internet, social media, Technology, Uncategorized

Media is Plural, Truth is Singular

In my misspent youth, I remember conversations with my philosophy class in college, discussing how to describe what our life was and how we would describe it.  One of the descriptions was “a dance of remembering and forgetting”, a constant finding and embracing of truth or inspiration and then forgetting it or letting it slip from our attention.  That phrase has come back to me as we now take our cultural memory to the altar of silicon and revisit what our past means.  Not even so much what happened, since the invention of the moving picture and indeed the still photograph we cannot debate so much what happened but what it means. We can’t debate who was at the Conference of Yalta but we can debate what it meant and its impact was.  It seems that for a brief shining moment we could all agree what “is is” and what was, was.  But now, in our immediate now, our immediate news cycle and our interactive relationship with reality, it seems that everything is up for interpretation and revision. Let’s look at something as mundane as The first ladies jacket, at first we were told, it was not a message and later the rebuttal, that it really was a message. It seems that now that everything we do is being caught on video or in some way recorded one would think that fact would be Fact.  One could not dispute the recording or video of a statement it is a documentation of a past event that we can all agree happened.  We now have as many venues as re-imaginations of truth available to us. Perhaps in this maelstrom of media, we can take a moment to remember that while media is plural, that truth is singular.

For those who doubt the power of the repeated lie



Predict At Your Own Peril

Like many people, I have been following the political race pretty closely and have been surprised bordering on shocked in the way that the candidates respective roles have been portrayed. I understand that there is a whole grammatical ballet around how one presents a candidate, there is an entire lexicon available to refer to candidates with the correct meaning, but as we refer to the “Presumptive” nominees it seems as though we take our data to higher and higher platitudes (with a nod to the late Mayor Dailey).  It seems as if because we can sample data and make predictions from it that these predictions are obliged to have the future oblige the prediction.  An off colour remark by a candidate and the pundits  are showing us how this will put his future victory in peril, all charted with colour maps showing  delegates hanging like low-pressure systems awaiting the next prediction to blow them to a different course. Maybe we are looking to be ruled by the predictive force of algorithms in place of our own free will. We still have a voice but we won’t for long we allow the predictions to become the dictators of reality.