Building on the last post, and taking this space as a reflective one, let me put some things together and, latter, try to make some sense out of them.
Some time ago, someone from the group of students mentioned a Thompson, in addition to Habermas and some other philosopher, both of each I was aware of, regarding certain matters in the discussion. I was intringued to the point of asking which Thompson, and got the answer: John B. Thompson. I read a little bit of the spanish translation of Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media, the one I got faster, and got “hooked” in the process. Result: the book is waiting in the list of future readings.
Then, latter on, I had to struggle with Baudrillard‘s Simulacra and Simulation, and Virilio‘s Polar Inertia, two unbelievable books that I still have to make sense of for some (for me) strange work proposition for other of the courses.
Sometimes, when I feel really tired and lost, I pick the first book at hand and start reading it just for the fun of it. It relaxes me. The last one was Slevin‘s The Internet and Society. Surprinsingly, as I usually stop at the end of the preface or introduction, I got to the third chapter: Cultural transmission and the internet. And suddendly, Thompson cames back to focus and there is light at the end of the tunnel for an approach to the wretched Baudrillard/Virilio thing (with some help from a small text about the media from the friend that “introduced” me to Thompson, see above).
So, where is the bottom line for all this? I’m not sure, as I’m always somehow between the following positions: I would like the time I had to deepen matters in my personal learning environment (a PLE; how fashionable, ;-)) before I enrolled in the master’s; without the master’s challenges and exchanges, I would never go into some of the problems I’m now dealing with (probably). Where do I find the right balance?
The last one is, clearly, a rhetorical question as these reflections are/will be a work in progress.