>Marshall McLuhan>Walter J. Ong>Harold Innis>Eric A. Havelock>Carroll Quigley>Don Ihde>Northrop Frye>Owen BarfieldI know everybody likes to meme about le eternal anglo and WASPs and whatever, but having dabbled in these guys' works and listened to recorded lectures by and about them (which i highly recommend doing during your downtime outside) for a year or so, I gotta admit that is some of the best shit you could read if you're curious about the evolution of our collective consciousness and how we've modeled this current perception of ourselves that makes up the modern world while tracing a possible roadmap of how we got here and where we could be going. They also help you realize the proverbial internal pressure points that have been exploited in order to push everybody down into our zombified status quo. Their stuff makes me genuinely giddy, even if I'll admit that I am kind of an unlearned brainlet so perhaps I'm easily excitable kek. And for the sake of console-warring bantz, their works are probably more lucid and more enlightening than most of the 20th century French and German obscurantist and convoluted thought prisons that are freely thrown around in discussions online and IRL.I also want to ask two questions for those who are familiar with these fellas: Who else has taken their mantle and followed in their footsteps to tackle 21st century issues? Because there's gotta be a group of people that must have tried that in the 50 years since they came around. And secondly, are there other authors that have worked with somewhat similar ambitions but with a grander anthropological bent to them? Dudes that tackle history and literary criticism and art without getting as helleno-centric as the former batch of thinkers. It's a vast world out there, ya know? I heard Ananda Coomaraswamy can get like that, but I never tried him.
People should read Owen Barfield's essay titled ''The Harp and the Camera''. It's short but wonderful.
>>25234797what would mcluhan think of internet/social mediais it hot or cool?
>>25234878I reckon he'd be terrified at how much it devalued everything he cherished
>>25234797If you like McLuhan and Innis, be sure to check out David Godfrey>>25234815Thanks for the rec, Barfield is based
>>25235014You got any books to recommend in particular from this Godfrey? I've been looking around online and I don't see where to go
I am monidoring dhis dhreadI've read good thing about McLuhan from people, where do I start?
>>25235141You could read Understanding Media. The introduction in the second edition is great, albeit a short one. Keep in mind that some of things he said back then might come across as ''quaint'' to you now because it really is the foundation of the entire field of media studies so this territory has already been covered many times since then if you've messed around with the field a little bit, but it all fits into a pretty incisive and coherent conception of things, especially once you read more from him (such as The Gutenberg Galaxy). McLuhan's whole thing is figuring out how human communication works as a method of transformation as opposed to transportation. You could argue that he can get a bit mystical at times, but that's part of the appeal.
The anglo side of Canada used to be real bright. Such a shame that it all ended up devolving into brainless bs so quickly past the 80s.
a bump
>>25234797How does Quigley stack up against those? I still haven't got Tragedy & Hope yet
>>25234797Don't forget C.K. Ogden
>>25235141the medium is the massage -> understanding media -> gutenberg galaxy
