This is the paper I wrote for my Mass Communication Theory class, and the assignment was to write a 3 pages essay on: "define media." Fascinated by Greek sophistic rhetoric, I caricatured Gorgia's classical nihilistic argument "nothing exist; even if anything exists, it cannot be perceived; even if it can be perceived, it cannot be communicated."
********************************************
To define media is a “mission impossible.” I am going to propose the following three statements to support this claim: First, media do not exist; second, even if media exist, they cannot be studied; third, even if media can be studied, what is studied cannot be communicated. The proving of these three statements eliminates all the possibilities for media to be successfully defined.
First and foremost, media do not exist. The prerequisite for anything to exist is the existence of something else that it is NOT. For example, when I say “this is an apple,” I am also saying that “there is something else that is not apple.” That thing can be a pear, a melon, or anything else but an apple, because it does not have the essence that an apple has. By “essence,” I mean the qualities or characteristics that make an apple an apple but not something else. For instance, the essence of an apple includes its shape, color, texture, taste, and etc. Everything that exists can find something else it is NOT to validate its existence. Cat is not dog, hero is not villain, water is not fire, love is not hate, and so on and so forth.
When it comes to media, however, we cannot find anything that media are NOT. Once we try to draw a line around the concept “media,” we always find other things which are also media excluded. You might say that television and radio are media because they talk and speak, but Marshall McLuhan argues that electric light is media because it can be made into neon signs and talks silently. You might say that books and magazines are media because they have words, but think about an abstract painting or a music video without any words, they are certainly media as well. You might say that media are anything created for the purpose of human communication, then, think about me throwing a rock at somebody. The rock is not created for human communication purposes, but in this case it delivers clear messages and thus, is also medium.
Now you might say that media are anything that deliver message, but you are unable to find anything in life that cannot deliver message. Everything can deliver message, whether there is any message sender actively inscribing meaning on the object or not. Think about the stars, they are the most natural objects that stay the furthest from the domain of human force; however, astrologists could still read the fate of a nation in the movement of the stars. Since anything in existence can have meaning, nothing can be considered NOT to be media.
One rebuttal of this argument brings in another important aspect to this question. You might say that although the capacity of objects to deliver message is not dependent upon meaning inscription, but it does depend on meaning interpretation. So the stars are NOT media unless they are observed by astrologists who actively interpret meaning from them. Therefore, whether anything is medium or not is contingent upon the circumstances. If so, then a television is no more medium than the stars, the trees, a desk, a blanket because television is not medium unless it is turned on, paid attention to, and made sense of. However, this is absurd. We know that being is always limited by time and situations. I am still a human although one day I am are going to die. Tigers are still meat-eating animals although they might go to sleep sometime and stop eating meat. In the same vein, we have no reason to say that television stops being media once it is turned off. Being turned off for some while does not deny the fact that television is media. This logic can be extended to everything, and thus, contingency does not hinder anything from being media. It might be more precise to say that, everything is either a dormant medium, waiting to be activated and made sense of, or, an active medium, being paid attention to and made sense of for the time being. What makes a medium dormant or active might be contingent, however, to define these two terms falls out of the question for this paper. Either way it is, everything is medium.
If everything is medium, then we are not able to find any essence of media that is unique to itself. However, as stated before, for anything that exists, we have to be able to find some of its essence that anything else does not possess. Therefore, media do not exist.
Another argument is that, if everything is medium, then medium is everything. If medium is everything, then medium is without limit. If it is without limit, it is nowhere, because if medium is not nowhere, it has to be somewhere. And “if it is somewhere, that in which it is, is something other than it, and thus if the existent is contained in something it will no longer be without limit. For the container is greater than the contained, but nothing is greater than the unlimited, so that the unlimited cannot exist anywhere” (Gorgias). Since media are unlimited, media do not exist. Although one might argue that my mentioning the word “media” already acknowledges its existence in a certain sense, I would argue that this is just the utterance of an empty word which does not have any references in reality. There are no such thing as “media” in reality.
Next I am going to demonstrate that, even if media exist, they cannot be studied. Suppose if media can be studied, what can we use to study media? Scholars in media studies might say, of course we watch, listen, feel, think, talk and write. However, these cannot be done without the mediation of language and thoughts. Language and thoughts are the most primordial media of all, because codes (whether language-verbal codes or icon-visual cods or else) are the media of thoughts, and thoughts are the media of minds. Thus, we have to use media to study media. But you could never study your glasses while you are wearing them. If you do not take them off, how do you know if it is a cloud in front of you or just a stain on your lens? Media are the lenses through which we see the world, so we can not take them off. Therefore, we can never study media because we cannot see without it. If we strive to study it, what is studied would always be a reflection of a medium through which we study, but not the medium itself that we try to study as a subject. The harder we try to study media, the more we will get reflections of a medium on another medium, on another medium. And then all our human knowledge would turn into various simulacra of media while the original medium as a subject of study is lost. Moreover, all our extant human knowledge would be replaced by the simulacra of media and there would be nothing outside the media. If so, medium is no longer something in the middle but also becomes the beginning and the end. Medium is Alpha, medium is Omega, medium is the god of our coming age.
In the same vein, the last argument, “even if media can be studied, what is studied cannot be communicated to another person,” is easy to prove. To communicate, we have to use language and other media which would distort the knowledge about media we already obtain. The more we use media to communicate about media, the wider the web of media would sprawl and devour everything else. We live in an age in which the media is expanding at a super fast speed, from the most original voice, hand gesture, body movement to the most recent cellphone, internet, satellite TV, etc.… We live in a universe of media. However, Woody Allen’s fear about the expanding universe might be true here, “the universe is expanding... Well, the universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!” The media is expanding. For the media is everything, and if it’s expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything.
It seems that we media studies scholars are the only people who can save the world, and the only way that we can save the world is to stop studying media.
ENDNOTE: [The whole point of sophistic rhetoric is to demonstrate the power of argument instead of searching for truth. Funnily, such playful and misleading rhetoric has been adopted by postmodernists to deny the existence of truth, which seems totally absurd to me. By connecting sophistic rhetoric with postmodern thought in this paper, I hope to demonstrate how ridiculous the arguments of postmodernism are and to point out their willful revival and misuse of the history.]
********************************************
To define media is a “mission impossible.” I am going to propose the following three statements to support this claim: First, media do not exist; second, even if media exist, they cannot be studied; third, even if media can be studied, what is studied cannot be communicated. The proving of these three statements eliminates all the possibilities for media to be successfully defined.
First and foremost, media do not exist. The prerequisite for anything to exist is the existence of something else that it is NOT. For example, when I say “this is an apple,” I am also saying that “there is something else that is not apple.” That thing can be a pear, a melon, or anything else but an apple, because it does not have the essence that an apple has. By “essence,” I mean the qualities or characteristics that make an apple an apple but not something else. For instance, the essence of an apple includes its shape, color, texture, taste, and etc. Everything that exists can find something else it is NOT to validate its existence. Cat is not dog, hero is not villain, water is not fire, love is not hate, and so on and so forth.
When it comes to media, however, we cannot find anything that media are NOT. Once we try to draw a line around the concept “media,” we always find other things which are also media excluded. You might say that television and radio are media because they talk and speak, but Marshall McLuhan argues that electric light is media because it can be made into neon signs and talks silently. You might say that books and magazines are media because they have words, but think about an abstract painting or a music video without any words, they are certainly media as well. You might say that media are anything created for the purpose of human communication, then, think about me throwing a rock at somebody. The rock is not created for human communication purposes, but in this case it delivers clear messages and thus, is also medium.
Now you might say that media are anything that deliver message, but you are unable to find anything in life that cannot deliver message. Everything can deliver message, whether there is any message sender actively inscribing meaning on the object or not. Think about the stars, they are the most natural objects that stay the furthest from the domain of human force; however, astrologists could still read the fate of a nation in the movement of the stars. Since anything in existence can have meaning, nothing can be considered NOT to be media.
One rebuttal of this argument brings in another important aspect to this question. You might say that although the capacity of objects to deliver message is not dependent upon meaning inscription, but it does depend on meaning interpretation. So the stars are NOT media unless they are observed by astrologists who actively interpret meaning from them. Therefore, whether anything is medium or not is contingent upon the circumstances. If so, then a television is no more medium than the stars, the trees, a desk, a blanket because television is not medium unless it is turned on, paid attention to, and made sense of. However, this is absurd. We know that being is always limited by time and situations. I am still a human although one day I am are going to die. Tigers are still meat-eating animals although they might go to sleep sometime and stop eating meat. In the same vein, we have no reason to say that television stops being media once it is turned off. Being turned off for some while does not deny the fact that television is media. This logic can be extended to everything, and thus, contingency does not hinder anything from being media. It might be more precise to say that, everything is either a dormant medium, waiting to be activated and made sense of, or, an active medium, being paid attention to and made sense of for the time being. What makes a medium dormant or active might be contingent, however, to define these two terms falls out of the question for this paper. Either way it is, everything is medium.
If everything is medium, then we are not able to find any essence of media that is unique to itself. However, as stated before, for anything that exists, we have to be able to find some of its essence that anything else does not possess. Therefore, media do not exist.
Another argument is that, if everything is medium, then medium is everything. If medium is everything, then medium is without limit. If it is without limit, it is nowhere, because if medium is not nowhere, it has to be somewhere. And “if it is somewhere, that in which it is, is something other than it, and thus if the existent is contained in something it will no longer be without limit. For the container is greater than the contained, but nothing is greater than the unlimited, so that the unlimited cannot exist anywhere” (Gorgias). Since media are unlimited, media do not exist. Although one might argue that my mentioning the word “media” already acknowledges its existence in a certain sense, I would argue that this is just the utterance of an empty word which does not have any references in reality. There are no such thing as “media” in reality.
Next I am going to demonstrate that, even if media exist, they cannot be studied. Suppose if media can be studied, what can we use to study media? Scholars in media studies might say, of course we watch, listen, feel, think, talk and write. However, these cannot be done without the mediation of language and thoughts. Language and thoughts are the most primordial media of all, because codes (whether language-verbal codes or icon-visual cods or else) are the media of thoughts, and thoughts are the media of minds. Thus, we have to use media to study media. But you could never study your glasses while you are wearing them. If you do not take them off, how do you know if it is a cloud in front of you or just a stain on your lens? Media are the lenses through which we see the world, so we can not take them off. Therefore, we can never study media because we cannot see without it. If we strive to study it, what is studied would always be a reflection of a medium through which we study, but not the medium itself that we try to study as a subject. The harder we try to study media, the more we will get reflections of a medium on another medium, on another medium. And then all our human knowledge would turn into various simulacra of media while the original medium as a subject of study is lost. Moreover, all our extant human knowledge would be replaced by the simulacra of media and there would be nothing outside the media. If so, medium is no longer something in the middle but also becomes the beginning and the end. Medium is Alpha, medium is Omega, medium is the god of our coming age.
In the same vein, the last argument, “even if media can be studied, what is studied cannot be communicated to another person,” is easy to prove. To communicate, we have to use language and other media which would distort the knowledge about media we already obtain. The more we use media to communicate about media, the wider the web of media would sprawl and devour everything else. We live in an age in which the media is expanding at a super fast speed, from the most original voice, hand gesture, body movement to the most recent cellphone, internet, satellite TV, etc.… We live in a universe of media. However, Woody Allen’s fear about the expanding universe might be true here, “the universe is expanding... Well, the universe is everything, and if it’s expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything!” The media is expanding. For the media is everything, and if it’s expanding, someday it will break apart and that would be the end of everything.
It seems that we media studies scholars are the only people who can save the world, and the only way that we can save the world is to stop studying media.
ENDNOTE: [The whole point of sophistic rhetoric is to demonstrate the power of argument instead of searching for truth. Funnily, such playful and misleading rhetoric has been adopted by postmodernists to deny the existence of truth, which seems totally absurd to me. By connecting sophistic rhetoric with postmodern thought in this paper, I hope to demonstrate how ridiculous the arguments of postmodernism are and to point out their willful revival and misuse of the history.]
