Artificial Starlight

On his search for media truths, Dave stumbles upon ubiquitous connectivity, pervasive proximity and a dozen other things that a media studies prof will throw at you as you're scribbling away
In writing a story about online communities, I sought out the help of a media studies expert. I phoned up Mark Federman, former chief strategist of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology, armed with two or three questions with somewhat academic angles to show that I have a grounding in McLuhan and Innis. What resulted was a half-hour lecture including words that I had never heard before and words that he made up - it was both incredible and daunting.
This theory of the internet as a medium made sense to me.
There are two major effects: ubiquitous connectivity and pervasive proximity.
Ubiquitous connectivity means that no matter where you are physically located, you are always connected. Despite even most social and economic
divides, one is in a telecommunications network.
An example of this is that when something happens on Bloor St., someone immediately uploads the picture, connecting those who are not there to those who are there, thus making the event simultaneously here and there.
Pervasive proximity means that we are always next to one another. It's what McLuhan called the Global Village. When politicians like Hilary Clinton talk about the Global Village, they paint a happy picture - as though we're all holding hands across nations. McLuhan didn't mean this at all. He envisioned a Global Village that had that potential, but he also theorized that it would create dissent, controversy, and just about everything else that is caused when different people are put next to one another.
McLuhan saw that when you put people in pervasive proximity, there is the greatest potential for human conflict.
So why do we choose to participate in this global network?
Federman theorizes that we all have a natural inclination to share our human experiences.
We feel compelled to tell others about our experiences, how we reacted to movies or books, share our lives. We collectively believe that we will benefit ourselves and others by sharing knowledge.
Specifically for books, another reason for our sharing is our preoccupation with status and celebrity. Some people read the internet just like other mediums like TV and radio, where the actual correspondents like Anderson Cooper or Howard Stern who become pop culture icons. They believe that they too can obtain that status with a clever turn of phrase or insightful point of view...or lacking that, sheer number of reviews so that people on Amazon.com cannot help but read your opinion.
Although Federman's point of view makes sense, I am still left wondering why I am writing and what my place is within the Global Village.