In Response to Poster

After reading Poster's, "Authors Analogue and Digital", I found that I appreciated his objectivity to both analogue forms of mediums(print) and digital(for example:blogs). We live in a culture that the mediums are rapdily tranistioning from analogue forms such as books to the everday evolving form of digital media like websights. Postor does a great job describing both the postives and negatives of traditional analogue and the digital revolution mediums

Poster pointed out some of the relativly simple but key argumens about why analogue should still be used as a primary medium. Within his piece, he made a point to talk about stablitly and accessaiblity of media like books and newspapers in comparison. Society still and will continue to rely on this very basic and simple concept of printed media because it will always be there. The finalization of print media being released into the general public is on of the it's greatest assets. Unlike digital, which can be changed at any second, print is sold and doesn't change as fast. Not only are books always going to be aroudn, they are widely more accessible to the public than the internet. The idea that anyone can go to the library and get a book, take it home and read is one thing the digital revolution cannot offer everyone. These few advantages have continued to keep analogue at the very basic medium level.

As stated above, digital mediums are forming a new wave of how many of our basic types of media are pushed out to society. Poster made the argument taht digital allows flexabilit in terms of when or who can write,read and publish their own work. Digial allows an open door to everyone to put whatever they want on the web whenever they want. Unlike pring, the words of this medium are not set in stone but are able to change on a moments notice. Poster pointed out that this ability to change and evolve whenever it wants has some positives and negaitves

Creating the Grid

Before considering “breaking the grid,” we should look at why the grid was created in the first place. After all, the invisible grid on which we write and from which we read has been around for centuries, implying that it’s been working well so far.


According to John Lock, ideas come from experiences, more specifically broken up in to sensation and reflection. In a portion of one of Lock’s essays titled “Of Ideas” he states, “Let anyone examine his own thoughts, and thoroughly search into his understanding, and then let him tell me, whether all the original ideas he has there, are any other than of the objects of his senses, or of the operations of his mind considered as objects of his reflection” (187). While sensations are objective, reflection is important when it comes to learning and sharing ideas with others. It is for this reason that critical thinkers of The Enlightenment decided that publications should be clear, objective, transparent, and universal. Since the point of publishing is to put ideas into words to be shared with others, shouldn’t the way these words are formatted be easy to understand? Writers want others to have the ability to access their works and learn from them, or at least have them spark a conversation. This can only happen if ideas are published in a clear-cut fashion which is easily understood by a wide variety of people. It is for this reason that the grid has been working so well for so many centuries; people can access and understand information easily.

Those against the grid may be wondering who decides on how it is formed. Fellow Enlightenment thinker David Hume touches upon this issue in his essay “Of the Standard of Taste.” Hume acknowledges that thoughts and sensations are objective; not everyone sees the world in the same way. He claims that sensation only “…marks a certain conformity or the relation between the object and the organs or faculties of the mind; and if that conformity did not really exist, the sentiment could never possibly have being” (507). Conformity is necessary for the world to function as it does. Basically, if the formation of grid works for a majority of people, the rest must conform so that it stays universal. Although “conformity” is often seen as an evil word, people conform all the time. Elvis Presley is the king of rock and roll; Marilyn Monroe is a sex icon. Why? Because a majority of people felt this way, and many more conformed to holding Elvis as a high standard in music and Monroe as a high standard in sex appeal. While not everyone agrees with these statements, they are forced to deal with the fact that the standards were set. The same can be said about the formation of the grid. Anyone who doesn’t like it must either deal with it or start a movement.

Blog 1 - Marx Response

In response to "Preface" by Karl Marx, I think he is a bit confusing in how he describes social production. He believes we are born into certain situations, in relation to history and beliefs of certain cultures regardless of if this situation is what we want it to be. As an example, I am growing up in a more digital age where computers are becoming even more utilized than ever before: professors are relying on D2L to hold readings and collect papers of students, cell phones have the internet, almost every student on campus has a laptop, etc. We are in the digital age where more and more inventions are surfacing that is "cool" and cuts back on paper, such as e-books, and it's not because we want to go more green and save the trees. It is because it is what is popular and engages people more. I would have loved to be growing up in a time, maybe 20 years ago when there weren't all these new technological developments being marketed.
As a consequence, or effect, of this (growing up in my generation, or now), we are who we are, according to Marx. In other words, we are effects of our society we live in, or our culture. Marx mentions the idea of the "superstructure." It appears there is a legal and political superstructure due to the economic structure of society. He also states "men enter into definite relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production," constituting the real foundation. When he talks about the real foundation, he is referring to the superstructure formed in society. Branches of "superstructure" are linked to education, politics, culture, art. In all societies, conditions must exist for these things to be present in order for growth of our cultures. It seems almost as if he is saying that the economy, and in some cases, the government, determines how a society is structured in every way, including print.
Marx mentions their is a conflict between the social forces of production and the relations of production. Both are needed for a society to function. Structure is needed. Productive forces must be developed, meaning material life. He continued to mention a "bourgeois society." I take that as a society with meaning, education, politics, art, etc. is a rich society. However, he realizes there are standards and decisions were made about how society should be structured. As mentioned above, we can't choose when we grow up, society is already formed and organized to a specific structure.