h e r . T h e l a t t e r is g h o s t l y a n d v a m p i r i s h : t h i s v e r y m o m e n t , b y c r a f t i n g t h i s e l e c t r o n i c m e s s a g e , m y b l o o d is b e i n g s u c k e d a w a y . M i g h t a s w e l l t a k e a w a lk o u t s id e o f t h e h o u s e , lis te n to c ic a d a s a n d c r ic k e ts , a n d lo o k a t t h e m o o n . O r ta k e a n e a s t b o u n d G r e y h o u n d a n d f i n d y o u s o m e w h e r e n e a r T o r o n to . F a c e b o o k is a n o t h e r v a m p iris h in v e n tio n . Facebook and social capital P Z : F a c e b o o k h a s a m a n ife s t in te re s t in m a x im iz in g in te rc o n n e c tiv ity . It s e e k s to m a k e t h e s o c ia l t e x t u r e le g ib le . EM: F a c e b o o k m a k e s n o b o n e s a b o u t t h e f a c t t h a t it is in t h e b u s in e s s o f d e s ig n in g a n d c o n s t r u c t i n g n e w c u l t u r a l f o r m s . I t is in t h e b u s i n e s s o f p r o v i d i n g i d e n t i t i e s f o r lo n e ly , d is e m b o d ie d p e o p le . Y o u r lis t o f f r ie n d s is y o u r “ i n g r o u p ” o f p e o p le w h o r e c o g n i z e y o u . R e c a l l G e r t r u d e S t e i n ’s p i t i a b l e w a i l , “ I a m I b e c a u s e m y l i t t l e d o g k n o w s m e ” — o r w o r d s t o t h a t e f f e c t . 22 O r t h e o l d N e w f i e j o k e a b o u t t h e m a n w h o g o e s in to th e b a n k to c a s h a c h e q u e . T h e te lle r a s k s , “ D o y o u h a v e a n y id e n t if i c a t io n ? ” w h e r e u p o n t h e N e w f ie p u lls o u t a p o c k e t m ir r o r , lo o k s a t it, a n d e x c l a i m s , “ Y u p ; t h a t ’s m e . ” P Z : P rin c e s o f o ld , b e c a u s e th e y w e re ric h a n d a m b itio u s , c o u ld k e e p a s m a n y a s 3 ,0 0 0 s w o r d s m e n a n d s o p h is ts u n d e r t h e ir ro o fs . T o d a y F a c e b o o k t u r n s u s a ll in to r o y a lty . S o m e o f u s h a v e o v e r 1 ,0 0 0 s u r g e o n - lik e w o r d c r a f te r s , im a g e m o n g e r s , a n d i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e r s o n c a ll f o r fr e e . D o w e p a y a p r i c e s o m e h o w ? Is t h i s s o c i a l c a p ita l, o r s o c ia l d e f ic it? 220 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) EM: Reminds me of an old offhand remark by an aristocrat: “As for living, we have servants who do that for us.” Pow erPoint PZ: We are better off with a blank sheet of paper. David Harvey says, “Power corrupts; PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.” Writing on the board puts on display the stuttering, groping process of live thinking; PowerPoint reduces it into a thing, a mummy. Plain paper opens up a smooth space; PowerPoint striates thought. EM: Heartily agree. Paper—reflected-light medium—is FAR better than any screen. For one thing, paper promotes detachment and objectivity; critical thought, for another. And pen or pencil rather than typewriter. Too, a fountain pen is superior to ballpoint: it is even closer to handicraft. Pen and paper slow the writing process down so that more thinking goes into the craft­ ing of a sentence, more deliberation and choice of word and phrase. There is a reason why writing on-screen is called word processing: the result re­ sembles pabulum: it is not actually writing. PZ: Flusser makes a similar point: “Critical thinking results from the praxis of linear writing.”23 Speaking of paper, there is an interesting book so far ignored by the media ecol­ ogy community: On Paper: The Everything of Its Two-Thousand-Year History by Nicholas A. Basbanes.24 Internet PZ: In the olden days, tools were extensions of humans; now humans have become the tentacles of (digital) megamachines. EM: Is tentacles the right metaphor? We were, for a long while, the reproductive organs of machines ... What bodily organ or function does IoT (Internet of Things) extend? It links all of our little extensions, our gizmos and apps, this Internet of gadgets. Each gadget is a little narcosis ... What is the cumulative effect, I wonder. What will result when we are hit by all apps (etc.) at once. Or when we make our narcoses aware of each other ... This move would effectively demolish the private, individual subconscious. What else? PZ: Could you spell out the last point? To answer your question, I think the internet extends the brain and creates a global super brain. EM: It seemed to me that hauling our neuroses out of the subconscious and into the light of conscious awareness would leave precious little about which to be sub- or unconscious, i.e., about which to be private. What is the self-love of one without a self? PZ: “A hyperconscious dream world,” as Flusser puts it.25 Zhang & McLuhan M edia Ecology 221 High-definition television PZ: T h e fo llo w in g p a s s a g e s u g g e s ts t h a t h ig h - d e f in itio n ( H D ) te le v is io n is m o r e b o o k - f r ie n d ly t h a n m o s a ic te le v is io n , w h i c h is m o r e ta c tile t h a n v is u a l. F r e n c h te le v is io n ... h a s a n 8 1 9 li n e p i c t u r e d e f i n i t i o n a s c o m p a r e d to o u r 525 lin e d e f in itio n . I f w e u s e d 819 lin e s , th is w o u ld h e lp u s o u t o f a lo t o f n a s ty s c h o o l p r o b le m s , r ig h t n o w . O u r k id s w o u ld f in d s c h o o l e a s ie r b e ­ c a u s e if t h e v is u a l p h o to g r a p h ic le v e l o f t h e m e d i u m w e re p u s h e d u p a b it, t h e r e w o u ld b e a b r id g e b e tw e e n th e ir e le c tr ic w o r ld a n d t h e ir s c h o o l r o o m w h i c h w o u l d e a s e t h e i r p r o b l e m s . 25 EM: Q u i t e r ig h t. B u t it o m i t s o n e litt le th in g : o u r H D v e r s io n is d ig ita l, n o t a n a lo g u e , a n d t h e s c r e e n is a c o m p u t e r s c r e e n , n o t a s c a n n e d T V s c r e e n . ( B u t t h e d ig ita l s c r e e n a ls o p r e s e n t s a m o s a ic im a g e o f d o t s — p ix e ls .) W h a t D a d s a id a b o u t H D p o s s ib ly h e lp in g a s s u m e d t h a t t h e s c r e e n w o u ld b e a T V s c r e e n , lik e t h e B r itis h a n d F r e n c h ( a n d th e r e s t) u s e : s o th a t , y e s , t h e a d d itio n a l lin e s w o u ld h e a t u p t h e T V im a g e s o m e w h a t, b u t n o e x p e r im e n ts w e r e e v e r p e r f o r m e d to v e r if y th is re s u lt. Driverless autom obiles PZ: O n J a n u a r y 1 9 ,2 0 1 4 , CBS N e w s c a r r ie d a n a r tic le e n title d “J u s t a r o u n d th e B e n d : A B r a v e N e w D r iv e r le s s W o r ld .” D r iv e r le s s a u t o m o b i l e s a r e o n t h e h o r iz o n . EM: L e t u s tr y a te tr a d . A q u ic k s k e tc h : E nhances: A U T O nom y. O b s o le s c e s : c o n tr o l( le r ) . R e tr ie v e s : c a r a s ro b o t. R e v e rs a l: d r iv e r b e c o m e s p a s s e n g e r . Y o u r th o u g h ts ? PZ: I th i n k it a c tu a lly m a x im iz e s c o n tr o l— o f p a s s e n g e r a n d v e h ic le a lik e . T h e v e h ic le c a n n o lo n g e r w o r k in a re la tiv e ly s e lf - s ta n d in g m a n n e r . I t h a s b e c o m e a n e l e m e n t in a c y b e r n e tic a s s e m b la g e . S o I w o u l d s a y t h e d r iv e r le s s a u t o m o b i l e ... E n h a n c e s : p a s s iv ity , d e p e n d e n c e , t h e fe e d b a c k lo o p . O b s o le s c e s : w in d s h ie ld , tra ffic tic k e ts , m in i m u m d r iv in g a g e , r e a r v ie w m ir ­ r o r , “ t o b e i n t h e d r i v e r ’s s e a t ” ( t h e m e t a p h o r ) . R e tr ie v e s : t h e id e a o f a b la c k b o x ( p u n in te n d e d ) . P u s h e d t o a n e x t r e m e , ( t h e d r i v e r ’s ) c o n t r o l r e v e r s e s i n t o l e t t i n g g o ; d r i v i n g flip s in to b e in g d r iv e n ; a u to p ilo t a s f ig u r e r e v e r s e s in to a u to p ilo t a s g r o u n d ( p r o lif e r ­ a t i o n a s a s i g n o f o b s o le s c e n c e ) . “A u to - m o b ile ” g e ts lit e r a li z e d o n a m a s s iv e s c a le . EM: H o w a b o u t th e s e r e f in e m e n ts to R o b o c o u p e ? (L ik e t h a t n a m e ? ) A m p l i f i e s ... O b s o le s c e s re s p o n s ib ility , in s u r a n c e . Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) 222 R etrieves luxury, leisu re; priv acy o r so litude. R everses car in to sp ace cap su le (if n o w in d sh ield , c o u ld elim in a te all w in ­ d o w s). T u rn s th e ro a d sy stem in to a m ach in e . PZ: It d o es d iffu se respon sibility. T h e risk o f “th e in te g ra l a c cid e n t” (a la V irilio) b ec o m e s im ag in ab le. I w o u ld say it am p lifies h u m a n s ’ a lien a tio n fro m o n e a n o th e r a n d fro m th e ir “m ec h a n ic al brid es.” T h e re w ill b e a to ta l loss o f privacy. T h e p as se n g er w ill b e u n d e r su rv eillan ce all th e tim e . I th in k th e allu sio n to A ld ou s H ux ley in th e title is great. Proliferation as a sign of obsolescence PZ: M o n ey is a n u n d e rs tu d ie d , n ihilistic m e d iu m /m ilie u . G eorg S im m ers The Philosophy of Money is a g o o d source.27 EM: A n d th e digital e n v iro n m e n t p u t p aid to th e fo rtu n e s o f m o n ey ! O n e sign o f o b so lesce n ce is, as y o u k now , p ro liferatio n . L ook a t h o w m a n y fo rm s o f m o n e y n o w s u rro u n d us. A m o n g th e co n sp icu o u s o n es: air m iles. PZ: A n d b itcoin s, too. “P ro liferatio n as a sig n o f o b so lesc en ce” ap p lies to art. As Virilio p u ts it: " ... if ev ery o n e is a n a rtis t th e re ’s n o m o re art, a n d th a t’s w h a t’s h a p p e n in g . T h a t’s th e re a­ s o n w h y I say th a t for m e, th e p lastic arts are fin ish ed , it’s over, alles fertig. I’m n o t jo k in g !”28 T his is also a retriev al of, o r a rev ersal in to, th e B alinese state o f affairs. Neoprimitivism PZ: T h is is a n age o f n e o p r im itiv is m a n d n eo n o m a d ism . I c a n n o t s ta n d o r w rite m o n o -lin e a r p a p e rs an y m o re . M cL uh an’s p ractical criticism is a species o f n eo p rim itiv ism . Sayonara to th e reig n o f literacy. EM: Finally I g e t w h a t y o u m e a n b y n eo p rim itiv e! You m e a n w h a t w e call em p iricism — th a t is, u sin g th e sen sib ilities in s te a d o f th e o ry a n d d e ta c h m e n t; u sin g o b ser v a tio n a n d ex p erience. B u t b ew are o f b ein g alie n a te d fro m lin ea rity itself: it is to o v alu ab le a reso u rce to s e t aside o r allow to atro ph y . We h a v e to b ec o m e, as it w ere, b ilingu al. P ro b ab ly w h a t y o u fin d re p e lle n t is b a d w riting. In th is age, g o o d w riters (a n d in stan c es o f g o o d w ritin g — th a t is, w ritin g th a t is a jo y to re ad ) are ex ceedin gly rare. B u t th e re are th e o d d o n es to b e fo u n d h e re a n d th e re ... Take h ea rt! H ave a lo o k a t so m e g o o d p ro se o r poetry. P erh ap s visit P o u n d ’s ABC of Reading for te n m in u tes .29 O r Eliot’s Four Quartets, d itto.30 O r th e C hinese eq u iv a­ lent. Education as damage control PZ: P erh a p s th e focus o f ed u c a tio n in th is age s h o u ld b e m e d ia literacy— w h a t a n iro n y: e d u c a tio n as d a m ag e co n trol! M ed ia are d ru gs, a n d vice versa. EM: Actually, so-called m e d ia literacy is little m o re th a n a n e x te n sio n o f th e m a rk e tin g d e p a rtm e n ts o f m e d ia m an u fa ctu re rs . It tea ch es p eo p le h o w to b ec o m e Zhang & McLuhan Media Ecology 223 more proficient users of this or that medium or gadget. It has zero relation to study of the nature or psychic and social effects of media, new or old. That is, media literacy as currently practiced is the opposite of media ecology, which is not about adapting to new media environments but about their power to restructure cultures and each other. There is nothing ecological about media literacy: it trains users into addicts. Note that media literacy is exclusively oriented toward content, that is, efficient cause: media ecology ought to be (and seldom is, but the potential is there) focused on formal cause, on the media as agents of transformation. Education ought to focus on perception and how media change and distort it and in the process create new cultures while wiping out old ones—education as damage control, but also education as civil defense against media fallout. Education as training for environmental action and programming—just like natural ecology, which seeks to understand natural processes and how to regulate them, while stemming pollution and environmental degradation. PZ: Media literacy in a robust sense should be synonymous with media ecology, but the typical media literacy class seldom goes beyond content analysis, critical as it is. EM: I do not see how it is possible. Media literacy is inextricably tied to proficiency with using this or that technology. Media ecology is, in a robust sense, the study of environments and their effects and modulations and internecine wars. Only the latter, ecology, would lead to the awareness of addiction and cultural transformation. M edia eco lo g y as p o etics PZ: To struggle with a language, to commit crimes against it—therein lies the poetic impulse. Put otherwise, the true poet goes beyond mere content and works on the code or the medium itself. In this sense, poets and media ecologists are natural allies. Media ecology is a species of poetics. EM: Well, media ecology OUGHT to be a species of poetics. Thus far, though, it is more a species of bureaucracy and academicism. Consider these remarks by T.S. Eliot on the matter of poetics. ... I may say that the great poet should not only perceive and distinguish more clearly than other men, the colours or sounds within the range of ordinary vision and hearing; he should perceive vibrations beyond the range of ordinary men, and be able to make men see and hear more at each end [of the spectrum] than they could ever see without his help. We have for instance in English literature great religious poets, but they are, by comparison with Dante, specialists. That is all they can do. And Dante, because he could do everything else, is for that reason the greatest “reli­ gious” poet, though to call him a “religious poet” would be to abate his universality. The D ivine Com edy expresses everything in die way of emo­ tion, between depravity’s despair and the beatific vision, that man is ca­ pable of experiencing. It is therefore a constant reminder to the poet, of the obligation to explore, to find words for the inarticulate, to capture those feelings which people can hardly even feel, because they have no Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 41 (1) 224 words for them; and at the same time, a reminder that the explorer be­ yond the frontiers of ordinary consciousness will only be able to return and report to his fellow-citizens, if he has all the time a firm grasp upon the realities with which they are already acquainted.31 PZ: The poet’s mission is to render visible the invisible, to render audible the inaudible, and to render effable the ineffable. Although “the explorer beyond the frontiers of ordinary consciousness” may call to mind a psychedelics user, the poet or artist can get there by other means, and a yogi or Zen master can stay there all the time. Nietzsche’s rapture is most probably a psychedelic experience without psychedelics.32 Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. Jean-Frangois Vallee for putting the abstract and keywords into French, Dr. Michael Dorland for changing the title of this piece to the current wording, and Blake Seidenshaw for sharing his thoughts on field theory. References l McLuhan, Marshall. (1969). Counterblast (p. 55). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. 2. McLuhan, Eric, & McLuhan, Marshall. (2011). Theories of communication (p. m ). New York, NY: Peter Lang. 3. Levi-Strauss, Claude. (1979). Myth and meaning (pp. 15-24). New York: Schocken Books. 4. McLuhan, Marshall, & McLuhan, Eric. (1988). Laws of media: The new science (p. 13, fn. 1). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 5. Flusser, Vilem. (2011). Into the universe of technical images (Trans. Nancy Ann Roth) (pp. 79-86). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 6. Deleuze, Gilles, & Pamet, Claire. (1987). Dialogues (pp. 69-76). New York: Columbia University Press. 7. Dr. Seuss. (1989). And to thinlc that I saw it on Mulberry Street. New York: Random House. 8. Burke, Kenneth. (1945). A grammar of motives (p. 148). New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 9. Latour, Bruno. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence: An anthropology of the modems. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 10. Cavell, Richard. (2002). McLuhan in space: A cultural geography. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 11. Flusser, Vilem. (2011). Into the universe of technical images (Trans. Nancy Ann Roth) (p. 86). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 12. Heidegger, Martin. (1977)- Basic writings (p. 213). New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. 13. Canetti, Elias. (1962). Crowds and power. New York: The Viking Press. 14. Eliot, T.S. (2001). The waste land and other writings. New York: Modem Library. 15. Nietzsche, Friedrich. (1964). The complete works of Friedrich Nietzsche: Early Greek philosophy (pp. 190-191). New York: Russell & Russell, Inc. 16. McLuhan, Marshall, & Nevitt, Barrington. (1972). Take today: The executive as dropout (p. 141). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 17. Zhang, Peter. (2013). Media ecology and techno-ethics in Paul Virilio. Explorations in Media Ecology, 12(3&4), 241-257. 18. McLuhan, Marshall. (1999). The medium and the light: Reflections on religion (p. 33). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock. 19. Flusser, Vilem. (2011). Does writing have a future? (Trans. Nancy Ann Roth) (p. 61, p. 152). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 20. Baynes, Cary F. (Trans.). (1967). The I Ching, (p. liv). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 21. Deleuze, Gilles, & Guattari, Felix. (1986). Kafka: Toward a minor literature (Trans. Dana Polan) (p. 30). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Z h an g & M cL uhan M edia Ecology 225 22. S te in , G e rtru d e . (199 3). A Stein reader (p. 5 88). E v a n s to n , Illin o is: N o r th w e s te r n U n iv e rs ity P re ss . 23. F lu ss e r, V ile m . (2011). Does writing have a future? (T ra n s . N a n c y A n n R o th ) (p . 4 2 ). M in n e a p o lis , M N : U n iv e rs ity o f M in n e s o ta P re ss . 24. B a s b a n e s , N ic h o la s A. (2013). O n paper: The everything of its two-thousand-year history. N e w Y ork, NY: A lfre d A. K no pf. 25. F lu ss e r, V ile m . (2011). Into the universe of technical images ( T ra n s . N a n c y A n n R o th ) ( p . 166). M in n e a p o lis , M N : U n iv e rs ity o f M in n e s o ta P re ss . 26. M c L u h a n , M a rsh a ll. (196 7). T e le v is io n in a n e w lig h t. In S ta n le y T. D o rm e r, (E d .), The meaning of commercial television (p . 1 0 0 ). A u s tin , TX : U n iv e rs ity o f T exa s P re ss. 27. S im m e l, G eorg. (2 0 0 4 ). The philosophy of money. N e w Y ork: R o u tle d g e . 28. A rm ita g e , J o h n (E d.). (2001). Virilio live: Selected interviews (p. 141). L o n d o n , UK: SAGE P u b lic a tio n s. 29. P o u n d , E zra. ( i 9 6 0 ) . ABC of reading. N e w Y ork: N e w D ire c tio n s . 30. E liot, T.S. (196 8). Four quartets. L o n d o n : F olio Society. 31. E liot, T.S. (1965). W h a t D a n te m e a n s to m e . I n To criticize the critic: Eight essays on literature and education (p. 134). N e w Y ork, NY: F arrar, S tra u s & G iro ux . 32. J a sp e rs, K arl. (19 79 ). Nietzsche: An introduction to the understanding of his philosophical activity (p . 9 4 ). S o u th B e n d , In d ia n a : R e g n e ry /G a te w a y , Inc. Copyright of Canadian Journal of Communication is the property of Canadian Journal of Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.