Etext

[Mole]

Together we are reading etext (electronic text).

And we remember that the content of any medium is the previous medium. So what is the content of etext?

The content of etext is printed text or simply print. Yes print is the content of etext.

Just as the content of print is speech, so the content of etext is print.

Print and etext look similar but with different effects. Print lead to individualism and nationalism while etext leads to the electronic tribe in the global village.

But what is interesting is that we focus on the content of any medium and are oblivious to the effects of the medium itself. But as Marshall McLuhan says, "The medium is the message".

 

[Mole]

The Forum and the Book

Go back to the Forum page and see that it consists of multiple discrete threads. Each thread is self contained. One thread does not lead onto the next. So we can say the Forum page is not uniform.

Now open a printed book and see that one sentence leads onto another, and one paragraph leads onto the next, and one chapter leads onto the next chapter until the end. And notice the etext on the Forum page has no end. But most of all notice that the printed book is uniform and has a uniform style. The printed letters all march along like little soldiers in uniform. And the purpose of the book, the argument of the book, is the order of battle.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Your comparison is invalid. If the content of a medium is the previous medium, then there's no message in books either. They are just ink. Your comparison between threads and sentences or chapters in a book is also invalid. Threads are more like books unto themselves. Within each thread, there is continuity. Basically, it sounds to me like you're just putting random words together and acting like it's profound and people need to listen to you. Your words are not profound, they are empty gibberish. That can hardly be blamed on the medium. If you had this same message published in a book, it wouldn't suddenly make sense. It would still be meaningless, empty filler.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Oh, and anyone who wants to post on this thread, remove the "-print" from the URL and that will take you to the normal view, where you can post. I think this thread is on "print view" because of the thread title and the way the system names URLs.

 

[Mole]

Looking under our noses.

Print is continuous, while etext is discontinous.

So print lends itself to a continuous style, while etext lends itself to a discontinuous style.

Unfortunately most members use a continous style while using etext. And the continuous style we use is called 'conversational'.

And we try to get everyone to use the conversational style, no matter how inappropriate.

And pressure is brought to bear on anyone using, say, the telegraphic style, even to the point of personal insult.

Because what we demand is uniformity and conformity and any nail that sticks up get hammered down.

But the cat is out of the bag. Just look at the Forum page and we see discontinous etext, not a syllable, not a letter, is printed.

Yet we insist on enforcing a uniformity of style. And we get quite put out if anyone breaks ranks. We want to see print marching on in serried ranks forever, but print has gone with the dodo and the dinosaur - just look, I am writing in etext under your very noses.

 

[Mole]

But why do we insist on uniformity of style?

Well just look at the US. It's like staight roads through a forest all converging on one point. And all we have to do is find the centre and we understand the whole uniform system.

Now look at Oz. It's like many roads criss-crossing one another. To understand Oz we need to go down each separate road. This takes a long time and there is no central point to give a uniform view.

Print is like the US and etext is like Oz, if for no other reason that the US was built on print while Oz was built on history.